[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 227 (Tuesday, November 25, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70209-70220]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-27630]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2014-0252]
Biweekly Notice: Applications and Amendments to Facility
Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant
Hazards Considerations
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Biweekly notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 189a. (2) of the Atomic Energy Act of
1954, as amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC) is publishing this regular biweekly notice. The Act requires the
Commission to publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to
be issued and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make
immediately effective any amendment to an operating license or combined
license, as applicable, upon a determination by the Commission that
such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration,
notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a
hearing from any person.
This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or
proposed to be issued from October 30, 2014 to November 12, 2014. The
last biweekly notice was published on November 12, 2014.
DATES: Comments must be filed by December 26, 2014. A request for a
hearing must be filed by January 26, 2015.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods
(unless this document describes a different method for submitting
comments on a specific subject):
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2014-0252. 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, Office of Administration,
Mail Stop: 3WFN-06-A44M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555-0001.
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting
comments, see ``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sandra Figueroa, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1262, email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments
A. Obtaining Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2014-0252 when contacting the NRC
about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain
publicly-available information related to this action by any of the
following methods:
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2014-0252.
NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the
ADAMS Public Documents collection 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 (if it is available
in ADAMS) is provided the first time that it is mentioned in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.
NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
B. Submitting Comments
Please include Docket ID NRC-2014-0252 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
[[Page 70210]]
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.
II. Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility
Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses and Proposed No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under
the Commission's regulations in Sec. 50.92 of Title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (10 CFR), this means that operation of the facility
in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated, or (2) create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or
(3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis
for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown
below.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final
determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day
comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result,
for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the
Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment
period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a
notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after
issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will
occur very infrequently.
A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing and Petition for Leave To Intervene
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any
person(s) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a
request for a hearing and a petition to intervene with respect to
issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license or
combined license. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to
intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's ``Agency
Rules of Practice and Procedure'' in 10 CFR Part 2. Interested
person(s) should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is
available at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room O1-
F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. The
NRC's regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on
the NRC's Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is
filed by the above date, the Commission or a presiding officer
designated by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of
the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request
and/or petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of
the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing
or an appropriate order.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the
following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone
number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the
proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's
property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the
proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must
also identify the specific contentions which the requestor/petitioner
seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the
requestor/petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for
the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert
opinion which support the contention and on which the requestor/
petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing.
The requestor/petitioner must also provide references to those specific
sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the
requestor/petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert
opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that
a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law
or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of
the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if
proven, would entitle the requestor/petitioner to relief. A requestor/
petitioner who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at
least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding,
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene,
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the
hearing.
If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The
final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If
the final determination is that the amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the
amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the
request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance
of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment
request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing
held would take place before the issuance of any amendment unless the
Commission finds an imminent danger to the health or safety of the
public, in which case it will issue an appropriate order or rule under
10 CFR Part 2.
[[Page 70211]]
B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a
request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or
other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a
request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by
interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c),
must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139;
August 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit
and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some
cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not
submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in
accordance with the procedures described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least
ten 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should
contact the Office of the Secretary by email at [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/getting-started.html. System requirements for accessing
the E-Submittal server are detailed in the NRC's ``Guidance for
Electronic Submission,'' which is available on the agency's public Web
site at 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 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 NRC's adjudicatory E-
Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System
Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC's public
Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by email to
[email protected], or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-7640. The
NRC Meta System Help Desk is available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m.,
Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays.
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not
submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in
accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing
requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper
format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention:
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or
expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth
Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff.
Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for
serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered
complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or
by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing
the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer,
having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a
participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer
subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from
use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
http://ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the
Commission, or the presiding officer. Participants are requested not to
include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers,
home addresses, or home phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC
regulation or other law requires submission of such information.
However, a request to intervene will require including information on
local residence in order to demonstrate a proximity assertion of
interest in the proceeding. With respect to copyrighted works, except
for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory filings
and would constitute a Fair Use application, participants are requested
not to include copyrighted materials in their submission.
Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60
days from the date of publication of this notice. Requests for hearing,
petitions for leave to intervene, and motions for leave to file new or
amended contentions that are filed after the 60-day deadline will not
be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the
filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10
CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(iii).
For further details with respect to these license amendment
applications,
[[Page 70212]]
see the application for amendment which is available for public
inspection in ADAMS and at the NRC's PDR. For additional direction on
accessing information related to this document, see the ``Obtaining
Information and Submitting Comments'' section of this document.
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Docket No. 50-336, Millstone Power
Station, Unit 2, New London County, Connecticut
Date of amendment request: March 28, 2014. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14093A027.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would make changes
to the Millstone Power Station, Unit 2 (MPS2) Technical Specifications
(TSs). The proposed changes delete the TS Index and make administrative
changes and corrections to the TSs.
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. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes are administrative in nature. The proposed
changes remove the TS Index and make other editorial and
administrative corrections to the TSs. These administrative changes
are not initiators of any accident previously evaluated, and,
consequently, the probability and consequence of an accident
previously evaluated is not significantly increased.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes are administrative in nature so no new or
different accidents result from the proposed changes. The changes do
not involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or
different type of equipment will be installed), a change in the
method of plant operation, or new operator actions. The changes do
not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in
the margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed administrative changes do not involve a change in
the method of plant operation, do not affect any accident analyses,
and do not relax any safety system settings.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion
Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar Street, RS-2, Richmond, VA
23219.
NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin G. Beasley.
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Docket No. 50-336, Millstone Power
Station (MPS), Unit 2, New London County, Connecticut
Date of amendment request: April 11, 2014. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14112A072.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise the Technical Specifications (TSs) to add the Framatome-ANP
(AREVA) topical report for the M5[supreg] (hereafter referred as M5)
fuel rod cladding material to TS 6.9.1.8.b, ``Core Operating Limits
Report.'' The M5 fuel rod cladding material was approved by the NRC in
Topical Report BAW-10240(P)(A), Revision 0, ``Incorporation of
M5TM Properties in FramatomeANP Approved Methods.''
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 TS change is: (1) Adding BAW-10240(P)(A) to the
list of approved methodologies for determining core operating limits
at MPS2.
The proposed change to TS 6.9.1.8.b permits the use of the
appropriate methodology to analyze accidents for cores containing
fuel with M5 cladding to ensure that the plant continues to meet
applicable design criteria and safety analysis acceptance criteria.
The proposed change to the list of NRC-approved methodologies listed
in TS 6.9.1.8.b has no impact on plant operation and configuration.
The list of methodologies in TS 6.9.1.8.b does not impact either the
initiation of an accident or the mitigation of its consequences.
The NRC has previously approved use of M5 fuel rod cladding
material provided that licensees ensure compliance with the
conditions set forth in the NRC SE [Safety Evaluation] for topical
report BAW-10240(P)(A). Confirmation that these conditions are
satisfied is performed under 10 CFR 50.59 as part of the normal core
reloads process.
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 addition of topical report BAW-10240(P)(A) to the
list of NRC approved methodologies listed in TS 6.9.1.8.b, has no
impact on any plant configuration or system performance. There is no
change to the parameters within which the plant is normally
operated, and thus, the possibility of a new or different type of
accident is not created.
Therefore, the addition of BAW-10240(P)(A) to TS 6.9.1.8.b does
not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident or
malfunction from those previously evaluated within the FSAR.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change to the list of NRC-approved methodologies
listed in TS 6.9.1.8.b has no impact on any plant configuration or
system performance. Topical report BAW-10240(P)(A) has been reviewed
and approved by the NRC for use with M5 fuel rod cladding. Approved
methodologies will be used to ensure that the plant continues to
meet applicable design criteria and safety analysis acceptance
criteria.
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: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion
Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar Street, RS-2, Richmond, VA
23219.
NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin G. Beasley.
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Docket No. 50-423, Millstone Power
Station, Unit 3, New London County, Connecticut
Date of amendment request: November 6, 2013. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML13322A415.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise
Technical
[[Page 70213]]
Specification (TS) 3/4.5.4, ``Refueling Water Storage Tank,'' and TS 3/
4.6.2.1, ``Depressurization and Cooling Systems, Containment Quench
Spray System [QSS],'' to provide additional operational margin for
control of the Refueling Water Storage Tank (RWST) temperature.
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 affects the allowable limit for RWST
temperature. Since the RWST is a passive component used as a water
supply for ECCS [Emergency Core Cooling System] and QSS that operate
only following an accident, the proposed change cannot cause an
accident or affect the probability of any accident.
Evaluations have been performed to address the impact of raising
the maximum RWST temperature on the performance of the ECCS and QSS.
The evaluations demonstrate that NPSH [Net Positive Suction Head]
margin would be maintained for the ECCS and QSS pumps that take
suction from the RWST following a Safety Injection Actuation Signal
or a Containment Depressurization Actuation Signal. Pipe and
component stress limits continue to be met at the higher RWST
temperature. Thus, it is concluded that the ECCS and QSS will
continue to meet the design basis requirements.
The FSAR [Final Safety Analysis Report] Chapter 15 accident
analyses and Chapter 6 containment analyses were performed assuming
an RWST temperature that bounds the proposed technical specification
change. Thus, the proposed change has no significant impact on the
consequences of an accident as documented in the current analysis of
record.
Changing the ACTION statement to include the wording ``the
next'' is administrative and editorial in nature. This proposed
change does not alter the effective technical content of the ACTION
statement.
Thus, it is concluded that the proposed changes do not involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of any
analyzed accident.
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 only increases the allowable range for the
RWST temperature. As such, it cannot initiate a transient or
accident. Evaluations have been performed that demonstrate that the
ECCS and QSS systems will have adequate NPSH and the design bases
will be met.
Thus, the proposed change cannot create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
Evaluations have been performed that demonstrate that the ECCS
and QSS pumps will maintain NPSH margin when taking suction from the
RWST at the higher temperature limit. The mechanical component
stress requirements will continue to be met at the higher
temperature.
Thus, the ECCS and QSS will continue to operate as required to
mitigate a design basis accident.
The accident analyses were performed with assumed RWST
temperatures that bound this proposed change. The containment
analysis and accident analyses demonstrate that the design basis
requirements are met.
Thus, 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: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion
Resource Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar Street, RS-2, Richmond, VA 23219.
NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin G. Beasley.
