[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 91 (Tuesday, May 12, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27193-27204]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-11225]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2015-0117]
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 April 16, 2015, to April 29, 2015. The last
biweekly notice was published on April 28, 2015.
DATES: Comments must be filed by June 11, 2015. A request for a hearing
must be filed by July 13, 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-2015-0117. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-
3463; 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: OWFN-12-H08, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555-0001.
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting
comments, see ``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lynn M. Ronewicz, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1927, email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments
A. Obtaining Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0117 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-2015-0117.
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-2015-0117, facility name, unit
number(s), application date, and subject in your comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact
information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your
comment submission. The NRC 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
[[Page 27194]]
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 that 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.
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
[[Page 27195]]
documents over the internet, or in some cases to mail copies on
electronic storage media. Participants may not submit paper copies of
their filings unless they seek an exemption in accordance with the
procedures described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10
days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the
Office of the Secretary by email at [email protected], or by
telephone at 301-415-1677, to request (1) a digital identification (ID)
certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or
representative) to digitally sign documents and access the E-Submittal
server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise
the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a request or
petition for hearing (even in instances in which the participant, or
its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-issued digital ID
certificate). Based upon this information, the Secretary will establish
an electronic docket for the hearing in this proceeding if the
Secretary has not already established an electronic docket.
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is
available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/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, 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.
Arizona Public Service Company, et al., Docket Nos. STN 50-528, STN 50-
529, and STN 50-530, Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2,
and 3, Maricopa County, Arizona
Date of amendment request: February 27, 2015. A publicly-available
version is
[[Page 27196]]
in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15065A031.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise
Technical Specification (TS) 1.3, ``Completion Times''; TS 3.7.5,
``Auxiliary Feedwater (AFW) System''; TS 3.8.1, ``AC [Alternating
Current] Sources--Operating''; and TS 3.8.9, ``Distribution Systems--
Operating,'' to remove the second completion times. The change would
also revise Example 1.3-3 in TS 1.3, ``Completion Times,'' by adding a
discussion of administrative controls to combinations of Conditions to
ensure that the Completion Times for those conditions are not
inappropriately extended.
The proposed changes are consistent with the NRC-approved Technical
Specification Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-439-A, Revision 2,
``Eliminate Second Completion Times Limiting Time From Discovery of
Failure to Meet an LCO [Limiting Condition of Operation],'' dated June
20, 2005 (ADAMS Accession No. ML051860296).
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 change proposed by incorporating TSTF-439-A, Revision 2,
eliminates certain Completion Times from the Technical
Specifications. Completion Times are not an initiator of any
accident previously evaluated. As a result, the probability of an
accident previously evaluated is not affected. The consequences of
an accident during the revised Completion Times are no different
than the consequences of the same accident during the existing
Completion Times. As a result, the consequences of an accident
previously evaluated are not affected by this change. The proposed
change does not alter or prevent the ability of structures, systems,
or components from performing their intended function to mitigate
the consequences of an initiating event within the assumed
acceptance limits.
The proposed change to modify certain Completion Times does not
affect the source term, containment isolation, or radiological
release assumptions used in evaluating the radiological consequences
of an accident previously evaluated. Further, the proposed change
does not increase the types or amounts of radioactive effluent that
may be released offsite, nor significantly increase the cumulative
occupational/public radiation exposures. The proposed change is
consistent with the safety analysis assumptions and resultant
consequences.
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 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. The proposed changes do not alter any assumptions made in
the safety analyses.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in the margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change to delete the second [Completion Time] and
the related example of the second Completion Time does not alter the
manner in which safety limits, limiting safety systems settings or
limiting conditions for operation are determined. The safety
analysis acceptance criteria are not affected by this change. The
proposed change will not result in plant operation in a
configuration outside of the design basis.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
reduction in the margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
that review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
request for amendments involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Michael G. Green, Senior Regulatory Counsel,
Pinnacle West Capital Corporation, P.O. Box 52034, Mail Station 8695,
Phoenix, AZ 85072-2034.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370, McGuire
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Date of amendment request: March 23, 2015. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15097A010.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would modify the
definition of RATED THERMAL POWER and delete a footnote that allowed
for staggered implementation of the previously approved Measurement
Uncertainty Recapture Power Uprate.
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.
This LAR [license amendment request] proposes administrative
non-technical changes only. These proposed changes do not adversely
affect accident initiators or precursors nor alter the design
assumptions, conditions, or configurations of the facility. The
proposed changes do not alter or prevent the ability of structures,
systems[,] and components (SSCs) to perform their intended function
to mitigate the consequences of an initiating event witin the
assumed acceptance limits.
