[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 129 (Tuesday, July 7, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38756-38770]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-16539]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2015-0163]
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 June 11, 2015, to June 24, 2015. The last
biweekly notice was published on June 23, 2015.
DATES: Comments must be filed by August 6, 2015. A request for a
hearing must be filed by September 8, 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-2015-0163. 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
[[Page 38757]]
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: Paula Blechman, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2242, email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments
A. Obtaining Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0163 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-2015-0163.
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-2015-0163, 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 will post all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into
ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove
identifying or contact information.
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons
for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to
include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be
publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should
state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to
remove such information before making the comment submissions available
to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.
II. Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility
Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses and Proposed No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under
the Commission's regulations in Sec. 50.92 of Title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (10 CFR), this means that operation of the facility
in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated, or (2) create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or
(3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis
for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown
below.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final
determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day
comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result,
for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the
Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment
period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a
notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after
issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will
occur very infrequently.
A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing and Petition for Leave To Intervene
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any
person(s) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a
request for a hearing and a petition to intervene with respect to
issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license or
combined license. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to
intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's ``Agency
Rules of Practice and Procedure'' in 10 CFR part 2. Interested
person(s) should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is
available at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room O1-
F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. The
NRC's regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on
the NRC's Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is
filed by the above date, the Commission or a presiding officer
designated by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of
the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request
and/or petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of
the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing
or an appropriate order.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the
following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone
number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the
proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's
property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the
proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must
also identify the specific contentions which the requestor/
[[Page 38758]]
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 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,
[[Page 38759]]
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, in some instances, 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.
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket No. 50-346,
Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station (DBNPS), Unit No. 1, Ottawa County,
Ohio
Date of amendment request: December 19, 2014. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14353A349.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise the technical specifications (TS) to adopt performance-based
Type C testing for the reactor containment, which would allow for
extended test intervals for Type C valves, and corrects an editorial
issue in the TS.
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 amendment adopts the NRC-accepted guidelines of
[Nuclear Energy Institute] NEI 94-01, Revision 3-A, ``Industry
Guideline for Implementing Performance-Based Option of 10 CFR part
50, Appendix J,'' for DBNPS performance-based Type C containment
isolation valve testing. Revision 3-A of NEI 94-01 allows, based on
previous valve leak test performance, an extension of Type C
containment isolation valve leak test intervals. Since the change
involves only performance-based Type C testing, the proposed
amendment does not involve either a physical change to the plant or
a change in the manner in which the plant is operated or controlled.
Implementation of these guidelines continues to provide adequate
assurance that during design basis accidents, the components of the
primary containment system will limit leakage rates to less than the
values assumed in the plant safety analyses.
The proposed amendment will not change the leakage rate
acceptance requirements. As such, the containment will continue to
perform its design function as a barrier to fission product
releases.
Therefore, 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 proposed amendment to revise the extended frequency
performance-based Type C testing program does not change the design
or operation of structures, systems, or components of the plant.
The proposed amendment would continue to ensure containment
operability and would ensure operation within the bounds of existing
accident analyses. There are no accident initiators created or
affected by the proposed amendment.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment to revise the extended frequency
performance-based Type C testing program does not affect plant
operations, design functions, or any analysis that verifies the
capability of a structure, system, or component of the plant to
perform a design function. In addition, this change does not affect
safety limits, limiting safety system setpoints, or limiting
conditions for operation. The specific requirements and conditions
of the Technical Specification Containment Leakage Rate Testing
Program exist to ensure that the degree of containment structural
integrity and leak-tightness that is considered in the plant safety
analysis is maintained.
The overall containment leak rate limit specified by Technical
Specifications is maintained, thus ensuring the margin of safety in
the plant safety analysis is maintained. The design, operation,
testing methods, and acceptance criteria for Type A, Type B, and
Type C containment leakage tests specified in applicable codes and
standards would continue to be met with the acceptance of this
proposed change, since these are not affected by this revision to
the performance-based containment testing program.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: David W. Jenkins, Attorney, FirstEnergy
Corporation, Mail Stop A-GO-15, 76 South Main Street, Akron, OH 44308.
NRC Branch Chief: Travis L. Tate.
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket No. 50-346,
Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 1, Ottawa County, Ohio
Date of amendment request: April 1, 2015. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15091A143.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment requests
changes to certain technical specification minimum voltage and
frequency acceptance criteria for emergency diesel generator (EDG)
surveillance testing.
[[Page 38760]]
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 amendment would provide more restrictive acceptance
criteria for certain EDG technical specification surveillance tests.
The proposed acceptance criteria changes would help to ensure the
EDGs are capable of carrying the electrical loading assumed in the
safety analyses that take credit for the operation of the EDGs,
would not affect the capability of other structures, systems, and
components to perform their design function, and would not increase
the likelihood of a malfunction.
Therefore, 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 proposed changes would provide more restrictive acceptance
criteria to be applied to existing technical specification
surveillance tests that demonstrate the capability of the facility
EDGs to perform their design function. The proposed acceptance
criteria changes would not create any new failure mechanisms,
malfunctions, or accident initiators not considered in the design
and licensing bases.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed EDG surveillance requirement changes involve
increased minimum voltage and frequency test acceptance criteria.
The conduct of surveillance tests on safety related plant equipment
is a means of assuring that the equipment is capable of maintaining
the margin of safety established in the safety analyses for the
facility. The proposed amendment does not affect EDG performance as
described in the design basis analyses, including the capability for
the EDG to attain and maintain required voltage and frequency for
accepting and supporting plant safety loads should an EDG start
signal be received. The proposed amendment does not introduce
changes to limits established in the 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 staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: David W. Jenkins, Attorney, FirstEnergy
Corporation, Mail Stop A-GO-15, 76 South Main Street, Akron, OH 44308.
NRC Branch Chief: Travis L. Tate.
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Docket No. 50-
184, Center for Neutron Research (NCNR), Montgomery County, Maryland
Date of amendment request: June 23, 2014, as supplemented by letter
dated August 20, 2014. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS under
Accession Nos. ML14196A043 and ML14241A384, respectively.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise the NIST NCNR's Technical Specifications, sections 3.6 and 4.6,
pertaining to the replacement of NCNR's Uninterruptable Power Supplies
(UPS) which supplies emergency alternating current power to reactor
critical loads.
