[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 81 (Tuesday, April 28, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23598-23609]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-09758]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2015-0104]
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 April 2, 2015, to April 14, 2015. The last
biweekly notice was published on April 14, 2015.
DATES: Comments must be filed by May 28, 2015. A request for a hearing
must be filed by June 29, 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-2015-0104. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-
3463; email: [email protected]. For
[[Page 23599]]
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: Sandra Figueroa, Office of U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001; telephone:
301-415-1262, email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments
A. Obtaining Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0104 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-2015-0104.
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-2015-0104, 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 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
[[Page 23600]]
may be entered in the proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's
interest. The petition must also identify the specific contentions
which the requestor/petitioner seeks to have litigated at the
proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the
requestor/petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for
the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert
opinion which support the contention and on which the requestor/
petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing.
The requestor/petitioner must also provide references to those specific
sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the
requestor/petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert
opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that
a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law
or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of
the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if
proven, would entitle the requestor/petitioner to relief. A requestor/
petitioner who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at
least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding,
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene,
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the
hearing.
If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The
final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If
the final determination is that the amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the
amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the
request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance
of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment
request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing
held would take place before the issuance of any amendment unless the
Commission finds an imminent danger to the health or safety of the
public, in which case it will issue an appropriate order or rule under
10 CFR part 2.
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 the NRC's guidance
available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the time the
documents are submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be
timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system
no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of
a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends
the submitter an email notice confirming receipt of the document. The
E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access
to the document to the NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any
others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to
participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the
documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and
other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for
and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing request/petition
to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access to the document
via the E-Filing system.
A person filing electronically using the 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
[[Page 23601]]
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.
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Docket No. 50-336, Millstone Power
Station, Unit 2, New London County, Connecticut
Date of amendment request: October 22, 2014. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14301A112.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the
Millstone Power Station, Unit 2 (MPS2) technical specification (TS) by
relocating surveillance frequencies to a licensee-controlled program.
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 relocate 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
TSs 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 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.
No new or different [kinds of] accidents result from utilizing
the proposed changes. The changes do not involve a physical
alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment
will be installed) 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. The proposed changes are consistent with 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. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in
the margin of safety?
Response: No.
The design, operation, testing methods, and acceptance criteria
for systems, structures, and components, 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, DNC will perform a
probabilistic risk evaluation using the guidance contained in NRC
approved NEI 04-10, Rev. 1, in accordance with the Surveillance
Frequency Control Program. NEI 04-10, Rev. 1, methodology provides
reasonable acceptance guidelines and methods for evaluating the risk
increase of proposed changes to surveillance frequencies consistent
with Regulatory Guide 1.177.
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 proposes to determine that the amendment
request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion
Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar Street, RS-2, Richmond, VA
23219.
Acting NRC Branch Chief: Michael I. Dudek.
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Docket No. 50-423, Millstone Power
Station, Unit 3, New London County, Connecticut
Date of amendment request: October 14, 2014. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14294A454.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the
Millstone Power Station, Unit 3 (MPS3) Surveillance Requirement (SR)
4.4.4.2 to remove the requirement to perform the surveillance for a
pressurizer power-operated relief valve (PORV) block valve that is
being maintained closed in accordance with technical specification (TS)
3.4.4 Action a.
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, with NRC staff revisions provided in [brackets], which
is presented below:
[[Page 23602]]
Criterion 1
Will operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed
amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The block valve for the pressurizer PORV is not a potential
accident initiator. Therefore, not requiring a surveillance of the
block valve while it is being used to isolate its associated PORV
will not increase the probability of an accident previously
evaluated. Not requiring the surveillance of the block valve may
slightly reduce the probability of a loss of coolant accident from a
stuck open PORV since it will eliminate the challenge to the PORV
from the pressure transient that results from cycling the block
valve.
The PORVs are credited in the MPS3 Final Safety Analysis Report
(FSAR), Chapter 15, ``Accident Analysis,'' for event mitigation
(Section 15.5.1, Inadvertent Operation of the Emergency Core Cooling
System during Power, and Section 15.5.2, CVCS [chemical and volume
control system] Malfunction that Increases Reactor Coolant
Inventory). Not performing the surveillance on the block valve does
not significantly reduce the assurance that the block valve is
capable of opening to allow operation of the PORV. The block valves
have been demonstrated by operating experience to be reliable and
are also subject to the motor-operated valve testing program.