Given the above discussion, it is concluded the proposed
amendment does not significantly increase the probability or
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The LAR proposes administrative non-technical changes only. The
proposed changes will not alter the design requirements of any SSC
or its function during accident conditions. No new or different
accidents result from the changes proposed. The changes do not
involve a physical alteration of the plant or any changes in methods
governing normal plant operation. The changes do not alter
assumptions made in the safety analysis.
Given the above discussion, it is concluded 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.
This LAR proposes administrative non-technical changes only. The
proposed changes do not alter the manner in which safety limits,
limiting safety system settings or limiting conditions for operation
are determined. The safety analysis acceptance criteria are not
affected by these changes. The proposed changes will not result in
plant operation in a configuration outside the design basis. The
proposed changes do not adversely affect systems that respond to
safely shutdown the plant and to maintain the plant in a safe
shutdown condition.
Given the above discussion, it is concluded [that] the proposed
amendment does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of
safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Lara S. Nichols, Associate General Counsel,
Duke Energy Corporation, 526 South Church Street--EC07H, Charlotte, NC
28202.
[[Page 27197]]
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-461, Clinton Power
Station (CPS), Unit 1, DeWitt County, Illinois
Date of amendment request: November 17, 2014, as supplemented by
letter dated April 21, 2015. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS
under Accession Nos. ML14321A882 and ML15111A258, respectively.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise
technical specification (TS) 5.5.2, ``Primary Coolant Sources Outside
Containment,'' to change the integrated leak testing frequency for
systems subject to TS 5.5.2. The proposed amendment was initially
published in the Federal Register Biweekly Notice on February 17, 2015
(80 FR 8361).
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 to the CPS, Unit 1, TS 5.5.2, ``Primary
Coolant Sources Outside Containment'' program, does not involve a
physical change to the plant or a change in the manner in which the
plant is operated or controlled. The proposed amendment affects only
the interval at which integrated system leak tests are performed,
not the effectiveness of the integrated leak test requirements for
the identified systems. The proposed change effectively results in
the performance of the integrated system leak tests at the same
frequency that these tests are currently being performed.
Incorporation of an allowance to extend the 24-month interval by 25%
does not significantly degrade the reliability that results from
performing the surveillance at its specified frequency.
Implementation of the proposed change will continue to provide
adequate assurance that during design basis accidents, the
containment and its components would limit leakage rates to less
than the values assumed in the plant safety analyses.
Test intervals are not considered as initiators of any accident
previously evaluated. As a result, the probability of any accident
previously evaluated is not significantly increased by the proposed
amendment. TS 5.5.2 continues to require the performance of periodic
integrated system leak tests. As stated in TS 5.5.2, the required
plan provides controls to minimize leakage from those portions of
systems outside containment that could contain highly radioactive
fluids during a serious transient or accident to levels as low as
practicable. Therefore, accident analysis assumptions will still be
verified. The proposed change does not impact the purpose of this
plan. As a result, the consequences of any accident previously
evaluated are not significantly increased.
Therefore, the probability and consequences of an accident
previously evaluated will not be increased by this proposed change.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The testing requirements, to minimize leakage from those
portions of systems outside containment that could contain highly
radioactive fluids during a serious transient or accident, exist to
ensure the plant's ability to mitigate the consequences of an
accident and do not involve any accident precursors or initiators.
The proposed amendment affects only the interval at which integrated
system leak tests are performed; they do not alter the design or
physical configuration of the plant. 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 currently operated or controlled.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not alter the manner in which safety
limits, limiting safety system setpoints, or limiting conditions for
operation are determined. The specific requirements and conditions
of the primary coolant sources outside containment program, as
proposed, will continue to ensure that the leakage from the
identified systems outside containment is minimized. The proposed
amendment provides operating flexibility without significantly
affecting plant operation.
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: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel,
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL
60555.
NRC Branch Chief: Travis L. Tate.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-317 and 50-318, Calvert
Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, Calvert County, Maryland
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-410, Nine Mile Point
Nuclear Station, Unit 2, Oswego County, New York
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-244, R.E. Ginna Nuclear
Power Plant, Wayne County, New York
Date of amendment request: July 10, 2014. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14191A255.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise and
add several Technical Specification surveillance requirements (SRs) to
address concerns discussed in Generic Letter 2008-01, ``Managing Gas
Accumulation in Emergency Core Cooling, Decay Heat Removal, and
Containment Spray Systems.'' These changes are consistent with
Technical Specification Task Force Traveler 523, Revision 2, ``Generic
Letter 2008-01, Managing Gas Accumulation.''
