[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 139 (Tuesday, July 21, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43123-43134]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-17651]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2015-0171]
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 25, 2015, to July 8, 2015. The last
biweekly notice was published on July 7, 2015.
DATES: Comments must be filed by August 20, 2015. A request for a
hearing must be filed by September 21, 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-2015-0171. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-
3463; email: [email protected]. For technical questions, contact
the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this document.
Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Office of Administration,
Mail Stop: OWFN-12-H08, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555-0001.
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting
comments, see ``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lynn Ronewicz, U.S. Nuclear
[[Page 43124]]
Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-
1927, email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments
A. Obtaining Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0171 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-2015-0171.
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-2015-0171, 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 Section 50.92 of Title 10 of the Code
of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), this means that operation of the
facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1)
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated, or (2) create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated;
or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis
for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown
below.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final
determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day
comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result,
for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the
Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment
period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a
notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after
issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will
occur very infrequently.
A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing and Petition for Leave To Intervene
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any
person(s) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a
request for a hearing and a petition to intervene with respect to
issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license or
combined license. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to
intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's ``Agency
Rules of Practice and Procedure'' in 10 CFR part 2. Interested
person(s) should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is
available at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room O1-
F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. The
NRC's regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on
the NRC's Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is
filed by the above date, the Commission or a presiding officer
designated by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of
the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request
and/or petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of
the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing
or an appropriate order.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the
following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone
number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the
proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's
property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the
proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must
also identify the specific contentions which the requestor/petitioner
seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the
requestor/petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for
the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert
opinion which support the contention and on which the requestor/
petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing.
The requestor/petitioner
[[Page 43125]]
must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of
which the petitioner is aware and on which the requestor/petitioner
intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. The
petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine
dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact.
Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the
amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if
proven, would entitle the requestor/petitioner to relief. A requestor/
petitioner who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at
least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding,
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene,
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the
hearing.
If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The
final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If
the final determination is that the amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the
amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the
request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance
of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment
request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing
held would take place before the issuance of any amendment unless the
Commission finds an imminent danger to the health or safety of the
public, in which case it will issue an appropriate order or rule under
10 CFR part 2.
B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a
request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or
other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a
request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by
interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c),
must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139;
August 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit
and serve all adjudicatory documents over the Internet, or in some
cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not
submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in
accordance with the procedures described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least
ten 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should
contact the Office of the Secretary by email at [email protected],
or by telephone at 301-415-1677, to request (1) a digital
identification (ID) certificate, which allows the participant (or its
counsel or representative) to digitally sign documents and access the
E-Submittal server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and
(2) advise the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a
request or petition for hearing (even in instances in which the
participant, or its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-
issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the
Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the hearing in this
proceeding if the Secretary has not already established an electronic
docket.
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is
available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/getting-started.html. System requirements for accessing
the E-Submittal server are detailed in the NRC's ``Guidance for
Electronic Submission,'' which is available on the agency's public Web
site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants
may attempt to use other software not listed on the Web site, but
should note that the NRC's E-Filing system does not support unlisted
software, and the NRC Meta System Help Desk will not be able to offer
assistance in using unlisted software.
If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC
in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the
document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to
serve documents through the Electronic Information Exchange System,
users will be required to install a Web browser plug-in from the NRC's
Web site. Further information on the Web-based submission form,
including the installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on
the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html.
Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a
docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for
hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in
Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with 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 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m.,
Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays.
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not
submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in
accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing
requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper
format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention:
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or
expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth
Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD
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
[[Page 43126]]
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.
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. (DNC), Docket No. 50-336, Millstone
Power Station, Unit No. 2 (MPS2), New London County, Connecticut
Date of amendment request: March 2, 2015. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15069A226.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise
Technical Specification (TS) 6.19, ``Containment Leakage Rate Testing
Program,'' for MPS2. Specifically, DNC proposes to: (1) Revise the
definition of Pa [peak calculated primary containment
internal pressure] in TS 6.19 that was introduced into the TSs in
License Amendment 203 to be consistent with the Pa value in
TSs 3.6.1.2 and 3.6.1.3, and (2) revise the acceptance criteria for
leakage rate testing of containment air lock door seals to substitute
the use of the makeup flow method in lieu of the pressure decay method
currently used at MPS2.
