[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 246 (Tuesday, December 23, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77041-77052]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29906]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2014-0271]
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 November 27, 2014 to December 10, 2014. The
last biweekly notice was published on December 9, 2014.
DATES: Comments must be filed by January 22, 2015. A request for a
hearing must be filed by February 23, 2015.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods
(unless this document describes a different method for submitting
comments on a specific subject):
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2014-0271. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-287-
3422; email: [email protected].
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: Shirley Rohrer, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-5411, email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments
A. Obtaining Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2014-0271 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-2014-0271.
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,
[[Page 77042]]
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-2014-0271 in the subject line of your
comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact
information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your
comment submission. The NRC 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
[[Page 77043]]
when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the
Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective,
notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take
place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is
that the amendment request involves a significant hazards
consideration, then any hearing held would take place before the
issuance of any amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent
danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will
issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.
B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a
request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or
other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a
request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by
interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c),
must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139;
August 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit
and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some
cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not
submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in
accordance with the procedures described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least
ten 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should
contact the Office of the Secretary by email at [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
[[Page 77044]]
copyrighted materials in their submission.
Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60
days from the date of publication of this notice. Requests for hearing,
petitions for leave to intervene, and motions for leave to file new or
amended contentions that are filed after the 60-day deadline will not
be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the
filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10
CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(iii).
For further details with respect to these license amendment
applications, see the application for amendment which is available for
public inspection in ADAMS and at the NRC's PDR. For additional
direction on accessing information related to this document, see the
``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' section of this
document.
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Docket No. 50-336, Millstone Power
Station, Unit 2, New London County, Connecticut
Date of amendment request: June 30, 2014. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14188B189.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise
Technical Specifications (TSs) requirements to adopt the changes
described in the NRC's approved Technical Specifications Task Force
(TSTF) Standard Technical Specifications Change Traveler TSTF-426,
Revision 5, ``Revise or Add Actions to Preclude Entry into LCO 3.0.3-
TSTF Initiatives 6b and 6c.''
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 provides a short Allowed Outage Time to
restore an inoperable system for conditions under which the existing
Technical Specifications require a plant shutdown to begin within
one hour in accordance with LCO 3.0.3. Entering into Technical
Specification Actions is not an initiator of any accident previously
evaluated. As a result, the probability of an accident previously
evaluated is not significantly increased. The consequences of any
previously evaluated accident that may occur during the proposed
Allowed Outage Times are no different than the consequences of the
same accident during the existing one hour allowance. As a result,
the consequences of any accident previously evaluated are not
significantly increased.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
No new or different accidents result from the proposed change.
The changes do not involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e.,
no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a change
in the methods governing normal plant operation. In addition, the
changes do not impose any new or different requirements. The
proposed changes do not alter assumptions made in the safety
analysis.
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 increases the allowed outage time MPS2 may
continue to operate without the operability of any one of the five
identified systems proposed in this change for up to 24 hours. The
analyses in WCAP-16125-NP-A, ``Justification for Risk-Informed
Modifications to Selected Technical Specifications for Conditions
Leading to Exigent Plant Shutdown,'' Revision 2, August 2010,
demonstrated that this limited increase in AOT results in an
acceptably small increase in risk due to a limited period of
continued operation in these conditions and that the associated risk
is balanced by avoiding the similar risks associated with a plant
shutdown. As a result, the change to the margin of safety proposed
by modifying a plant shutdown within one hour is not significant.
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
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, Unit 3, New London County, Connecticut
Date of amendment request: May 8, 2014, as supplemented by letters
dated August 14, October 15, and October 16, 2014. Publicly-available
versions are in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML14133A009, ML14234A097,
ML14294A452, and ML14294A451.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise
Technical Specification (TS) 3.3.1, ``Reactor Trip System (RTS)
Instrumentation'' and TS 3.3.2, ``Engineered Safety Feature Actuation
System (ESFAS) Instrumentation,'' to adopt Completion Time (CT) and
test bypass time changes. These changes have been approved by the NRC
in Topical Reports WCAP-14333-P-A, ``Probabilistic Risk Analysis of the
RPS and ESFAS Test Times and Completion Times,'' Revision 1, dated
October 1998, and WCAP-1 5376-P-A, ``Risk-informed Assessment of the
RTS and ESFAS Surveillance Test Intervals and Reactor Trip Breaker Test
and Completion Times,'' Revision 1, dated March 2003.
As discussed in the supplement dated August 14, 2014, the licensee
subsequently deleted certain changes requested in the May 8, 2014
application. Those changes were deleted because they were found by the
NRC staff to be unsupported by the scope of the provisions approved by
WCAP-14333-P-A, Revision 1.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
Response: No.
Overall protection system performance will remain within the
bounds of the previously performed accident analyses since no
hardware changes are proposed. The same RTS [Reactor Trip System]
and ESFAS [Engineered Safety Feature Actuation System]
instrumentation will continue to be used. The protection systems
will continue to function in a manner consistent with the plant
design basis. These changes to the TS do not result in a condition
where the design, material, and construction standards that were
applicable prior to the change are altered.
The proposed changes will not modify any system interface. The
proposed changes will not affect the probability of any event
initiators. There will be no degradation in the performance of or an
increase in the number of challenges imposed on safety-related
equipment assumed to function during an accident situation. There
will be no change to normal plant operating parameters or accident
mitigation performance. The proposed changes will not alter any
assumptions or change any mitigation actions in the radiological
consequence evaluations in the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR).