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises or adds SRs that require
verification that the Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS), Residual
Heat Removal (RHR) System, Shutdown Cooling (SDC) System, the
Containment Spray (CS) System, and the Reactor Core Isolation
Cooling (RCIC) System, as appropriate, are not rendered inoperable
due to accumulated gas and to provide allowances which permit
performance of the revised verification. Gas accumulation in the
subject systems is not an initiator of any accident previously
evaluated. As a result, the probability of any accident previously
evaluated is not significantly increased. The proposed SRs ensure
that the subject systems continue to be capable to perform their
assumed safety function and are not rendered inoperable due to gas
accumulation. Thus, the consequences of any accident previously
evaluated are not significantly increased.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
[[Page 27198]]
The proposed change revises or adds SRs that require
verification that the ECCS, RHR, SDC, CS, and RCIC systems, as
appropriate, are not rendered inoperable due to accumulated gas and
to provide allowances which permit performance of the revised
verification. The proposed change does not involve a physical
alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment
will be installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant
operation. In addition, the proposed change does not impose any new
or different requirements that could initiate an accident. The
proposed change does not alter assumptions made in the safety
analysis and is consistent with the safety analysis assumptions.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises or adds SRs that require
verification that the ECCS, RHR, SDC, CS, and RCIC systems, as
appropriate, are not rendered inoperable due to accumulated gas and
to provide allowances which permit performance of the revised
verification. The proposed change adds new requirements to manage
gas accumulation in order to ensure the subject systems are capable
of performing their assumed safety functions. The proposed SRs are
more comprehensive than the current SRs and will ensure that the
assumptions of the safety analysis are protected. The proposed
change does not adversely affect any current plant safety margins or
the reliability of the equipment assumed in the safety analysis.
Therefore, there are no changes being made to any safety analysis
assumptions, safety limits or limiting safety system settings that
would adversely affect plant safety as a result of the proposed
change.
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: J. Bradley Fewell, Exelon Generation, 200
Exelon Way, Kennett Square, PA 19348.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Michael I. Dudek.
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-334 and
50-412, Beaver Valley Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Beaver County,
Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: April 1, 2015. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15092A569.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would change the
Beaver Valley Power Station, Units 1 and 2 (BVPS-1 and BVPS-2),
technical specifications. Specifically, the proposed license amendment
would revise various sections associated with steam generators and
would include changes that are consistent with the guidance provided in
Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Traveler 510, Revision 2,
``Revision to Steam Generator Program Inspection Frequencies and Tube
Sample Selection'' (ADAMS Accession No. ML110610350).
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 amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to Technical Specification 5.5.5.2.f.3
replaces the date and outage when all Alloy 800 sleeves shall be
removed from service with a limitation on the individual sleeve
service life from the date of installation. The allowed maximum
service life previously approved for Alloy 800 sleeves remains
unchanged. Since the maximum service life of the Alloy 800 sleeves
is unchanged, the probability of a failure due to degradation does
not increase.
Implementation of the proposed changes to TS 5.5.5.2.f.3 have no
significant effect on either the configuration of the plant or the
manner in which is it operated. The consequences of a hypothetical
failure of the leak-limiting Alloy 800 sleeve/tube assembly are
bound by the current steam generator tube rupture (SGTR) analysis
described in the BVPS-2 Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR)
because the total number of plugged SG tubes (including equivalency
associated with installed sleeves) is required to be consistent with
accident analysis assumptions. A main steam line break or feedwater
line break would not cause a SGTR since the sleeves are analyzed for
a maximum accident differential pressure greater than that predicted
in the BVPS-2 accident analysis. The sleeve/tube assembly leakage
during plant operation would be minimal and is well within the
allowable Technical Specification leakage limits and accident
analysis assumptions, neither of which would be changed to
compensate for the repair method.
The proposed changes to TSs 3.4.20, 5.5.5, and 5.6.6 are
consistent with TSTF-510, editorial corrections, and clarifications.
Changes that are consistent with TSTF-510 and other editorial
corrections and clarifications do not change the physical plant or
how it is operated; therefore they cannot affect the probability or
consequence of a previously-evaluated accident. A proposed change
modifies the frequency of verification of SG [steam generator] tube
integrity and SG tube sample selection. The proposed SG tube
inspection frequency and sample selection criteria will continue to
ensure that the SG tubes are inspected such that the probability of
a SGTR is not increased. The consequences of a SGTR are bounded by
the conservative assumptions in the design basis accident analysis.
The proposed changes will not cause the consequences of a SGTR to
exceed those assumptions.