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:
Criterion 1
[Does the] proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
This proposed license amendment would revise the definition of
Pa that was introduced into TS 6.19 under License
Amendment 203 to be consistent with the Pa value in TSs
3.6.1.2 and 3.6.1.3. The design basis accident remains unchanged for
the postulated events described in the MPS2 Final Safety Analysis
Report (FSAR). Since the initial conditions and assumptions included
in the safety analyses are unchanged, the consequences of the
postulated events remain unchanged. Therefore, the proposed
amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability
or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed amendment [would] also revise the method of
surveillance for leakage rate testing of the containment air lock
door seals. The makeup flow method will continue to provide
assurance that the containment leakage rate is within the limits
assumed in the radiological consequences analysis of the design
basis accident, therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
Criterion 2
[Does the] proposed amendment create the possibility for a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment would: (1) Revise the definition of
Pa in TS 6.19 to be consistent with the Pa
value in TSs 3.6.1.2 and 3.6.1.3, and (2) revise the method of
surveillance for leakage rate testing of the containment air lock
door seals. The proposed amendment does not change the way the plant
is operated and does not involve a physical alteration of the plant.
No new or different types of equipment will be installed and there
are no physical modifications to existing equipment associated with
the proposed amendment. Similarly, the proposed amendment would not
physically change any plant systems, structures, or components
involved in the mitigation of any postulated accidents. Thus, no new
initiators or precursors of a new or different kind of accident are
created.
Furthermore, the proposed amendment does not create the
possibility of a new failure mode associated with any equipment or
personnel failures.
Therefore, the proposed amendment would not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any
previously evaluated.
Criterion 3
[Does the] proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in
the margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment would: (1) Revise the definition of
Pa in TS 6.19 to be consistent with the Pa
value in TSs 3.6.1.2 and 3.6.1.3, and (2) revise the method of
surveillance for leakage rate testing of the containment air lock
door seals. The proposed amendment does not represent any physical
change to plant systems, structures, or components, or to procedures
established for plant operation. The proposed amendment does not
affect the inputs or assumptions of any of the design basis analyses
and current design limits will continue to be met. Since the
proposed amendment does not affect the assumptions or consequences
of any accident previously analyzed, there is no significant
reduction in the margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion
Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar Street, RS-2, Richmond, VA
23219.
Acting NRC Branch Chief: Michael I. Dudek.
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-336 and 50-423,
Millstone Power Station, Unit Nos. 2 and 3, New London County,
Connecticut
Date of amendment request: January 15, 2015, as supplemented on
April 15, 2015. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession Nos. ML15021A128 and ML15111A449, respectively.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would
revise or add Surveillance Requirements to verify that the system
locations susceptible to gas accumulation are sufficiently filled with
water and to provide allowances which permit performance of the
verification to the Technical Specifications. The changes are being
made to address the concerns discussed in Generic Letter 2008-01,
[[Page 43127]]
``Managing Gas Accumulation in Emergency Core Cooling, Decay Heat
Removal, and Containment Spray Systems.'' The proposed amendments would
be consistent with Technical Specification Task Force Traveler-523,
Revision 2, Generic Letter 2008-01, ``Managing Gas Accumulation.''
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
Criterion 1
Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises or adds Surveillance Requirements
(SRs) that require verification that the Emergency Core Cooling
System (ECCS), Shutdown Cooling (SDC) System, and the Containment
Spray System are not rendered inoperable due to accumulated gas and
to provide allowances which permit performance of the revised
verification. Gas accumulation in the subject systems is not an
initiator of any accident previously evaluated. As a result, the
probability of any accident previously evaluated is not
significantly increased. The proposed SRs ensure that the subject
systems continue to be capable to perform their assumed safety
function and are not rendered inoperable due to gas accumulation.
Thus, the consequences of any accident previously evaluated are not
significantly increased.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
Criterion 2
Does the proposed amendment create the possibility for a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises or adds SRs that require
verification that the ECCS, SDC and the Containment Spray Systems
are not rendered inoperable due to accumulated gas and provide
allowances which permit performance of the revised verification. The
proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant
(i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a
change in the methods governing normal plant operation. In addition,
the proposed change does not impose any new or different
requirements that could initiate an accident. The proposed change
does not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis and is
consistent with the safety analysis assumptions.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
Criterion 3
Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in
the margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises or adds SRs that require
verification that the ECCS, SDC and the Containment Spray Systems
are not rendered inoperable due to accumulated gas and provide
allowances which permit performance of the revised verification. The
proposed change adds new requirements to manage gas accumulation in
order to ensure the subject systems are capable of performing their
assumed safety functions. The proposed SRs are more comprehensive
than the current SRs and will ensure that the assumptions of the
safety analysis are protected. The proposed change does not
adversely affect any current plant safety margins or the reliability
of the equipment assumed in the safety analysis.