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 amendment would not increase the probability or
consequences of an accident previously evaluated. The proposed
amendment modifies maintenance requirements for emergency power
systems due to a change in battery technology used in commercially
available UPS. The proposed amendment will assure the reliability of
the emergency power systems utilizing valve-regulated lead acid
(VRLA) batteries by increasing the frequency of performance testing
as recommended by the battery manufacturer and the IEEE (Institute
of Electrical and Electronics Engineers). The IEEE recommends the
performance test Interval for VRLA batteries (IEEE-I 188) should not
be greater than 25% of the expected service life or two years,
whichever is less. The expected lifespan of a VRLA battery is ten
years so a two year testing interval was selected. More frequent
performance testing will ensure all the station batteries used for
emergency power remain capable of supplying emergency electrical
loads for a minimum of four hours as required. The proposed
amendment will also correct a typographical error and add the
requirement in the Limiting Conditions for Operations (LCO) for at
least one of the two replacement UPS system batteries to be
available to operate the reactor. Each UPS battery system is capable
of independently supplying the designated emergency electrical loads
for a minimum of four hours. Power for larger electrical loads such
as primary cooling backup pumps (shutdown pumps) and emergency
ventilation fans comes from other sources of emergency electrical
power (diesel generators, critical power bus, or 125 VDC [volt
direct current] station battery).
2. Does the change create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment would not create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated. The replacement UPS utilizes a different battery type
(VRLA) which has shorter lifespan than traditional Vented Lead Acid
(VLA) batteries. Increasing the frequency of performance monitoring
as recommended by the IEEE accounts for the shorter lifespan of VRLA
batteries and will enable the facility to identify a loss of battery
capacity early to permit scheduled replacement of individual system
components. Two identical but redundant UPS systems will each
provide for a minimum of four hours at fully rated emergency power
loading (20 kVA [kilovolt ampere]). The actual emergency electrical
loads on the UPS will be significantly less because the larger
electrical loads will continue to be powered from the 125 VDC
station battery directly or from one of two emergency diesel
generators. The new system will have higher reliability and capacity
than the existing emergency power system.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment would not involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety. More frequent monitoring of the capacity or
performance of the VRLA batteries utilized in the replacement UPS
supplying power to critical reactor loads will ensure the UPS
performs its design function and loss of battery capacity is
detected early before safety margins are reduced.
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: Melissa J. Lieberman, Deputy Chief Counsel,
National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive,
Gaithersburg, MD 20899.
NRC Branch Chief: Alexander Adams, Jr.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC), Docket Nos. 50-321 and
50-366, Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant (HNP), Units 1 and 2, Appling
County, Georgia
Date of amendment request: April 2, 2015. A publicly-available
version is in
[[Page 38761]]
ADAMS under Accession No. ML15092A856.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment modifies
Technical Specifications (TS) section 1.0 (``Definitions''), Limiting
Conditions for Operation and Surveillance Requirement Applicability,
section 3.4.9 (``RCS [Reactor Coolant System] Pressure and Temperature
(P/T) Limits''), and section 5.0 (``Administrative Controls'') to
delete reference to the pressure and temperature curves, and to include
reference to the Pressure and Temperature Limits Report (PTLR). This
change adopts the methodology of Boiling Water Reactor Owners Group
(BWROG)-TP-11-022-A Revision 1 (SIR-05-044, Revision 1-A), ``Pressure-
Temperature Limits Report Methodology for Boiling Water Reactors,''
dated June 2013, and of BWROG-TP-11-023-A, Revision 0 (0900876.401,
Revision 0-A), ``Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics Evaluation of
General Electric Boiling Water Reactor Water Level Instrument Nozzles
for Pressure-Temperature Curve Evaluations,'' dated May 2013, for
preparation of the pressure and temperature (P-T) curves, and
incorporates the guidance of Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF)
TSTF-419-A, ``Revise PTLR Definition and References in Improved
Standard Technical Specification (ISTS) 5.6.6, RCS PTLR.'' The HNP
PTLRs have been developed based on the methodologies provided in BWROG-
TP-11-022-A, Revision 1, and BWROG-TP-11-023-A, Revision 0, and based
on the template provided in BWROG-TP-11-022-A, Revision 1.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change modifies Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant (HNP)
Unit 1 and Unit 2 Technical Specifications (TS) Section 1.0
(``Definitions''), Limiting Conditions for Operation and
Surveillance Requirement Applicability Section 3.4.9 (``RCS Pressure
and Temperature (P/T) Limits''), and Section 5.0 (``Administrative
Controls''), to delete reference to the pressure and temperature
curves, and to include reference to the Pressure and Temperature
Limits Report (PTLR). This change adopts the methodology of BWROG-
TP-11-022-A, Revision 1 (SIR-05-044, Revision 1-A), ``Pressure-
Temperature Limits Report Methodology for Boiling Water Reactors,''
dated June 2013, and of BWROG-TP-11-023-A, Revision 0 (0900876.401,
Revision 0-A), ``Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics Evaluation of
General Electric Boiling Water Reactor Water Level Instrument
Nozzles for Pressure-Temperature Curve Evaluations,'' dated May
2013, for preparation of the pressure and temperature curves, and
incorporates the guidance of TSTF-419-A, ``Revise PTLR Definition
and References in ISTS 5.6.6, RCS PTLR.'' The HNP PTLRs have been
developed based on the methodologies provided in BWROG-TP-11-022-A,
Revision 1 and BWROG-TP-11-023-A, Revision 0, and based on the
template provided in BWROG-TP-11-022-A, Revision 1. The HNP PTLRs
meet all Conditions specified in the Safety Evaluation Reports
(SERs) for BWROG-TP-11-022-A, Revision 1 and for BWROG-TP-11-023-A,
Revision 0.