[[Page 77045]]
The determination that the results of the proposed changes are
acceptable was established in the NRC Safety Evaluations prepared
for WCAP-14333-P-A, (issued by letter dated July 15, 1998) and for
WCAP-1 5376-P-A, (issued by letter dated December 20, 2002).
Implementation of the proposed changes will result in an
insignificant risk impact. Applicability of these conclusions has
been verified through plant-specific reviews and implementation of
the generic analysis results in accordance with the respective NRC
Safety Evaluation conditions.
The proposed changes to the CTs, and test bypass times reduce
the potential for inadvertent reactor trips and spurious engineered
safeguard features actuations, and therefore do not increase the
probability of any accident previously evaluated. The proposed
changes do not change the response of the plant to any accidents and
have an insignificant impact on the reliability of the RTS and ESFAS
signals. The RTS and ESFAS will remain highly reliable and the
proposed changes will not result in a significant increase in the
risk of plant operation. This is demonstrated by showing that the
impact on plant safety, as measured by the increase in core damage
frequency (CDF) is less than 1.OE-06 per year and the increase in
large early release frequency (LERF) is less than 1.OE-07 per year.
In addition, for the CT changes, the incremental conditional core
damage probabilities (ICCDP) and incremental conditional large early
release probabilities (ICLERP) are less than 5.OE-07 and 5.OE-08,
respectively. These changes meet the acceptance criteria in
Regulatory Guides (RGs) 1.174 and 1.177.
Therefore, since the RTS and ESFAS will continue to perform
their functions with high reliability, as originally assumed, and
the increase in risk, as measured by CDF, LERF, ICCDP, ICLERP risk
metrics, is within the acceptance criteria of existing regulatory
guidance, there will not be a significant increase in the
consequences of any accidents.
The proposed changes do not adversely affect accident initiators
or precursors nor alter the design assumptions, conditions, or
configuration of the facility or the manner in which the plant is
operated and maintained. The proposed changes do not alter or
prevent the ability of structures, systems, and components from
performing their intended function to mitigate the consequences of
an initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits. The
proposed changes do not affect the source term, containment
isolation, or radiological release assumptions used in evaluating
the radiological consequences of any accident previously evaluated.
The proposed changes are consistent with safety analysis assumptions
and resultant consequences.
Therefore, this change does not significantly increase the
probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated.
2. Do proposed changes create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
There are no hardware changes nor are there any changes in the
method by which any safety-related plant system performs its safety
function. The proposed changes will not affect the normal method of
plant operation. No performance requirements will be affected or
eliminated. The proposed changes will not result in physical
alteration to any plant system nor there any change in the method by
which any safety-related plant system performs its safety function.
There will be no setpoint changes or changes to accident analysis
assumptions.
No new accident scenarios, transient precursors, failure
mechanisms, or limiting single failures are introduced as a result
of these changes. There will be no adverse effect or challenges
imposed on any safety-related system as a result of these changes.
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 a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not affect the acceptance criteria for
any analyzed event nor is there a change to any Safety Analysis
Limit. There will be no effect on the manner in which safety limits,
limiting safety system settings, or limiting conditions for
operation are determined nor will there be any effect on those plant
systems necessary to assure the accomplishment of protection
functions. There will be no impact on the departure from nucleate
boiling limits, fuel centerline temperature, or any other margin of
safety. The radiological dose consequence acceptance criteria listed
in the NUREG-0800, ``Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety
Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants,'' will continue to be
met.
Redundant RTS and ESFAS trains are maintained, and diversity
with regard of the signals that provide reactor trip and engineered
safety features actuation is also maintained. All signals credited
as primary or secondary, and all operator actions credited in the
accident analyses will remain the same. The proposed changes will
not result in plant operation in a configuration outside the design
basis. The calculated impact on risk is insignificant and meets the
acceptance criteria contained in RGs 1.174 and 1.177.
Implementation of the proposed changes is expected to result in
an overall improvement in safety, as follows:
Improvements in the effectiveness of the operating
staff in monitoring and controlling plant operation will be
realized. This is due to less frequent distraction of the operators
and shift supervisor to attend to instrumentation Required Actions
with short CTs.
Longer repair times associated with increased CTs will
lead to higher quality repairs and improved reliability.
The CT extensions for the reactor trip breakers will
provide additional time to complete test and maintenance activities
while at power, potentially reducing the number of forced outages
related to compliance with reactor trip breaker CT, and provide
consistency with the CT for the logic trains.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
reduction in the margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion
Resource Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar Street, RS-2, Richmond, VA 23219.
NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin G. Beasley.
DTE Electric Company, Docket No. 50-341, Fermi 2, Monroe County,
Michigan
Date of amendment request: October 21, 2014. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14295A078.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
replace the current emergency action level scheme with the scheme
described in Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 99-01, Revision 6,
``Development of Emergency Action Levels for Non-Passive Reactors''
(ADAMS Accession No. ML110240324).
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 any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to DTE's EAL [emergency action level]
scheme to adopt the NRC-endorsed guidance in NEI 99-01, Revision 6,
``Development of Emergency Action Levels for Non-Passive Reactors,''
do not reduce the capability to meet the emergency planning
requirements established in 10 CFR 50.47 and 10 CFR 50, Appendix E.