Consequently, the proposed amendment does not significantly reduce
the confidence that the block valve can be opened to permit
automatic or manual actuation of the PORV to depressurize the RCS.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
Criterion 2
Will operation of the facility in accordance with this proposed
amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment only affects the performance of the
surveillance test for the block valve and does not involve any
physical alteration of plant equipment or introduce any operating
configurations not previously evaluated. The pressurizer PORV block
valves provide isolation for a postulated stuck-open or leaking
PORV. Isolation is satisfied with the block valve closed in
accordance with TS 3.4.4 Action a.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any
previously evaluated.
Criterion 3
Will operation of the facility in accordance with this proposed
amendment involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety?
Response: No.
Margin of safety is related to the confidence in the ability of
the fission product barriers to perform their design functions
during and following an accident. These barriers include the fuel
cladding, the reactor coolant system, and the containment system.
These barriers are not significantly affected by the changes
proposed herein. The margin of safety is established through the
design of the plant structures, systems, and components, the
parameters within which the plant is operated, and the establishment
of setpoints for the actuation of equipment relied upon to respond
to an event, and thereby protect the fission product barriers. The
proposed amendment to the surveillance requirement for the
pressurizer PORV block valve does not affect the assumptions in any
accident analysis.
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 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.
Acting NRC Branch Chief: Michael I. Dudek.
Duke Energy Progress, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-325 and 50-324, Brunswick
Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2 (BSEP), Brunswick County, North
Carolina
Date of amendment request: January 30, 2015. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15044A198.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the
emergency action levels (EALs) from a scheme based on Revision 5 of
Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 99-01 ``Methodology for Development of
Emergency Action Levels,'' to a scheme based on NRC-endorsed Revision 6
of NEI 99-01, ``Development of Emergency Action Levels for Non-Passive
Reactors.''
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, with NRC staff revisions provided in [brackets], 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 BSEP emergency action levels does not
impact the physical function of plant structures, systems, or
components (SSC) or the manner in which SCCs perform their design
function. The proposed change does not authorize the addition of any
new plant equipment or systems, nor does it alter the assumptions of
any accident analyses. The proposed change does not adversely affect
accident initiators or precursors, nor does it alter the design
assumptions, conditions, and configuration or the manner in which
the plant is operated and maintained.
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 to BSEP's EAL scheme to adopt the NRC-
endorsed guidance in NEI 99-01, Revision 6, does not authorize any
physical changes to the plant systems or equipment. 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 will not alter the design
configuration, or method of operation of plant equipment beyond its
normal functional capabilities. The BSEP ERO [Emergency Response
Organization] functions will continue to be performed as required.
The proposed change does not create any new credible failure
mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident initiators.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from those that have been
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change to BSEP's EAL scheme does 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 change. The proposed change does not affect the
Technical Specifications or the operating license. 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 change to adopt the NEI 99-01, Revision
6, EAL scheme guidance. The applicable requirements or 10 CFR 50.47
and 10 CFR 50, Appendix E will continue to be met.
Therefore, the proposed change does 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 proposes to determine that the amendment
request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: David T. Conley, Associate General Counsel
II--Legal Department, Progress Energy Service Company, LLC, P.O. Box
1551, Raleigh, NC 27602.
NRC Branch Chief: Shana R. Helton.
[[Page 23603]]
Duke Energy Progress, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-325 and 50-324, Brunswick
Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, Brunswick County, North Carolina
Date of amendment request: February 19, 2015. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15075A021.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would (1) revise
Technical Specifications (TSs) by replacing AREVA Topical Report ANP-
10298PA, ``ACE/ATRIUM 10XM Critical Power Correlation,'' Revision 0,
March 2010, with Revision 1, March 2014, of the same topical report;
and (2) revise Appendix B, ``Additional Conditions,'' by removing the
license condition issued by Amendment Nos. 262 and 290 for Units 1 and
Unit 2, respectively.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The probability of an evaluated accident is derived from the
probabilities of the individual precursors to that accident. The
proposed license amendments only involve an update to a currently-
approved methodology for determining core operating limits. As such,
the proposed license amendments do not involve any plant
modifications or operational changes that could affect system
reliability or performance, or that could affect the probability of
operator error. As such, the proposed changes do not affect any
postulated accident precursors. Since no individual precursors of an
accident are affected, the proposed license amendments do not
involve a significant increase in the probability of a previously
analyzed event.
The consequences of an evaluated accident are determined by the
operability of plant systems designed to mitigate those
consequences.