The NRC has established requirements in Appendix G to 10 CFR 50
in order to protect the integrity of the reactor coolant pressure
boundary (RCPB) in nuclear power plants. Additionally, the
regulation in 10 CFR part 50, Appendix H, provides the NRC staff's
criteria for the design and implementation of reactor pressure
vessel (RPV) material surveillance programs for operating lightwater
reactors. Implementing these NRC approved methodologies does not
reduce the ability to protect the reactor coolant pressure boundary
as specified in Appendix G, nor will this change increase the
probability of malfunction of plant equipment, or the failure of
plant structures, systems, or components. Incorporation of the new
methodologies for calculating P-T curves, and the relocation of the
P-T curves from the TS to the PTLR, provides an equivalent level of
assurance that the RCPB is capable of performing its intended safety
functions.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not affect the assumed accident
performance of the RCPB, nor any plant structure, system, or
component previously evaluated. The proposed change does not involve
the installation of new equipment, and installed equipment is not
being operated in a new or different manner. The change in
methodology ensures that the RCPB remains capable of performing its
safety functions. No set points are being changed which would alter
the dynamic response of plant equipment. Accordingly, no new failure
modes are introduced which could introduce the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not affect the function of the RCPB or
its response during plant transients. There are no changes proposed
which alter the setpoints at which protective actions are initiated,
and there is no change to the operability requirements for equipment
assumed to operate for accident mitigation.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
Based upon the above, SNC concludes that the proposed amendment
presents no significant hazards consideration under the standards
set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and, accordingly, a finding of no
significant hazards is justified.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Jennifer M. Buettner, Associate General
Counsel, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 40 Inverness Center
Parkway, Birmingham, AL 35201.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
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: October 7, 2014. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14280A391.
Description of amendment request: The proposed change would amend
Combined License Nos. NPF-91 and NPF-92 for the VEGP, Units 3 and 4.
The requested amendment proposes to modify the existing feedwater
controller logic to allow the controller program to respond as required
to various plant transients while minimizing the potential for false
actuation. 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 will modify the control logic for actuation
of the startup feedwater (SFW) pumps to support their
[[Page 38762]]
defense-in-depth function of core decay heat removal. The
instrumentation used for actuation of the SFW pumps in their
defense-in-depth function are not initiators of any accident. The
proposed control logic uses different instrument tag numbers than
the current design. The instruments used for the actuation of this
function exist as a part of the current design; therefore this
proposed change does not require any additional instrumentation.
These instruments, to be included as part of the Design Reliability
Assurance Program (D-RAP), will be held to the same enhanced quality
assurance (QA) requirements as the current instruments and therefore
neither safety, performance, nor reliance will be reduced as a part
of this change.
Additionally, the proposed changes do not adversely affect any
accident initiating event or component failure, thus accidents
previously evaluated are not adversely affected. In the event of
loss of offsite power that results in a loss of main feedwater (MFW)
supply, the SFW pumps automatically supply feedwater to the steam
generators to cool down the reactor under emergency shutdown
conditions. The standby source motor control center circuit powers
each of the two SFW pumps and their associated instruments and
valves. The pump discharge isolation valves are motor-operated and
are normally closed and interlocked with the SFW pumps. In the event
of loss of offsite power, the onsite standby power supply diesel
generators will power the SFW pumps. If both the normal ac power and
the onsite standby ac power are unavailable, these valves will fail
``as-is.'' The pump suction header isolation valves are
pneumatically actuated. The main and startup feedwater system (FWS)
also has temperature instrumentation in the pump discharge that
would permit monitoring of the SFW temperature. This proposed change
therefore has no impact on the ability of the AP1000 plant to cool
down under emergency shutdown conditions or during a loss of offsite
power event.
No function used to mitigate a radioactive material release and
no radioactive material release source term is involved, thus the
radiological releases in the accident analyses are not adversely
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 proposed changes will modify the control logic for actuation
of the startup feedwater (SFW) pumps to support their defense-in-
depth function of core decay heat removal. The instrumentation used
for actuation of the SFW pumps in their defense-in-depth function
are not initiators of any accident. The proposed control logic uses
different instrument tag numbers than the current design. However,
the instruments used for the actuation of this function already
exist as a part of the current design and so this change does not
require any additional instrumentation. These instruments, to be
included as part of the D-RAP, will be held to the same enhanced QA
requirements as the current instruments and so neither safety,
performance, nor reliance will be reduced as a part of this change.
Furthermore, since the D-RAP ensures consistency with the
Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA), the changes do not impact the
PRA. The proposed changes would not introduce a new failure mode,
fault, or sequence of events that could result in a radioactive
material release. The proposed change does not alter the design,
configuration, or method of operation of the plant beyond standard
functional capabilities of the equipment.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes will modify the control logic for actuation
of the startup feedwater (SFW) pumps to support their defense-in-
depth function of core decay heat removal. These changes will have
no negative impacts on the safety margin associated with the design
functions of the SFW pumps. The proposed logic changes will only
resolve the current conditions associated with undesired start up
signals for the SFW pumps. The changes set forth in this amendment
correct the actuation logic of the SFW pumps, so that the feedwater
controller logic is now aligned with the guidance provided in the
Advanced Light Water Reactor Utility Requirements Document (ALWR
URD). In addition, the operation of the startup feedwater system
function is not credited to mitigate a design-basis accident. Since
there is no change to an existing design basis limit/criterion,
design function, or regulatory criterion 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 staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: M. Stanford Blanton, Balch & Bingham LLP,
1710 Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 35203-2015.
Acting NRC Branch Chief: Paul Kallan.
Susquehanna Nuclear, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-387 and 50-388, Susquehanna
Steam Electric Station (SSES), Units 1 and 2, Luzerne County,
Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: March 19, 2015. A publicly-available
version is available in ADAMS under Package Accession No. ML15091A657.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the
Emergency Plan for SSES to adopt the Nuclear Energy Institute's (NEI's)
revised Emergency Action Level (EAL) scheme described in NEI 99-01,
Revision 6, ``Development of Emergency Action Levels for Non-Passive
Reactors'' (ADAMS Accession No. ML12326A805), which was endorsed by the
NRC, as documented in NRC letter dated March 28, 2013 (ADAMS Accession
No. ML12346A463).
On June 1, 2015, the NRC staff issued an amendment changing the
name on the SSES license from PPL Susquehanna, LLC, to Susquehanna
Nuclear, LLC. This amendment was issued subsequent to an order issued
on April 10, 2015, to SSES, approving an indirect license transfer.
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 any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to the EAL scheme to adopt the NRC-endorsed
guidance in NEI 99-01, Revision 6, ``Development of Emergency Action
Levels for Non-Passive Reactors,'' do not reduce the capability to
meet the emergency planning requirements established in 10 CFR 50.47
and 10 CFR 50, Appendix E. The proposed changes do not reduce the
functionality, performance, or capability of the ERO [Emergency
Response Organization] to respond in mitigating the consequences of
any design basis accident.