The proposed changes do not reduce the functionality, performance,
or capability of DTE's ERO [Emergency Response Organization] to
respond in mitigating the consequences of any design basis accident.
The proposed changes do not alter the requirements of the
Operating License or the Technical Specifications. The proposed
changes do not modify any plant equipment and do not impact any
failure modes that could lead to an accident. The proposed changes
do not impact the consequence of an analyzed accident since the
changes do not affect equipment related to accident mitigation. The
proposed changes do not involve any physical changes to plant
equipment or systems, nor do they alter the assumptions of any
accident analyses. The
[[Page 77046]]
proposed changes do not adversely affect accident initiators or
precursors nor do they alter the design assumptions, conditions, and
configuration or the manner in which the plant is operated and
maintained. The proposed changes do not adversely affect the ability
of Structures, Systems, or Components (SSCs) to perform their
intended safety functions in mitigating the consequences of an
initiating event.
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 previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed EAL changes to adopt the NRC-endorsed guidance in
NEI 99-01, Revision 6, do not involve any physical changes to plant
systems or equipment. The proposed changes do not involve the
addition of any new plant equipment. The proposed changes will not
alter the design configuration, or method of operation of plant
equipment beyond its normal functional capabilities. All DTE ERO
functions will continue to be performed as required. The proposed
changes do not create any new credible failure mechanisms,
malfunctions, or accident initiators.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from those that have been
previously evaluated.
3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in
the margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed EAL changes to adopt the NRC-endorsed guidance in
NEI 99-01, Revision 6, do not alter or exceed a design basis or
safety limit. There is no change being made to safety analysis
assumptions, safety limits, or limiting safety system settings that
would adversely affect plant safety as a result of the proposed
changes. There are no changes to setpoints or environmental
conditions of any SSC or the manner in which any SSC is operated.
Margins of safety are unaffected by the proposed changes to adopt
the NEI 99-01, Revision 6 EAL scheme guidance. The applicable
requirements of 10 CFR 50.47 and 10 CFR 50, Appendix E will continue
to be met.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve any 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: Bruce R. Maters, DTE Energy, General
Counsel--Regulatory, 688 WCB, One Energy Plaza, Detroit, MI 48226-1279.
NRC Branch Chief: David L. Pelton.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353, Limerick
Generating Station (LGS), Units 1 and 2, Montgomery County,
Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: November 3, 2014. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14308A144.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would add
new Limiting Conditions for Operation (LCOs) 3.0.5 and 3.0.6 to the
Applicability section of the Technical Specifications (TSs). The LCO
3.0.5 would establish an allowance for restoring equipment to service,
under administrative controls, when the equipment has been removed from
service or declared inoperable to comply with TS Action requirements.
The LCO 3.0.6 would provide actions to be taken when the inoperability
of a support system results in the inoperability of the related
supported systems. In addition, the proposed amendment would add the
Safety Function Determination Program to the Administrative Controls
section of the TSs. This program is intended to ensure that a loss of
safety function is detected and appropriate actions are taken when LCO
3.0.6 is entered.
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 involve the addition of a new Limiting
Condition for Operation (LCO) 3.0.5 to the Applicability Section of
the Limerick Generating Station (LGS) Technical Specifications (TS)
which allows restoration of equipment to service under
administrative controls when it has been removed from service or
declared inoperable to comply with TS Action requirements. The
potential impact of temporarily returning the equipment to service
is considered to be insignificant since the equipment has been
restored to a condition which is expected to provide the required
safety function.
Returning the equipment to service for operability testing will
promote timely restoration of the equipment and reduce the
probability of events that may have been prevented or mitigated by
such operable equipment. Since the equipment to be restored is
already out of service, the availability of the equipment has been
previously considered in the evaluation of consequences of an
accident. Temporarily returning the equipment to service in a state
which is expected to function as required to mitigate the
consequences of a previously analyzed accident will promote timely
restoration of the equipment and restore the capabilities of the
equipment to mitigate the consequences of any events previously
analyzed.
Additionally, the proposed changes involve the addition of a new
LCO 3.0.6 to the Applicability Section of the LGS TS that provides
appropriate actions to be taken when the inoperability of a support
system results in the inoperability of related supported systems.
Furthermore, the proposed changes involve adding new Safety Function
Determination Program (SFDP) requirements to the Administrative
Section of the LGS TS to ensure that a loss of safety function is
detected and appropriate actions are taken when LCO 3.0.6 is
entered.
The proposed changes do not alter the physical design of any
plant structure, system, or component; therefore, the proposed
changes have no adverse effect on plant operation, or the
availability or operation of any accident mitigation equipment. The
plant response to the design basis accidents does not change.
Also, the proposed changes conform to NRC regulatory
requirements regarding the content of plant TS as identified in 10
CFR 50.36, and also the guidance as approved by the NRC in NUREG-
1433, ``Standard Technical Specifications-General Electric BWR
[boiling-water reactor]/4 Plants.''
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 include the addition of a new LCO 3.0.5 to
the Applicability Section of the LGS TS which allows restoration of
equipment to service under administrative controls when it has been
removed from service or declared inoperable to comply with TS Action
requirements. Operation with the inoperable equipment temporarily
restored to service is not considered a new mode of operation since
existing procedures and administrative controls prevent the
restoration of equipment to service until it is considered capable
of providing the required safety function.