Therefore, it is concluded that these changes do not involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
Proposed changes to Technical Specification 5.5.5.2.f.3 replaces
the date and outage when all Alloy 800 sleeves shall be removed from
service with a limitation on the individual sleeve service life from
the date of installation. The allowed maximum service life
previously approved for Alloy 800 sleeves remains unchanged.
Implementation of these proposed changes have no significant
effect on either the configuration of the plant or the manner in
which it is operated. The leak-limiting Alloy-800 sleeves are
designed using the applicable ASME Code as guidance and meet the
objectives of the original SG tubing. As a result, the functions of
the SG will not be significantly affected by the installation of the
proposed sleeve. Therefore, the only credible failure mode for the
sleeve or tube is to rupture, which has already been evaluated. No
new failure modes, malfunctions, or accident initiators have been
created. The continued integrity of the installed sleeve/tube
assembly is periodically verified as required by the Technical
Specifications and a sleeved tube will be plugged on detection of a
flaw in the sleeve or in the pressure boundary portion of the
original tube wall in the sleeve-to-tube joint.
The proposed changes to TSs 3.4.20, 5.5.5, and 5.6.6 are changes
consistent with TSTF-510, editorial corrections, and clarification.
These changes do not affect the operation of the SGs or the ability
of the SGs to perform their design or safety functions; therefore
they do not create new failure modes, malfunctions, or accident
initiators.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The SG tubes in pressurized water reactors are an integral part
of the reactor coolant pressure boundary and, as such, are relied
upon to maintain the primary system's pressure and inventory. As
part of the reactor coolant pressure boundary, the SG tubes are
unique in that they are also relied upon as a heat transfer surface
between the primary and secondary systems such that residual heat
can be removed from the primary system. In addition, the SG tubes
also isolate
[[Page 27199]]
the radioactive fission products in the primary coolant from the
secondary system. In summary, the safety function of a SG is
maintained by ensuring the integrity of its tubes.
Proposed changes to Technical Specification 5.5.5.2.f.3 replaces
the date and outage when all Alloy 800 sleeves shall be removed from
service with a limitation on the individual sleeve service life from
the date of installation. The allowed maximum service life
previously approved for Alloy 800 sleeves remains unchanged.
The sleeve and portions of the installed sleeve/tube assembly
that represent the reactor coolant pressure boundary will be
monitored and a sleeved tube will be plugged on detection of a flaw
in the sleeve or in the pressure boundary portion of the original
tube wall in the leak-limiting sleeve/tube assembly. Design criteria
and design verification testing ensures that the margin of safety is
not significantly different from the original SG tubes.
The proposed changes to TSs 3.4.20, 5.5.5, and 5.6.6 are changes
consistent with TSTF-510, editorial corrections, and clarifications.
The proposed changes will continue to require monitoring of the
physical condition of the SG tubes such that there will not be a
reduction in the margin of safety compared to the current
requirements.
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: David W. Jenkins, FirstEnergy Nuclear
Operating Company, FirstEnergy Corporation, 76 South Main Street,
Akron, OH 44308.
NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.
Florida Power & Light Company (FPL), Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251,
Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Units 3 and 4, Miami-Dade County,
Florida
Date of amendment request: April 9, 2014, as supplemented by
letters dated February 20, 2015, and April 3, 2015. Publicly available
versions are in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML14105A042, ML15069A153,
and ML15113A311, respectively.
Description of amendment request: The NRC staff has previously made
a proposed determination that the amendment request dated April 9,
2014, involves no significant hazards consideration (79 FR 42551; July
22, 2014). Subsequently, by letter dated April 3, 2015, the licensee
provided additional information that expanded the scope of the
amendment request as originally noticed. Accordingly, this notice
supersedes the previous notice in its entirety.
The amendment would revise the Technical Specifications (TSs) by
relocating specific surveillance frequency requirements to a licensee-
controlled program with implementation of Nuclear Energy Institute
(NEI) 04-10 (Revision 1), ``Risk-Informed Technical Specification
Initiative 5b, Risk-Informed Method for Control of Surveillance
Frequencies'' (ADAMS Accession No. ML071360456). The licensee stated
that the NEI 04-10 methodology provides reasonable acceptance
guidelines and methods for evaluating the risk increase of proposed
changes to surveillance frequencies, consistent with Regulatory Guide
1.177, ``An Approach for Plant-Specific, Risk-Informed Decisionmaking:
Technical Specifications'' (ADAMS Accession No. ML003740176). The
licensee stated that the changes are consistent with NRC-approved
Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Standard Technical
Specifications change TSTF-425, Revision 3, ``Relocate Surveillance
Frequencies to Licensee Control--RITSTF [Risk-Informed TSTF] Initiative
5b,'' Revision 3 (ADAMS Accession No. ML090850642). The Federal
Register notice published on July 6, 2009 (74 FR 31996), announced the
availability of TSTF-425, Revision 3. In the supplement dated April 3,
2015, the licensee requested additional surveillance frequencies be
relocated to the licensee-controlled program, editorial changes,
administrative deviations from TSTF-425, and other changes resulting
from differences between the Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 TSs and the TSs
on which TSTF-425 is based.