The probability of a reactor accident requiring implementation
of Emergency Plan EALs has no relevance in determining whether the
proposed changes to the EALs reduce the effectiveness of the
Emergency Plan. As discussed in Section I.D, ``Planning Basis,'' of
NUREG-0654, Revision 1, ``Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of
Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of
Nuclear Power Plants'';
. . . The overall objective of emergency response plans is to
provide dose savings (and in some cases immediate life saving) for a
spectrum of accidents that could produce offsite doses in excess of
Protective Action Guides (PAGs). No single specific accident
sequence should be isolated as the one for which to plan because
each accident could have different consequences, both in nature and
degree. Further, the range of possible selection for a planning
basis is very large, starting with a zero point of requiring no
planning at all because significant offsite radiological accident
consequences are unlikely to occur, to planning for the worst
possible accident, regardless of its extremely low likelihood . . .
Therefore, risk insights are not considered for any specific
accident initiation or
[[Page 38763]]
progression in evaluating the proposed changes.
The proposed changes do not involve any physical changes to
plant equipment or systems, nor do they alter the assumptions of any
accident analyses. The proposed changes do not adversely affect
accident initiators or precursors nor do they alter the design
assumptions, conditions, and configuration or the manner in which
the plants are operated and maintained. The proposed changes do not
adversely affect the ability of Structures, Systems, or Components
(SSCs) to perform their intended safety functions in mitigating the
consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance
limits.
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 proposed changes to the EAL scheme to adopt the NRC-endorsed
guidance in NEI 99-01, Revision 6 do not involve any physical
changes to plant systems or equipment. The proposed changes do not
involve the addition of any new plant equipment. The proposed
changes will not alter the design configuration, or method of
operation of plant equipment beyond its normal functional
capabilities. All ERO functions will continue to be performed as
required. The proposed changes do not create any new credible
failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident initiators.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from those that have been
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to the EAL scheme to adopt the NRC-endorsed
guidance in NEI 99-01, Revision 6 do not alter or exceed a design
basis or safety limit. There is no change being made to safety
analysis assumptions, safety limit, or limiting safety system
settings that would adversely affect plant safety as a result of the
proposed changes. There are no changes to setpoints or environmental
conditions of any SSC or the manner in which any SSC is operated.
Margins of safety are unaffected by the proposed changes to adopt
the NEI 99-01, Revision 6 EAL scheme guidance. The applicable
requirements of 10 CFR 50.47 and 10 CFR 50, Appendix E will continue
to be met.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve any reduction in
a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Damon D. Obie, Associate General Counsel,
Talen Energy Supply, LLC, 835 Hamilton St., Suite 150, Allentown, PA
18101.
NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.
Union Electric Company, Docket No. 50-483, Callaway Plant, Unit 1
(Callaway), Callaway County, Missouri
Date of amendment request: May 8, 2015. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15132A137.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would change
Technical Specification (TS) 2.1.1.1 and 5.6.5 to adopt NRC-approved
Westinghouse Electric Company LLC topical report WCAP-14565-P-A,
Addendum 2-P-A, ``Extended Application of ABB-NV [Asea Brown Boveri
N.V.] Correlation and Modified ABB-NV Correlation WLOP [Westinghouse
Low Pressure] for PWR [Pressurized-Water Reactor] Low Pressure
Applications,'' April 2008 (proprietary).
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.
Overall protection system performance will remain within the
bounds of the accident analyses since there are no design changes.
The design of the reactor trip system (RTS) instrumentation will be
unaffected, and thus, the protection system will continue to
function in a manner consistent with the plant design basis. All
applicable design, material, and construction standards will
continue to be maintained.
The proposed changes will not affect any assumptions regarding
accident initiators or precursors nor adversely alter the design
assumptions, conditions, and configuration of the facility or the
intended manner in which the plant is operated and maintained. The
proposed changes will not alter or prevent the ability of
structures, systems, and components (SSCs) from performing their
intended functions to mitigate the consequences of an initiating
event within the assumed acceptance limits.
The proposed changes do not physically alter safety-related
systems nor affect the way in which safety-related systems perform
their functions. TS 5.6.5.b continues to ensure that the analytical
methods used to determine the core operating limits meet NRC
reviewed and approved methodologies. TS 5.6.5.c, unchanged by this
amendment application, will continue to ensure that applicable
limits of the safety analyses are met.
The proposed change to TS 2.1.1.1 to specify only the true DNBR
[departure from nucleate boiling ratio] safety limit without the
addition of analytical uncertainties does not alter the use of the
analytical methods used to determine core operating limits that have
been reviewed and approved by the NRC. Removing analytical
uncertainties from the TS would allow the use of current topical
reports to refine those uncertainties without having to submit an
amendment to the operating license, consistent with the intent of
WCAP-14483-A [``Generic Methodology for Expanded Core Operating
Limits Report,'' dated January 19, 1999; ADAMS Accession No.
ML020430092]. Implementation of revisions to topical reports for
Callaway Plant applications would still be reviewed in accordance
with 10 CFR 50.59(c)(2)(viii) and, where required, receive prior NRC
review and approval.
All accident analysis acceptance criteria will continue to be
met with the proposed changes. The proposed changes will not affect
the source term, containment isolation, or radiological release
assumptions used in evaluating the radiological consequences of an
accident previously evaluated. The proposed changes will not alter
any assumptions or change any mitigation actions in the radiological
consequence evaluations in the FSAR [Final Safety Analysis Report].
The applicable radiological dose acceptance criteria will continue
to be met.
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 ABB-NV correlation was originally developed for Combustion
Engineering fuel designs, and has also been qualified and licensed
for Westinghouse fuel applications for the fuel region below the
first mixing vane grid where the W-3 correlation is currently
applied. The WLOP correlation is developed for DNBR calculations at
low pressure conditions. The W-3A correlations, which are based
exclusively on DNB [departure from nucleate boiling] data from rod
bundle tests, have a wider applicable range and are more accurate
than the W-3 correlation, leading to increased DNB margin in the
plant safety analyses. The NRC-approved ABB-NV and WLOP correlation
95/95 DNBR limits with the VIPRE-W code are 1.13 and 1.18,
respectively.
The proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated,
as the change is simply allowing the use of more accurate
correlations when evaluating DNBR. The change does not involve any
physical changes to the facility.
Likewise, revising TS 2.1.1.1 to present the DNBR safety limit
calculated using the WRB-2 methodology, without uncertainties being
applied, does [sic] not introduce any new or different failure mode
from what has been previously been evaluated. The change does not
involve any change to a methodology, including how uncertainties are
calculated and accounted for, nor does it involve any physical
change to the facility.
[[Page 38764]]
Collectively, and based on the above, 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 ABB-NV correlation was originally developed for Combustion
Engineering fuel designs, and has also been qualified and licensed
for Westinghouse fuel applications for the fuel region below the
first mixing vane grid where the W-3 correlation is currently
applied. The WLOP correlation is developed for DNBR calculations at
low pressure conditions. The W-3A correlations, which are based
exclusively on DNB data from rod bundle tests, have a wider
applicable range and are more accurate than the W-3 correlation,
leading to increased DNB margin in the plant safety analyses.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The currently listed Safety Limit in TS 2.1.1.1 for DNBR of 1.22
is calculated with some uncertainties statistically combined into
the 1.17 value calculated using the WRB-2 methodology. These
uncertainties are combined using the RTDP [Revised Thermal Design
Procedure] methodology described in WCAP-11397-P-A [``Revised
Thermal Design Procedure,'' April 1989 (proprietary)]. Callaway FSAR
Section 4.4.1.1 discusses which uncertainties are statistically
combined into the correlation limit.
Revising TS 2.1.1.1 to present the DNBR safety limit calculated
using the WRB-2 methodology, without uncertainties being applied,
does not represent a change in methodology, but rather allows for
changes in calculated uncertainties using methodologies previously
approved for Callaway without requiring a license amendment. The
proposed TS 2.1.1.1 revision does not represent a change in
methodology for performing analyses.
The proposed changes do not eliminate any surveillances or alter
the frequency of surveillances required by the Technical
Specifications. The nominal RTS and ESFAS [engineered safety
features actuation system] trip setpoints (as well as the associated
allowable values) will remain unchanged. None of the acceptance
criteria for any accident analysis will be changed.
As there is no change to the source term, radiological release,
or [dose] mitigation functions assumed in the accident analysis, the
proposed changes have no impact on the radiological consequences of
a design basis accident.
Based on the above, 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: John O'Neill, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw
Pittman LLP, 2300 N Street NW., Washington, DC 20037.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-338 and 50-339,
North Anna Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 (NAPS), Louisa County,
Virginia
Date of amendment request: May 4, 2015. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15131A026.
Description of amendment request: The proposed license amendment
would revise an incorrect equipment mark number, due to an
administrative error in the current Emergency Action Levels (EAL). The
amendment would correct the equipment mark number from the ``GW-RI-178-
1 Process Vent Normal Range'' monitor to the ``VG-RI-180-1 Vent Stack B
Normal Range'' monitor for Initiating Condition (IC) RA2, EAL RA2.1.
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 change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
This administrative change affects the NAPS EALs, but does not
alter any of the requirements of the Operating License or the
Technical Specifications. The proposed change does not modify any
plant equipment and does not impact any failure modes that could
lead to an accident. Additionally, the proposed change has no effect
on the consequences of any analyzed accident since the change does
not affect any equipment related to accident mitigation.
Based on this discussion, the proposed amendment does not
increase 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 affects the NAPS EALs by correcting an incorrect
radiation monitor reference, but does not alter any of the
requirements of the Operating License or the Technical
Specifications. It does not modify any plant equipment and there is
no impact on the capability of the existing equipment to perform its
intended functions. No system setpoints are being modified. No new
failure modes are introduced by the proposed change. The proposed
amendment does not introduce an accident initiator or any
malfunctions that would cause a new or different kind of accident.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The change affects the NAPS EALs, but does not alter any of the
requirements of the Operating License or the Technical
Specifications. The proposed change does not affect any of the
assumptions used in the accident analysis, nor does it affect any
operability requirements for equipment important to plant safety.
Therefore, the proposed change will 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 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion
Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar Street, RS-2, Richmond, VA
23219.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
III. Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses
and Combined Licenses
During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice,
the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has
determined for each of these amendments that the application complies
with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,
as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The
Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the
Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR chapter I, which are set
forth in the license amendment.
A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility
operating license or combined license, as applicable, proposed no
significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a
hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the Federal
Register as indicated.
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that
these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in
accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b),
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be
prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an
environmental assessment
[[Page 38765]]
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. 50-413 and 50-414, Catawba
Nuclear Station (Catawba), Units 1 and 2, York County, South Carolina
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370 McGuire
Nuclear Station (McGuire), Units 1 and 2, Mecklenburg County, North
Carolina
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287,
Oconee Nuclear Station (Oconee), Units 1, 2, and 3, Oconee County,
South Carolina
Date of application for amendments: November 6, 2014.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments changed the
completion date for implementing Milestone 8 of the Duke Cyber Security
Plan. Specifically, the amendments revised the date from June 30, 2015,
to December 31, 2017.
Date of issuance: June 11, 2015.
Effective date: The license amendments are effective as of their
dates of issuance and shall be implemented within 30 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: Catawba Unit 1--276; Catawba Unit 2--272; McGuire
Unit 1--279; McGuire Unit 2--259; Oconee Unit 1--391; Oconee Unit 2--
393; and Oconee Unit 3--392. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS
under Accession No. ML15133A453; 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, NPF-
17, DPR-38, DPR-47, and DPR-55: Amendments revised the licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 3, 2015 (80 FR
5818).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 11, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287,
Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, Oconee County, South
Carolina
Date of amendment request: November 8, 2010, as supplemented by
letters dated September 1, 2011; June 28, 2012; March 28, April 18,
September 27, and November 29, 2013; March 20 (two letters), and April
23, 2014; and May 28, 2015.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments approved revisions
to the updated final safety analysis report to incorporate the
licensee's reactor vessel internals inspection plan based on the
Materials Reliability Program: ``Pressurized Water Reactor Internals
Inspection and Evaluation Guidelines (MRP-227-A),'' published by the
Electric Power Research Institute.
