[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 52 (Tuesday, March 18, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15144-15157]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-05645]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2014-0045]
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 March 5 to March 18, 2014. The last biweekly
notice was published on March 4, 2014 (79 FR 12241).
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-2014-0045. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-287-
3422; email: [email protected]. For technical questions, contact
the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this document.
Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Chief, Rules,
Announcements, and Directives Branch (RADB), Office of Administration,
Mail Stop: 3WFN-06-44M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
[[Page 15145]]
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-2014-0045 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-2014-0045.
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-2014-0045 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, 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
[[Page 15146]]
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
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 guidance
available on the NRC's public 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 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
[[Page 15147]]
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].
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-247, Indian Point
Nuclear Generating, Unit 2, Westchester County, New York
Date of amendment request: January 16, 2014.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise Technical Specification (TS) 5.5.7, ``Steam Generator (SG)
Program,'' to exclude portions of the SG tube below the top of the SG
tubesheet from periodic inspections and plugging by implementing the H*
alternate repair criteria. In addition, TS 5.6.7, ``Steam Generator
Tube Inspection Report,'' would also be revised to include additional
reporting requirements.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change excludes the lower portion of steam
generator tubes from inspection by implementing the alternate repair
criteria H* and does not have a detrimental impact on the integrity
of any plant structure, system, or component that initiates an
analyzed event. The proposed change has no significant effect upon
accident probabilities or consequences.
Of the applicable accidents previously evaluated, the limiting
transients with consideration to the proposed change to the steam
generator tube inspection and repair criteria are the steam
generator tube rupture (SGTR), the main steam line break (MSLB),
Locked Rotor and Control Rod Ejection.
At normal operating pressures, leakage from Primary Water Stress
Corrosion Cracking (PWSCC) below the proposed limited inspection
depth is limited by both the tube-to-tubesheet crevice and the
limited crack opening permitted by the tubesheet constraint.
Consequently, negligible normal operating leakage is expected from
cracks within the tubesheet region.
For the SGTR event, the required structural integrity margins of
the steam generator tubes and the tube-to-tubesheet joint over the
H* distance will be maintained. Tube rupture in tubes with cracks
within the tubesheet is precluded by the constraint provided by the
tube-to-tubesheet joint. This constraint results from the hydraulic
expansion process, thermal expansion mismatch between the tube and
tubesheet, and from the differential pressure between the primary
and secondary side. The structural margins against burst, as
discussed in Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.121, ``Bases for Plugging
Degraded PWR Steam Generator Tubes,'' (Reference 11) and NEI 97-06,
``Steam Generator Program Guidelines'' (Reference 3) are maintained
for both normal and postulated accident conditions. Therefore, the
proposed change results in no significant increase in the
probability of the occurrence of a SGTR accident.
The probability of a Steam Line Break, Locked Rotor, and Control
Rod Ejection are not affected by the potential failure of a SG tube,
as the failure of a tube is not an initiator for any of these
events. In the supporting Westinghouse analyses, leakage is modeled
as flow through a porous medium via the use of the Darcy equation.
The leakage model is used to develop a relationship between
allowable leakage and leakage at accident conditions that is based
on differential pressure across the tubesheet and the viscosity of
the fluid. A leak rate ratio was developed to relate the leakage at
operating conditions to leakage at accident conditions. The fluid
viscosity is based on fluid temperature and it has been shown that
for the most limiting accident, the fluid temperature does not
exceed the normal operating temperature. Therefore, the viscosity
ratio is assumed to be 1.0 and the leak rate ratio is a function of
the ratio of the accident differential pressure and the normal
operating differential pressure.
The leakage factor of 1.75 for IP2 for a-postulated MSLB, has
been calculated as shown in the supporting Westinghouse analysis.
IP2 [Indian Point Unit 2] will apply a factor of 1.75 to the normal
operating leakage associated with the tubesheet expansion region in
the Condition Monitoring Assessment and Operational Assessment.
Through application of the limited tubesheet inspection scope, the
administrative leakage limit of 75 gpd [gallons per day] provides
assurance that excessive leakage (i.e., greater than accident
analysis assumptions) will not occur. No leakage factor will be
applied to the Locked Rotor or Control Rod Ejection due to their
short duration, since the calculated leak rate ratio is less than
1.0. Therefore, the proposed change does not result in a significant
increase in the consequences of these accidents.
For the Condition Monitoring Assessment, the component of
leakage from the prior cycle from below the H* distance will be
multiplied by a factor of 1.75 and added to the total leakage from
any other source and compared to the allowable MSLB leakage limit.
For the Operational Assessment, the difference in the leakage
between the allowable leakage and the accident induced leakage from
sources other than the tubesheet expansion region will be divided by
1.75 and compared to the observed operational leakage. As noted
above, an administrative limit of 75 gpd has been established at IP2
to assure that the allowable accident induced leakage is not
exceeded.