AREVA Topical Report ANP-10298P-A, ACE/ATRIUM 10XM Critical
Power Correlation, Revision 1, March 2014, is being adopted to
resolve a previously identified concern with the calculation of the
K-factor, which is a modelling parameter that characterizes the
effect on critical power ratio of radial fuel rod peaking
distribution within a fuel bundle. Adoption of AREVA Topical Report
ANP-10298P-A, ACE/ATRIUM 10XM Critical Power Correlation, Revision
1, also eliminates the need to perform a confirmatory evaluation as
described in the Appendix B license condition issued as part of
License Amendments 262 and 290 for Units 1 and 2. Therefore, the
license condition is being eliminated.
The adoption of AREVA Topical Report ANP-10298P-A, ACE/ATRIUM
10XM Critical Power Correlation, Revision 1, March 2014, continues
to ensure that the SLMCPR [safety limit minimum critical power
ratio], setpoint, and core operating limit values determined using
NRC-approved methods continue to satisfy the acceptance criteria
that at least 99.9 percent of all fuel rods in the core do not
experience boiling transition. Based on these considerations, the
proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the
consequences of a previously analyzed accident.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
Creation of the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident requires creating one or more new accident precursors. New
accident precursors may be created by modifications of plant
configuration, including changes in allowable modes of operation.
The proposed amendments do neither. Core operating limit values are
calculated using NRC-approved methodology identified in the TS.
AREVA Topical Report ANP-10298PA, Revision 0, is an NRC-approved
methodology listed in TS 5.6.5.b for determining core operating
limits. Replacing the analytical methodology described in Topical
Report ANP-10298PA, Revision 0, with the methodology contained in
ANP-10298P-A, Revision 1, will ensure that (1) core operating limits
are no longer affected by the K-factor calculation issue described
in AREVA Operability Assessment CR 2011-2274, Revision 1, and (2)
the current level of fuel protection is maintained by continuing to
ensure that the fuel design safety criterion is met (i.e., that at
least 99.9 percent of all fuel rods in the core do not experience
boiling transition if the MCPR [minimum critical power ratio] Safety
Limit is not exceeded).
The update of AREVA analytical methodology does not involve any
new modes of plant operation or any plant modifications and does not
directly or indirectly affect the failure modes of any plant systems
or components.
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 a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The SLMCPR ensures that at least 99.9 percent of the fuel rods
do not experience boiling transition during normal operation and
anticipated operational occurrences, if the SLMCPR is not exceeded.
Topical Report ANP-10298PA is listed as an NRC-approved analytical
method in Technical Specification 5.6.5.b. Replacing the analytical
methodology described in Topical Report ANP-10298PA, Revision 0,
with the methodology contained in ANP-10298P-A, Revision 1, will
ensure that (1) core operating limits are no longer affected by the
K-factor calculation issue described in AREVA Operability Assessment
CR 2011-2274, Revision 1, and (2) the current level of fuel
protection is maintained by continuing to ensure that the fuel
design safety criterion is met (i.e., that no more than 0.1 percent
of the rods are expected to be in boiling transition if the MCPR
Safety Limit is not exceeded).
Meeting the fuel design criterion that at least 99.9 percent of
all fuel rods in the core do not experience boiling transition and
establishing core operating limits ensures the margin of safety
required by the fuel design criterion is maintained. Therefore, the
proposed amendments do not result in 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 T. Conley, Associate General Counsel
II--Legal Department, Progress Energy Service Company, LLC, P.O. Box
1551, Raleigh, NC 27602.
NRC Branch Chief: Shana R. Helton.
Entergy Operations, Inc., System Energy Resources, Inc., South
Mississippi Electric Power Association, and Entergy Mississippi, Inc.,
Docket No. 50-416, Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Claiborne
County, Mississippi
Date of amendment request: December 15, 2014. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14351A069.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise the requirements of Technical Specification (TS) 3.6.4.3,
``Standby Gas Treatment (SGT) System,'' and TS 3.7.3, ``Control Room
Fresh Air (CRFA) System,'' to operate the ventilation systems with
charcoal filters from 10 hours each month to 15 minutes each month,
consistent with Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) traveler
TSTF-522, Revision 0, ``Revise Ventilation System Surveillance
Requirements to Operate for 10 hours per Month.'' The Notice of
Availability and model safety evaluation of TSTF-522, Revision 0, were
published in the Federal Register on September 20, 2012 (77 FR 58421).