Date of issuance: June 19, 2015.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days.
Amendment Nos.: 392 for Unit 1, 394 for Unit 2, and 393 for Unit 3.
A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No.
ML15050A671; documents related to these amendments are listed in the
Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-38, DPR-47, and DPR-55: The
amendments revised the Facility Operating Licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 2, 2012 (77 FR
60149). The supplemental letters dated September 1, 2011; March 28,
April 18, September 27, and November 29, 2013; March 20 (two letters),
and April 23, 2014; and May 28, 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 June 19, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. STN 50-456 and STN 50-457,
Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, Will County, Illinois
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. STN 50-454 and STN 50-455,
Byron Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Ogle County, Illinois
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-461, Clinton Power
Station, Unit No. 1, DeWitt County, Illinois
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-237 and 50-249, Dresden
Nuclear Power Station, Units 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: July 14, 2014.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised and added
Technical Specification (TS) surveillance requirements to address the
concerns discussed in Generic Letter 2008-01, ``Managing Gas
Accumulation in Emergency Core Cooling, Decay Heat Removal, and
Containment Spray Systems,'' dated January 11, 2008. The TS changes are
based on TS Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-523, Revision 2, ``Generic
Letter 2008-01, Managing Gas Accumulation,'' dated February 21, 2013.
Date of issuance: June 19, 2015.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 120 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 183, 183, 189, 189, 204, 244, 237, 214, 200, 257,
and 252. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No.
ML15114A188; 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-19, DPR-25, NPF-11, NPF-18, DPR-29, and DPR-30: The
amendments revised the TSs and Licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 28, 2014 (79 FR
64224).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 19, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
[[Page 38766]]
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-317 and 50-318, Calvert
Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Calvert County, Maryland
Date of amendment request: November 13, 2013, as supplemented by
letter dated June 13, 2014.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical
Specification (TS) 3.4.9, ``Pressurizer,'' TS 3.6.6, ``Containment
Spray and Cooling Systems,'' TS 3.6.8, ``Iodine Removal System,'' TS
3.7.8, ``Control Room Emergency Ventilation System,'' and TS 3.7.12,
``Penetration Room Exhaust Ventilation System'' to provide a short
completion time to restore an inoperable system for conditions under
which existing TSs require a plant shutdown.
Date of issuance: January 14, 2015.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 309 and 287. A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No. ML14307A842; documents related to these
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the
amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-53 and DPR-69: The
amendments revised the Licenses and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 22, 2014 (79 FR
42548). The supplement dated June 13, 2014, provided additional
information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of
the application as originally noticed, and did not change the NRC
staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated January 14, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket No. 50-440, Perry
Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No. 1, Lake County, Ohio
Date of application for amendment: June 23, 2014, as supplemented
by a letter dated February 27, 2015.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment updated the technical
specification (TS) pressure and temperature (P/T) figures using an NRC
approved methodology to adjust the P/T limit curves for the previously
missing data, addresses the reactor coolant system (RCS) vacuum
condition that can occur under certain conditions, and aligns the
heatup/cooldown requirements of the TS with the limits in the
associated P/T figures. Additionally editorial changes are proposed
related to the P/T figures including clarifications and updates to the
associated titles, labeling, and notes.
Date of issuance: June 12, 2015.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days.
Amendment No.: 168. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML15141A482; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-58: This amendment revised the
TSs and License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 30, 2014 (79
FR 58817).
The February 27, 2015, supplement contained clarifying information
and did not change the NRC staff's initial proposed finding of no
significant hazards consideration.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 12, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, Docket No. 50-440, Perry Nuclear
Power Plant, Unit No. 1, Lake County, Ohio
Date of amendment request: September 12, 2014.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment modified the
Technical Specification (TS) definition of SHUTDOWN MARGIN (SDM) to
require calculation of SDM at the reactor moderator temperature
corresponding to the most reactive state throughout the operating
cycle. The changes are consistent with the approved Technical
Specification Task Force (TSTF) Traveler, TSTF-535, Revision 0.
Date of issuance: June 23, 2015.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 169. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML15160A028; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-58: The amendment revised the
Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 25, 2014 (79
FR 70216).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 23, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Florida Power and Light Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389,
St. Lucie Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, St. Lucie County, Florida
Date of amendment request: February 20, 2014, as supplemented by
letters dated December 11, 2014, and January 13, January 28, April 18,
and May 19, 2015.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the
Technical Specifications (TSs) by relocating specific surveillance
frequency requirements to a licensee-controlled program with
implementation of Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 04-10, ``Risk-Informed
Technical Specification Initiative 5b, Risk-Informed Method for Control
of Surveillance Frequencies'' (ADAMS Accession No. ML071360456). 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 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 Technical Specifications Task Force] Initiative 5b'' (ADAMS
Accession No. ML090850642). The Federal Register notice published on
July 6, 2009 (74 FR 31996), announced the availability of TSTF-425,
Revision 3. The amendments also include editorial changes to the TSs,
administrative deviations from TSTF-425, and other changes resulting
from differences between the St. Lucie Plant TSs and the TSs on which
TSTF-425 was based.
Date of issuance: June 22, 2015.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 223 and 173. A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No. ML15127A066; documents related to these
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation (SE) enclosed with the
amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-67 and NPF-16:
Amendments revised the TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: The NRC staff initially
made a proposed determination that the amendment request dated February
20,
[[Page 38767]]
2014, involved no significant hazards consideration (July 22, 2014, 79
FR 42550). By letters dated December 11, 2014, and January 13, 2015,
the licensee provided clarifying information that did not expand the
scope of the application and did not change the NRC staff's original
proposed no significant hazards consideration (NSHC) determination, as
published in the Federal Register on July 22, 2014 (79 FR 44550).
