80 FR 20020 - Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 71 (April 14, 2015)
Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 71 (April 14, 2015)
| Page Range | 20020-20031 | |
| FR Document | 2015-08579 |
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 71 (Tuesday, April 14, 2015)] [Notices] [Pages 20020-20031] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2015-08579] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [NRC-2015-0088] 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 March 19, 2015 to April 1, 2015. The last biweekly notice was published on March 31, 2015. DATES: Comments must be filed by May 14, 2015. A request for a hearing must be filed by June 15, 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-2015-0088. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415- 3463; email: [email protected]. 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: Angela Baxter, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2976, email: [email protected]. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments A. Obtaining Information Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0088 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-2015-0088. 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-2015-0088, 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 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 [[Page 20021]] amendment before expiration of the 60-day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will occur very infrequently. A. Opportunity to Request a Hearing and Petition for Leave to Intervene Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any person(s) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and a petition to intervene with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license or combined license. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's ``Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure'' in 10 CFR part 2. Interested person(s) should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room O1- F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. The NRC's regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed by the above date, the Commission or a presiding officer designated by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order. As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must also identify the specific contentions which the requestor/petitioner seeks to have litigated at the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the requestor/petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the requestor/ petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The requestor/petitioner must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the requestor/petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the requestor/petitioner to relief. A requestor/ petitioner who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party. Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing. If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to decide 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 [[Page 20022]] unlisted software, and the NRC Meta System Help Desk will not be able to offer assistance in using unlisted software. If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to serve documents through the Electronic Information Exchange System, users will be required to install a Web browser plug-in from the NRC's Web site. Further information on the Web-based submission form, including the installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the time the documents are submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends the submitter an email notice confirming receipt of the document. The E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access to the document to the NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing request/petition to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access to the document via the E-Filing system. A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E- Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by email to [email protected], or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-7640. The NRC Meta System Help Desk is available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays. Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists. Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at http://ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the Commission, or the presiding officer. Participants are requested not to include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers, home addresses, or home phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC regulation or other law requires submission of such information. However, a request to intervene will require including information on local residence in order to demonstrate a proximity assertion of interest in the proceeding. With respect to copyrighted works, except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use application, participants are requested not to include copyrighted materials in their submission. Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Requests for hearing, petitions for leave to intervene, and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the 60-day deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(iii). For further details with respect to these license amendment applications, see the application for amendment which is available for public inspection in ADAMS and at the NRC's PDR. For additional direction on accessing information related to this document, see the ``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' section of this document. Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353, Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania Date of amendment request: February 2, 2015. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15036A486. Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would modify several Technical Specification Limiting Conditions for Operation (LCOs) and Surveillance Requirements (SRs) to allow secondary containment access openings to be opened intermittently under administrative control. Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed changes allow temporary conditions during which the secondary containment LCO and SRs are not met. The secondary containment is not an initiator of any accident previously evaluated. As a result, the probability of any accident previously evaluated is not increased. The consequences of an accident previously evaluated while utilizing the proposed changes are no different than the consequences of an accident while utilizing the existing 4-hour allowed outage time for an inoperable reactor enclosure secondary containment. As a result, the consequences of an accident previously evaluated are not significantly increased. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed changes do not alter the protection system design, create [[Page 20023]] new failure modes, or change any modes of operation. The proposed changes do not involve a physical alteration of the plant, and no new or different kind of equipment will be installed. Consequently, there are no new initiators that could result in a new or different kind of accident. Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The proposed changes allow temporary conditions during which the secondary containment LCO and SRs are not met. Temporary conditions in which the secondary containment vacuum is below the required limit are acceptable provided the conditions do not affect the ability of the Standby Gas Treatment System to establish the required secondary containment vacuum. This condition is incorporated in the proposed changes by requiring the condition to be momentary or under administrative control such that the conditions equivalent to the design condition can be quickly restored should secondary containment vacuum be required. Therefore, the safety function of the secondary containment is not affected. The allowance for both an inner and outer secondary containment access door to be open simultaneously for entry and exit does not affect the safety function of the secondary containment as the doors are promptly closed after entry or exit, thereby restoring the secondary containment boundary. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Attorney for licensee: J. Bradley Fewell, Esquire, Vice President and Deputy General Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555. NRC Branch Chief: Doulas A. Broaddus. Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50- 277 and 50-278, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station (PBAPS), Units 2 and 3, York and Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania Date of amendment request: February 23, 2015. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15055A506. Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would modify a Technical Specification Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) and certain Surveillance Requirements (SRs) to allow secondary containment access openings to be opened intermittently under administrative control. Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed changes allow temporary conditions during which the secondary containment LCO and certain SRs are not met. The secondary containment is not an initiator of any accident previously evaluated. As a result, the probability of any accident previously evaluated is not increased. The consequences of an accident previously evaluated while utilizing the proposed changes are no different than the consequences of an accident while utilizing the existing 4-hour Completion Time for an inoperable secondary containment. As a result, the consequences of an accident previously evaluated are not significantly increased. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed changes do not alter the protection system design, create new failure modes, or change any modes of operation. The proposed changes do not involve a physical alteration of the plant; and no new or different kind of equipment will be installed. Consequently, there are no new initiators that could result in a new or different kind of accident. Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The proposed changes allow temporary conditions during which the secondary containment LCO and certain SRs are not met. Temporary conditions in which the secondary containment is open is acceptable provided the conditions do not affect the ability of the Standby Gas Treatment System to create a lower pressure in the secondary containment than in the outside environment if required. This condition is incorporated in the proposed changes by requiring the condition to be under administrative control such that the conditions equivalent to the design condition can be quickly restored should secondary containment vacuum be required. Therefore, the safety function of the secondary containment is not affected. The allowance for both an inner and outer secondary containment door to be open simultaneously for entry and exit does not affect the safety function of the secondary containment as the doors are promptly closed after entry or exit, thereby restoring the secondary containment boundary. The ability to open secondary containment access openings under administrative control, even if it means the secondary containment boundary is temporarily not intact, is acceptable due to the low probability of an event that requires secondary containment during the short time in which the secondary containment is open and the presence of administrative controls to rapidly close the opening. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Attorney for licensee: J. Bradley Fewell, Esquire, Vice President and Deputy General Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555. NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus. Northern States Power Company--Minnesota, Docket Nos. 50-282 and 50-306, Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, Goodhue County, Minnesota Date of amendment request: December 11, 2014. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14349A749. Brief description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would revise the technical specification (TS) 3.3.3, ``EM [Event Monitoring] Instrumentation,'' to add the Steam Generator Water Level-- Narrow Range Instruments to Table 3.3.3-1. In addition, the amendments would revise Appendix B, ``Additional Condition,'' of the Renewed Operating License for each unit regarding implementation of License Amendment Nos. 206 (Unit 1) and 193 (Unit 2) for Alternative Source Term (AST), and removes two AST Additional Conditions for each unit that have been fulfilled. Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Do the proposed amendments involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The license amendment requests propose to add Steam Generator Water Level (narrow range) Instrumentation to Technical [[Page 20024]] Specification Event Monitoring Instrumentation; revise license Additional Conditions to exclude Steam Generator Water Level (narrow range) Instrument implementation requirements from Alternative Source Term license amendment implementation; and remove Alternative Source Term amendment implementation Additional Conditions which have been fulfilled. The Steam Generator Water Level (narrow range) Instrumentation is not an accident initiator and therefore addition of this instrumentation to the Technical Specifications does not increase the probability of an accident. Addition of this instrumentation to the Technical Specifications will bring it under the controls and testing requirements of the Technical Specifications. The proposed change will not increase the consequences of previously-evaluated accidents because the inclusion of these instruments in the technical specification improves their reliability to perform during a postulated accident. Therefore, the proposed Technical Specification changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. The Alternative Source Term license amendment was previously analyzed and approved for implementation. The proposed Additional Condition revision to exclude Steam Generator Water Level (narrow range) Instrumentation implementation requirements from Alternative Source Term license amendment implementation clarifies implementation requirements and allows completion of implementation activities. Since the Alternative Source Term amendment was previously approved, this change does not increase the probability or consequences of a previously evaluated accident. Removal of license Additional Conditions which have been fulfilled is an administrative change and thus this change does not increase the probability or consequences of a previously evaluated accident. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Do the proposed amendments create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The license amendment requests propose to add Steam Generator Water Level (narrow range) Instrumentation to Technical Specification Event Monitoring Instrumentation; revise license Additional Conditions to exclude Steam Generator Water Level (narrow range) Instrument implementation requirements from Alternative Source Term license amendment implementation; and remove Alternative Source Term amendment implementation Additional Conditions which have been fulfilled. The proposed Technical Specification changes and Additional Condition changes and the resulting instrument upgrades do not create new failure modes or mechanisms and do not change plant conditions from which some new material interaction may create a new or different type of accident. Thus, the Technical Specification and license Additional Condition changes do not create new failure modes or mechanisms, nor do they generate new accident precursors. Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated. The proposed removal of fulfilled Additional Conditions is an administrative change and thus does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident. 3. Do the proposed amendments involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The license amendment requests propose to add Steam Generator Water Level (narrow range) Instrumentation to Technical Specification Event Monitoring Instrumentation; revise license Additional Conditions to exclude Steam Generator Water Level (narrow range) Instrument implementation requirements from Alternative Source Term license amendment implementation; and remove Alternative Source Term amendment implementation Additional Conditions which have been fulfilled. Addition of this instrumentation to the Technical Specifications will bring it under the controls and testing requirements of the Technical Specifications. The proposed change will not increase the consequences of previously evaluated accidents because instrument upgrade and the inclusion of these instruments in the Technical Specifications improve their reliability to perform during a postulated accident. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The Alternative Source Term license amendment was previously analyzed and approved for implementation. The proposed Additional Condition revision to exclude Steam Generator Water Level (narrow range) Instrumentation implementation requirements from Alternative Source Term license amendment implementation clarifies implementation requirements and allows completion of implementation activities. Since the Alternative Source Term [amendment] was previously approved, the changes proposed in this license amendment do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The proposed removal of fulfilled Additional Conditions is administrative in nature and thus does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Attorney for licensee: Peter M. Glass, Assistant General Counsel, Xcel Energy Services, Inc., 414 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, MN 55401. NRC Branch Chief: David L. Pelton. PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50-354, Hope Creek Generating Station, Unit 1, Salem County, New Jersey PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-272 and 50-311, Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Salem County, New Jersey Date of amendment request: December 9, 2014. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14343A926. Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would revise the Public Service Electric and Gas Nuclear LLC (PSEG) Environmental Protection Plans (Non-Radiological), Appendix B to the renewed facility operating license (FOL) numbers DPR-70 and DPR-75 for Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, and the renewed FOL number NPF-57 for Hope Creek Generating Station. The proposed changes will simplify the Aquatic Monitoring section of Appendix B, modify the criteria for reporting Unusual or Important Environmental Events, and will clarify that PSEG Nuclear must adhere to the currently applicable Biological Opinion. 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, with NRC staff edits in square brackets: 1. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The [Environmental Protection Plan] EPP provides for protection of non-radiological environmental values during operation of the nuclear facility. The proposed changes do not have any impact on structures, systems and components (SSCs) of the plant, and no effect on plant operations. The proposed changes do not impact any accident initiators, or analyzed events, or assumed mitigation of accident or transient events. The proposed changes do not result in the addition or removal of any equipment. Therefore, these proposed changes do not represent a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed changes are administrative in nature and do not involve a modification to the physical configuration of the plant [[Page 20025]] (i.e., no new equipment will be installed) or change in the methods governing normal plant operation. The proposed changes will not impose any new or different requirements or introduce a new accident initiator, accident precursor, or malfunction mechanism. Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The proposed changes are administrative in nature. There is no change to any design basis, licensing basis or safety limit, and no change to any parameters; consequently no safety margins are affected. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. Based upon the above, PSEG concludes that the proposed change presents no significant hazards consideration under the standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and, accordingly, a finding of ``no significant hazards consideration'' is justified. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, and with the changes noted above in square brackets, 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: Jeffrie J. Keenan, PSEG Nuclear LLC--N21, P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038. NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus. South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, Docket Nos.: 52-027 and 52-028, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS) Units 2 and 3, Fairfield County, South Carolina Date of amendment request: September 25, 2014; as supplemented by letter dated March 13, 2015. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML14268A388 and ML15072A306, respectively. Description of amendment request: The proposed change would amend Combined License Nos. NPF-93 and NPF-94 for the VCSNS Units 2 and 3 by allowing changes to adjust the concrete wall thickness tolerances of four Nuclear Island walls found in Tier 1. In addition, the changes include an update to Tier 2 Subsection 3.8.3.6.1 to address the exceeded American Concrete Institute (ACI) 117 tolerance for the four affected walls. 