Based on the above, the performance criteria of NEI 97-06 and
Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.121 continue to be met and the proposed
change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change excludes the lower portion of steam
generator tubes from inspection by implementing the alternate repair
criteria (H*). The proposed change does not introduce any new
equipment, create new failure modes for existing
[[Page 15148]]
equipment, or create any new limiting single failures resulting from
tube degradation. The proposed change does not affect the design of
the SGs or their method of operation. In addition, the proposed
change does not impact any other plant system or component. Plant
operation will not be altered, and all safety functions will
continue to perform as previously assumed in accident analyses.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change defines the safety significant portion of
the SG tubing that must be inspected and repaired. WCAP-17828-P
identifies the inspection depth below which any type of degradation
is shown to have no impact on the steam generator tube integrity
performance criteria in NEI 97-06. The proposed change does not
affect tube design or operating environment. The proposed change
will continue to require monitoring of the physical condition of the
SG tubes but will limit inspection within the tubesheet to the
portion of the tube from the top of the tubesheet to a distance H*
below the top of the tubesheet.
The proposed change maintains the required structural margins of
the SG tubes for both normal and accident conditions. For axially
oriented cracking located within the tubesheet, tube burst is
precluded due to the presence of the tubesheet. For
circumferentially oriented cracking, the supporting Westinghouse
analyses define a length of degradation-free expanded tubing that
provides the necessary resistance to tube pullout due to the
pressure induced forces, with applicable safety factors applied.
Application of the limited hot and cold leg tubesheet inspection
criteria will preclude unacceptable primary to secondary leakage
during all plant conditions. The MSLB leak rate factor for IP2 is
1.75. Multiplying the IP2 administrative leak rate limit of 75 gpd/
SG by this factor shows that the primary-to-secondary leak rate
during a postulated SLB is not exceeded.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in any margin of safety.
Based on the above, Entergy concludes that the proposed
amendment to the Indian Point 2 Technical Specifications presents no
significant hazards consideration under the standards set forth in
10 CFR 50.92(c), and accordingly, a finding of `no significant
hazards consideration' is justified.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Jeanne Cho, Assistant General Counsel,
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 440 Hamilton Avenue, White Plains, NY
10601.
NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin G. Beasley.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-255, Palisades
Nuclear Plant, Van Buren County, Michigan
Date of amendment request: June 25, 2013, supplemented by letter
dated August 7, 2013.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise Palisades Nuclear Plant Site Emergency Plan (SEP) to increase
the staff augmentation response times for certain Emergency Response
Organization positions from 30 to 60 minutes. Entergy Nuclear
Organization has reviewed the proposed changes against the standards in
Sec. 50.47(b) and the requirements in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E.
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 extension of staff augmentation times has no effect
on normal plant operation or on any accident initiator. The change
affects the response to radiological emergencies under the Palisades
Nuclear Plant SEP. The ability of the emergency response
organization to respond adequately to radiological emergencies has
been evaluated. Changes in the on-shift organization, such as the
addition of staff and reassignment of key on-shift emergency
response functions, provide assurance of emergency response without
competing or conflicting duties. An analysis was also performed on
the effect of the proposed change on the timeliness of performing
major tasks for the major functional areas of the SEP. The analysis
concluded that extension of staff augmentation times would not
significantly affect the ability to perform the required tasks.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change affects the required response times for
supplementing onsite personnel in response to a radiological
emergency. It has been evaluated and determined not to significantly
affect the ability to perform that function. It has no effect on the
plant design or on the normal operation of the plant and does not
affect how the plant is physically operated under emergency
conditions. The extension of staff augmentation times in the SEP
does not affect the plant operating procedures which are performed
by plant staff during all plant conditions.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not affect plant design or method of
operation. Section 50.47(b) and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E establish
emergency planning standards and requirements that require adequate
staffing, satisfactory performance of key functional areas and
critical tasks, and timely augmentation of the response capability.
Since the SEP was originally developed, there have been improvements
in the technology used to support the SEP functions and in the
capabilities of onsite personnel. A functional analysis was
performed on the effect of the proposed change on the timeliness of
performing major tasks for the functional areas of SEP. The analysis
concluded that an increase in staff augmentation times would not
significantly affect the ability to perform the required SEP tasks.
Thus, the proposed change has been determined not to adversely
affect the ability to meet the emergency planning standards as
described in 10 CFR 50.47(b) and requirements in 10 CFR Part 50,
Appendix E.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: William Dennis, Assistant General Counsel,
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 440 Hamilton Ave., White Plains, NY
10601.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert D. Carlson.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-255, Palisades
Nuclear Plant, Van Buren County, Michigan
Date of amendment request: December 11, 2013.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
modify Palisades Nuclear Plant technical specifications (TS)
requirements for unavailable barriers by adding limiting condition for
operation (LCO) 3.0.9. The changes are consistent with the NRC's
approved industry/Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Standard
Technical Specification (STS) change TSTF-427, ``Allowance for Non-
Technical Specification Barrier Degradation on Supported System
OPERABILITY,'' Revision 2.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: The licensee has affirmed the
[[Page 15149]]
applicability of the model proposed non-significant hazards
consideration published on October 2, 2006 (71 FR 58444), as part of
the Consolidated Line Item Improvement Process, ``Notice of
Availability of the Model Safety Evaluation.'' The licensee has
concluded that the findings presented in that evaluation are applicable
to PNP and is hereby referenced below:
Criterion 1--The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant
Increase in the Probability or Consequences of an Accident Previously
Evaluated
The proposed change allows a delay time for entering a supported
system technical specification (TS) when the inoperability is due
solely to an unavailable barrier if risk is assessed and managed.