Performance of the operability testing is considered to be a
confirmatory check of that capability which demonstrates that the
equipment is indeed operable. For those times when equipment which
may be temporarily returned to service under administrative controls
is subsequently determined to be inoperable, the resulting condition
is comparable to the equipment having been determined to be
inoperable during operation, with continued operation for a
specified time allowed to complete required TS Actions. Since this
condition has been previously evaluated in the development of the
current TS, the possibility of a new or different kind of accident
from any accident previously evaluated is not created.
The proposed changes also involve the addition of a new LCO
3.0.6 to the
[[Page 77047]]
Applicability Section of the LGS TS that provides appropriate
actions to be taken when the inoperability of a support system
results in the inoperability of related supported systems. Likewise,
the proposed changes involve the addition of new Safety Function
Determination Program (SFDP) requirements to the Administrative
Section of the LGS TS to ensure that a loss of safety function is
detected and appropriate actions are taken when LCO 3.0.6 is
entered.
The proposed changes do not alter the plant configuration (no
new or different type of equipment is being installed) or require
any new or unusual operator actions. The proposed changes do not
alter the safety limits or safety analysis assumptions associated
with the operation of the plant. The proposed changes do not
introduce any new failure modes that could result in a new accident.
The proposed changes do not reduce or adversely affect the
capabilities of any plant structure, system, or component in the
performance of their safety function. Also, the response of the
plant and the operators following the design basis accidents is
unaffected by the proposed changes.
In addition, the proposed changes conform to NRC regulatory
requirements regarding the content of plant TS as identified in 10
CFR 50.36, and also the guidance as approved by the NRC in NUREG-
1433, ``Standard Technical Specifications-General Electric BWR/4
Plants.''
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes involve the addition of a new LCO 3.0.5 to
the Applicability Section of the LGS TS which allows restoration of
equipment to service under administrative controls when it has been
removed from service or declared inoperable to comply with TS Action
requirements.
Temporarily returning inoperable equipment to service for the
purpose of confirming operability, places the plant in a condition
which has been previously evaluated and determined to be acceptable
for short periods. Additionally, the equipment has been determined
to be in a condition which provides the previously determined margin
of safety. The performance of the operability testing simply
confirms the expected result and capability of the equipment.
Additionally, the proposed changes involve the addition of a new
LCO 3.0.6 to the Applicability Section of the LGS TS that provides
appropriate actions to be taken when the inoperability of a support
system results in the inoperability of related supported systems.
The proposed changes also involve adding new Safety Function
Determination Program (SFDP) requirements to the Administrative
Section of the LGS TS to ensure that a loss of safety function is
detected and appropriate actions are taken when LCO 3.0.6 is
entered.
The proposed changes have no adverse effect on plant operation,
or the availability or operation of any accident mitigation
equipment. The plant response to the design basis accidents does not
change. The proposed changes do not adversely affect existing plant
safety margins or the reliability of the equipment assumed to
operate in the safety analyses. There is no change being made to
safety analysis assumptions, safety limits or limiting safety system
settings that would adversely affect plant safety as a result of the
proposed changes.
In addition, the proposed changes conform to NRC regulatory
requirements regarding the content of plant TS as identified in 10
CFR 50.36, and also the guidance as approved by the NRC in NUREG-
1433, ``Standard Technical Specifications-General Electric BWR/4
Plants.''
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: J. Bradley Fewell, Esquire, Vice President
and Deputy General Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300
Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555.
NRC Branch Chief: Meena K. Khanna.
Nebraska Public Power District, Docket No. 50-298, Cooper Nuclear
Station (CNS), Nemaha County, Nebraska
Date of amendment request: August 26, 2014. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14246A203.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise the CNS Technical Specifications (TS) and TS Bases by deleting
Option b from TS Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.5.2.1 and its
associated Bases. Option b allows use of Condensate Storage Tank (CST)
`A' as an alternative source of makeup water to the Reactor Pressure
Vessel during MODE 4 and MODE 5, but CST `A' is not qualified to
Seismic Category I.
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.
It does not alter assumptions or results of analyses that verify
[Emergency Core Cooling Systems (ECCS)] are capable of performing
their design functions during or after a [loss-of-coolant accident
(LOCA)]. It does impose a restriction on plant operation, but the
restriction does not affect any accident initiator, and it improves
accident mitigation capability. The proposed amendment does not
change any results of previously evaluated accidents in the Updated
Safety Analysis Report (USAR) nor events with which the plant must
be able to cope (e.g., earthquake, flooding, turbine missiles, and
fire). ECCS operating procedures and administrative controls that
are affected do not increase the likelihood of an event, nor do they
change mitigating capabilities.
The probability of occurrence remains the same as already
presented in the USAR for initiating events. Thus, since the
probabilities and consequences continue to meet the licensing basis,
they are not significant changes.
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.
This proposed TS amendment makes no physical change in the
plant. It does not change the design functions of ECCS nor
Condensate Storage Systems or components. The restriction on ECCS
alignment preserves their availability and does not create the
possibility of a new or different accident. It does not introduce a
new or different kind of accident due to credible new failure
mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident initiators not considered in
the design and licensing bases.
Therefore, the proposed change does 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 a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
LOCA analysis results are not changed nor affected by the
restriction on ECCS alignment to the suppression pool, because it is
consistent with conditions assumed in the analysis. Thus, the
conservatism in the evaluation and analysis methods are maintained.
The safety margin before the TS change is the same as after the
change. This change does not exceed or alter a design basis or
safety limit and does not significantly reduce the margin of safety.