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Docket No. 50-423, Millstone Power
Station (MPS), Unit 3, New London County, Connecticut
Date of amendment request: March 28, 2014. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14093A026.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would make the
following changes to the MPS3 Technical Specifications (TSs):
(a) Delete TS index pages i through xix.
(b) Replace the first sub-letter under TS Table 4.3-2 Item 4,
Steam Line Isolation--``Manual Initiation,'' which currently appears
as sub-letter ``d'' on Page 3/4 3-37, with sub-letter ``a.''
(c) Revise TS 6.3.2, Facility Staff Qualifications, from:
``If the operations manager does not hold a senior reactor
operator license for Millstone Unit No. 3, then the operations
manager shall have held a senior reactor operator license at a
pressurized water reactor, and the assistant operations manager
shall hold a senior reactor operator license for Millstone Unit No.
3.''
to:
``The operations manager or at least one operations middle
manager shall hold a senior reactor operator license for Millstone
Unit No. 3.''
(d) Replace the term ``SORC'' in paragraph b of the ``Licensee
initiated changes to the REMODCM,'' described in TS 6.13 with the
term ``FSRC.''
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. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes are administrative in nature. The proposed
changes remove the TS Index and make other editorial and
administrative corrections to the TSs. These administrative changes
are not initiators of any accident previously evaluated, and,
consequently, the probability and consequences of an accident
previously evaluated is not significantly increased.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes are administrative in nature so no new or
different accidents result from the proposed changes. The changes do
not involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or
different type of equipment will be installed), a change in the
method of plant operation, or new operator actions. The changes do
not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in
the margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed administrative changes do not involve a change in
the method of plant operation, do not affect any accident analyses,
and do not relax any safety system settings.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion
Resource Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar Street, RS-2, Richmond, VA 23219.
NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin G. Beasley.
[[Page 70214]]
Entergy Operations, Inc., System Energy Resources, Inc., South
Mississippi Electric Power Association, and Entergy Mississippi, Inc.,
Docket No. 50-416, Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Claiborne
County, Mississippi
Date of amendment request: August 1, 2014. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14216A383.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise the allowable values in Technical Specification (TS) Table
3.3.5.1-1, ``Emergency Core Cooling Instrumentation,'' Functions 4.c
and 5.c; Table 3.3.6.3-1, ``RHR [Residual Heat Removal] Containment
Spray System Instrumentation,'' Function 4; and Table 3.3.8.1-1, ``Loss
of Power Instrumentation,'' Functions 1.c, 2.c, and 2.e. Revisions of
setpoint calculations supporting the above tables, identified that the
allowable values in the above functions are non-conservative. The
licensee has noted that while the allowable values are non-
conservative, the setpoints remain conservative.
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 TS allowable value changes involve changes in the
margin between the allowable values and the setpoints. The proposed
TS changes do not change the trip setpoints. The proposed TS changes
do not degrade the performance of, or increase the challenges to,
any safety systems assumed to function in the accident analysis. The
proposed TS changes do not impact the usefulness of the
[surveillance requirements] SRs in evaluating the operability of
required systems and components, or the way in which the
surveillances are performed. In addition, the [* * *] trip setpoints
for the associated TRM [Technical Requirements Manual] functions are
not considered an initiator of any analyzed accident, nor does a
revision to the allowable value introduce any accident initiators.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability of an accident previously evaluated.
The consequences of a previously evaluated accident are not
significantly increased. The proposed change does not affect the
performance of any equipment credited to mitigate the radiological
consequences of an accident. Evaluation of the proposed TS changes
demonstrated that the availability of credited equipment is not
significantly affected because of the reduction in margin between
the allowable values and the trip setpoints.
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 TS changes involves changes in allowable value
settings to correct non-conservative values. The proposed TS changes
do not introduce any failure mechanisms of a different type than
those previously evaluated, since there are no physical changes
being made to the facility.
No new or different equipment is being installed. No installed
equipment is being operated in a different manner. As a result, no
new failure modes are being introduced. The way surveillance tests
are performed remains unchanged.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed TS change involves changes in the allowable value
settings to correct non-conservative values. The impact of the
change on system availability is not significant, based on the
frequency of the testing being unchanged, the existence of redundant
systems and equipment, and overall system reliability. The proposed
change does not significantly impact the condition or performance of
structures, systems, and components relied upon for accident
mitigation. The proposed change does not result in any hardware
changes or in any changes to the analytical limits assumed in
accident analyses. Existing operating margin between plant
conditions and actual plant setpoints is not significantly reduced
due to these changes. The proposed change does not impact any safety
analysis assumptions or results.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Joseph A. Aluise, Associate General
Counsel--Nuclear, Entergy Services, Inc., 639 Loyola Avenue, New
Orleans, Louisiana 70113.
NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC (EGC), Docket Nos. 50-317 and 50-318,
Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, Calvert County,
Maryland
Date of amendment request: September 18, 2014. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14265A219.
Description of amendments request: The amendment(s) would revise
Technical Specification (TS) 5.5.16, ``Containment Leakage Rate Testing
Program'' to allow for permanent extensions of Type A Integrated Leak
Rate Testing (ILRT) and Type C Leak Rate Testing frequencies to 15
years and 75 months, respectively.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment to the TS involves the extension of the
Calvert Cliffs Unit 1 and 2 Type A containment test interval to 15
years and the extension of the Type C test interval to 75 months.