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, with NRC staff revisions provided in [brackets], which
is presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change replaces an existing Surveillance
Requirement to operate the
[[Page 23604]]
BWR [boiling water reactor]/6 SGT System and CRFA Systems equipped
with electric heaters for a continuous 10 hour period every 31 days
with a requirement to operate the systems for 15 continuous minutes
with heaters operating, if needed.
These systems are not accident initiators and therefore, these
changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability of
an accident. The proposed system and filter testing changes are
consistent with current regulatory guidance for these systems and
will continue to assure that these systems perform their design
function which may include mitigating accidents. Thus the change
does not involve a significant increase in the consequences of an
accident.
Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change replaces an existing Surveillance
Requirement to operate the BWR/6 SGT System and CRFA Systems
equipped with electric heaters for a continuous 10 hour period every
31 days with a requirement to operate the systems for 15 continuous
minutes with heaters operating, if needed.
The change proposed for these ventilation systems does not
change any system operations or maintenance activities. Testing
requirements will be revised and will continue to demonstrate that
the Limiting Conditions for Operation are met and the system
components are capable of performing their intended safety
functions. The change does not create new failure modes or
mechanisms and no new accident precursors are generated.
Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change replaces an existing Surveillance
Requirement to operate the BWR/6 SGT System and CRFA Systems
equipped with electric heaters for a continuous 10 hour period every
31 days with a requirement to operate the systems for 15 continuous
minutes with heaters operating, if needed.
The design basis for the ventilation systems' heaters is to heat
the incoming air which reduces the relative humidity. The heater
testing change proposed will continue to demonstrate that the
heaters are capable of heating the air and will perform their design
function. The proposed change is consistent with [the NRC's]
regulatory guidance.
Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC proposes to determine that the amendment
request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Joseph A. Aluise, Associate General
Counsel--Nuclear, Entergy Services, Inc., 639 Loyola Avenue, New
Orleans, Louisiana 70113.
NRC Branch Chief: Meena K. Khanna.
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 (GGNS), Claiborne
County, Mississippi
Date of amendment request: January 6, 2015, as supplemented by
letter dated March 27, 2015. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS
under Accession Nos. ML15006A238 and ML15089A126, respectively.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise
Technical Specification (TS) 5.6.5.b, ``Core Operating Limits Report
[COLR]'' by adding the following reference, NEDC-33075P-A, Revision 8,
``GE Hitachi Boiling Water Reactor Detect and Suppress Solution--
Confirmation Density [DSS-CD].''
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. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis
against the standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c). The NRC staff's review 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 NRC staff completed its review of NEDC-33075P-A, Revision 6,
``General Electric Boiling Water Reactor Detect and Suppress
Solution--Confirmation Density,'' a licensing topical report (LTR)
and issued its safety evaluation on January 25, 2008 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML080310388). The NRC staff had concluded that this
LTR is acceptable for referencing in licensing applications for
nuclear power plants to the extent specified and under the
limitations delineated in the accepted versions of the LTR. In
addition, by letter dated November 19, 2013, LTR NEDE-33075P,
Revision 8, has been approved for use in future licensing actions.
The licensee proposes to add NEDC-33075P-A, Revision 8, to TS
5.6.5.b as Reference 27. The licensee demonstrated the applicability
of this LTR for the GGNS in its submittal dated September 25, 2013
(ADAMS Accession No. ML13269A140). Adding this approved LTR to the
TS 5.6.5.b will allow the licensee to use the approved DSS-CD
methodology for preparing the COLR for the Maximum Extended Load
Line Limit Analysis Plus (MELLLA+) reloads following the approval of
the MELLLA+ license amendment request. As such, adding this
reference to TS 5.6.5.b, is administrative in nature.
Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The licensee proposes to add LTR NEDC-33075P-A, Revision 8, to
TS 5.6.5.b as Reference 27. The licensee demonstrated the
applicability of this LTR for the GGNS in its submittal dated
September 25, 2013. Adding this approved LTR to TS 5.6.5.b will
allow the licensee to use the approved DSS-CD methodology for
preparing the COLR for the MELLLA+ reloads following the approval of
the MELLLA+ license amendment request. As such, adding this
reference to TS 5.6.5.b, is administrative in nature.
Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The licensee proposes to add LTR NEDC-33075P-A, Revision 8, to
TS 5.6.5.b as Reference 27. The licensee demonstrated the
applicability of this LTR for the GGNS in its submittal dated
September 25, 2013. Adding this approved LTR to TS 5.6.5.b will
allow the licensee to use the approved DSS-CD methodology for
preparing the COLR for the MELLLA+ reloads following the approval of
the MELLLA+ license amendment request. As such, adding this
reference to TS 5.6.5.b, is administrative in nature.
Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Joseph A. Aluise, Associate General
Counsel--Nuclear, Entergy Services, Inc., 639 Loyola Avenue, New
Orleans, Louisiana 70113.
NRC Branch Chief: Meena K. Khanna.
Florida Power and Light Company, Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251, Turkey
Point Nuclear Generating Units 3 and 4, Miami-Dade County, Florida
Date of amendment request: December 23, 2014. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15029A297.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would modify the
[[Page 23605]]
Technical Specifications (TSs) related to Completion Times (CTs) for
Required Actions (RAs) to provide the option to calculate a longer,
risk-informed CT (RICT). A new program, the Risk-Informed Completion
Time Program, would be added to TS Section 6.0, ``Administrative
Controls.'' The methodology for using the RICT Program is described in
Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 06-09, ``Risk-Informed Technical
Specifications Initiative 4b, Risk-Managed Technical Specifications
(RMTS) Guidelines,'' Revision 0-A (ADAMS Accession No. ML12286A322).
Adherence to NEI 06-09 would be required by the RICT Program. The
licensee stated that the proposed amendments would be consistent with
Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Traveler 505 TSTF-505,
Revision 1, ``Provide Risk-Informed Extended Completion Times--RITSTF
[Risk Informed TSTF] Initiative 4b'' (ADAMS Accession No. ML111650552).
The licensee requested that not all the modified RAs in TSTF-505 be
included in the amendments. The licensee also requested that some
plant-specific RAs be included in the amendments that were not included
in TSTF-505. The Federal Register notice published on March 15, 2012
(77 FR 15399), announced the availability of TSTF-505, Revision 1.
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 permits the extension of Completion Times
provided the associated risk is assessed and managed in accordance
with the NRC approved Risk-Informed Completion Time Program. The
proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the
probability of an accident previously evaluated because the change
involves no change to the plant or its modes of operation. The
proposed change does not increase the consequences of an accident
because the design-basis mitigation function of the affected systems
is not changed and the consequences of an accident during the
extended Completion Time are no different from those during the
existing Completion Time.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not change the design, configuration,
or method of operation of the plant. The proposed change does not
involve a physical alteration of the plant (no new or different kind
of equipment will be installed).
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in
the margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change permits the extension of Completion Times
provided risk is assessed and managed in accordance with the NRC
approved Risk-Informed Completion Time Program. The proposed change
implements a risk-informed configuration management program to
assure that adequate margins of safety are maintained. Application
of these new specifications and the configuration management program
considers cumulative effects of multiple systems or components being
out of service and does so more effectively than the current TS.
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 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC proposes to determine that the amendment
request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: William S. Blair, Managing Attorney--
Nuclear, Florida Power & Light Company, 700 Universe Blvd., MS LAW/JB,
Juno Beach, Florida 33408-0420.
NRC Branch Chief: Shana R. Helton.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PGandE), Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-
323, Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, San Luis Obispo
County, California
Date of amendment request: February 25, 2015. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15056A773.
Description of amendment request: The amendments propose to
incorporate into the licensing basis an analysis of pressurizer
reaching a water-solid (filled) condition associated with the main
feedwater pipe rupture accident summarized in Updated Final Safety
Analysis Report (UFSAR) Section 15.4.2.2. Further, the proposed
amendments involve the addition of time critical operator actions and
modifications of the PG&E Design Class I backup nitrogen accumulators,
which are credited in the new pressurizer filling analysis.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment provides an analysis of the FLB
[feedwater line break] accident assuming the worst-case conditions
that could result in pressurizer filling wherein water relief
through the PSVs [pressurizer safety valves] may challenge the
integrity of the reactor coolant boundary. The purpose of the
pressurizer filling analysis is to determine the operator actions
that preclude water relief through the PSVs if a FLB accident has
occurred. The pressurizer filling analysis assumes an accident
occurs and evaluates the plant response to the accident; therefore,
the proposed amendment results in no change in the probability of an
accident previously evaluated.
The proposed amendment does not change any design functions of
existing structures, systems and components (SSCs) and does not
increase the likelihood of the malfunction of an SSC. The operator
actions added by the amendment are designed to ensure the capability
of SSCs to perform their design function by ensuring a PORV [power
operated relief valve] is available to provide reactor coolant
pressure relief and by terminating the pressurizer filling event
before water is relieved from the PSVs.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequence of an accident previously
evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment does not change any design functions of
existing SSCs and does not affect the SSCs' operation or ability to
perform their design function. The new FLB pressurizer filling
analysis identifies operator actions that will prevent water relief
through the PSVs. Simulator runs for the FLB pressurizer filling
scenario have demonstrated that operator actions credited in the
analysis are consistently completed in time to prevent water relief
through the PSVs.