The postulated initiating events which may require a functional
barrier are limited to those with low frequencies of occurrence, and
the overall TS system safety function would still be available for
the majority of anticipated challenges. Therefore, the probability
of an accident previously evaluated is not significantly increased,
if at all. The consequences of an accident while relying on the
allowance provided by proposed LCO 3.0.9 are no different than the
consequences of an accident while relying on the TS required actions
in effect without the allowance provided by proposed LCO 3.0.9.
Therefore, the consequences of an accident previously evaluated are
not significantly affected by this change. The addition of a
requirement to assess and manage the risk introduced by this change
will further minimize possible concerns.
Therefore, this change does not involve a significant increase
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.
Criterion 2--The Proposed Change Does Not Create the Possibility of a
New or Different Kind of Accident from any Previously Evaluated
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of
the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed).
Allowing delay times for entering supported system TS when
inoperability is due solely to an unavailable barrier, if risk is
assessed and managed, will not introduce new failure modes or
effects and will not, in the absence of other unrelated failures,
lead to an accident whose consequences exceed the consequences of
accidents previously evaluated. The addition of a requirement to
assess and manage the risk introduced by this change will further
minimize possible concerns.
Thus, this change does not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from an accident previously evaluated.
Criterion 3--The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant
Reduction in the Margin of Safety.
The proposed change allows a delay time for entering a supported
system TS when the inoperability is due solely to an unavailable
barrier, if risk is assessed and managed. The postulated initiating
events which may require a functional barrier are limited to those
with low frequencies of occurrence, and the overall TS system safety
function would still be available for the majority of anticipated
challenges. The risk impact of the proposed TS changes was assessed
following the three-tiered approach recommended in RG 1.177. A
bounding risk assessment was performed to justify the proposed TS
changes. This application of LCO 3.0.9 is predicated upon the
licensee's performance of a risk assessment and the management of
plant risk. The net change to the margin of safety is insignificant
as indicated by the anticipated low levels of associated risk (ICCDP
and ICLERP) as shown in Table 1 of Section 3.1.1 in the Safety
Evaluation.
Therefore, this change does not involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: William Dennis, Assistant General Counsel,
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 440 Hamilton Ave., White Plains, NY
10601.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert D. Carlson.
Omaha Public Power District, Docket No. 50-285, Fort Calhoun
Station, Unit 1, Washington County, Nebraska
Date of amendment request: August 16, 2013.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise the design basis method in the Fort Calhoun Station Updated
Safety Analysis Report for controlling the raw water intake cell level
during periods of elevated river levels.
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 modification engineering change (EC) 55394, Raw
Water [RW] Pump Operation and Safety Classification of Components
during a Flood, installed intake cell flood water inlet valves at
Fort Calhoun Station (FCS). The modification would employ the trash
rack blowdown portion of the circulating water system to allow river
water to flow into four of those pipes and then through four newly
installed safety class valves for control of cell level (RW pump
suction level) using river level as the driving force. This
modification EC 55394 enhances the flood protection provided to the
RW pumps for an external flooding event thus assuring the
availability of the ultimate heat sink and core cooling. As such,
the proposed change does not increase the consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
In addition, implementing this strategy eliminates the need for
the exterior sluice gates to be safety class and allows for
continuous control of the intake cell level during a design basis
flood event. The proposed Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR)
changes for implementing modification EC 55394 allow for maintaining
RW pump operation during a flooding event at FCS.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed modification EC 55394 to provide control of the
intake cell level by operation of the manual valves and the
associated USAR changes do not alter the safety limits or safety
analysis assumptions associated with the operation of the plant.
Hence, the proposed changes do not introduce any new accident
initiators, nor do they reduce or adversely affect the capabilities
of any plant structure or system in the performance of their safety
function. The proposed amendment revises the USAR to include the
necessary information to support the implementation of the
modification allowing for maintaining RW pump operation during an
abnormal operating procedure AOP-01 flooding event at FCS.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed modification, which provides control of the intake
cell level by operation of the manual valves, and the associated
USAR changes do not alter the safety limits or safety analysis
assumptions associated with the operation of the plant. The proposed
modification and associated USAR revisions ensure there is adequate
protection to the RW pumps from an external flood hazard thus
assuring adequate protection during a flood. Providing RW pump
intake cell level control during flooding conditions allows for
adjustment of flow and control of the intake cell level throughout
the duration of the flood since the new valves are located inside
the intake structure; thereby ensuring the RW pumps remain operable
during a flood condition and will not adversely impact any margin of
safety.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
[[Page 15150]]
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: David A. Repka, Esq., Winston & Strawn, 1700
K Street NW., Washington, DC 20006-3817.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-
026, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4, Burke County,
Georgia
Date of amendment request: November 21, 2013.