The current Type A test interval of 120 months (10 years) would be
extended on a permanent basis to no longer than 15 years from the
last Type A test. The current Type C test interval of 60 months for
selected components would be extended on a performance basis to no
longer than 75 months. Extensions of up to nine months (total
maximum interval of 84 months for Type C tests) are permissible only
for non-routine emergent conditions. The proposed extension does not
involve either a physical change to the plant or a change in the
manner in which the plant is operated or controlled. The containment
is designed to provide an essentially leak tight barrier against the
uncontrolled release of radioactivity to the environment for
postulated accidents. As such, the containment and the testing
requirements invoked to periodically demonstrate the integrity of
the containment exist to ensure the plant's ability to mitigate the
consequences of an accident, and do not involve the prevention or
identification of any precursors of an accident. Therefore, this
proposed extension does not involve a significant increase in the
probability of an accident previously evaluated.
As documented in NUREG-1493, Type B and C tests have identified
a very large percentage of containment leakage paths, and the
percentage of containment leakage paths that are detected only by
Type A testing is very small. The Calvert Cliffs Unit 1 and 2 Type A
test history supports this conclusion.
The integrity of the containment is subject to two types of
failure mechanisms that can be categorized as (1) activity based and
(2) time based. Activity based failure
[[Page 70215]]
mechanisms are defined as degradation due to system and/or component
modifications or maintenance. Local leak rate test requirements and
administrative controls such as configuration management and
procedural requirements for system restoration ensure that
containment integrity is not degraded by plant modifications or
maintenance activities. The design and construction requirements of
the containment combined with the containment inspections performed
in accordance with ASME [American Society of Mechanical Engineers]
Section Xl, the Maintenance Rule, and TS requirements serve to
provide a high degree of assurance that the containment would not
degrade in a manner that is detectable only by a Type A test. Based
on the above, the proposed extension does not significantly increase
the consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed amendment also deletes exceptions previously
granted to allow one time extensions of the ILRT test frequency for
both Units 1 and 2 and exceptions from conducting post modification
ILRT following replacement of the Units 1 and 2 Steam Generators.
These exceptions were for things that have already taken place so
their deletion is solely an administrative action that has no effect
on any component and no impact on how the units are operated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not result in a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment to the TS involves the extension of the
Calvert Cliffs Unit 1 and 2 Type A containment test interval to 15
years and the extension of the Type C test interval to 75 months.
The containment and the testing requirements to periodically
demonstrate the integrity of the containment exist to ensure the
plant's ability to mitigate the consequences of an accident do not
involve any accident precursors or initiators. The proposed change
does not involve a physical change to the plant (i.e., no new or
different type of equipment will be installed) or a change to the
manner in which the plant is operated or controlled.
The proposed amendment also deletes exceptions previously
granted to allow one time extensions of the ILRT test frequency for
both Units 1 and 2 and exceptions from conducting post modification
ILRT following replacement of the Units 1 and 2 Steam Generators.
These exceptions were for things that have already taken place so
their deletion is solely an administrative action that does not
result in any change in how the units are operated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment to TS 5.5.16 involves the extension of
the Calvert Cliffs Unit 1 and 2 Type A containment test interval to
15 years and the extension of the Type C test interval to 75 months
for selected components. This amendment does not alter the manner in
which safety limits, limiting safety system set points, or limiting
conditions for operation are determined. The specific requirements
and conditions of the TS Containment Leak Rate Testing Program exist
to ensure that the degree of containment structural integrity and
leak-tightness that is considered in the plant safety analysis is
maintained. The overall containment leak rate limit specified by TS
is maintained.
The proposed change involves only the extension of the interval
between Type A containment leak rate tests and Type C tests for
Calvert Cliffs Unit 1 and 2. The proposed surveillance interval
extension is bounded by the 15 year ILRT Interval and the 75 month
Type C test interval currently authorized within NEI [Nuclear Energy
Institute] 94-01, Revision 3-A. Industry experience supports the
conclusion that Type B and C testing detects a large percentage of
containment leakage paths and that the percentage of containment
leakage paths that are detected only by Type A testing is small. The
containment inspections performed in accordance with ASME Section XI
and TS serve to provide a high degree of assurance that the
containment would not degrade in a manner that is detectable only by
Type A testing. The combination of these factors ensures that the
margin of safety in the plant safety analysis is maintained. The
design, operation, testing methods and acceptance criteria for Type
A, B, and C containment leakage tests specified in applicable codes
and standards would continue to be met, with the acceptance of this
proposed change, since these are not affected by changes to the Type
A and Type C test intervals.
The proposed amendment also deletes exceptions previously
granted to allow one time extensions of the ILRT test frequency for
both Units 1 and 2 and exceptions from conducting post modification
ILRT following replacement of the Units 1 and 2 Steam Generators.
These exceptions were for things that have already taken place so
their deletion is an administrative action and does not change how
the units are operated and maintained, thus there is no reduction in
any margin of safety.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendments request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: J. Bradley Fewell, Exelon Generation, 200
Exelon Way, Kennett Square, PA 19348.
NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin G. Beasley.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC (EGC), Docket Nos. 50-220 and 50-410,
Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 (NMP1 And NMP2), Oswego
County, New York
Date of amendment request: September 11, 2014. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14254A007.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would
revise the licensed operator training and qualification education and
experience eligibility requirements specified in NMP1 Technical
Specification (TS) 6.3.1 and NMP2 TS 5.3.1 to the eligibility
requirements specified in this License Amendment Request. The proposed
eligibility requirements correspond to the eligibility requirements
contained in the current National Academy for Nuclear Training (NANT)
Academy Document, ACAD 10-001, ``Guidelines for Initial Training and
Qualification of Licensed Operators,'' dated February 2010.
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 NRC considered the impact of previously evaluated accidents
during the rulemaking process, and by promulgation of the revised 10
CFR 55 rule, determined that this impact remains acceptable when
licensees have an accredited licensed operator training program
which is based on a Systems Approach to Training (SAT). EGC
maintains an Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO) National
Academy for Nuclear Training (NANT) accredited program which is
based on a SAT. The NRC has concluded in Regulatory Information
Summary (RIS) 2001-01, ``Eligibility of Operator License
Applicants,'' and NUREG-1021, ``Operator Licensing Examination
Standards For Power Reactors,'' that standards and guidelines
applied by INPO in their accredited training programs are equivalent
to those put forth by or endorsed by the NRC. Therefore, maintaining
an INPO accredited SAT-based licensed operator training program is
equivalent to maintaining an NRC approved licensed operator training
program which conforms to applicable NRC Regulatory Guidelines or
NRC endorsed industry standards. The proposed changes conform to
NANT ACAD 10-001 licensed operator education and experience
eligibility requirements.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
[[Page 70216]]
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 involves changes to the licensed operator
training programs, which are administrative in nature. The EGC
licensed operator training programs have been accredited by the
National Nuclear Accrediting Board (NNAB) and are based on a SAT,
which the NRC has previously found to be acceptable.
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.
The proposed TS changes are administrative in nature. The
proposed TS changes do not affect plant design, hardware, system
operation, or procedures for accident mitigation systems. The
proposed changes do not significantly impact the performance or
proficiency requirements for licensed operators. As a result, the
ability of the plant to respond to and mitigate accidents is
unchanged by the proposed TS changes.
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: Donald P. Ferraro, Assistant General
Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 200 Exelon Way, Suite 305,
Kennett Square, PA 19348.
NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin G. Beasley.
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, Docket No. 50-440, Perry Nuclear
Power Plant, Unit 1, Perry, OH
Date of amendment request: September 12, 2014. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14255A150.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment modifies
the Technical Specification (TS) definition of SHUTDOWN MARGIN (SDM) to
require determination of SDM at the temperature that represents the
most reactive state throughout the operating cycle. The proposed
changes are intended to be consistent with the approved Technical
Specification Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-535, Revision 0.
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 revises the definition of Shutdown Margin
(SDM). SDM is not an initiator to any accident previously evaluated.
Accordingly, the proposed change to the definition of SDM has no
effect on the probability of any accident previously evaluated. SDM
is an assumption in the analysis of some previously evaluated
accidents and inadequate SDM could lead to an increase in
consequences for those accidents. However, the proposed change
revises the SDM definition to ensure that the correct SDM is
determined for all BWR [boiling-water reactor] fuel types at all
times during the fuel cycle.
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 previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises the definition of SDM. The change
does not involve a physical alteration of the plant that is, no new
or different type of equipment will be installed or a change in the
methods governing normal plant operations. The change does not alter
assumptions made in the safety analysis regarding SDM.
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 revises the definition of SDM. The proposed
change does not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting
safety system settings or limiting conditions for operation are
determined. The proposed change ensures that the SDM assumed in
determining safety limits, limiting safety system settings or
limiting conditions for operation is correct for all BWR fuel types
at all times during the fuel cycle.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: David W. Jenkins, Attorney, FirstEnergy
Corporation, Mail Stop A-GO-15, 76 South Main Street, Akron, OH 44308.
NRC Branch Chief: Travis L. Tate.
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 amendment request: August 29, 2014. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14252A230.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would modify the
Technical Specifications (TSs) by removing TS 3/4.4.7, ``Chemistry,''
which provides limits on the oxygen, chloride, and fluoride content in
the reactor coolant system to minimize corrosion. The licensee
requested that these requirements be relocated to the Updated Final
Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) and related procedures and be controlled
in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59, ``Changes, tests, and experiments.''
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee provided
its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration,
which is presented as follows:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change acts to remove current Reactor Coolant
System (RCS) chemistry limits and monitoring requirements from the
TS and relocate the requirements to the UFSAR and related
procedures. Monitoring and maintaining RCS chemistry minimizes the
potential for corrosion of RCS piping and components. Corrosion
effects are considered a long-term impact on RCS structural
integrity. Because RCS chemistry will continue to be monitored and
controlled, removing the current TS requirements and relocating the
requirements to the UFSAR and related procedures will not present an
adverse impact to the RCS and subsequently, will not impact the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
Furthermore, once relocated to the UFSAR and related procedures,
changes to RCS chemistry limits and monitoring requirements will be
controlled in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of any accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change acts to remove current Reactor Coolant
System (RCS) chemistry limits and monitoring requirements from the
TS and relocate the requirements to the UFSAR and related
procedures. The proposed change does not introduce new modes of
plant operation and
[[Page 70217]]
it does not involve physical modifications to the plant (no new or
different type of equipment will be installed). There are no changes
in the method by which any safety related plant structure, system,
or component (SSC) performs its specified safety function. As such,
the plant conditions for which the design basis accident analyses
were performed remain valid.