Since, the drain-down events in MODES 4 and 5 are bounded by the
LOCA analysis, the change to TS which prohibit their alignment to
the CST also do not reduce the margin of safety.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
[[Page 77048]]
Attorney for licensee: John C. McClure, Nebraska Public Power
District, Post Office Box 499, Columbus, NE 68602-0499.
Acting NRC Branch Chief: Eric R. Oesterle.
Southern California Edison Company (SCE), et al., Docket Nos. 50-206,
50-361, 50-362, and 72-041, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station
(SONGS), Units 1, 2 and 3, and Independent Spent Fuel Storage
Installation, San Diego County, California
Date of amendment request: March 31, 2014, as supplemented by
letter dated October 21, 2014. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS
under Accession Nos. ML14092A249 and ML14297A016.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
modify the SONGS facility operating license by revising the emergency
action level (EAL) scheme consistent with the SONGS permanent shutdown
and defueled status. On June 12, 2013, SCE submitted a certification of
permanent cessation of power operations pursuant to 10 CFR
50.82(a)(1)(i), stating that SCE had decided to permanently cease power
operation of SONGS effective June 7, 2013. With the docketing of
subsequent certifications for permanent removal of fuel from the
reactor vessels pursuant to 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1)(ii) on June 28, 2013,
and July 22, 2013, for Units 3 and 2, respectively, the 10 CFR part 50
license for SONGS Units 2 and 3 no longer authorizes operation of the
reactor or emplacement or retention of fuel into the reactor vessel, as
specified in 10 CFR 50.82(a)(2). SONGS, Unit 1, was permanently shut
down in 1993 and is in the decommissioning phase. The proposed changes
to the EAL scheme are being submitted to the NRC for approval prior to
implementation, as required under 10 CFR 50.54(q)(4) and 10 CFR part
50, Appendix E, Section IV.B.2.
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.]
San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) Units 2 and 3 have
permanently ceased operation. The proposed amendment would replace
the existing EAL scheme with an EAL scheme that reflects the
permanently shut-down status of the plant. The proposed Emergency
Action Level Scheme is based on NEI [Nuclear Energy Institute] 99-
01, Revision 6, ``Development of Emergency Action Levels for Non-
Passive Reactors,'' Appendix C for permanently defueled stations.
The proposed amendment has no effect on structures, systems, and
components (SSCs) and no effect on the capability of any plant SSC
to perform its design function. The proposed amendment would not
increase the likelihood of the malfunction of any plant SSC.
The spent fuel pool and its support systems are used for spent
fuel storage. It is expected that SONGS will remain in a wet fuel
storage configuration for approximately five years. In this
condition, the spectrum of postulated accidents is much smaller than
for an operational plant. As a result of the certifications
submitted by SCE in accordance with 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1), and the
consequent removal of authorization to operate the reactor or to
place or retain fuel in the reactor in accordance with 10 CFR
50.82(a)(2), most of the accident scenarios postulated in the SONGS
Final Safety Analysis Report are no longer possible, and there is no
significant increase in consequences of previously postulated
accidents.
The proposed license amendment will not significantly increase
the probability of occurrence of previously evaluated accidents,
since most previously analyzed accidents can no longer occur and the
probability or consequences of the few remaining are unaffected by
the proposed amendment.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
[Response: No.]
The proposed amendment does not involve any change in the
plant's design, configuration, or operation. The proposed changes
have no impact on facility SSCs affecting the safe storage of
irradiated fuel, or in the methods of operation of such SSCs, or on
the handling and storage of irradiated fuel itself. The proposed EAL
scheme is for the plant's defueled condition. There is no impact on
the prevention, diagnosis, or mitigation of accidents previously
evaluated. Accidents cannot result in different or more adverse
failure modes or accidents than those previously evaluated because
the reactors are permanently shut down and defueled and SONGS is no
longer authorized to operate the reactors.
The proposed EAL scheme does not make changes to the systems
credited in the remaining relevant accident analyses. No changes are
being made to parameters within which the plant is normally operated
or in the setpoints which initiate protective or mitigating actions,
and no new failure modes are being introduced or new accident
precursors that could initiate a new or different kind of accident.
Proper control and monitoring of safety significant parameters and
activities such as dose assessments to determine any radiological
releases and provisions for communications and coordination with
offsite organizations will be maintained.
The proposed amendment does not introduce a new mode of plant
operation or new accident precursors, does not involve any physical
alterations to plant configuration, or make changes to system
setpoints that could initiate a new or different kind of accident.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
[Response: No.]
The proposed amendment to the EAL scheme will provide thresholds
for initiation of Emergency Planning actions that are commensurate
with the permanently defueled condition of the station. The proposed
amendment does not involve a change in the plant's design,
configuration, or operation. The proposed amendment does not affect
either the way in which the plant SSCs perform their safety function
or its design and licensing bases.
Because the 10 CFR part 50 licenses for SONGS no longer
authorize operation of the reactor or emplacement or retention of
fuel into the reactor vessel, as specified in 10 CFR 50.82(a)(2),
the occurrence of postulated accidents associated with reactor
operation is no longer possible. The proposed amendment does not
adversely affect the inputs or assumptions of any of the design
basis analyses that impact the applicable postulated accidents.