Therefore, there are no changes being made to any safety
analysis assumptions, safety limits or limiting safety system
settings that would adversely affect plant safety as a result of the
proposed change.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion
Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar Street, RS-2, Richmond, VA
23219.
Acting NRC Branch Chief: Michael I. Dudek.
Duke Energy Florida, Inc. (DEF), et al., Docket No. 50-302, Crystal
River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant (CR-3), Citrus County, Florida
Date of amendment request: May 7, 2015. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15134A160.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise
Technical Specifications 5.1.1, 5.2.1.b, 5.3.2, and 5.6.2.3 by changing
the title of the position with overall responsibility for the safe
handling and storage of nuclear fuel and licensee initiated changes to
the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM) from either the Plant
Manager or the Decommissioning Director to the General Manager
Decommissioning.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, with NRC staff revisions provided in [brackets], which
is presented below:
Criterion 1
Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The consolidation of Plant Manager and Decommissioning Director
to General Manager Decommissioning changes to the Administrative
Controls sections of the CR-3 Improved Technical Specifications has
no effect on the performance of these defined responsibilities. The
overall responsibility for these Administrative Controls sections
remains at the same level or higher: (1) Delegating in writing the
succession to this responsibility during any absence; (2) approving,
prior to implementation, any change to tests, experiments or
modifications to systems or equipment that affect stored nuclear
fuel; (3) ensuring the acceptable performance of the staff involved
in operating, maintaining, and providing technical support to ensure
the safe handling and storage of the nuclear fuel; (4) ensuring that
the training and retraining of the Certified Fuel Handler positions
are in accordance with the applicable standards; and (5) ensuring
that any licensee initiated changes to the ODCM are effective only
after acceptance by the General Manager Decommissioning.
The proposed CR-3 ITS [Improved Technical Specifications]
Administrative Controls sections consolidation of Plant Manager and
Decommissioning Director to General Manager Decommissioning are
administrative in nature, and have no direct effect on any plant
system, the operation and maintenance of CR-3 or any previously
evaluated accident.
These changes reflect DEF hierarchical changes associated with
CR-3 decommissioning and placing the unit in the permanently
defueled safe storage condition.
Criterion 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 CR-3 ITS Administrative Controls sections
consolidation of Plant Manager and Decommissioning Director to
General Manager Decommissioning are administrative in nature, and
have no direct effect on any plant system, the operation and
maintenance of CR-3 or any previously evaluated accident. The
consolidation of Plant Manager and Decommissioning Director to
General Manager Decommissioning changes to the Administrative
Controls sections of the CR-3 ITS have no effect on the performance
of these previously delineated responsibilities. The overall
responsibility for these Administrative Controls sections remains at
the same level or higher.
These changes reflect DEF hierarchical changes associated with
CR-3 decommissioning and placing the unit in the permanently
defueled safe storage condition.
Criterion 3
Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed CR-3 ITS Administrative Controls sections
consolidation of Plant
[[Page 43128]]
Manager and Decommissioning Director to General Manager
Decommissioning are administrative in nature, have no direct effect
on any plant system, does not involve any physical plant limits or
parameters, License Condition, Technical Specification Limiting
Condition of Operability, or operating philosophy, and therefore
cannot affect any margin of safety.
The consolidation of Plant Manager and Decommissioning Director
to General Manager Decommissioning changes to the Administrative
Controls sections of the CR-3 ITS have no effect on the performance
of these previously delineated responsibilities. The overall
responsibility for these Administrative Controls sections remains at
the same level or higher.
These changes reflect DEF hierarchical changes associated with
CR-3 decommissioning and placing the unit in the permanently
defueled safe storage condition.
Therefore, a no significant hazards consideration conclusion is
reached.
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: Lara S. Nichols, 550 South Tryon Street,
Charlotte NC 28202.
NRC Branch Chief: Meena K. Khanna.
Duke Energy Progress Inc., Docket No. 50-400, Shearon Harris Nuclear
Power Plant, Unit 1, New Hill, North Carolina
Date of amendment request: April 30, 2015. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15126A117.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the
emergency plan by changing the emergency action levels from a scheme
based upon Revision 5 of Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI)-99-01,
``Methodology for Development of Emergency Action Levels,'' to one
based upon Revision 6 of NEI 99-01, ``Development of Emergency Action
Levels for Non-Passive Reactors.'' The NRC formally endorsed NEI 99-01,
Revision 6, in a letter dated March 28, 2013 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML12346A463).