No new accident scenarios, transient precursors, failure
mechanisms, or limiting single failures will be introduced as a
result of the proposed change. There will be no adverse effect or
challenges imposed on any SSC as a result of the proposed change.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in
the margin of safety?
Response: No.
Margin of safety is related to confidence in the ability of the
fission product barriers to perform their accident mitigation
functions. The proposed change acts to remove current Reactor
Coolant System (RCS) chemistry limits and monitoring requirements
from the TS and relocate the requirements to the UFSAR and related
procedures. The proposed change will maintain limits on RCS
chemistry parameters and will continue to provide associated
monitoring requirements. The proposed change does not physically
alter any SSC. There will be no effect on those SSCs necessary to
assure the accomplishment of protection functions. There will be no
impact on the overpower limit, departure from nucleate boiling ratio
(DNBR) limits, loss of cooling accident peak cladding temperature
(LOCA PCT), or any other margin of safety. The applicable
radiological dose consequence acceptance criteria will continue to
be met.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three standards of 50.92(c) are satisfied.
Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment
request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: William S. Blair, Managing Attorney--
Nuclear, Florida Power & Light Company, 700 Universe Blvd. MS LAW/JB,
Juno Beach, Florida 33408-0420.
Acting NRC Branch Chief: Lisa M. Regner.
PPL Susquehanna, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-387 and 50-388, Susquehanna Steam
Electric Station (SSES), Units 1 and 2, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: August 11, 2014. A publicly-available
version is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14223A780.
Description of amendment request: The amendment proposes changes to
SSES, Units 1 and 2, Technical Specification (TS) 3.4.10, ``RCS
[Reactor Coolant System] Pressure and Temperature (P/T) Limits,'' which
includes revisions to the P/T Limits curves. The primary effect of the
revision is to provide P/T Limits curves that extend into the vacuum
region to mitigate the risk of a level transient during startup and
shutdown.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below, along with NRC edits in square
brackets:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes request that the P/T limits curves in TS
3.4.10, ``RCS Pressure and Temperature (P/T) Limits'' be revised by
extending each of the P/T Limits curves below 0 psig to allow
operation with the RPV [reactor pressure vessel] at a vacuum.
The P/T curves are used as operational limits during heatup or
cooldown maneuvering, when pressure and temperature indications are
monitored and compared to the applicable curve to determine that
operation is within the allowable region. The P/T curves provide
assurance that station operation is consistent with previously
evaluated accidents.
Thus, the probability of an accident or the radiological
consequences of an accident previously evaluated are not
significantly increased.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not change the response of any plant
equipment to transient conditions. The proposed changes do not
introduce any new equipment, modes of system operation, or failure
mechanisms.
Therefore, there are no new types of failures or new or
different kinds of accidents or transients that could be created by
these changes. The proposed changes do not create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The consequences of a previously evaluated accident are not
increased by these proposed changes, since the Loss of Coolant
Accident analyzed in the FSAR [Final Safety Analysis Report] assumes
a complete break of the reactor coolant pressure boundary. The
proposed changes to the P/T Limits curves do not change this
assumption.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Bryan A. Snapp, Esquire, Assoc. General
Counsel, PPL Services Corporation, 2 North Ninth St., GENTW3,
Allentown, PA 18101-1179.
NRC Branch Chief: Meena K. Khanna.
III. Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses
and Combined Licenses
During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice,
the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has
determined for each of these amendments that the application complies
with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,
as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The
Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the
Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set
forth in the license amendment.
A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility
operating license or combined license, as applicable, proposed no
significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a
hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the Federal
Register as indicated.
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that
these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in
accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b),
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be
prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an
environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in
10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment,
it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the action see (1) the
applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's
related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as
indicated. All of these items can be accessed as described in the
``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' section of this
document.
Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50-397, Columbia Generating Station,
Benton County, Washington
Date of application for amendment: March 18, 2014.
[[Page 70218]]
Brief description of amendment: The amendment adopts Technical
Specification (TS) Task Force (TSTF) change traveler TSTF-535, Revision
0, ``Revise Shutdown Margin Definition to Address Advanced Fuel
Designs,'' at Columbia Generating Station. The notice of availability
of TSTF-535, Revision 0, was published in the Federal Register on
February 26, 2013 (78 FR 13100).
Date of issuance: November 12, 2014.
Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 228. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML14290A360; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-21: The amendment
revised the Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 22, 2014 (79 FR
42544).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated November 12, 2014.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc. (DEK), Docket No. 50-305, Kewaunee Power
Station (KPS), Kewaunee County, Wisconsin
Date of amendment request: January 16, 2014, as supplemented by
letters dated June 19, 2014, and September 9, 2014.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment authorizes revision
to the Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc., emergency plan and emergency
action level scheme to conform to the permanent shut down and defueled
status of Kewaunee Power Station (KPS). The review considered the
storage of spent nuclear fuel in the spent fuel pool and the
independent spent fuel storage installation, and the low likelihood of
any credible accident resulting in radiological releases requiring
offsite protective measures. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
staff has concluded that the changes to the KPS emergency plan and
emergency action level scheme would provide: (1) An adequate basis for
an acceptable state of emergency preparedness, and (2) reasonable
assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in
the event of a radiological emergency based on the permanently shut
down and defueled status of the KPS facility.