The proposed changes to the SONGS EAL scheme do not impact the
safe storage of irradiated fuel. The revised scheme does not affect
any requirements for SSCs credited in the remaining analyses of
applicable postulated accidents; and as such, does not significantly
reduce the margin of safety associated with these accident analyses.
Postulated design basis accidents involving the reactor are no
longer possible because the reactor is permanently shut down and
defueled and SONGS is no longer authorized to operate the reactors.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Walker A. Matthews, Esquire, Southern
California Edison Company, 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue, Rosemead,
California 91770.
NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.
[[Page 77049]]
Southern California Edison Company (SCE), et al., Docket Nos. 50-206,
50-361, 50-362, and 72-041, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station
(SONGS), Units 1, 2 and 3, and Independent Spent Fuel Storage
Installation, San Diego County, California
Date of amendment request: March 31, 2014, as supplemented by
letter dated October 21, 2014. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS
under Accession Nos. ML14092A314 and ML14345A338.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
modify the SONGS facility operating license by revising the emergency
plan consistent with the SONGS permanent shutdown and defueled status.
On June 12, 2013, SCE submitted a certification of permanent cessation
of power operations pursuant to the 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1)(i), stating that
SCE had decided to permanently cease power operation of SONGS effective
June 7, 2013. With the docketing of subsequent certifications for
permanent removal of fuel from the reactor vessels pursuant to 10 CFR
50.82(a)(1)(ii) on June 28, 2013, and July 22, 2013, for Units 3 and 2,
respectively, the 10 CFR part 50 license for SONGS, Units 2 and 3, no
longer authorizes operation of the reactor or emplacement or retention
of fuel into the reactor vessel, as specified in 10 CFR 50.82(a)(2).
SONGS, Unit 1, was permanently shut down in 1993 and is in the
decommissioning phase. The proposed changes to the emergency plan are
being submitted to the NRC for approval prior to implementation, as
required under 10 CFR 50.54(q)(4) and 10 CFR part 50, Appendix E,
Section IV.B.2.
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.
San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS Units 2 and 3 have
permanently ceased operation (Reference 6.5.1). The proposed
amendment would replace the Radiological Emergency Response Plan
(RERP) with the Permanently Defueled Emergency Plan (PDEP) to
correspond to the reduced scope of remaining accidents and events.
The proposed changes discontinue offsite emergency planning
activities and reduce the scope of onsite emergency planning as a
result of the substantially lower onsite and offsite radiological
consequences of accidents possible at SONGS. The proposed amendment
is consistent with the criterion discussed in Interim Staff Guidance
[ISG] NSIR/DPR [Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response/
Division of Preparedness & Response]-ISG-02, ``Emergency Planning
Exemption Requests for Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants.''
The proposed amendment has no effect on structures, systems, and
components (SSCs) and no effect on the capability of any plant SSC
to perform its design function. The proposed amendment would not
increase the likelihood of the malfunction of any plant SSC.
The spent fuel pool and its support systems are used for spent
fuel storage. It is estimated that SONGS will remain in a wet fuel
storage configuration for approximately five years. In this
condition, the spectrum of postulated accidents is much smaller than
for an operational plant. As a result of the certifications
submitted by SCE in accordance with 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1), and the
consequent removal of authorization to operate the reactor or to
place or retain fuel in the reactor in accordance with 10 CFR
50.82(a)(2), most of the accident scenarios postulated in the SONGS
Final Safety Analysis Report are no longer possible. The proposed
amendment continues to maintain the effectiveness for coping with
radiological emergencies that are postulated to occur in the
permanently defueled condition. The ability to identify, assess, and
mitigate these remaining events will be maintained such that there
will be no significant increase in the consequences of any event.
The proposed license amendment will not significantly increase
the probability of occurrence of previously evaluated accidents,
since most previously analyzed accidents can no longer occur and the
probability or consequences of the few remaining are unaffected by
the proposed amendment.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment does not involve any change in the
plant's design, configuration, or operation. The proposed changes
discontinue offsite emergency planning activities and reduce the
scope of onsite emergency planning as a result of the substantially
lower onsite and offsite radiological consequences of accidents
possible at SONGS. The proposed changes have no impact on facility
SSCs affecting the safe storage of irradiated fuel, or on the
methods of operation of such SSCs, or on the handling and storage of
irradiated fuel itself. The SONGS PDEP is for the plant's defueled
condition. There is no impact on the prevention, diagnosis, or
mitigation [of] accidents previously evaluated. Accidents cannot
result in different or more adverse failure modes or accidents than
those previously evaluated because the reactors are permanently shut
down and defueled and SONGS is no longer authorized to operate the
reactors.
The proposed PDEP does not make changes to the systems credited
in the remaining relevant accident analyses. The proposed PDEP
continues to require proper control and monitoring of safety
significant parameters and activities and continues to require dose
assessments to determine any radiological releases and to maintain
prompt communications with offsite organizations.
The proposed amendment does not result in any new mechanisms
that could initiate damage to the remaining relevant safety barriers
for defueled plants (i.e., fuel cladding and spent fuel pool
inventory). Since extended operation in a defueled condition is the
only operation currently allowed, and therefore bounded by the
existing analyses, such a condition does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident.
The proposed amendment does not introduce a new mode of plant
operation or new accident precursors, does not involve any physical
alterations to plant configuration, or make changes to system
setpoints that could initiate a new or different kind of accident.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment does not involve a change in the plant's
design, configuration, or operation. The proposed amendment does not
affect either the way in which the plant SSCs perform their safety
function or its design and licensing bases.