Description of amendment request: The proposed change would amend
Combined License Nos. NPF-91 and NPF-92 for the Vogtle Electric
Generating Plant (VEGP) Units 3 and 4 by departing from the approved
AP1000 Design Control Document (DCD) Tier 2 information as incorporated
into the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) to allow use of a
new methodology to determine the effective thermal conductivity
resulting from oxidation of the inorganic zinc (IOZ) used in the
containment vessel coating system.
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.
Implementation of a methodology which specifies an effective
thermal conductivity and oxidation progression for the inorganic
zinc coating of the containment vessel is used to eliminate non-
mechanistic modeling of inorganic zinc thermal conductivity in the
containment integrity analyses to show that the value for inorganic
zinc thermal conductivity used in the containment integrity analyses
is conservative, but is not used to change any of the parameters
used in those analyses. There is no change to any accident initiator
or condition of the containment that would affect the probability of
any accident. The containment peak pressure analysis as reported in
the UFSAR is not affected; therefore, the previously reported
consequences are not affected.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve an increase
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment to implement a methodology which
specifies an effective thermal conductivity and oxidation
progression and effects for the inorganic zinc coating of the
containment vessel is used to eliminate non-mechanistic modeling of
inorganic zinc thermal conductivity in the containment integrity
analyses to show that the value for inorganic zinc thermal
conductivity used in the containment integrity analyses is
conservative, but is not used to change any of the parameters used
in the containment peak pressure analysis. The change in methodology
does not change the condition of containment; therefore, no new
accident initiator is created. The containment peak pressure
analysis as currently evaluated is not affected, and the
consequences previously reported are not changed. The new
methodology does not change the containment; therefore, no new fault
or sequence of events that could lead to containment failure or
release of radioactive material is created.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed implementation of a methodology which specifies an
effective thermal conductivity and oxidation progression and effects
for the inorganic zinc coating of the containment vessel is used to
eliminate non-mechanistic modeling of inorganic zinc thermal
conductivity in the containment integrity analyses to show that the
value for inorganic zinc thermal conductivity used in the
containment integrity analyses is conservative, but is not used to
change any of the parameters used in the containment peak pressure
analysis. The change in methodology does not change the condition of
the containment and the integrity of the containment vessel is not
affected. The containment peak pressure analysis as currently
evaluated is not affected, and the consequences previously reported
are not changed. No safety analysis or design basis acceptance
limit/criterion is changed by the proposed change, thus no margin of
safety is reduced.
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: M. Stanford Blanton, Balch & Bingham LLP,
1710 Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 35203-2015.
NRC Branch Chief: Lawrence J. Burkhart.
Union Electric Company, Docket No. 50-483, Callaway Plant, Unit 1,
Callaway County, Missouri
Date of amendment request: December 6, 2013.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would add a new
pipe crack exclusion allowance to Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR)
Standard Plant Section 3.6.2.1.2.4, ``ASME [American Society of
Mechanical Engineers] Section III and Non-Nuclear Piping-Moderate-
Energy,'' and FSAR Standard Plant Table 3.6-2, ``Design Comparison to
Regulatory Positions of Regulatory Guide 1.46, Revision 0, dated May
1973, titled `Protection Against Pipe Whip Inside Containment,' '' in
particular regard to the high-density polyethylene (HDPE) piping
installed in ASME Class 3 line segments of the essential service water
(ESW) system. New Reference 25 would be added to FSAR Standard Plant
Section 3.6.3 to cite the NRC-approved version of the HDPE requirements
covered by Relief Request I3R-10.
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.
There are no new design changes associated with the proposed
amendment. All design, material, and construction standards that
were applicable prior to this amendment request, including those
standards in place following the NRC approval of using the HDPE
piping, will continue to be applicable.
The proposed change will not increase the likelihood of accident
initiators or precursors or adversely alter the design assumptions,
conditions, and configuration of the facility or the manner in which
the plant is operated and maintained with respect to such initiators
or precursors.
The proposed changes do not affect the way in which safety-
related systems perform their functions.
All accident analysis acceptance criteria will continue to be
met with the proposed changes. The proposed changes will not affect
the source term, containment isolation, or radiological release
assumptions used in evaluating the radiological consequences of an
accident previously evaluated. The proposed changes will not alter
any assumptions or change any mitigation actions in the radiological
consequence evaluations in the FSAR.
The applicable radiological dose acceptance criteria will
continue to be met.
Since the proposed change is based on a calculation that
demonstrates that a moderate energy crack in the ESW HDPE piping is
unlikely, there are no impacts on the plant's existing hazard
analyses.
The proposed change does not physically alter safety-related
systems or affect the way in which safety-related systems perform
their functions per the intended plant design.
[[Page 15151]]
As such, the proposed change will not alter or prevent the
capability of structures, systems, and components (SSCs) to perform
their intended functions for mitigating the consequences of an
accident and meeting applicable acceptance limits.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
With respect to any new or different kind of accident, there are
no new design changes being proposed nor are there any changes in
the method by which any safety-related plant SSC performs its
specified safety function. The proposed change will not affect the
normal method of plant operation. No new transient precursors will
be introduced as a result of this amendment.