Date of issuance: October 31, 2014.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 214. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML14279A482; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-43: The amendment
authorizes revision to the Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc., Renewed
Facility Operating License emergency plan and emergency action level
scheme.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 5, 2014 (79 FR
45472). The supplemental letters dated June 19, 2014, and September 9,
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 October 31, 2014.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-293, Pilgrim Nuclear
Power Station, Plymouth County, Massachusetts
Date of amendment request: November 26, 2013, as supplemented by
letters dated July 11, September 11, October 3, and October 16, 2014.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical
Specification (TS) 4.3.4, ``Heavy Loads,'' by modifying the limit
imposed on the maximum weight that could travel over the irradiated
fuel in the spent fuel pool. The amendment also revised TS 4.3.4 to
reflect the removal of the energy absorbing pad from the spent fuel
pool and installation of a leveling platform.
Date of issuance: October 31, 2014.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be
implemented prior to the start of the dry cask storage operations.
Amendment No.: 240. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML13346A026; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-35: Amendment revised
the License and TSs.
Date of notices in Federal Register: July 22, 2014 (79 FR 42545),
as supplemented on September 22, 2014 (79 FR 56608). The supplement
dated July 11, 2014, provided additional information that clarified the
application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally
noticed, and did not change the NRC staff's original proposed no
significant hazards consideration (NSHC) determination as published in
the Federal Register on July 22, 2014 (79 FR 42545).
The supplement dated September 11, 2014, expanded the scope of the
application as originally noticed and, therefore, the September 11,
2014, supplement was published in the Federal Register on September 22,
2014 (79 FR 56608). The supplements dated October 3 and October 16,
2014, provided additional information that clarified the September 11,
2014, supplement, did not expand the scope as noticed, and did not
change the NRC staff's proposed NSHC determination as published in the
Federal Register on September 22, 2014 (79 FR 56608).
No significant hazards consideration comments received: Yes.
The notice provided an opportunity to submit comments on the
Commission's proposed NSHC determination. Several comments were
received and evaluated.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment and final NSHC
determination, including the comments received, are contained in a
safety evaluation dated October 31, 2014.
Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations,
Inc., Docket No. 50-271, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, Vernon,
Vermont
Date of amendment request: December 19, 2013, as supplemented by
letter dated June 25, 2014.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would change the
Vermont Yankee Cyber Security Plan Implementation Schedule Milestone 8
full implementation date from December 15, 2015, to June 30, 2016. The
amendment would also revise the existing operating license Security
Plan license condition.
Date of Issuance: November 7, 2014.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be
implemented by December 15, 2014.
Amendment No.: 259. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML14206A710; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Facility Operating License No. DPR-28: Amendment revised the
License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 27, 2014 (79
FR 11149). The supplement letter dated
[[Page 70219]]
June 25, 2014, provided additional information that clarified the
application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally
noticed, and did not change the NRC staff's original proposed no
significant hazards consideration determination as published in the
Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of this amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated November 7, 2014.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-220 and 50-410, Nine
Mile Point Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Oswego County, New York
Date of application for amendment: October 7, 2013, as supplemented
by letter dated June 18, 2014.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment modified the Nine
Mile Point Units 1 and 2 Technical Specifications (TS) definition of
``Shutdown Margin'' (SDM) to require calculation of the SDM at a
reactor moderator temperature of 68 [deg]F or a higher temperature that
represents the most reactive state throughout the operating cycle. This
change is needed to address new Boiling Water Reactor (BWR) fuel
designs which may be more reactive at shutdown temperatures above 68
[deg]F.
The NRC staff issued a notice of opportunity for comment in the
Federal Register on November 19, 2012 (77 FR 69507), on possible
amendments to revise the plant-specific TS, to modify the TS definition
of ``Shutdown Margin'' (SDM) to require calculation of the SDM at a
reactor moderator temperature of 68 [deg]F or a higher temperature that
represents the most reactive state throughout the operating cycle,
including a model safety evaluation and model no significant hazards
consideration determination, using the consolidated line-item
improvement process. The NRC staff subsequently issued a notice of
availability of the models for referencing in license amendment
applications in the Federal Register on February 26, 2013, (78 FR
13100).
Date of issuance: October 30, 2014.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 1: 216, Unit 2: 146. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14248A084; documents related
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with
the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-63 and NPF-69: Amendment
revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical
Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 12, 2013 (78
FR 67411). The supplemental letter dated June 18, 2014, provided
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change
the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated October 30, 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: October 4, 2013, as supplemented
on April 29, 2014.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment changes the Site
Emergency Plan (SEP) for the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant (MNGP)
by eliminating the Radwaste Operator position as one of the 60-minute
responders.
Date of issuance: October 31, 2014.