Subsequently, by letter dated January 28, 2015, the licensee
supplemented its amendment request with a proposed change that expanded
the scope of the request. Therefore, the NRC published a second
proposed NSHC determination in the Federal Register on March 3, 2015
(80 FR 11477), which superseded the notice dated July 22, 2014 (79 FR
44550). The licensee's supplements dated April 18, 2015, and May 19,
2015, provided clarifying information that did not expand the scope of
the submittal and did not change the NRC staff's proposed NSHC
determination, as published in the notice dated March 3, 2015 (80 FR
11477).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in an SE dated June 22, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-354, 50-272 and 50-311, Hope Creek
Generating Station and Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1
and 2, Salem County, New Jersey
Date amendment request: December 9, 2014, as supplemented by letter
dated April 9, 2015.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the PSEG
Nuclear LLC (PSEG) Environmental Protection Plans (non-radiological)
(EPPs), contained in Appendix B to the renewed facility operating
licenses for Hope Creek Generating Station and Salem Nuclear Generating
Station, Units 1 and 2, to clarify that PSEG must adhere to the
currently applicable biological opinion issued by the National Marine
Fisheries Service. The amendments also simplify the Aquatic Monitoring
section of the EPPs, modify reporting requirements related to New
Jersey Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits, modify the
criteria for reporting Unusual or Important Environmental Events, and
remove the requirement for PSEG to submit an Annual Environmental
Operating Report.
Date of issuance: June 17, 2015.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment Nos.: 198, 308, 290. A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No. ML15141A271; documents related to these
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the
amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-57, DPR-70 and DPR-75:
The amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and
EPPs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 14, 2015 (80 FR
20024). The supplemental letter dated April 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 amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 17, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: Yes.
The Commission's related evaluation of the public comments is
contained in the safety evaluation dated June 17, 2015.
Southern California Edison Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-206, 50-361,
50-362, and 72-041, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS),
Units 1, 2, and 3, and the Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation,
San Diego County, California
Date of amendment request: March 31, 2014, as supplemented by
letters dated October 21, 2014, March 17, 2015, and April 29, 2015.
Brief description of amendment: The amendments revised the SONGS
emergency plan to reflect the low likelihood of any credible accident
at the facility in its permanently shutdown and defueled condition that
could result in radiological releases requiring offsite protective
measures and how, in the unlikely event of certain severe, beyond-
design-basis accidents, sufficient time would be available to initiate
appropriate mitigating actions, and if needed, for offsite authorities
to implement protective actions to protect the public health and
safety.
Date of issuance: June 5, 2015.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 1--167; Unit 2--229; Unit 3--222. A publicly-
available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15126A461;
documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety
Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-13, NPF-10, and NPF-15: The
amendments revised the emergency plan.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 23, 2014 (79
FR 77049). The supplemental letters dated March 17, 2015, and April 29,
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 June 5, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 50-260, Browns Ferry Nuclear
Plant, Unit 2, Limestone County, Alabama
Date of amendment request: June 19, 2014, as supplemented by letter
dated December 2, 2014.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical
Specification (TS) 3.4.9, ``RCS [Reactor Coolant System] Pressure and
Temperature (P/T) Limits,'' and Figures 3.4.9-1 through 3.4.9-2. The P/
T limits are based on proprietary topical report NEDC-33178P-A,
Revision 1, ``GE [General Electric] Hitachi Nuclear Energy Methodology
for Development of Reactor Pressure Vessel Pressure-Temperature
Curves.'' NEDO-33178-A, Revision 1, is the non-proprietary version of
the NRC-approved topical report.
Date of issuance: June 2, 2015.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 314. A publicly available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML15065A049; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-52: The amendment
revised the Facility Operating License and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 3, 2015 (80 FR
5819).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 2, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
[[Page 38768]]
Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-338 and 50-339,
North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Louisa County, Virginia
Date of application for amendment: June 30, 2014, as supplemented
by letter dated July 28, 2015.
Brief description of amendment: The license amendments approved the
changes to the Technical Specification (TS) 5.5.15, ``Containment
Leakage Rate Testing Program,'' by replacing the reference to
Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.163 with a reference to Nuclear Energy
Institute (NEI) topical report NEI 94-01, Revision 3-A, as the
implementation document used to develop the North Anna performance-
based leakage testing program in accordance with Option B of 10 CFR 50,
Appendix J.
Date of issuance: June 16, 2015.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 274 and 257. A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No. ML15133A381; documents related to this
amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the
amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-4 and NPF-7: The
amendments revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical
Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 2, 2014 (79
FR 52070).
The supplement dated January 28, 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.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 16, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and
Combined Licenses and Final Determination of No Significant Hazards
Consideration and Opportunity for a Hearing (Exigent Public
Announcement or Emergency Circumstances)
During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice,
the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has
determined for each of these amendments that the application for the
amendment complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules
and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as
required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10
CFR chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.
Because of exigent or emergency circumstances associated with the
date the amendment was needed, there was not time for the Commission to
publish, for public comment before issuance, its usual notice of
consideration of issuance of amendment, proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination, and opportunity for a hearing.
For exigent circumstances, the Commission has either issued a
Federal Register notice providing opportunity for public comment or has
used local media to provide notice to the public in the area
surrounding a licensee's facility of the licensee's application and of
the Commission's proposed determination of no significant hazards
consideration. The Commission has provided a reasonable opportunity for
the public to comment, using its best efforts to make available to the
public means of communication for the public to respond quickly, and in
the case of telephone comments, the comments have been recorded or
transcribed as appropriate and the licensee has been informed of the
public comments.
In circumstances where failure to act in a timely way would have
resulted, for example, in derating or shutdown of a nuclear power plant
or in prevention of either resumption of operation or of increase in
power output up to the plant's licensed power level, the Commission may
not have had an opportunity to provide for public comment on its no
significant hazards consideration determination. In such case, the
license amendment has been issued without opportunity for comment. If
there has been some time for public comment but less than 30 days, the
Commission may provide an opportunity for public comment. If comments
have been requested, it is so stated. In either event, the State has
been consulted by telephone whenever possible.
Under its regulations, the Commission may issue and make an
amendment immediately effective, notwithstanding the pendency before it
of a request for a hearing from any person, in advance of the holding
and completion of any required hearing, where it has determined that no
significant hazards consideration is involved.
The Commission has applied the standards of 10 CFR 50.92 and has
made a final determination that the amendment involves no significant
hazards consideration. The basis for this determination is contained in
the documents related to this action. Accordingly, the amendments have
been issued and made effective as indicated.
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that
these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in
accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b),
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be
prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an
environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in
10 CFR 51.12(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment,
it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the action see (1) the
application for amendment, (2) the amendment to Facility Operating
License or Combined License, as applicable, and (3) the Commission's
related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment, as
indicated. All of these items can be accessed as described in the
``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' section of this
document.