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?
These changes affect the HNP [Shearon Harris Nuclear Power
Plant] Emergency Plan and do not alter any of the requirements of
the Operating License or the Technical Specifications. The proposed
changes do not reduce the effectiveness of the HNP Emergency Plan or
the HNP Emergency Response Organization. The proposed changes do not
modify any plant equipment and do not impact any failure modes that
could lead to an accident. Additionally, the proposed changes do not
impact the consequence of any analyzed accident since the changes do
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 amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
These changes affect the HNP Emergency Plan and do not alter any
of the requirements of the Operating License or the Technical
Specifications. These changes do not modify any plant equipment and
there is no impact on the capability of the existing equipment to
perform their intended functions. No system setpoints are being
modified and no changes are being made to the method in which plant
operations are conducted. No new failure modes are introduced by the
proposed changes. The proposed amendment does not introduce accident
initiator or 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 amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
These changes affect the HNP Emergency Plan and do not alter any
of the requirements of the Operating License or the Technical
Specifications. The proposed changes do not affect any of the
assumptions used in the accident analysis, nor do they affect any
operability requirements for equipment important to plant safety.
Therefore, the proposed changes will not result in a significant
reduction in the margin of safety as defined in the bases for
Technical Specifications covered in this license amendment request.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Lara S. Nichols, Deputy General Counsel,
Duke Energy Corporation, 550 South Tyron Street, Mail Code DEC45A,
Charlotte, NC 28202.
NRC Branch Chief: Shana R. Helton.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-
026, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4, Burke County,
Georgia
Date of amendment request: May 7, 2015. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15127A469.
Description of amendment request: The amendment request proposes
changes to the Main Control Room Emergency Habitability System (VES)
configuration and equipment safety designation. 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 design functions of the VES for the main control room (MCR)
are to provide breathable air, maintain positive pressurization
relative to the outside, provide cooling of MCR equipment and
facilities, and provide passive air filtration within the MCR
boundary. The VES is designed to satisfy these functions for up to
72 hours following a design basis accident.
The proposed changes to the ASME Code [American Society of
Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code] safety
classification of components, equipment orientation and
configuration, addition and deletion of components, and correction
to the number of emergency air storage tanks would not adversely
affect any design function. The proposed changes maintain the design
function of the VES with safety-related equipment and system
configuration consistent with the descriptions in UFSAR [Updated
Final Safety Analysis Report] Figure 6.4.2. The proposed changes do
not affect the support or operation of mechanical and fluid systems.
There is no change to the response of systems to postulated accident
conditions. There is no change to the predicted radioactive releases
due to postulated accident conditions. The plant response to
previously evaluated accidents or external events is not adversely
affected, nor do the proposed changes described create any new
accident precursors.
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
[[Page 43129]]
accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to revise the VES design related to the
ASME Code safety classification, equipment orientation and
configuration, addition and deletion of components, and correction
to the number of emergency air storage tanks maintain consistency
with the design function information in the USFAR. The proposed
changes do not create a new fault or sequence of events that could
result in a radioactive release. The proposed changes would not
affect any safety-related accident mitigating function.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not affect the ability of the VES to
maintain the safety-related functions to the MCR. The VES continues
to meet the requirements for which it was designed and continues to
meet the regulations. No safety analysis or design basis acceptance
limit/criterion is challenged or exceeded by the proposed changes,
and no margin of safety is reduced.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Mr. M. Stanford Blanton, Balch & Bingham
LLP, 1710 Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 35203-2015.
NRC Branch Chief: Paul Kallan.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-
026, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4, Burke County,
Georgia
Date of amendment request: April 9, 2015. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML5099A568.
Description of amendment request: The amendment request proposes
changes to the Class 1E direct current and Uninterruptible Power Supply
System, replacing four Spare Termination Boxes with a single Spare
Battery Termination Box. Because this proposed change requires a
departure from Tier 1 information in the Westinghouse Advanced Passive
1000 Design Control Document (DCD), the licensee also requested an
exemption from the requirements of the Generic DCD Tier 1 in accordance
with 10 CFR 52.63(b)(1).