Effective date: This amendment is effective as of its date of
issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days from the date of
issuance.
Amendment No.: 183. A publicly-available version is in the ADAMS
under Accession No. ML14196A328; documents related to this amendment
are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Facility Operating License No. DPR-22: This amendment revised the
MNGP SEP.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 8, 2014 (79 FR
38591).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated October 31, 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 amendment request: April 4, 2014.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical
Specification 3.5.1, ``ECCS [Emergency Core Cooling System]--
Operating,'' by removing Condition F. Condition F provides for a 72-
hour completion time to restore one core spray subsystem to an operable
status when both core spray subsystems are inoperable. NSPM requested
approval to remove the option of having a limiting condition of
operation with both core spray subsystems inoperable based on an
evaluation that at least one core spray subsystem is necessary to
maintain adequate post-accident long-term core cooling.
Date of issuance: November 3, 2014.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 184. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML14246A449; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-22: This amendment
revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and the Technical
Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 19, 2014 (79 FR
49107).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated November 3, 2014.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Omaha Public Power District, Docket No. 50-285, Fort Calhoun Station,
Unit 1, Washington County, Nebraska
Date of amendment request: February 10, 2014, as supplemented by
letter dated June 9, 2014.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical
Specification Surveillance Requirement 3.2, ``Equipment and Sampling
Tests,'' Table 3-5, ``Minimum Frequencies for Equipment Tests,'' Item 3
for the pressurizer safety valves from a refueling frequency (i.e., 18
months 25 percent) to be consistent with the Inservice
Testing Program, and made editorial changes to Table 3-5.
Date of issuance: November 6, 2014.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 277. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML14279A275; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-40: The amendment
revised the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 8, 2014 (79 FR
38592).
[[Page 70220]]
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a safety evaluation dated November 6, 2014.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
South Carolina Electric & Gas, Docket Nos. 52-027 and 52-028, Virgil C.
Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS) Units 2 and 3, Fairfield County, South
Carolina
Date of amendment request: March 13, September 25 (two letters for
Licensing Amendment Request (LAR) 13-16 and LAR 13-17) and October 3,
2013 (two letters for LAR 13-18 and LAR 13-19), as supplemented by
letters dated October 3, 2013, and February 10 and June 6, 2014.
Brief description of amendment: The proposed amendment involves
changes to the five Human Factors Engineering (HFE) Reports
(Westinghouse Electric Company and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission reviewed these reports as part of the AP1000 Design
Certification Rule) that are incorporated by reference in the VCSNS
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report. These are:
HFE Design Verification Plan (APP-OCS-GEH-120) (LAR 13-16)
HFE Task Support Verification Plan (APP-OCS-GEH-220) (LAR 13-
17)
HFE Integrated System Validation (APP-OCS-GEH-320) (LAR 13-10)
Human Engineering Discrepancy Resolution Process (APP-OCS-GEH-
420) (LAR 13-18)
Plant Startup HFE Design Verification Plan (APP-OCS-GEH-520)
(LAR 13-19)
Date of issuance: July 31, 2014.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 16. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML14177A486; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Facility Combined Licenses No. NPF-93 and NPF-94: Amendment revised
the Facility Combined Licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 28, 2013 (78 FR
31984 for LAR 13-10), November 12, 2013 (78 FR 67412 for LAR 13-16, 78
FR 67411 for LAR 13-17, 78 FR 67413 for LAR 13-18, and 78 FR 67413 for
LAR 13-19).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 31, 2014.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
South Carolina Electric and Gas, Inc. Docket Nos. 52-027 and 52-028,
Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS) Units 2 and 3, Fairfield
County, South Carolina
Date of amendment request: July 17, 2013, as supplemented by
letters dated July 8, and July 11, 2014.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises Tier 2* and
associated Tier 2 information, incorporated into the VCSNS Units 2 and
3 Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). Specifically, the
amendment revises the following information related to fire area
boundaries: (1) Various Annex Building and Turbine Building layout
changes, (2) Turbine Building Stairwell S08 changes to support egress
functions, and (3) an Annex Building Heating, Ventilation and Air
Conditioning shaft UFSAR figure clarification.
Date of issuance: September 9, 2014.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 17. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML14218A687; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Facility Combined Licenses No. NPF-93 and NPF-94: Amendment revised
the Facility Combined Licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 1, 2013 (78 FR
60321). The supplements dated July 8 and July 11, 2014, provided
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change
the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 9, 2014.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-259, 50-260, and 50-296,
Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3, Limestone County,
Alabama
Date of amendment request: April 29, 2014, as supplemented by
letter dated May 27, 2014.
Brief description of amendment: The amendments revised the Cyber
Security Plan Implementation Milestone No. 8 completion date and the
physical protection license condition.
Date of issuance: September 29, 2014.
Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 1-286, Unit 2-312, and Unit 3-217. A publicly-
available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14247A536;
documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety
Evaluation (SE) enclosed with the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-33, DPR-52, and DPR-68.
The amendments revised the Operating Licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 8, 2014 (79 FR
38582). The supplemental letter dated May 27, 2014, provided additional
information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of
the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's
original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as
published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in the SE dated September 29, 2014.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 17th day of November 2014.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Michele G. Evans,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2014-27630 Filed 11-24-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P