The HDPE piping design change was previously approved by the NRC
under Relief Request I3R-10. The proposed change in this amendment
request does not create the possibility of a new type of accident,
rather the proposed change seeks to eliminate the need to postulate
an existing type of hazard event (moderate energy piping leakage
crack) for the subject HDPE piping which has been shown to
experience such low stresses that such a crack, and the potential
flooding for that hazard event, need not be postulated.
The change does not have a detrimental impact on the manner in
which plant equipment operates or responds to an actuation signal.
The proposed change does not, therefore, create the possibility
of a new or different accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
There will be no effect on those plant systems necessary to
assure the accomplishment of protection functions associated with
reactor operation or the reactor coolant system. The design factor
(DF) of 0.50 discussed in ULNRC-05553 dated October 9, 2008 has not
changed. This DF was approved by the NRC in Relief Request 13R-10
(Reference 6.2 to this Evaluation). There will be no impact on the
overpower limit, departure from nucleate boiling ratio (DNBR)
limits, heat flux hot channel factor (FQ), nuclear enthalpy rise hot
channel factor (F[Delta]H), loss of coolant accident peak cladding
temperature (LOCA PCT), peak local power density, or any other limit
and associated margin of safety. Required shutdown margins in the
COLR [core operating limits report] will not be changed. The
proposed change does not eliminate any surveillances or alter the
frequency of surveillances required by the Technical Specifications.
As such, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety as defined in any regulatory
requirement or guidance document.
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: John O'Neill, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw
Pittman LLP, 2300 N Street NW., Washington, DC 20037.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation, Docket No. 50-482, Wolf
Creek Generating Station, Coffey County, Kansas
Date of amendment request: November 21, 2013.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the
approved Fire Protection Program as described in the Updated Safety
Analysis Report, based on the reactor coolant system thermal hydraulic
response evaluation of a postulated control room fire, performed for
changes to the alternative shutdown methodology.
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 function of structures, systems and components (SSCs)
are not impacted by the proposed deviations from [10 CFR Part 50]
Appendix R, Sections III.L.1 and III.L.2, and Calculation XX-E-013.
The proposed changes to the approved fire protection program are
based on the RCS [reactor coolant system] thermal-hydraulic response
(Evaluation SA-08-006) for a postulated control room fire performed
for changes to the alternative shutdown methodology outlined in
letter SLNRC 84-0109, ``Fire Protection Review.'' Drawing E-1F9915,
``Design Basis Document for OFN RP-017, Control Room Evacuation,''
Revision 5, Evaluation SA-08-006, ``RETRAN-3D Post-Fire Safe
Shutdown (PFSSD) Consequence Evaluation for a Postulated Control
Room Fire,'' Revision 3, and Calculation WCNOC-CP-003, ``VIPRE-01
MDNBR Analyses of Control Room Fire Scenarios,'' Revision 0
demonstrate the adequacy of the revised alternative shutdown
procedure, OFN RF-017. The proposed changes do not alter or prevent
the ability of SSCs from performing their intended function to
mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within the assumed
acceptance limits.
Therefore, the probability of any accident previously evaluated
is not increased. Equipment required to mitigate an accident remains
capable of performing the assumed function.
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 will not alter the requirement or function
for systems required during accident conditions. The design function
of structures, systems and components are not impacted by the
proposed change. Evaluation SA-08-006 and Calculation WCNOC-CP-003
determined natural circulation is maintained and adequate core
cooling is maintained. The fission product boundary integrity is not
affected and safe shutdown capability is maintained.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
There will be no effect on the manner in which safety limits or
limiting safety system settings are determined nor will there be any
effect on those plant systems necessary to assure the accomplishment
of protection functions. The revised alternative shutdown
methodology provides the ability to achieve and maintain safe
shutdown in the event of a fire. Evaluation SA-08-006 and
Calculation WCNOC-CP-003 determined natural circulation is
maintained and adequate core cooling is maintained.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Jay Silberg, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw
Pittman LLP, 2300 N Street NW., Washington, DC 20037.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation, Docket No. 50-482, Wolf
Creek Generating Station, Coffey County, Kansas
Date of amendment request: December 17, 2013.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise
Technical Specification Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.7.10.1 and SR
3.7.13.1 to reduce the required run time for periodic operation of the
control room pressurization system filter trains and emergency exhaust
system filter trains, with heaters on, from 10 hours to 15 minutes. The
proposed amendment is consistent with plant-specific options provided
in the NRC's model safety evaluation of Technical Specifications
[[Page 15152]]
Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-522-A, 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:
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 existing Surveillance Requirements
to operate the Control Room Emergency Ventilation System (CREVS) and
the Emergency Exhaust System (EES) for a continuous 10 hour period
with applicable heaters operating every 31 days, with requirements
to operate these systems for 15 continuous minutes with applicable
heaters operating every 31 days.
These systems are not accident initiators (i.e., their
malfunction cannot initiate an accident or transient) and therefore,
these changes do not involve a significant increase in the
probability of an accident. The proposed system and filter testing
changes are consistent with current regulatory guidance for these
systems and will continue to assure that these systems perform their
design function which may include mitigating accidents. Therefore,
the change does not involve a significant increase in the
consequences of an accident.
Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The change proposed for these ventilation systems 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 a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The design basis for the ventilation system heaters in the EES
and in the pressurization trains of the CREVS includes the
capability to heat the incoming air, reducing the relative humidity
(and thereby increasing adsorber efficiency). The heater testing
change proposed will continue to demonstrate that the heaters are
capable of heating the air and will thus perform their design
function. 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 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: Jay Silberg, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw
Pittman LLP, 2300 N Street NW., Washington, DC 20037.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
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].
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Docket No. 50-423, Millstone
Power Station, Unit 3, New London County, Connecticut
Date of amendment request: October 4, 2012, as supplemented by
letters dated January 4, April 17, and October 30, 2013.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
modify Technical Specifications by relocating specific surveillance
frequencies to a licensee controlled program with the adoption of
Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF)-425, Revision 3, ``Relocate
Surveillance Frequencies to Licensee Control--[Risk-Informed Technical
Specification Task Force (RITSTF)] Initiative 5b.'' Additionally, the
change would add a new program, the Surveillance Frequency Control
Program (SFCP), to Technical Specification Section 6, Administrative
Controls.
Date of issuance: February 25, 2014.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be
implemented within 90 days.
Amendment No.: 258.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-49: Amendment revised
the License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 11, 2012 (77
FR 73687).
The supplemental letters dated January 4, 2013, April 17, 2013, and
October 30, 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.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 25, 2014.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370, McGuire
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
[[Page 15153]]
Date of application for amendments: April 16, 2013.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments remove superseded
temporary Technical Specification (TS) requirements for McGuire Nuclear
Station (MNS), Units 1 and 2, in accordance with a licensee commitment
described in a May 28, 2010, license amendment request.
Date of issuance: February 28, 2014.
Effective date: This license amendment is effective as of its date
of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 272 and 252.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-9 and NPF-17:
Amendments revised the licenses and technical specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 25, 2013 (78 FR
38081).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 28, 2014.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
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 for amendments: February 22, 2013, as
supplemented on September 10, October 25, November 29, and December 16,
2013.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revise Technical
Specification (TS) 3.4.3, to replace its current reactor coolant system
pressure-temperature (P-T) limits with new P-T limits applicable to 54
effective full power years. In addition, the amendments change the
operational requirements for unit heatup and cooldown in TS Tables
3.4.3-1 and 3.4.3-2.
Date of Issuance: February 27, 2014.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 384, 386, and 385.
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: April 16, 2013, 78 FR
22568.
The supplemental letters dated September 10, October 25, November
29, and December 16, 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 February 27, 2014.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Duke Energy Progress Inc., Docket Nos. 50-325 and 50-324, Brunswick
Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, Brunswick County, North Carolina.
Date of application for amendments: June 19, 2012, as supplemented
by letters dated January 21, May 14, and August 29, 2013, and January
22, 2014.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the
Technical Specification (TS) to extend the Completion Time (CT) of TS
3.8.1 Required Action D.4 for an inoperable diesel generator. A
commensurate change is also made to extend the maximum CT of TS 3.8.1
Required Actions C.3 and D.4. The licensee will to add a supplemental
AC power source (i.e., a supplemental diesel generator) with the
capability to power any emergency bus within 1 hour from a Station
Blackout event, and with the capacity to bring the affected unit to
cold shutdown.
Date of issuance: February 24, 2014.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
prior to startup from the 2014 Unit 1 refueling outage.
Amendment Nos.: 264 and 292.
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-62 AND DPR-71: Amendments
revised the License and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 16, 2013 (77 FR
63346).
The supplements dated January 21, May 14, and August 29, 2013, and
January 22, 2014, provided additional information that clarified the
application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally
noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no
significant hazards consideration determination as published in the
Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 24, 2014.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: None.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-247, Indian Point
Nuclear Generating, Unit 2, Westchester County, New York
Date of application for amendment: February 6, 2013, as
supplemented by letters dated July 9, 2013, October 3, 2013, and
February 24, 2014.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment changes the Technical
Specifications by revising the reactor heatup and cooldown curves (also
referred to as pressure-temperature (P-T) limits) and low temperature
overpressure protection (LTOP) requirements to cover a lifetime burnup
of 48 Effective Full Power Years (EFPY), which is an increase from the
current value of 29.2 EFPY.
Date of issuance: March 5, 2014.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be
implemented within 30 days.
Amendment No.: 274.
Facility Operating License No. DPR-26: The amendment revised the
License and the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 2, 2013 (78 FR
19750).
The supplemental letters dated July 9, 2013, October 3, 2013, and
February 24, 2014, provided additional information that clarified the
application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally
noticed, and did not change the NRC staff's original proposed no
significant hazards consideration determination as published in the
Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 5, 2014.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Florida Power and Light Company, Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251,
Turkey Point Nuclear Generating, Units 3 and 4, Miami-Dade County,
Florida
Date of application for amendment: March 22, 2013.