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not affect the operation of any systems
or equipment that initiate an analyzed accident or alter any
structures, systems, and components (SSC) accident initiator or
initiating sequence of events. The [Uninterruptible Power Supply
System] IDS design change involves replacing the four Spare
Termination Boxes with a single Spare Battery Termination Box, and
minor raceway and cable routing changes. The proposed changes
maintain the method used to manually connect the Spare Battery Bank
and Spare Battery Bank Charger to supply loads of one of the four 24
Hour Battery Switchboards or one of the two 72 Hour Battery
Switchboards at a time while maintaining the independence of the IDS
divisions. Therefore, the probabilities of the accidents evaluated
in the [Updated Final Safety Analysis Report] UFSAR are not
affected.
The proposed changes do not have an adverse impact on the
ability of the IDS equipment to perform its design functions. The
design of the IDS equipment continues to meet the same regulatory
acceptance criteria, electrical codes, and standards as required by
the UFSAR. Therefore, the proposed changes do not affect the
prevention and mitigation of other abnormal events, e.g., accidents,
anticipated operational occurrences, earthquakes, floods and turbine
missiles, or their safety or design analyses. In addition, the
proposed changes do not have an adverse effect on any safety-related
SSC or function used to mitigate an accident; therefore, the
consequences of the accidents evaluated in the UFSAR are not
affected.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not change the design functions of IDS
or any of the systems or equipment in the plant. The IDS design
change involves replacing the four Spare Termination Boxes with a
single Spare Battery Termination Box, and minor raceway and cable
routing changes, and the electrical equipment continues to perform
its design functions because the same electrical codes and standards
as stated in the UFSAR continue to be met. The proposed changes
maintain the method used to manually connect the Spare Battery Bank
and Spare Battery Bank Charger to supply loads of one of the four 24
Hour Battery Switchboards or one of the two 72 Hour Battery
Switchboards at a time while maintaining the independence of the IDS
divisions.
These proposed changes do not adversely affect any IDS or SSC
design functions or methods of operation in a manner that results in
a new failure mode, malfunction, or sequence of events that affect
safety-related or non-safety-related equipment. Therefore, this
activity does not allow for a new fission product release path,
result in a new fission product barrier failure mode, or create a
new sequence of events that result in significant fuel cladding
failures.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes maintain existing safety margins. The
proposed changes do not result in changes to the IDS design
requirements or design functions. The proposed changes maintain
existing safety margin through continued application of the existing
requirements of the UFSAR. Therefore, the proposed changes satisfy
the same design functions in accordance with the same codes and
standards as stated in the UFSAR. These proposed changes do not
affect any design code, function, design analysis, safety analysis
input or result, or design/safety margin.
Because no safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/
criterion is challenged or exceeded by these proposed changes, no
margin of safety is reduced.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: M. Stanford Blanton, Balch & Bingham LLP,
1710 Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 35203-2015.
Acting NRC Branch Chief: Paul Kallan.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-
425, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2 (VEGP), Burke
County, Georgia
Date of amendment request: May 19, 2015. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15139A578.
Description of amendment request: The licensee submitted a license
amendment request (LAR) proposing to revise the minimum indicated
nitrogen cover pressure required per Technical Specification (TS)
Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.5.1.3 from the current requirement of
626 pounds per
[[Page 43130]]
square inch gauge (psig) back to the previous requirement of 617 psig.
The values for the nitrogen cover pressure specified in SR 3.5.1.3 are
indicated values as read on the main control board (MCB) indication. As
noted in the LAR, the minimum nitrogen cover pressure was previously
revised from 617 psig to 626 psig. That revision was requested as an
interim measure to compensate for an increase in the uncertainty
associated with the accumulator nitrogen cover pressure indication
instrumentation, from the transmitter to the MCB indication. That
uncertainty was attributed to a specific production batch of Veritrak/
Tobar transmitters which shown to exhibit a temperature compensation
shift effect of 1.58 percent. Of the 16 pressure transmitters installed
in VEGP, 15 were Veritrak/Tobar transmitters. A conservative decision
was made to increase the TS minimum indicated value. Subsequent to the
issuance of that amendment, the higher uncertainty transmitters were
replaced with a different model. As a result of the transmitter
replacement, the uncertainty of the affected instrumentation was
restored to the value assumed in the Westinghouse accident analysis.
Therefore, a decrease of the indicated minimum nitrogen pressure value
specified in the TS is requested.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment revises the minimum nitrogen cover
pressure specified for the accumulators in SR 3.5.1.3 from 626 psig
to 617 psig. The accumulators are not a precursor to any accident
previously evaluated. The accumulators are used to mitigate the
consequences of accidents previously evaluated. The proposed change
does not affect the probability or the consequences of any accident
previously evaluated.