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 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 relocates the specified frequencies for
periodic surveillance requirements to licensee control under a new
Surveillance Frequency Control Program. Surveillance frequencies are
not an initiator to any accident previously evaluated. As a result,
the probability of any accident previously evaluated is not
significantly increased. The systems and components required by the
Technical Specifications for which the surveillance frequencies are
relocated are still required to be operable, meet the acceptance
criteria for the surveillance requirements, and be capable of
performing any mitigation function assumed in the accident analysis.
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 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 changes relocate the surveillance frequencies for
Surveillance Requirements that have a set periodicity from the TS to
a licensee controlled Surveillance Frequency Control Program. This
change does not alter any existing surveillance frequencies. Within
the constraints of the Program, the licensee will be able to change
the periodicity of these surveillance requirements. Relocating the
surveillance frequencies does not impact the ability of structures,
systems or components (SSCs) from performing there [sic] design
functions, and thus, does not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
No new or different accidents result from utilizing 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 changes do not alter assumptions made in
the safety analysis assumptions and current plant operating
practice.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in
the margin of safety?
Response: No.
The design, operation, testing methods, and acceptance criteria
for systems, structures, and components (SSCs), specified in
applicable codes and standards (or alternatives approved for use by
the NRC) will continue to be met as described in the plant licensing
basis (including the final safety analysis report and bases to TS),
since these are not affected by changes to the surveillance
frequencies. Similarly, there is no impact to safety analysis
acceptance criteria as described in the plant licensing basis. To
evaluate a change in the relocated surveillance frequency, FPL will
perform a probabilistic risk evaluation using the guidance contained
in NRC-approved NEI 04-10, Revision 1, in accordance with the TS
Surveillance Frequency Control Program. NEI 04-10, Revision 1,
methodology provides reasonable acceptance guidelines and methods
for evaluating the risk increase of proposed changes to surveillance
frequencies consistent with Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.177, ``An
Approach for Plant-Specific, Risk-Informed Decision-Making:
Technical Specifications.''
[[Page 27200]]
Therefore, the proposed changes do 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 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: William S. Blair, Managing Attorney--
Nuclear, Florida Power & Light Company, 700 Universe Blvd., MS LAW/JB,
Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420.
NRC Branch Chief: Shana R. Helton.
NextEra Energy Duane Arnold, LLC, Docket No. 50-331, Duane Arnold
Energy Center, Linn County, Iowa
Date of amendment request: January 26, 2015. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15029A600.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise Technical Specifications (TS) Section 3.8.3, ``Diesel Fuel Oil,
Lube Oil, and Starting Air,'' by relocating the current stored diesel
fuel oil and lube oil numerical volume requirements from the TS to the
TS bases so that it may be modified under licensee control. The
proposed amendment would also revise TS conditions to state ``a greater
than 6-day and less 7-day'' supply of stored diesel fuel oil and lube
oil inventory, in place of the numerical volume requirements, to be
available for each diesel generator. The requirement to maintain a 7-
day supply of diesel fuel oil and lube oil is not changed and is
consistent with the assumptions in the accident analyses. The changes
are consistent with NRC-approved Technical Specification Task Force
(TSTF) Change Traveler TSTF-501, Revision 1, ``Relocate Stored Fuel Oil
and Lube Oil Volume Values to Licensee Control.''
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 relocates the volume of diesel fuel oil and
lube oil required to support 7-day operation of an onsite diesel
generator; and the volume equivalent to a 6-day supply, to licensee
control. The specific volume of fuel oil equivalent to a 7-day and
6-day supply is calculated using the NRC-approved methodology
described in Regulatory Guide 1.137, Revision 1, ``Fuel-Oil Systems
for Standby Diesel Generators,'' and ANSI N195-1976, ``Fuel Oil
Systems for Standby Diesel-Generators.'' The specific volume of lube
oil equivalent to a 7-day and 6-day supply is based on the diesel
generator manufacturer's consumption values for the run time of the
diesel generator. Because the requirement to maintain a 7-day supply
of diesel fuel oil and lube oil is not changed and is consistent
with the assumptions in the accident analyses, and the actions taken
when the volume of fuel oil and lube oil is less than a 6-day supply
have not changed, neither the probability nor the consequences of
any accident previously evaluated will be affected.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant
(i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a
change in the methods governing normal plant operation. The change
does not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis but ensures
that the diesel generator operates as assumed in the accident
analysis. The proposed change is consistent with the safety analysis
assumptions.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change relocates the volume of diesel fuel oil and
lube oil required to support 7-day operation of an onsite diesel
generator, and the volume equivalent to a 6-day supply, to licensee
control. As the bases for the existing limits on diesel fuel oil and
lube oil are not changed, no change is made to the accident analysis
assumptions and no margin of safety is reduced as part of this
change.