Brief description of amendment: The amendments revised the
Technical Specifications (TSs) to allow the use of Optimized ZIRLO\TM\
as an approved fuel rod cladding.
Date of issuance: February 20, 2014.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 259 and 254.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-31 and DPR-41:
Amendments revised the licenses and the TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 20, 2013 (78 FR
51219).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 20, 2014.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Luminant Generation Company LLC, Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446,
Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2 (CPNPP), Somervell
County, Texas
Date of amendment request: August 29, 2013, as supplemented by
letter dated February 19, 2014.
[[Page 15154]]
Description of amendment request: The amendments revised Technical
Specification (TS) 3.4.17, ``Steam Generator (SG) Tube Integrity,'' TS
5.5.9, ``Unit 1 Model D76 and Unit 2 Model D5 Steam Generator (SG)
Program,'' and TS 5.6.9, ``Unit 1 Model D76 and Unit 2 Model D5 Steam
Generator Tube Inspection Report.'' The changes address implementation
issues associated with inspection periods, and address other
administrative changes and clarifications. The amendment is consistent
with NRC-approved Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) change
traveler TSTF-510, Revision 2, ``Revision to Steam Generator Program
Inspection Frequencies and Tube Sample Selection,'' as part of the
consolidated line item improvement process.
The amendments also incorporated minor non-technical variations
from the TS changes proposed in TSTF-510, Revision 2. The TSs for
CPNPP, Units 1 and 2 utilize different numbering and titles than the
Standard Technical Specifications on which TSTF-510, Revision 2, is
based, since the steam generators for CPNPP, Units 1 and 2, are of
different models. These differences are administrative in nature and do
not affect the applicability of TSTF-510, Revision 2, to the TSs for
CPNPP, Units 1 and 2.
Date of issuance: February 27, 2014.
Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: Unit 1--161; Unit 2--161.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-87 and NPF-89: The amendments
revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 1, 2013 (78 FR
60324).
The February 19, 2014, supplement did not expand the scope of the
application as originally noticed, and did not change the NRC staff's
initial proposed finding of no significant hazards consideration.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 27, 2014.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC, Docket No. 50-443, Seabrook Station,
Unit. 1, Rockingham County, New Hampshire
Date of amendment request: June 25, 2013.
Description of amendment request: The amendment revised the
Seabrook Technical Specifications (TS). Specifically, the amendment
revised the TS to allow the use of Optimized ZIRLO\TM\ as an approved
fuel rod cladding material.
Date of issuance: March 5, 2014.
Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment No.: 139.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-86: The amendment revised the
License and TS.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 20, 2013 (78 FR
51228).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 5, 2014.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Northern States Power Company--Minnesota (NSPM), Docket No. 50-263,
Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, Wright County, Minnesota
Date of application for amendment: April 19, 2013.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment allows NSPM to adopt
the NRC's approved Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Standard
Technical Specifications Change Traveler TSTF-535, Revision 0, ``Revise
Shutdown Margin Definition to Address Advanced Fuel Designs,'' dated
August 8, 2011. The amendment modifies the Technical Specification
definition of ``shutdown margin'' (SDM) to require calculation of the
SDM at a reactor moderator temperature of 68[emsp14][deg]F or higher,
representing the most reactive state throughout the operating cycle.
This change addresses newer boiling-water reactor fuel designs which
may be more reactive at shutdown temperatures above 68[emsp14][deg]F.
Date of issuance: February 28, 2014.
Effective date: This license amendment is effective as of the date
of issuance and shall be implemented within 90 days from the date of
issuance.
Amendment No.: 179.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-22: The amendment
revises the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical
Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 3, 2013 (78
FR 54285).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 28, 2014.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323,
Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, San Luis Obispo
County, California
Date of amendment request: June 6, 2013.
Description of amendment request: The amendments revised Technical
Specification (TS) 3.7.10, ``Control Room Ventilation System (CRVS),''
and TS 5.6.5, ``Core Operating Limits Report (COLR),'' to incorporate
editorial changes. Specifically, the proposed amendments delete
footnote (1) from the TS 3.7.10 Condition A Completion Time, and revise
inconsistent wording in TS 5.6.5a.4, TS 5.6.5a.5, and TS 5.6.5a.9.
Date of issuance: February 27, 2014.
Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 1--217; Unit 2--219.
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-80 and DPR-82: The amendments
revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 6, 2013 (78 FR
47791).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 27, 2014.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
PPL Susquehanna, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-387 and 50-388, Susquehanna
Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania
Date of application for amendments: June 6, 2013, as supplemented
by letter dated December 4, 2013.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments change the
Technical Specifications (TSs) for Susquehanna Steam Electric Station,
Units 1 and 2. Specifically, these amendments change TS 3.3.6.1,
``Primary Containment Isolation Instrumentation,'' to add a footnote to
Function 6.c. in TS Table 3.3.6.1-1, allowing only one Trip System to
be operable in MODES 4 and 5 for the Manual Initiation Function for
Shutdown Cooling System isolation.
Date of issuance: February 26, 2014.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days.
Amendment Nos.: 259 and 240.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-14 and NPF-22: The
amendments revised the license and the TS.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 10, 2013 (78
FR 74184).