Therefore, it is concluded that 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 revises the minimum nitrogen cover pressure
specified for the accumulators in SR 3.5.1.3 from 626 psig to 617
psig. The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of
the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed)
or a change in the methods governing normal plant operation. The
proposed change to the requirements of the TS assures that the
acceptance limits of the accumulators with respect to assumptions in
the LOCA [loss-of-coolant-accident] analyses continue to be met. The
proposed change does not adversely affect the design function or
operation of any structures, systems, and components important to
safety.
Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed change does not
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from
any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises the minimum nitrogen cover pressure
specified for the accumulators in SR 3.5.1.3 from 626 psig to 617
psig. The proposed change to the indicated accumulator nitrogen
cover pressure provides assurance that the requirements of the TS
continue to bound the acceptance limits of the accumulators with
respect to the assumptions in the LOCA analyses. Thus the proposed
change to the accumulator minimum nitrogen cover pressure assures
the existing margin of safety is maintained.
Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed change does not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Jennifer M. Buettner, Associate General
Counsel, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 40 Inverness Center
Parkway, Birmingham, AL 35201.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
STP Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 50-498 and 50-499, South
Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, Matagorda County, Texas
Date of amendment request: April 29, 2015. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15127A260.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the
South Texas Project Electric Generation Station Updated Final Safety
Analysis Report (UFSAR) Table 15.6-17 to correct errors introduced in
UFSAR Revisions 16 and 17.
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. The proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed change of correcting UFSAR Table 15.6-17 does not
involve physical modifications to plant equipment and does not
change the operational methods or procedures. The proposed change
does not affect any of the parameters or conditions that could
contribute to the initiation of any accidents. Since [design basis
accident (DBA)] initiators are not being altered by adoption of the
proposed change, the probability of an accident previously evaluated
is not affected. The safety margins and analytical conservatisms
associated with the [Alternate Source Term (AST)] methodology have
been evaluated and were found acceptable. The results of the revised
DBA analyses, performed in support of the AST methodology change,
are subject to specific acceptance criteria as specified in
[Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.183, ``Alternative Radiological Source
Terms for Evaluating Design Basis Accidents at Nuclear Power
Reactors,'' July 2000; ADAMS Accession No. ML003716792]. The dose
consequences resulting from these DBAs remain within the acceptance
criteria presented in 10 CFR 50.67 and RG 1.183. The proposed change
of correcting UFSAR Table 15.6-17 does not change the analytical
results of the previously approved AST methodology change.
Based on the above discussion, the proposed change does not
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of
an accident previously evaluated.
2. The proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
The proposed change is administrative in nature and does not
require any physical changes to any structures, systems or
components involved in the mitigation of any accidents. No new
initiators or precursors of a new or different kind of accident are
created. No new equipment or personnel failure modes that might
initiate a new type of accident are created as a result of the
proposed change.
Based on the above discussion, the proposed change does not
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from
any accident previously evaluated.
3. The proposed change does not involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety.
The proposed change is administrative in nature and does not
result in a significant reduction in the margin of safety. The
safety margins and analytical conservatisms associated with the AST
methodology were evaluated and found acceptable. The results of the
revised DBA analyses, performed in support of the proposed change,
are subject to specific acceptance criteria as specified in RG
1.183. The dose consequences resulting from these DBAs remain within
the acceptance criteria presented in 10 CFR 50.67 and RG 1.183. The
proposed change
[[Page 43131]]
continues to ensure that the dose results at the exclusion area
boundary (EAB) and low population zone boundary (LPZ), as well as
the Control Room and TSC [Technical Support Center], are within the
specified regulatory limits.
Based on the above discussion, the proposed change does not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
request for amendments involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Steve Frantz, Esq., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius,
1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael M. Markley.
Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket No. 50-339, North Anna
Power Station, Unit No. 2, Louisa County, Virginia
Date of amendment request: May 22, 2015. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15147A029.
Description of amendment request: The proposed license amendment
would revise Technical Specification 3.8.1, ``AC Sources--Operating,''
to delete Note 1 to Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.8.1.8 to remove the
limitation that excludes Unit 2 from the verification test requirement.
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 previously evaluated accident that could be affected is a
complete loss of offsite power (LOOP). Analyses have been performed
to confirm that power distribution system voltages and currents with
both of the new Unit 2 alternate normal to emergency bus ties in
service are adequate during a Unit trip scenario. The conditions
under which the Unit 2 manual transfer capability is verified are
the same as Unit 1. The verification test may only be performed
under conditions that will not challenge steady state operation or
challenge the safety of the Unit. Therefore, the Unit 2 verification
test (manual transfer between Unit 2 normal offsite circuit and
alternate required offsite circuit) will not significantly increase
the probability of a LOOP.