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: Mr. James Petro, P. O. Box 14000 Juno Beach,
FL 33408-0420.
NRC Branch Chief: David L. Pelton.
South Carolina Electric and Gas Company, Docket Nos.: 52-027 and 52-
028, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, Fairfield County,
South Carolina
Date of amendment request: December 19, 2014, as supplemented by
letter dated February 25, 2015. Publicly-available versions are in
ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML14353A126 and ML15056A429, respectively.
Description of amendment request: The amendment request proposes
changes to the Class 1E direct current and Uninterruptible Power Supply
System, replacing four Spare Termination Boxes with a single Spare
Battery Termination Box. Because this proposed change requires a
departure from Tier 1 information in the Westinghouse Advanced Passive
1000 Design Control Document (DCD), the licensee also requested an
exemption from the requirements of the Generic DCD Tier 1 in accordance
with 10 CFR 52.63(b)(1).
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not affect the operation of any systems
or equipment that initiate an analyzed accident or alter any
structures, systems, and components (SSC) accident initiator or
initiating sequence of events. The IDS design change involves
replacing the four Spare Termination Boxes with a single Spare
Battery Termination Box, and minor raceway and cable routing
changes. The proposed changes maintain the method used to manually
connect the Spare Battery Bank and Spare Battery Bank Charger to
supply loads of one of the four 24 Hour Battery Switchboards or one
of the two 72 Hour Battery Switchboards at a time while maintaining
the independence of the IDS divisions. Therefore, the probabilities
of the accidents evaluated in the UFSAR [Updated Final Safety
Analysis Report] are not affected.
The proposed changes do not have an adverse impact on the
ability of the IDS equipment to perform its design functions. The
design of the IDS equipment continues to meet the same regulatory
acceptance criteria, electrical codes, and standards as required by
the UFSAR. Therefore, the proposed changes do not affect the
prevention and mitigation of other abnormal events, e.g., accidents,
anticipated operational occurrences, earthquakes, floods and turbine
missiles, or their safety or design analyses. In addition, the
proposed changes do not have an adverse effect on any safety-
[[Page 27201]]
related SSC or function used to mitigate an accident; therefore, the
consequences of the accidents evaluated in the UFSAR are not
affected.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not change the design functions of IDS
or any of the systems or equipment in the plant. The IDS design
change involves replacing the four Spare Termination Boxes with a
single Spare Battery Termination Box, and minor raceway and cable
routing changes, and the electrical equipment continues to perform
its design functions because the same electrical codes and standards
as stated in the UFSAR continue to be met. The proposed changes
maintain the method used to manually connect the Spare Battery Bank
and Spare Battery Bank Charger to supply loads of one of the four 24
Hour Battery Switchboards or one of the two 72 Hour Battery
Switchboards at a time while maintaining the independence of the IDS
divisions. These proposed changes do not adversely affect any IDS or
SSC design functions or methods of operation in a manner that
results in a new failure mode, malfunction, or sequence of events
that affect safety-related or non-safety-related equipment.
Therefore, this activity does not allow for a new fission product
release path, result in a new fission product barrier failure mode,
or create a new sequence of events that result in significant fuel
cladding failures.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes maintain existing safety margins. The
proposed changes do not result in changes to the IDS design
requirements or design functions. The proposed changes maintain
existing safety margin through continued application of the existing
requirements of the UFSAR. Therefore, the proposed changes satisfy
the same design functions in accordance with the same codes and
standards as stated in the UFSAR. These proposed changes do not
affect any design code, function, design analysis, safety analysis
input or result, or design/safety margin.
Because no safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/
criterion is challenged or exceeded by these proposed changes, no
margin of safety is reduced.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Ms. Kathryn M. Sutton, Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius LLC, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004-2514.
NRC Branch Chief: Lawrence J. Burkhart.
III. Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses
and Combined Licenses
During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice,
the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has
determined for each of these amendments that the application complies
with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,
as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The
Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the
Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set
forth in the license amendment.