The supplemental letter dated December 4, 2013, provided additional
information that clarified the
[[Page 15155]]
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 February 26, 2014.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
South Carolina Electric and Gas Company, South Carolina Public
Service Authority, Docket No. 50-395, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station,
Unit, Fairfield County, South Carolina
Date of application for amendment: April 2, 2013 as supplemented by
letter dated May 16, 2013.
Brief description of amendment: This amendment revises the
Technical Specifications requirements regarding steam generator tube
inspections and reporting as described in TSTF-510, Revision 2,
``Revision to Steam Generator Program Inspection Frequencies and Tube
Sample Selection.''
Date of issuance: February 28, 2014.
Effective date: This license amendment is effective as of the date
of its issuance.
Amendment No.: 196.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-12: Amendment revises
the License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 25, 2013 (78 FR
38083).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 28, 2014.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and
Combined Licenses and Final Determination of No Significant Hazards
Consideration and Opportunity for a Hearing (Exigent Public
Announcement or Emergency Circumstances)
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 for the
amendment 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.
Because of exigent or emergency circumstances associated with the
date the amendment was needed, there was not time for the Commission to
publish, for public comment before issuance, its usual notice of
consideration of issuance of amendment, proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination, and opportunity for a hearing.
For exigent circumstances, the Commission has either issued a
Federal Register notice providing opportunity for public comment or has
used local media to provide notice to the public in the area
surrounding a licensee's facility of the licensee's application and of
the Commission's proposed determination of no significant hazards
consideration. The Commission has provided a reasonable opportunity for
the public to comment, using its best efforts to make available to the
public means of communication for the public to respond quickly, and in
the case of telephone comments, the comments have been recorded or
transcribed as appropriate and the licensee has been informed of the
public comments.
In circumstances where failure to act in a timely way would have
resulted, for example, in derating or shutdown of a nuclear power plant
or in prevention of either resumption of operation or of increase in
power output up to the plant's licensed power level, the Commission may
not have had an opportunity to provide for public comment on its no
significant hazards consideration determination. In such case, the
license amendment has been issued without opportunity for comment. If
there has been some time for public comment but less than 30 days, the
Commission may provide an opportunity for public comment. If comments
have been requested, it is so stated. In either event, the State has
been consulted by telephone whenever possible.
Under its regulations, the Commission may issue and make an
amendment immediately effective, notwithstanding the pendency before it
of a request for a hearing from any person, in advance of the holding
and completion of any required hearing, where it has determined that no
significant hazards consideration is involved.
The Commission has applied the standards of 10 CFR 50.92 and has
made a final determination that the amendment involves no significant
hazards consideration. The basis for this determination is contained in
the documents related to this action. Accordingly, the amendments have
been issued and made effective 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 51.12(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
application for amendment, (2) the amendment to Facility Operating
License or Combined License, as applicable, 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].
The Commission is also offering an opportunity for a hearing with
respect to the issuance of the amendment. 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, and electronically on the Internet at the NRC's Web
site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If there are
problems in accessing the document, contact the PDR's Reference staff
at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected].
If a request for a
[[Page 15156]]
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 petitioner
intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The
petitioner must also provide references to those specific sources and
documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the 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 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. Since the Commission has made a final determination that the
amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, if a hearing
is requested, it will not stay the effectiveness of the amendment. Any
hearing held would take place while the amendment is in effect.
All documents filed in the 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 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 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
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 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 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
[[Page 15157]]
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.
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: February 17, 2014.
Description of amendment request: The amendments revise Technical
Specification (TS) Table 3.3.4-1, Remote Shutdown System
Instrumentation and Controls as a result of an inoperable
instrumentation function on Unit 2. Table 3.3.4-1 specifies
requirements for Function 3.b., Decay Heat Removal via Steam Generators
(SGs)--Reactor Coolant System (RCS) Cold Leg Temperature--Loop A and B
as ``1 per loop''. Loop A of this function is presently inoperable on
Unit 2 due to a failed resistance temperature detector (RTD). Loop B of
this function is operable with a reliable maintenance history. The
failed RTD on Loop A cannot be replaced in the present operating mode
of Unit 2 (Mode 1). Therefore, Duke Energy requested the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) approval to allow Unit 2 to remain in Mode
1 until such time that the failed RTD can be replaced. The replacement
would occur in the next refueling outage or the next outage that would
facilitate replacement, whichever occurs first.
Date of issuance: February 27, 2014.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 272 and 268.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-35 and NPF-52:
Amendments revised the licenses and the technical specifications.
Public comments requested as to proposed no significant hazards
consideration (NSHC): Yes. The NRC staff noticed the February 17, 2014,
application in the Rock Hill, SC local newspaper, The Herald on Friday,
February 21, 2014, and Saturday, February 22, 2014. The notice provided
an opportunity to submit comments on the Commission's proposed NSHC
determination. No comments have been received.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment, finding of
exigent circumstances, state consultation, and final NSHC determination
are contained in a safety evaluation dated February 27, 2014.
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.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 10th day of March 2014.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Michele G. Evans,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2014-05645 Filed 3-17-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P