Therefore the proposed change does not create the possibility of
a new or different accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The UFSAR (Section 15.4.2.2.3) currently credits the SSI
[spurious safety injection] pressurizer filling analysis (in UFSAR
Section 15.2.15.3) for the FLB pressurizer filling condition. The
results of the new FLB pressurizer filling analysis indicate the
response time for the operator action to ensure a PORV available
during a FLB is not bounded by the existing analysis for the SSI
pressurizer filling event. In addition, the analysis determined the
PORVs need to cycle longer than accommodated by the current nitrogen
supply to prevent water relief through the PSVs.
[[Page 23606]]
The new analysis identifies operator actions to mitigate the
pressurizer filling condition specific to a FLB accident. Simulator
runs for a FLB scenario have demonstrated that operator actions
credited in the analysis are consistently completed in time to
prevent water relief through the PSVs.
The new FLB analysis credits an increased number of PORV water-
relief cycles, which will be provided by modifications to increase
the nitrogen supply to the PORV[s]. The PORVs have been qualified to
perform the increased number of water-relief cycles and are
environmentally qualified to withstand the harsh environment that
could result from a FLB. Increasing the required number of PORV
water-relief cycles does not alter the overall thermal hydraulic
response of the RCS [reactor coolant system] and, therefore, has no
effect on overall atmospheric steam releases. The PORV relief is not
a source of radiological release since the RCS fluid remains inside
containment and therefore is a negligible source of radiological
release to the environment.
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 proposes to determine that the amendment
requests involve no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Jennifer Post, Esq., Pacific Gas and
Electric Company, P.O. Box 7442, San Francisco, California 94120.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
South Carolina Electric and Gas Company Docket Nos. 52-027 and 52-028,
Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS) Units 2 and 3, Fairfield
County, South Carolina
Date of amendment request: December 18, 2014. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14353A107.
Description of amendment request: The proposed change would amend
Combined License Nos. NPF-93 and NPF-94 for the VCSNS Units 2 and 3 by
revising line number information in Tier 1 and promote consistency with
the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) Tier 2 information.
The line number information includes the Automatic Depressurization
System, the Passive Containment Cooling System, the Passive Core
Cooling System, the Normal Residual Heat Removal System, the
Containment Air Filtration System, Spent Fuel Pool Cooling System, and
the Sanitary Discharge System piping line numbers to reflect the as-
designed configuration resulting from changes in piping layout or
rerouting.
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 the
provisions of part 52, appendix D, section III.B of Title 10 of the
Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), ``Design Certification Rule for
the AP1000 Design, Scope and Contents.''
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 COL Appendix C Tables and corresponding plant-specific Tier
1 Tables proposed changes involve updating piping line name/number
or functional capability requirements. These changes do not affect
any system design function. Adding or updating information for
existing ASME Section III piping does not involve (i.e., cannot
affect) any accident initiating event or component failure, thus,
the probabilities of the accidents previously evaluated are not
affected. The maximum allowable leakage rate specified in the
Technical Specifications is unchanged, and radiological material
release source terms are not affected, thus, the radiological
releases in the accident analyses are not affected.
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 COL Appendix C Tables and corresponding plant-specific Tier
1 Tables proposed changes to update piping line name/number or
functional capability requirements do not adversely affect the
design or quality of any structure, system, or component. Adding or
updating ASME Section III piping line information for existing
process piping lines to a licensing table does not create a new
fault or sequence of events that could result in a radioactive
material release.
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 COL Appendix C Tables and corresponding plant-specific Tier
1 Tables proposed changes involve updating piping line name/number
or functional capability requirements information for new/existing
process piping lines. Adding or updating the ASME Section III piping
line name/number or functional capability requirements in the tables
would not affect any radioactive material barrier. No safety
analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is challenged or
exceeded by the proposed changes, thus, no margin of safety is
reduced.
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 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 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
[[Page 23607]]
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. 50-413 and 50-414, Catawba
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York County, South Carolina; Duke
Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370, McGuire Nuclear
Station, Units 1 and 2, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Date of application for amendments: May 31, 2012, as supplemented
by letters dated March 13, 2013, and November 25, 2014.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments approve a
conditional exception to the end of cycle moderator temperature
coefficient surveillance requirement if certain conditions are met.