Once a LOOP has occurred, the consequences are unaffected by
availability of offsite power (normal offsite circuit and alternate
required offsite circuit). Therefore, the Unit 2 verification test
(normal offsite circuit and alternate required offsite circuit) will
not affect the consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
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 purpose of the surveillance test is to verify the capability
to manually transfer AC [alternating current] power sources from the
normal offsite circuit to the alternate required offsite circuit.
The only effect of the change is to permit the new Unit 2 required
offsite circuits to be tested in the same manner and frequency as
the corresponding Unit 1 circuits. Since the Unit 2 circuits are
similar to the Unit 1 circuits, and the Unit 1 test is a required TS
Surveillance to demonstrate operability of the alternate offsite
circuits, permitting the Unit 2 circuits to undergo the same
Surveillance test will not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
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 proposed change enables SR testing of the new Unit 2
alternate offsite AC circuits to verify the capability to manually
transfer AC power sources from the normal offsite circuit to the
alternate required offsite circuit.
The margin of safety is related to the confidence in the ability
of the fission product barriers to perform their design functions
during and following an accident situation. These barriers include
the fuel cladding, the reactor coolant system, and the containment
system. The proposed change does not directly affect these barriers,
nor does it involve any adverse impact on the Class 1E circuits or
SSCs [systems, structures, and components] supplied by Class 1E
power.
Therefore, the proposed change will not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC 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 under the special circumstances provision in
10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment,
it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the action see (1) the
applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's
related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as
indicated. All of these items can be accessed as described in the
``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' section of this
document.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287,
Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 and 3, Oconee County, South Carolina
Date of amendment request: March 14, 2014.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the Oconee
Nuclear Station Technical Specifications (TSs) for the Inservice
Testing Program to reflect the current edition of the American Society
of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Code that is referenced in 10 CFR
50.55a(b).
Date of Issuance: July 7, 2015.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
[[Page 43132]]
within 120 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 393, 395, and 394. A publicly-available version is
in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15174A267; documents related to these
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the
amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-38, DPR-47, and DPR-55:
The amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 31, 2015 (80 FR
17086).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 7, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Duke Energy Progress, Inc., Docket No. 50-400, Shearon Harris Nuclear
Power Plant, Unit 1, Wake and Chatham Counties, North Carolina
Date of amendment request: June 19, 2014, as supplemented by
letters dated October 23, 2014; November 13, 2014; January 30, 2015;
May 13, 2015; and June 30, 2015.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment modifies Technical
Specifications Table 3.3-4, ``Engineered Safety Features Actuation
System Instrumentation,'' revising the Functional Unit 9.a, ``Loss-of-
Offsite Power 6.9 kV Emergency Bus Undervoltage--Primary,''
instrumentation trip setpoint and associated allowable value, and
adding two notes regarding channel setpoint surveillance.
Date of issuance: June 30, 2015.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 120 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 146. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML15163A056; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-63 The amendment revised the
Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 2, 2014 (79
FR 52061). The supplemental letters dated October 23, 2014; November
13, 2014; January 30, 2015; May 13, 2015; and June 30, 2015, provided
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change
the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 30, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC and PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-277
and 50-278, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3, York and
Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: July 10, 2014, as supplemented by letter
dated March 23, 2015.
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 Traveler-523, Revision 2, ``Generic Letter 2008-
01, Managing Gas Accumulation,'' dated February 21, 2013.
Date of issuance: June 30, 2015.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance, to be implemented by
May 31, 2016.
Amendments Nos.: 297 and 300. A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No. ML15154A614; documents related to these
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the
amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-44 and DPR-56: The
amendments revised the Facility Operating Licenses and the TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 2, 2014 (79
FR 52063). The supplemental letter dated March 23, 2015, provided
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change
the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 30, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-220 and 50-410, Nine
Mile Point Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Oswego County, New York
Date of amendment request: September 11, 2014, as supplemented by
letter dated November 10, 2014.
Brief description of amendment: The amendments revised the
Technical Specifications (TSs) on licensed operator training and
qualification education and experience eligibility requirements.