A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing and Petition for Leave To Intervene
The Commission is also offering an opportunity for a hearing with
respect to the issuance of the amendment. Within 60 days after the date
of publication of this notice, any person(s) whose interest may be
affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and a petition
to intervene with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject
facility operating license or combined license. Requests for a hearing
and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with
the Commission's ``Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure'' in 10 CFR
part 2. Interested person(s) should consult a current copy of 10 CFR
2.309, which is available at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint
North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville,
Maryland 20852, and electronically on the Internet at the NRC's Web
site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If there are
problems in accessing the document, contact the PDR's Reference staff
at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected].
If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed
by the above date, the
[[Page 38769]]
Commission or a presiding officer designated by the Commission or by
the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or
the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the
following general requirements: (1) the name, address, and telephone
number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the
proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's
property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the
proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must
also identify the specific contentions which the requestor/petitioner
seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the
requestor/petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for
the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert
opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner
intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The
petitioner must also provide references to those specific sources and
documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the petitioner
intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. The
petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine
dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact.
Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the
amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if
proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A requestor/petitioner
who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one
contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding,
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene,
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the
hearing. Since the Commission has made a final determination that the
amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, if a hearing
is requested, it will not stay the effectiveness of the amendment. Any
hearing held would take place while the amendment is in effect.
B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a
request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or
other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a
request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by
interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c),
must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139;
August 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit
and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some
cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not
submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in
accordance with the procedures described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least
ten 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should
contact the Office of the Secretary by email at [email protected],
or by telephone at 301-415-1677, to request (1) a digital
identification (ID) certificate, which allows the participant (or its
counsel or representative) to digitally sign documents and access the
E-Submittal server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and
(2) advise the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a
request or petition for hearing (even in instances in which the
participant, or its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-
issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the
Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the hearing in this
proceeding if the Secretary has not already established an electronic
docket.
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is
available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/getting-started.html. System requirements for accessing
the E-Submittal server are detailed in the NRC's ``Guidance for
Electronic Submission,'' which is available on the agency's public Web
site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants
may attempt to use other software not listed on the Web site, but
should note that the NRC's E-Filing system does not support unlisted
software, and the NRC Meta System Help Desk will not be able to offer
assistance in using unlisted software.
If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC
in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the
document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to
serve documents through the Electronic Information Exchange System,
users will be required to install a Web browser plug-in from the NRC's
Web site. Further information on the Web-based submission form,
including the installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on
the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html.
Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a
docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for
hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in
Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance
available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the time the
documents are submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be
timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system
no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of
a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends
the submitter an email notice confirming receipt of the document. The
E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access
to the document to the NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any
others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to
participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the
documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and
other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for
and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing request/petition
to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access to the document
via the E-Filing system.
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-
Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System
Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC's public
Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by email to
[email protected], or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-7640. The
NRC Meta System Help Desk is available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m.,
Eastern
[[Page 38770]]
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, in some instances, 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.
Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50-397, Columbia Generating Station,
Benton County, Washington
Date of application for amendment: May 15, 2015, as supplemented by
letter dated May 19, 2015.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment extended the
implementation period for Amendment No. 232, License Amendment Request
for Changing Technical Specification Table 3.3.1.1-1 Function 7,
``Scram Discharge Volume Water Level--High,'' which was issued on March
27, 2015 (ADAMS Accession No. ML15063A010). Amendment No. 232 was
effective as of the date of issuance (i.e., on March 27, 2015), and was
required to be implemented prior to restarting from refueling outage R-
22, scheduled for spring 2015. Amendment No. 235 extends the
implementation period for Amendment No. 232 to prior to restarting from
refueling outage R-23, scheduled for spring 2017.
Date of issuance: June 11, 2015.
Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented
prior to restarting from refueling outage R-23, scheduled for spring
2017.
Amendment No.: 235. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML15154A800; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-21: Amendment revised
the Renewed Facility Operating License to extend the implementation
date of Amendment No. 232, issued on March 27, 2015, to prior to
restarting from refueling outage R-23, scheduled for spring 2017.
Public comments requested as to proposed no significant hazards
consideration (NSHC): Yes. Public notice of the proposed amendment was
published in the Tri-City Herald, located in in Kennewick, Washington,
from June 2 through June 4, 2015. The notice provided an opportunity to
submit comments on the Commission's proposed NSHC determination. No
comments were received.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment, finding of
exigent circumstances, state consultation, public comments, and final
NSHC determination are contained in a Safety Evaluation dated June 11,
2015.
Attorney for licensee: William A. Horin, Esq., Winston & Strawn,
1700 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006-3817.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 50-390, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant,
Unit 1 (WBN-1), Rhea County, Tennessee
Date of amendment request: May 29, 2015, as supplemented by letter
dated June 5, 2015.
Description of amendment request: The amendment provided a one-time
change to Technical Specification Table 3.3.4-1, Function 4a, ``Reactor
Coolant System (RCS) Hot Leg Temperature Indication,'' to permit the
temperature indication for RCS Loop 4 to be inoperable for the
remainder of WBN-1 Operating Cycle 13.
Date of issuance: June 12, 2015.
Effective date: June 12, 2015.
Amendment No.: 100. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML15160A407; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Facility Operating License No. (NPF-90): The amendment revised the
Technical Specifications.
Public comments requested as to proposed no significant hazards
consideration (NSHC): Yes. (The Advocate & Democrat and The Herald-News
on June 7 and June 10, 2015 as well as The Daily Post-Athenian on June
5 and June 8, 2015.) The notice provided an opportunity to submit
comments on the Commission's proposed NSHC determination. No comments
were received.
The supplemental letter dated June 5, 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 Advocate & Democrat and The Herald-News on June 7, and
June 10, 2015, as well as The Daily Post-Athenian, on June 5, and June
8, 2015.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment, finding of
exigent circumstances, state consultation, and NSHC determination are
contained in a safety evaluation dated June 12, 2015.
Attorney for licensee: General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority,
400 West Summit Hill Drive, ET 11A, Knoxville, TN 37902.
NRC Branch Chief: Jessie F. Quichocho.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th day of June 2015.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
George A. Wilson,
Deputy Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of
Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2015-16539 Filed 7-6-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P