A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility
operating license or combined license, as applicable, proposed no
significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a
hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the Federal
Register as indicated.
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that
these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in
accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b),
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be
prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an
environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in
10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment,
it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the action see (1) the
applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's
related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as
indicated. All of these items can be accessed as described in the
``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' section of this
document.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270 and 50-287,
Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 and 3, Oconee County, South Carolina
Date of amendment request: April 26, 2013, as supplemented by
letter dated February 12, 2015.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the Oconee
Nuclear Station (ONS) Technical Specifications (TSs) surveillance
requirement to verify that acceptable steady-state limits on the
electrical frequency are achieved by the two Keowee Hydro Units, which
are the emergency power sources for the ONS.
Date of Issuance: April 23, 2015.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 390, 392, and 391. A publicly-available version is
in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15093A349. Documents related to these
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the
amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-38, DPR-47, and DPR-55:
Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 9, 2013, 78 FR
41121. The supplemental letter dated February 12, 2015, provided
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change
the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated April 23, 2015.
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: June 25, 2013, as supplemented
by letters dated August 7, 2013; and February 13, July 16, and December
9, 2014.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises the Palisades
Nuclear Plant Site Emergency Plan Figure 5-2, ``Plant Staffing and
Augmentation Requirements'' to increase augmentation response times for
certain emergency response organization positions.
Date of issuance: April 22, 2015.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment No.: 255. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML15055A106; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
[[Page 27202]]
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-20: Amendment revised
the Renewed Facility Operating License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 18, 2014 (79 FR
15148). The supplement letters dated August 7, 2013, and February 13
and July 16, 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 issued a revised no significant
hazards consideration determination that was published in the Federal
Register on January 6, 2015 (80 FR 523), to consider the aspects of the
revised tasks associated with radiation protection technicians provided
in the supplemental letter dated December 9, 2014.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated April 22, 2015.
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: February 6, 2015, as
supplemented by letter dated February 24, 2015.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised a Note to
Technical Specification (TS) Surveillance Requirement (SR) 4.1.3.1.2 to
exclude Control Element Assembly (CEA) 18 from being exercised per the
SR for the remainder of Cycle 24 due to a degrading upper gripper coil.
The amendment allows the licensee to delay exercising the CEA until
after repairs can be made during the upcoming fall 2015 outage.
Date of issuance: April 29, 2015.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
immediately.
Amendment No.: 302. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML15096A381; 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
TSs/license.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 3, 2015 (80 FR
11475). The supplemental letter dated February 24, 2015, provided
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change
the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment and final no
significant hazards consideration determination are contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated April 29, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-313, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit
1, Pope County, Arkansas
Date of amendment request: November 21, 2014, as supplemented by
letters dated February 6, March 10, March 25, and April 7, 2015.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical
Specification (TS) 3.4.3, ``RCS [Reactor Coolant System] Pressure and
Temperature (P/T) Limits''; TS 3.4.9, ``Pressurizer''; TS 3.4.10,
``Pressurizer Safety Valves''; and TS 3.4.11, ``Low Temperature
Overpressure Protection (LTOP) System,'' to update the RCS P/T limits
to 54 effective full power years (EFPY). The current P/T limits are
applicable up to 31 EFPY.
Date of issuance: April 24, 2015.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 254. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML15096A324; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-51: Amendment revised
the TSs/license.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 6, 2015 (80 FR
524). The supplemental letters dated February 6, March 10, March 25,
and April 7, 2015, provided additional information that clarified the
application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally
noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no
significant hazards consideration determination as published in the
Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated April 24, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
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 application for amendment: November 8, 2013, as
supplemented by letters dated September 29, 2014; November 13 and 19,
2014; and January 20 and 27, 2015.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical
Specifications (TSs) to risk-inform requirements regarding selected
required action end states by adopting Technical Specification Task
Force (TSTF) Traveler 423, Revision 1, ``Technical Specifications End
States, NEDC-32988-A,'' with some deviations as approved by the NRC
staff. This TS improvement is part of the consolidated line item
improvement process. In addition, it approves a change to the facility
operating license for the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1. The
change adds a new license condition for maintaining commitments
required for the approval of this TSTF into the Updated Final Safety
Analysis Report.
Date of issuance: April 23, 2015.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
60 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No: 201. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML15007A183; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-29: The amendment revised the
Facility Operating License and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 4, 2014 (79 FR
12245). The supplemental letters dated September 29, November 13, and
November 19, 2014; and January 20 and January 27, 2015, provided
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change
the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated April 23, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC, Docket No. 50-443, Seabrook Station, Unit
1, Rockingham County, New Hampshire
Date of amendment request: July 10, 2014, as supplemented by letter
dated July 22, 2014.