Because the 10 CFR part 50 licenses for SONGS no longer
authorize operation of the reactor or emplacement or retention of
fuel into the reactor vessel, as specified in 10 CFR 50.82(a)(2),
the occurrence of postulated accidents associated with reactor
operation is no longer possible. The proposed amendment does not
adversely affect the inputs or assumptions of any of the remaining
design basis analyses.
The proposed changes that are limited to the SONGS PDEP do not
impact the safe storage of irradiated fuel. The revised PDEP does
not affect any requirements for SSCs credited in the remaining
analyses of applicable postulated accidents; and as such, does not
significantly reduce the margin of safety associated with these
accident analyses. Postulated design basis accidents involving the
reactor are no longer possible because the reactor is permanently
shut down and defueled and SONGS is no longer authorized to operate
the reactors.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration.
[[Page 77050]]
Attorney for licensee: Walker A. Matthews, Esquire, Southern
California Edison Company, 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue, Rosemead,
California 91770.
NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.
South Carolina Electric and Gas Company, South Carolina Public Service
Authority, Docket No. 50-395, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 1,
Fairfield County, South Carolina
Date of amendment request: November 12, 2014. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS Accession No. ML14324A217.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment includes a
revision to the site's Radiation Emergency Plan to relocate the
Technical Support Center.
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 to the VCSNS emergency plan does not impact
the physical function of plant structures, systems, or components
(SSC) or the manner in which SSCs perform their design function. The
proposed changes neither adversely affect accident initiators or
precursors, nor alter design assumptions. The proposed changes do
not alter or prevent the ability of SSCs to perform their intended
function to mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within
assumed acceptance limits. No operating procedures or administrative
controls that function to prevent or mitigate accidents are affected
by the proposed changes.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of
the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be
installed or removed) or a change in the method of plant operation.
The proposed change will not introduce failure modes that could
result in a new accident, and the change does not alter assumptions
made in the safety analysis. The proposed change to the location of
the TSC is not an initiator of any accidents.
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.
Margin of safety is associated with the ability of the fission
product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, reactor coolant system
pressure boundary, and containment structure) to limit the level of
radiation dose to the public. The proposed change does not impact
operation of the plant or its response to transients or accidents.
The change does not affect the Technical Specifications or the
operating license. The proposed change does not involve a change in
the method of plant operation, and no accident analyses will be
affected by the proposed changes. Additionally, the proposed change
will not relax any criteria used to establish safety limits and will
not relax any safety system settings. The safety analysis acceptance
criteria are not affected by these changes. The proposed change will
not result in plant operation in a configuration outside the design
basis. The proposed change does not adversely affect systems that
respond to safely shut down the plant and to maintain the plant in a
safe shutdown condition. The emergency plan will continue to
activate an emergency response commensurate with the extent of
degradation of plant safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: J. Hagood Hamilton, Jr., South Carolina
Electric & Gas Company, Post Office Box 764, Columbia, South Carolina
29218.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
III. Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses
and Combined Licenses
During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice,
the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has
determined for each of these amendments that the application complies
with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,
as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The
Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the
Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set
forth in the license amendment.
A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility
operating license or combined license, as applicable, proposed no
significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a
hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the Federal
Register as indicated.
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that
these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in
accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b),
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be
prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an
environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in
10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment,
it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the action see (1) the
applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's
related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as
indicated. All of these items can be accessed as described in the
``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' section of this
document.
Duke Energy Progress, Docket No. 50-261, H. B. Robinson Steam Electric
Plant, Unit 2, Hartsville, South Carolina
Date of amendment request: September 10, 2013, as supplemented by
letter dated April 8, 2014.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises Technical
Specification 3.4.12, ``Low Temperature Overpressure Protection
System,'' to add a Note that does not require the surveillance be
performed until 12 hours after decreasing the reactor coolant system
cold temperature to less than or equal to 350 degrees Fahrenheit, which
is the temperature when the Low Temperature Overpressure Protection
operability controlled by TS 3.4.12 is credited. In addition, the Note
and Frequency requirements are being revised to be consistent with
NUREG-1431, Revision 3, ``Standard Technical Specifications
Westinghouse Plants,'' dated June 2004.
Date of issuance: October 15, 2014.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 120 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 238. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML14260A380; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-23: Amendment revised
the Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 24, 2014 (79 FR
35803). The supplemental letter dated April 8, 2014, provided
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand
the scope of the application as
[[Page 77051]]
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 15, 2014.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-368, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit
2, Pope County, Arkansas
Date of application for amendment: January 28, 2013, as
supplemented by letters dated September 16, 2013, May 12, 2014, and
August 12, 2014.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical
Specification (TS) requirements related to direct current (DC)
electrical systems as specified in TS Limiting Condition for Operation
(LCO) 3.8.2.3, ``DC Distribution--Operating,'' and LCO 3.8.2.4, ``DC
Distribution--Shutdown.'' A new TS LCO 3.8.6, ``Battery Parameters,''
is created, and a new ``Battery Monitoring and Maintenance Program'' is
now required under TS Section 6.5, ``Administrative Controls--Programs
and Manuals.'' These changes are consistent with the NRC-approved
Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-500, Revision
2, ``DC Electrical Rewrite--Update to TSTF-360.'' The availability of
this TS improvement was announced in the Federal Register on September
1, 2011 (76 FR 54510).