Date of issuance: April 14, 2015.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 275, 271, 278, and 258. A publicly-available
version of the application is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML12153A328;
documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety
Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-35, NPF-52, NPF-9, and
NPF-17: Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating licenses and
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 5, 2013 (78 FR
8198). The licensee's March 13, 2013, and November 25, 2014,
supplements provided clarifying information that did not change the
scope of the proposed amendment as described in the original notice of
proposed action published in the Federal Register, and did not change
the initial proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated April 14, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50-397, Columbia Generating Station,
Benton County, Washington
Date of application for amendment: August 22, 2014, as supplemented
by letter dated December 23, 2014.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment changed Technical
Specification 3.7.1, ``Standby Service Water (SW) System and Ultimate
Heal Sink (UHS),'' TS Surveillance Requirement 3.7.1.1 related to
verifying that the average water level in the UHS spray ponds is the
average of the level in both ponds.
Date of issuance: April 15, 2015.
Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 10 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 233. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML15076A122; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-21: The amendment
revised the Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 5, 2014 (79
FR 53085). The supplemental letter dated December 23, 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 April 15, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-247, Indian Point
Nuclear Generating Unit 2, Westchester County, New York
Date of amendment request: February 12, 2015, as supplemented by
letters dated March 10, and April 1, 2015.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the
acceptance criteria for Surveillance Requirement 3.1.4.2 for Control
Rod G-3. The change defers subsequent testing of Control Rod G-3 until
repaired during the next forced outage of sufficient duration prior to
the refuel outage of 2016 or during the refuel outage of 2016.
Date of issuance: April 2, 2015.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be
implemented within 30 days.
Amendment No.: 280. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML15083A490; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-26: The amendment revised the
Facility Operating License and the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 2, 2015 (80 FR
11236). The supplemental letters 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 and final NSHC
determination are contained in a Safety Evaluation dated April 2, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: Yes. The
comments are addressed in the Safety Evaluation referenced above.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. STN 50-456 and STN 50-457,
BraidwoodStation, Units 1 and 2, Will County, Illinois; Exelon
Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. STN 50-454 and STN 50-455, Byron
Station, Units 1 and 2, Ogle County, Illinois; Exelon Generation
Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-461, Clinton Power Station, Unit 1, DeWitt
County, Illinois; Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-10,
50-237 and 50-249, Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 1, 2 and 3,
Grundy County, Illinois; Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos.
50-373 and 50-374, LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2, LaSalle
County, Illinois; Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-254
and 50-265, Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Rock
Island County, Illinois
Date of application for amendments: August 11, 2014 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML14224A245).
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revise the
description of the Emergency Response Organization requalification
training frequency for Exelon personnel defined in Exelon's governing
Emergency Plans for the named stations from ``annually'' to ``once per
calendar year not to exceed 18 months between training sessions.''
Date of issuance: April 8, 2015.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 182, 182, 188, 188, 203, 44, 243, 236, 213, 199,
256, and 251. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession
No. ML14323A522. Documents related to these amendments are listed in
the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-72, NPF-77, NPF-37, NPF-66,
NPF- 62, DPR-2, DPR-19, DPR-25, NPF-11, NPF-
[[Page 23608]]
18, DPR-29, DPR-30: The amendments revised the Licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 30, 2014 (79
FR 58815).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated April 8, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-219, Oyster Creek Nuclear
Generating Station, Ocean County, New Jersey
Date amendment request: April 30, 2014, as supplemented by letter
dated October 16, 2014.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Oyster Creek
Nuclear Generating Station (OCNGS) Technical Specifications (TS) 4.5M,
``Shock Suppressors (Snubbers),'' to conform the TS to the revised
OCNGS Snubber Inspection Program.
Date of issuance: April 3, 2015.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment No.: 286. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML15040A721; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-16: Amendment revised
the Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 8, 2014 (79 FR
38590). The supplemental letter dated October 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's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated April 3, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
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 16, 2014, as supplemented by
letters dated November 4, 2014, and March 23, 2015.