Date of issuance: July 8, 2015.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 218 and 148. A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No. ML15167A315; documents related to these
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the
amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-63 and NPF-69: The
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 25, 2014 (79
FR 70215). The supplemental letter dated November 10, 2014, provided
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change
the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 8, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-289, Three Mile Island
Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (TMI-1), Dauphin County, Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: July 10, 2014, as supplemented by letter
dated May 7, 2015.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the TMI-1
Technical Specifications (TSs). Specifically, the amendment modified
TMI-1 TSs to address NRC Generic Letter 2008-01, ``Managing Gas
Accumulation in Emergency Core Cooling, Decay Heat Removal, and
Containment Spray Systems,'' as described in Technical Specification
Task Force Traveler 523, Revision 2, ``Generic Letter 2008-01, Managing
Gas Accumulation.''
Date of issuance: June 30, 2015.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 120 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 285. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML15121A589; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation (SE) enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-50. The amendment
revised the Facility Operating License and TSs.
[[Page 43133]]
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 2, 2014 (79
FR 52063). The supplemental letter dated May 7, 2015, provided
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change
the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in an SE dated June 30, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Omaha Public Power District, Docket No. 50-285, Fort Calhoun Station
(FCS), Unit No. 1, Washington County, Nebraska
Date of amendment request: August 16, 2013, as supplemented by
letters dated August 13, 2014, and February 13 and March 24, 2015.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the design
basis method in the FCS Updated Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) for
controlling the raw water intake cell level during periods of elevated
river levels.
Date of issuance: June 30, 2015.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 180 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 282. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML15111A399; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation (SE) enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-40: The amendment
revised the license and the design basis as described in the UFSAR.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 18, 2014 (79 FR
15149). The supplemental letters dated August 13, 2014, and February 13
and March 24, 2015, provided additional information that clarified the
application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally
noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no
significant hazards consideration determination as published in the
Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in an SE dated June 30, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323, Diablo
Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 (DCPP), San Luis Obispo
County, California
Date of amendment request: March 27, 2014, as supplemented by
letters dated February 19 and April 29, 2015.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised various
technical specification (TS) surveillance requirements associated with
the DCPP emergency diesel generators (DGs). The changes reflect the
results of a revised load study analysis, as well as a revision to the
DG 30-minute load rating. These changes were submitted to address
multiple issues identified by NRC and licensee investigations, and are
intended to correct various non-conservative TS values associated with
DG testing.
Date of issuance: July 1, 2015.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 240 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 218 and 220. A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No. ML15162A882; documents related to these
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the
amendments.
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-80 and DPR-82: The amendments
revised the Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 19, 2014 (79 FR
49109). The supplemental letters dated February 19 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 and public
comment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated July 1, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: Yes.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026,
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4, Burke County, Georgia
Date of amendment request: January 30, 2015, as supplemented by
letter dated March 20, 2015.
Brief description of amendment: The license amendment revised the
Combined Licenses by revising Tier 2 * information contained within the
Human Factors Engineering Design Verification, Task Support
Verification, and Integrated System Validation plans. These documents
are incorporated by reference in the Updated Final Safety Analysis
Report.
Date of issuance: June 11, 2015.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 35. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML15141A449; documents related to these amendments are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
Facility Combined Licenses Nos. NPF-91 and NPF-92: The amendments
revised the Facility Combined Licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 17, 2015 (80 FR
13902). The supplemental letter dated March 20, 2015, provided
additional information that did not expand the scope of the amendment
request and did not change the NRC staff's original proposed no
significant hazards consideration determination.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 11, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-280 and 50-281,
Surry Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Surry County, Virginia
Date of amendment request: June 3, 2014, as supplemented by letter
dated February 4, 2015.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical
Specification (TS) Figures 3.1-1 and 3.1-2, ``Surry Units 1 and 2
Reactor Coolant System Heatup Limitations,'' and ``Surry Units 1 and 2
Reactor Coolant System Cooldown Limitations,'' respectively, for
clarification and to be fully representative of the allowable operating
conditions during Reactor Coolant System (RCS) startup and cooldown
evolutions. The revisions to TS Figures 3.1-1 and 3.1-2 include: (1)
The extension of the temperature axes to reflect temperatures up to RCS
full power operation; (2) the extension of the pressure axes to less
than 0 pounds per square inch gage to bound RCS conditions when vacuum-
assist fill of the RCS loops is performed; and (3) the addition of
information regarding the reactor boltup temperature.
Date of issuance: June 26, 2015.
Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 285 and 285. A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No. ML15173A102.
[[Page 43134]]
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-32 and DPR-37: The
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and the TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 30, 2014 (79
FR 58812). The supplemental letter dated February 4, 2015, provided
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change
the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 26, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 10th day of July, 2015.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
A. Louise Lund,
Acting Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of
Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2015-17651 Filed 7-20-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P