Date of issuance: December 4, 2014.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 297. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML14302A015; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-6: Amendment revised the
Technical Specifications/license.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 30, 2013 (78 FR
25313). The supplemental letters dated September 16, 2013, May 12,
2014, and August 12, 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 December 4, 2014.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-313 and 50-368, Arkansas
Nuclear One, Units 1 and 2, Pope County, Arkansas
Date of application for amendment: December 17, 2013, as
supplemented by letter dated May 13, 2014.
Brief description of amendment: The amendments revised the full
implementation date (Milestone 8) of the Arkansas Nuclear One, Units 1
and 2, Cyber Security Plan.
Date of issuance: December 8, 2014.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
immediately upon issuance.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 1--251; Unit 2--298. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14322A206, documents related
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with
the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-51 and NPF-6: The
amendments revised the licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 6, 2014 (79 FR
32763). The supplemental letter dated May 13, 2014, provided additional
information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of
the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's
original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as
published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 8, 2014.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-333, James A.
FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant, Oswego County, New York
Date of amendment request: January 31, 2014, as supplemented by
letter dated July 2, 2014.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the James A.
FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant Cyber Security Plan (CSP)
Implementation Schedule Milestone 8 full implementation date and
revised the associated Physical Protection license condition. The CSP
Milestone 8 full implementation date was changed from December 15,
2014, to June 30, 2016.
Date of issuance: December 1, 2014.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be
implemented within 30 days.
Amendment No.: 308. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML14202A372; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-59: The amendment
revised the Operating License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 6, 2014 (79 FR
25901). The supplemental letter dated July 2, 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 December 1, 2014.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-255, Palisades Nuclear
Plant, Van Buren County, Michigan
Date of application for amendment: December 30, 2013, as
supplemented by letter dated May 22, 2014.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises the date of
the Cyber Security Plan (CSP) Implementation Milestone 8 and the
associated existing facility operating license condition regarding full
implementation of the Cyber Security Plan. The CSP and associated
implementation schedule was previously approved by the NRC staff by
letter dated July 28, 2011 (ADAMS Accession No. ML111801243).
Date of issuance: December 8, 2014.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days.
Amendment No.: 253. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML14237A144; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-20: Amendment revised
the Renewed Facility Operating License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 15, 2014 (79 FR
21297). The supplement letter dated May 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.
[[Page 77052]]
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 8, 2014.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. STN 50-456 and STN 50-457,
Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, Will County, Illinois
Docket Nos. STN 50-454 and STN 50-455, Byron Station, Units 1 and 2,
Ogle County, Illinois
Date of application for amendment: April 17, 2014 (ADAMS Accession
No. ML14111A257).
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised specific
Required Action Notes in the Braidwood and Byron Technical
Specification (TS) Sections 3.3.1 and 3.3.2 that are no longer
applicable following installation and implementation of the bypass test
instrumentation modifications at the four Braidwood and Byron units.
The change reflects the specific Functions that have bypass test
capability installed and the specific Functions that do not have bypass
test capability installed.
Date of issuance: December 7, 2014.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 180/186. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS
under Accession No. ML14239A427; documents related to these amendments
are listed in the Safety Evaluation (SE) enclosed with the amendments.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-72, NPF-77, NPF-37, and NPF-66:
The amendments revised the TSs and License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 22, 2014 (79 FR
42546).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a SE dated December 7, 2014.
Northern States Power Company--Minnesota, Docket No. 50-263, Monticello
Nuclear Generating Plant (MNGP), Wright County, Minnesota; and Northern
States Power Company (NSPC)--Minnesota, Docket Nos. 50-282 and 50-306,
Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant (PINGP), Units 1 and 2, Goodhue
County, Minnesota
Date of amendment request: November 27, 2013, as supplemented by
letter dated May 5, 2014.
Brief description of amendment: The amendments revised the date of
the Cyber Security Plan (CSP) Implementation Milestone 8 and the
existing operating license Physical Protection license condition
regarding full implementation of the CSP. The CSP and associated
implementation schedule were previously approved by the NRC staff in
letters dated July 29, 2011 (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML11186A992 and
ML11187A231).
Date of issuance: November 28, 2014.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: MNGP--186; PINGP, Unit 1--212; Unit 2--200. A
publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14239A257;
documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety
Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-22, DPR-42, and DPR-60: These
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and the
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 5, 2014 (79 FR
45493).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated November 28, 2014.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
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: December 19, 2012, as supplemented by
letter dated September 25, 2014.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments reduce the reactor
steam dome pressure specified within TS 2.1.1, ``Reactor Core SLs
[Safety Limits].'' This change resolves a condition reported by General
Electric (GE) in accordance with 10 CFR part 21, ``Reporting of Defects
and Noncompliance,'' concerning a potential for SSES to momentarily
violate TS 2.1.1.1 and 2.1.1.2 during a Pressure Regulator Failure
Maximum Demand (Open) Pressure Regulator Failure Open transient.
Date of issuance: December 8, 2014.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment Nos.: 261 for Unit 1 and 242 for Unit 2. A publicly-
available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14321A008;
documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety
Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-14 and NPF-22: The amendments
revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical
Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 2, 2013, (78 FR
19754). The supplemental letter dated September 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 staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 8, 2014.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 15th day of December 2014.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Michele G. Evans,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2014-29906 Filed 12-22-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P