Description of amendment request: The amendment changed the Beaver
Valley Power Station Units 1 and 2 (BVPS-1 and BVPS-2) technical
specifications (TS). Specifically, the amendment revised TS 5.5.12,
``Containment Leakage Rate Testing Program,'' Item a, by deleting
reference to the BVPS-1 exemption transmittal letter dated December 5,
1984 (ADAMS Accession No. ML003766713), and requiring compliance with
Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) topical report NEI 94-01, Revision 3-A,
``Industry Guideline for Implementing Performance-Based Option of 10
CFR part 50, Appendix J,'' (ADAMS Accession No. ML12221A202) instead of
Regulatory Guide 1.163, ``Performance-Based Containment Leak Test
Program,'' (ADAMS Accession No. ML003740058) including listed
exceptions. In summary, the amendment allows extension of the Type A
Reactor Containment Integrated Leak test, required by 10 CFR part 50,
Appendix J, interval to one test in 15 years and an extension of the
Type C test interval to 75 months, with a permissible extension period
of 9 months (total of 84 months) for non-routine emergent conditions,
based on acceptable performance history of the containment test as
defined in NEI 94-01, Revision 3-A.
Date of Issuance: April 8, 2015.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 293 and 180. A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No. ML14322A461.
Facility Operating License Nos DPR-66 and NPF-73: Amendments
revised the Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 5, 2014 (79 FR
45477). The supplemental letters dated November 4, 2014, and March 23,
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 8, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Indiana Michigan Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-315 and 50-316, Donald
C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Berrien County, Michigan
Date of amendment requests: February 6, 2015.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments modified the
technical specifications requirements for unavailable barriers by
adding limiting condition for operation 3.0.8. The changes are
consistent with the NRC approved Technical Specification Task Force
(TSTF) Standard Technical Specification change TSTF-427, ``Allowance
for Non-Technical Specification Barrier Degradation on Supported System
OPERABILITY,'' Revision 2.
Date of issuance: April 6, 2015.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 327--Unit 1; 310--Unit 2. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15076A226; documents related
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with
the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-58 and DPR-74:
Amendments revise the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and Technical
Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 3, 2015 (80 FR
11478).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated April 6, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
South Carolina Electric and Gas Company, South Carolina Public Service
Authority, Docket No. 50-395, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 1,
Fairfield County, South Carolina
Date of amendment request: April 7, 2014, as supplemented by
letters dated October 3, 2014, and March 18, 2015.
Date of issuance: April 13, 2015.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment approves a revision
to the emergency action levels from a scheme based on NEI 99-01,
Revision 5, ``Methodology for Development of Emergency Action Levels''
to a scheme based on NEI 99-01, Revision 6, ``Development of Emergency
Action Levels for Non-Passive Reactors.''
Effective date: As of the date of its issuance and shall be
implemented within 180 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 200. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML15063A355; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-12: Amendment revised
the Renewed Facility Operating License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 6, 2014 (79 FR
32771). The supplemental letters dated October 3, 2014, and March 18,
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
[[Page 23609]]
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 13, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-
364, Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Houston County,
Alabama
Date of application for amendment: June 3, 2014.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revise the
Technical Specification Limiting Condition for Operation 3.3.1 and
Surveillance Requirement 3.2.4.2 related to the reactor trip system
instrumentation.
Date of issuance: April 8, 2015.
Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 120 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 1--197, Unit 2--193. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15028A165, documents related
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with
the amendments.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-2 and NPF-8: The amendments
revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and Technical
Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 22, 2014 (79 FR
42551).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated April 8, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026,
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4, Burke County, Georgia
Date of amendment request: July 14, 2014, and supplemented by the
letter dated December 12, 2014.
Brief description of amendment: The license amendment revised the
Combined Licenses (COLs) to modify the fire area fire barriers of the
turbine building switchgear rooms of the turbine building to
accommodate the revised layout of the low and medium voltage switchgear
and associated equipment.
Date of issuance: April 1, 2015.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 32. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML15037A045; documents related to these amendments are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
Facility Combined Licenses Nos. NPF-91 and NPF-92: Amendment
revised the Facility Combined Licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 30, 2014 (79
FR 58812). The supplemental letter dated December 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 April 1, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026,
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4, Burke County, Georgia
Date of amendment request: July 29, 2014, and supplemented by the
letter dated November 5, 2014.
Brief description of amendment: The license amendment revised the
Combined Licenses (COLs) with regard to Tier 1 material and promoted
consistency with the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report Tier 2.
Date of issuance: February 13, 2015.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 30. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML14350B012; documents related to these amendments are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
Facility Combined Licenses Nos. NPF-91 and NPF-92: Amendment
revised the Facility Combined Licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 30, 2014 (79
FR 58812). The supplemental letter dated November 5, 2014, provided
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change
the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 13, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 20th day of April 2015.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Louise Lund,
Acting Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of
Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2015-09758 Filed 4-27-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P