[[Page 27203]]
Description of amendment request: The amendment revised the
Seabrook Station, Unit 1, Cyber Security Plan (CSP) Milestone 8 full
implementation date as set forth in the Cyber Security Plan
Implementation Schedule.
Date of issuance: April 22, 2015.
Effective date: As of its date of issuance, and shall be
implemented within 60 days.
Amendment No.: 146. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML15058A706; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-86: The amendment revised the
Facility Operating License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 7, 2014 (79 FR
60519).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated April 22, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC, Docket No. 50-443, Seabrook Station, Unit
1, Rockingham County, New Hampshire
Date of amendment request: July 24, 2014, as supplemented by
letters dated December 11, 2014, and January 9, 2015.
Description of amendment request: The amendment revised the
Seabrook Technical Specifications (TS). The amendment increased the
voltage limit for a full load rejection test of the emergency diesel
generator specified in Surveillance Requirements 4.8.1.1.2.f.3 of TS
3.8.1.1, ``A.C. Sources--Operating.'' The amendment also revised the TS
definition of the terms ``Operable--Operability.''
Date of issuance: April 24, 2015.
Effective date: As of its date of issuance, and shall be
implemented within 60 days.
Amendment No.: 147. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML15082A233; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-86: The amendment revised the
facility operating license and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 30, 2014 (79
FR 58821). The supplemental letters dated December 11, 2014, and
January 9, 2015, provided additional information that clarified the
application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally
noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no
significant hazards consideration determination as published in the
Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated April 24, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, Docket Nos. 52-027 and 52-028,
Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3, Fairfield County,
South Carolina
Date of amendment request: May 20, 2014, and supplemented by the
letters dated June 3, November 6, and November 20, 2014.
Brief description of amendment: The license amendment revised the
facilities' combined operating licenses (COLs) to make changes to COL
Appendix C and corresponding plant-specific Tier 1 information to
correct editorial errors and/or consistency errors (e.g.,
inconsistencies between Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR)
(Tier 2) and Tier 1 information, and inconsistencies between
information from different locations within Tier 1).
Date of issuance: March 10, 2015.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 23. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML14345B023; documents related to these amendments are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
Facility Combined Licenses Nos. NPF-93 and NPF-94: Amendment
revised the facilities' COLs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 2, 2014 (79
FR 52059). The supplemental letters dated June 3, November 6, and
November 20, 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 March 10, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026,
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) Units 3 and 4, Burke County,
Georgia
Date of amendment request: November 20, 2014.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment is to Combined
Operating License Nos. NPF-91 and NPF-92 for the VEGP Units 3 and 4.
The amendment revises the VEGP Updated Final Safety Analysis Report
(UFSAR) to clarify a human factors engineering operational sequence
analysis related to the AP1000 Automatic Depressurization System and
will delete document WCAP-15847, ``AP1000 Quality Assurance Procedures
Supporting NRC Review of AP1000 DCD Sections 18.2 and 18.8,'' that is
incorporated by reference into the UFSAR. Both of the amendments
constitute changes to information identified as Tier 2* information as
defined in 10 CFR, part 52, appendix D, section II.F.
Date of issuance: April 21, 2015.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 33. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML15023A563; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Facility Combined Licenses No. NPF-91 and NPF-92: Amendment revised
the Facility Combined Operating Licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 20, 2015 (80 FR
2752).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated April 21, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-280 and 50-281,
Surry Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Surry County, Virginia
Date of amendment request: April 11, 2014, as supplemented by
letter dated March 4, 2015.
Description of amendment request: The amendments revise Technical
Specification (TS) 4.2, ``Augmented Inspections,'' and TS 4.15,
``Augmented Inservice Inspection Program for High Energy Lines Outside
of Containment,'' by relocating them to the SPS Technical Requirements
Manual (TRM), with the exception of the reactor coolant pump flywheel
inspection. In addition, TS 6.4.U, ``Augmented Inspections and
Examinations,'' is added to TS 6.4, ``Unit Operating Procedures and
Programs.''
Date of issuance: April 28, 2015.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 284 and 284. A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No. ML15099A679; documents related to these
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the
amendments.
[[Page 27204]]
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-32 and DPR-37:
Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 22, 2014 (79 FR
42553). The supplemental letter dated March 4, 2015, provided
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change
the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated April 28, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 1st day of May, 2015.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
George A. Wilson,
Deputy Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of
Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2015-11225 Filed 5-11-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P