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. As indicated in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report Subsection 3.8.3.1, the containment internal structures and associated modules support the reactor coolant system components and related piping systems and equipment. The increase in tolerance associated with the concrete thickness of four of these containment internal structure walls do not involve any accident initiating components or events, thus leaving the probabilities of an accident unaltered. The increased tolerance does not adversely affect any safety-related structures or equipment nor does the increased tolerance reduce the effectiveness of a radioactive material barrier. Thus, the proposed changes would not affect any safety- related accident mitigating function served by the containment internal structures. 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 tolerance increases do not change the performance of the affected containment internal structures. As demonstrated by the continued conformance to the applicable codes and standards governing the design of the structures, the walls with an increased concrete thickness tolerance continue to withstand the same effects as previously evaluated. There is no change to the design function of the affected modules and walls, and no new failure mechanisms are identified as the same types of accidents are presented to the walls before and after the change. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident. 3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The proposed change to increase the concrete thickness tolerance does not alter any design function, design analysis, or safety analysis input or result, and sufficient margin exists to justify a departure from the standards identified in the underlying Tier 2 information with respect to the four affected walls. As such, because the system continues to respond to design basis accidents in the same manner as before without any changes to the expected response of the structure, no safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is challenged or exceeded by the proposed changes. Accordingly, no safety margin is reduced by the increase of the wall concrete thickness tolerance. 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: Ms. Kathryn M. Sutton, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLC, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004-2514. NRC Branch Chief: Lawrence Burkhart. 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: March 6, 2015. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15065A362. Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment and exemption identify portions of the licensing basis that would more appropriately be classified as Tier 2, specifically the Tier 2* information on Fire Area Figures 9A-1, 9A-2, 9A-3, 9A-4, 9A-5, and 9A- 201 in the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 3 and 4 Updated Final Safety Analysis Report. With the reclassification, prior U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission approval would continue to be required for any safety significant changes to the Fire Area Figures because any revisions to that information would follow the Tier 2 change process provided in 10 CFR part 52, Appendix D, Section VIII.B.5. 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 reclassify Fire Area Figures Tier 2* information. The proposed amendment does not modify the design, construction, or operation of any plant structures, systems, or components (SSCs), nor does it change any procedures or method of control for any SSCs. Because the proposed amendment does not change the design, construction, or operation of any SSCs, it does not adversely affect any design function as described in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not affect the probability of an accident [[Page 20026]] previously evaluated. Similarly, because the proposed amendment does not alter the design or operation of the nuclear plant or any plant SSCs, the proposed amendment does not represent a change to the radiological effects of an accident, and therefore, does not involve an increase in the 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 would reclassify Fire Area Figures Tier 2* information. The proposed amendment is not a modification, addition to, or removal of any plant SSCs. Furthermore, the proposed amendment is not a change to procedures or method of control of the nuclear plant or any plant SSCs. The only impact of this activity is the reclassification of information in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report. Because the proposed amendment only reclassifies information and does not change the design, construction, or operation of the nuclear plant or any plant operations, the amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The proposed amendment would reclassify Fire Area Figures Tier 2* information. The proposed amendment is not a modification, addition to, or removal of any plant SSCs. Furthermore, the proposed amendment is not a change to procedures or method of control of the nuclear plant or any plant SSCs. The only impact of this activity is the reclassification of information in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report. 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: Mr. M. Stanford Blanton, Balch & Bingham LLP, 1710 Sixth Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203-2015. NRC Branch Chief: Lawrence Burkhart. ZionSolutions LLC, Docket Nos. 50-295 and 50-304, Zion Nuclear Power Station (Zion), Units 1 and 2, Lake County, Illinois Date of amendment request: December 19, 2014, as supplemented on February 26, 2015. Publicly available versions are in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML15005A336 and ML15061A230, respectively. Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would add License Condition 2.C (17) that approves the License Termination Plan (LTP) and establishes the criteria for determining when changes to the LTP require prior the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) approval. 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 change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? The only remaining accident after fuel transfer is completed in January 2015 is the Radwaste handling accident. Calculations were performed to determine the dose at the Exclusion Area Boundary that would result from dropping a High Integrity Container in the former Interim Radwaste Storage Facility (IRSF) such that its entire contents of radioactive, dewatered resin escape. A fraction of the escaped resin is non mechanistically assumed to be released as airborne radioactivity and pass from the IRSF directly to the environment, resulting in off-site dose consequences. The solid-to- aerosol release fraction is assumed to be the worst case non- mechanistic, mechanically initiated release fraction. The whole body and inhalation dose at the closest point on the Exclusion Area Boundary from the IRSF are then calculated. The results of the radiological dose consequences for an accident involving the failure of a High Integrity Container show that the projected doses are insignificant in comparison to the 10 CFR 100 guidelines, and are less than the EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] PAGs [protective action guidelines]. The projected dose at the Low Population Zone would be less than at the Exclusion Area Boundary and, since this accident involves an instantaneous release, it is also within the 10 CFR 100 guidelines. The proposed change does not affect the boundaries used to evaluate compliance with liquid or gaseous effluent limits, and has no impact on plant operations. The proposed changes do not have an adverse impact on the remaining decommissioning activities or any decommissioning related postulated accident consequences. The proposed changes related to the approval of the LTP do not affect operating procedures or administrative controls that have the function of preventing or mitigating the remaining decommissioning design basis accident. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated. (2) Does the change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? The accident analysis for the facility related to decommissioning activities is described in the DSAR [defueled safety analysis report]. The requested license amendment is consistent with the plant activities described in the DSAR and PSDAR [post-shutdown decommissioning activities report]. Thus, the proposed changes do not affect the remaining plant systems, structures, or components in a way not previously evaluated. There are sections of the LTP that refer to the decommissioning activities still remaining (e.g.; removal of large components, structure removal, etc.). However, these activities are performed in accordance with approved work packages/steps and undergo a 10 CFR 50.59 screening prior to initiation. The proposed amendment merely makes mention of these processes and does not bring about physical changes to the facility. Therefore, the facility conditions for which the remaining postulated accident has been evaluated is still valid and no new accident scenarios, failure mechanisms, or single failures are introduced by this amendment. The system operating procedures are not affected. Therefore, the proposed changes will not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. (3) Does the change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? The LTP is a plan for demonstrating compliance with the radiological criteria for license termination as provided in 10 CFR 20.1402 (Reference 5). The margin of safety defined in the statements of consideration for the final rule on the Radiological Criteria for License Termination is described as the margin between the 100 mrem/yr public dose limit established in 10 CFR 20.1301 for licensed operation and the 25 mrem/yr dose limit to the average member of the critical group at a site considered acceptable for unrestricted use (one of the criteria of 10 CFR 20.1402). This margin of safety accounts for the potential effect of multiple sources of radiation exposure to the critical group. Since the License Termination Plan is designed to comply with the radiological criteria for license termination for unrestricted use, the LTP supports this margin of safety. In addition, the LTP provides the methodologies and criteria that will be used to perform remediation activities of residual radioactivity to demonstrate compliance with the ALARA [as low as reasonably achievable] criterion of 10 CFR 20.1402. Additionally, the LTP is designed with recognition that (a) the methods in MARSSIM (Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual) (Reference 6) and (b) the building surface contamination levels are not directly applicable to use with complex nonstructural components. Therefore, the LTP states that nonstructural components remaining in buildings (e.g., pumps, heat exchangers, etc.) will be evaluated against the criteria of Regulatory Guide 1.86 (Reference 7) to determine if the components can be released for unrestricted use. The LTP also states that materials, surveyed and evaluated as a part of normal decommissioning activities and prior to implementation of the final radiation surveys, will be surveyed for release using current site procedures to demonstrate compliance with the ``no detectable'' criteria. Such materials that do not pass these criteria will be controlled as contaminated. [[Page 20027]] Also, as previously discussed, the bounding accident for decommissioning is the resin container accident. Since the bounding decommissioning accident results in more airborne radioactivity than can be released from other decommissioning events, the margin of safety associated with the consequences of decommissioning accidents is not reduced by this activity. Thus, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Attorney for licensee: Russ Workman, Deputy General Counsel, EnergySolutions, 423 West 300 South, Suite 200, Salt Lake City, UT 84101. NRC Branch Chief: Bruce Watson. 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. Arizona Public Service Company, et al., Docket Nos. STN 50-528, STN 50- 529, and STN 50-530, Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3, Maricopa County, Arizona Date of application for amendment: November 20, 2013, as supplemented by letters dated November 20, 2013, and January 16 and December 19, 2014. Brief description of amendment: The amendment modified Technical Specification (TS) Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.1.4.1 utilizing Westinghouse Electric Company LLC's topical report WCAP-16011-NP-A, Revision 0, ``Startup Test Activity Reduction [STAR] Program,'' February 2005. The changes are consistent with NRC-approved Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Standard Technical Specification Change Traveler TSTF-486, Revision 2. The use of WCAP-16011-NP-A is justified by the licensee in WCAP-17787-NP, Revision 0, ``Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station STAR Program Implementation Report,'' August 2013. The amendments also modify SR 3.1.4.2 not to require the moderator temperature coefficient (MTC) determination if the result of the MTC determination required in TS 3.1.4.1 is within a certain tolerance of the corresponding design value. This change is based on the methods described in Combustion Engineering Owners Group Report CE NPSD-911-A and Amendment 1-A, ``Analysis of Moderator Temperature Coefficients in Support of a Change in the Technical Specifications End-of-Cycle Negative MTC Limits,'' September 2000. Date of issuance: March 30, 2015. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 90 days from the date of issuance. Amendment No.: Unit 1-195; Unit 2-195; Unit 3-195. A publicly- available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15070A124; documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments. Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-41, NPF-51, and NPF-74: The amendment revised the Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 27, 2014 (79 FR 11146). The supplemental letters dated January 16 and December 19, 2014, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the Federal Register. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated March 30, 2015. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414, Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York County, South Carolina, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370, McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina Date of application for amendments: November 14, 2013, as supplemented by letters dated June 27, and November 10, 2014. Brief description of amendments: The amendments approve the use of DPC-3001-NE-P, Revision 1, ``Multidimensional Reactor Transients and Safety Analysis Physics Parameters Methodology.'' Date of issuance: March 25, 2015. Effective date: This license amendment is effective as of its date of issuance and shall be implemented within 30 days of issuance. Amendment Nos.: 274, 270, 277, and 257. A publicly-available version of the application is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15027A366; documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments. Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-35, NPF-52, NPF-9, and NPF-17: Amendments revised the licenses. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 27, 2014 (79 FR 11147). The supplemental letters dated June 27, and 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 amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated March 25, 2015. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. [[Page 20028]] Duke Energy Florida, Inc., et al., Docket No. 50-302, Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant, Citrus County, Florida Date of amendment request: September 26, 2013, as supplemented by letters dated March 28, May 23, and October 6, 2014. Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the facility's emergency plan and emergency action level scheme 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. Date of issuance: March 31, 2015. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days of issuance. Amendment No.: 246. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15027A209; documents related to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment. Facility Operating License No. DPR-72: Amendment revised the emergency plan and the emergency action levels. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 7, 2014 (79 FR 857). The supplemental letters dated March 28, May 23, and October 6, 2014, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the Federal Register. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated March 31, 2015. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50-397, Columbia Generating Station, Benton County, Washington Date of application for amendment: March 24, 2014, as supplemented by letters dated May 8, August 28, November 6, and December 15, 2014. Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical Specification (TS) Table 3.3.1.1-1, ``Reactor Protection System Instrumentation,'' Functions 7.a and 7.b to update Scram Discharge Volume instrumentation nomenclature, add a surveillance requirement (SR), which was previously omitted, and add footnotes to an SR consistent with TS Task Force (TSTF) change traveler TSTF-493, Revision 4, ``Clarify Application of Setpoint Methodology for LSSS [Limiting Safety System Settings] Functions,'' Option A. The notice of availability of the models for plant-specific adoption of TSTF-493, Revision 4, was announced in the Federal Register on May 11, 2010 (75 FR 26294). Date of issuance: March 27, 2015. Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented prior to restarting from refueling outage R-22, scheduled for spring 2015. Amendment No.: 232. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15063A010; documents related to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment. Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-21: The amendment revised the Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 22, 2014 (79 FR 42544). The supplemental letters dated August 28, November 6, and December 15, 2014, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the Federal Register. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated March 27, 2015. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50-397, Columbia Generating Station, Benton County, Washington Date of application for amendment: June 25, 2014. Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Columbia Generating Station Cyber Security Plan (CSP) Milestone 8 full implementation date as set forth in the CSP Implementation Schedule. Date of issuance: March 27, 2015. Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented within 30 days from the date of issuance. Amendment No.: 231. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15042A464; documents related to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment. Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-21: The amendment revised the Facility Operating License. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 7, 2014 (79 FR 60518). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated March 27, 2015. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-368, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit No. 2 (ANO-2), Pope County, Arkansas Date of application for amendment: March 26, 2013, as supplemented by letters dated December 12, 2013, and May 12, August 19, October 22, and December 5, 2014. Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the ANO-2 Technical Specification (TS) requirements for end states associated with the implementation of the NRC-approved Topical Report NPSD-1186, Revision 0, ``Technical Justification for the Risk Informed Modification to Selected Required Action End States for CEOG [Combustion Engineering Owners Group] Member PWRs [Pressurized-Water Reactors],'' as well as Required Actions revised by a specific Note in TS Task Force (TSTF) change traveler TSTF-422, Revision 2, ``Change in Technical Specifications End States (CE NPSD-1186).'' The Notice of Availability for TSTF-422, Revision 2, was announced in the Federal Register on April 7, 2011 (76 FR 19510). Date of issuance: March 31, 2015. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 90 days from the date of issuance. Amendment No.: 301. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15068A319; documents related to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment. Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-6: Amendment revised the Technical Specifications/license. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 23, 2013 (78 FR 44172). The supplemental letters dated December 12, 2013, and May 12, August 19, October 22, and December 5, 2014, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the Federal Register. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated March 31, 2015. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. 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: June 10, 2013, as supplemented by [[Page 20029]] letters dated October 24, 2013, March 5, 2014, and February 4, 2015. Brief description of amendments: The amendment revises the technical specifications (TSs), Surveillance Requirements 3.8.4.2 and 3.8.4.5 to add new acceptance criteria for total battery connection resistance. Date of issuance: March 30, 2015. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 30 days from the date of issuance. Amendment Nos.: 256 and 251. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15056A772. Documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments. Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-29 and DPR-30: The amendments revised the TSs and License. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 3, 2013 (78 FR 54283). The October 24, 2013, March 5, 2014, and February 4, 2015, supplements 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 amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated March 30, 2015. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-219, Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station (OCNGS), Ocean County, New Jersey Date of application for amendment: December 19, 2013, as supplemented by letters dated January 31, 2014, and November 3, 2014. Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-16 for OCNGS. Specifically, the changes implement the use of an alternative measure that required prior NRC review and approval pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Section 73.55(r), related to controlling vital area access for certain portions of the Reactor Building at OCNGS. Date of Issuance: March 30, 2015. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days. Amendment No.: 285. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14329A625; documents related to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment. Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-16: The amendment revised the license and technical specifications. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 6, 2014 (79 FR 25901). The supplemental letter dated November 3, 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 this amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated March 30, 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 application for amendment: October 8, 2014, as supplemented by a letter dated February 12, 2015. Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the technical specifications (TSs) safety limit minimum critical power ratio value for single recirculation-loop-operation to support the use of GNF-2 fuel during the next operating cycle. Date of issuance: March 27, 2015. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 30 days. Amendment No.: 165. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15075A091; 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: February 13, 2015 (80 FR 5819). The February 12, 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 March 27, 2015. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Indiana Michigan Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-315 and 50-316, Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Berrien County, Michigan Date of amendment requests: March 7, 2014, as supplemented by letters dated September 30, 2014, December 16, 2014, January 15, 2015, and February 20, 2015. Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Technical Specification 5.5.14, ``Containment Leakage Rate Testing Program,'' by adopting Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 94-01, Revision 3-A, ``Industry Guideline for Implementing Performance-Based Option of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix J'' (ADAMS Accession No. ML12221A202), and Section 4.1, ``Limitations and Conditions for NEI TR 94-01, Revision 2'' of the NRC Safety Evaluation Report in NEI 94-01, Revision 2-A, dated October 2008 (ADAMS Accession No. ML100620847), as the implementing document for the performance- based Option B of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix J. Date of issuance: March 30, 2015. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days of issuance. Amendment Nos.: 326 for Unit 1 and 309 for Unit 2. A publicly- available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15072A264; documents related to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment. Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-58 and DPR-74: Amendments revise the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 27, 2014 (79 FR 30188). The supplemental letters dated September 30, 2014, December 16, 2014, January 15, 2015, and February 20, 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 March 30, 2015. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC, Docket No. 50-443, Seabrook Station, Unit No. 1, Rockingham County, New Hampshire Date of amendment request: September 24, 2014, as supplemented by letter dated December 11, 2014. Description of amendment request: The amendment changes the Technical Specifications (TSs) and the Facility Operating License. The change deletes the Functional Unit ``Cold Leg Injection, P-15'' from TS 3.3.2, ``Engineered Safety Features Actuation System Instrumentation,'' and changes License Condition 2.K, ``Inadvertent Actuation of the Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS).'' Date of issuance: March 31, 2015. [[Page 20030]] Effective date: As of its date of issuance, and shall be implemented within 30 days. Amendment No.: 145. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15002A251; documents related to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment. Facility Operating License No. NPF-86: Amendment revised the Facility Operating License and TSs. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 6, 2015, (80 FR 525). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated March 31, 2015. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Omaha Public Power District, Docket No. 50-285, Fort Calhoun Station, Unit No. 1, Washington County, Nebraska Date of amendment request: November 7, 2014. Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical Specification (TS) 3.1, Table 3-3, Item 3.c concerning containment wide range radiation monitors to correct a typographical error introduced in TS Amendment No. 152. Date of issuance: March 27, 2015. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 30 days from the date of issuance. Amendment No.: 281. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15035A203; documents related to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment. Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-40: The amendment revised the license and Technical Specifications. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 20, 2015 (80 FR 2751). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a safety evaluation dated March 27, 2015. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-272 and 50-311, Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Salem County, New Jersey Date of application for amendments: March 24, 2014. Brief description of amendments: The amendments approved a change to revise Surveillance Requirements 4.2.1.3, 4.2.1.4, and 4.2.2.2.f associated with Power Distribution Limits Technical Specification (TS) 3/4.2.1, ``Axial Flux Difference (AFD),'' and TS 3/4.2.2, ``Heat Flux Hot Channel Factor--F Q (Z).'' Date of issuance: March 30, 2015. Effective date: As of the date of issuance, to be implemented within 60 days. Amendment Nos.: 307 and 289. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15063A293; documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments. Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-70 and DPR-75: The amendments revised the Technical Specifications and the License. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 6, 2014 (79 FR 32770). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated March 30, 2015. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, Docket Nos. 52-027 and 52-028, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS) Units 2 and 3, Fairfield County, South Carolina Date of amendment request: August 5, 2014, revised by letter dated August 28, 2014, and supplemented by letter dated November 3, 2014 (Non-Public). Description of amendment: The amendment revises the design of connections between reinforced concrete (RC) and steel plate concrete composite construction (SC) included in the VCSNS Units 2 and 3 updated Final Safety Analysis Report and changes to the Technical Report, ``APP-GW-GLR-602, AP1000 Shield Building Design Details for Select Wall and RC/SC Connections,'' (prepared by Westinghouse Electric Company and reviewed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission as part of the design certification rule). Date of issuance: December 16, 2014. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 90 days of issuance. Amendment No.: 21. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14339A717; documents related to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment. Facility Combined Licenses No. NPF-93 and NPF-94: Amendment revised the Facility Combined Licenses. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 30, 2014 (79 FR 58824). The supplemental letter dated November 3, 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 the Safety Evaluation dated December 16, 2014. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, Docket Nos. 52-027 and 52-028, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS) Units 2 and 3, Fairfield County, South Carolina Date of amendment request: June 20, 2014, and supplemented by letter dated August 6, 2014. Description of amendment: The amendment revises the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report in regard to Tier 2 and Tier 2* information related to fire area boundaries. These changes include: adding of three new fire zones in the middle annulus to provide fire barrier enclosures for the Class 1E Electrical Divisions B, C, and D containment penetrations; and eliminating the Class 1E Electrical Division A enclosure and making the Division A containment penetration assemblies part of the existing middle annulus fire zone. Date of issuance: December 30, 2014. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 90 days of issuance. Amendment No.: 22. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14328A233; documents related to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment. Facility Combined Licenses No. NPF-93 and NPF-94: Amendment revised the Facility Combined Licenses. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 28, 2014 (79 FR 64228). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in the Safety Evaluation dated December 30, 2014. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Union Electric Company, Docket No. 50-483, Callaway Plant, Unit 1, Callaway County, Missouri Date of application for amendment: December 6, 2013, as supplemented by letters dated September 2 and December 11, 2014, and February 3, 2015. Brief description of amendment: The amendment changed the licensing basis as described in the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR)-Standard Plant Section 3.6.2.1.2.4, ``ASME [American Society of Mechanical Engineers] Section III and Non-Nuclear Piping-Moderate-Energy,'' and FSAR-Standard Plant Table 3.6-2, [[Page 20031]] ``Design Comparison to Regulatory Positions of Regulatory Guide 1.46, Revision 0, dated May 1973, titled `Protection Against Pipe Whip Inside Containment,' '' in particular regard to the high-density polyethylene (HDPE) piping installed in ASME Class 3 line segments of the essential service water system. Also, new Reference 25 is added to FSAR-Standard Plant Section 3.6.3 to cite the NRC-approved version of the HDPE requirements covered by Relief Request I3R-10 dated October 31, 2008. Date of issuance: March 31, 2015. Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days from the date of issuance. Amendment No.: 211. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15064A028; documents related to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment. Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-30: The amendment revised the Operating License. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 18, 2014 (79 FR 15150). The supplements dated September 2 and December 11, 2014, and February 3, 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 March 31, 2015. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 6th day of April 2015. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. A. Louise Lund, Acting Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. 2015-08579 Filed 4-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
![20020 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 2015 / Notices
categorical exclusion in accordance DATES: Comments must be filed by May White Flint North, 11555 Rockville
with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant 14, 2015. A request for a hearing must Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental be filed by June 15, 2015.
B. Submitting Comments
impact statement or environmental ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
assessment need be prepared for these by any of the following methods (unless Please include Docket ID NRC–2015–
amendments. this document describes a different 0088, facility name, unit number(s),
application date, and subject in your
IV. Conclusion method for submitting comments on a
comment submission.
specific subject):
Using the reasons set forth in the The NRC cautions you not to include
• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to identifying or contact information that
combined safety evaluation, the staff http://www.regulations.gov and search
granted the exemption and issued the you do not want to be publicly
for Docket ID NRC–2015–0088. Address disclosed in your comment submission.
amendment that the licensee requested questions about NRC dockets to Carol
on July 29, 2014, as supplemented by The NRC will post all comment
Gallagher; telephone: 301–415–3463; submissions at http://
letter dated November 5, 2014. The email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov.
exemption and amendment were issued www.regulations.gov as well as enter the
• Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, comment submissions into ADAMS.
on February 13, 2015 as part of a Office of Administration, Mail Stop:
combined package to the licensee The NRC does not routinely edit
OWFN–12–H08, U.S. Nuclear comment submissions to remove
(ADAMS Accession No. ML14350B012). Regulatory Commission, Washington, identifying or contact information.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 7th day DC 20555–0001. If you are requesting or aggregating
of April 2015. For additional direction on obtaining comments from other persons for
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. information and submitting comments, submission to the NRC, then you should
Chandu P. Patel, see ‘‘Obtaining Information and inform those persons not to include
Acting Chief, Licensing Branch 4, Division Submitting Comments’’ in the identifying or contact information that
of New Reactor Licensing, Office of New SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of they do not want to be publicly
Reactors. this document. disclosed in their comment submission.
[FR Doc. 2015–08566 Filed 4–13–15; 8:45 am] FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Your request should state that the NRC
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P Angela Baxter, Office of Nuclear Reactor does not routinely edit comment
Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory submissions to remove such information
Commission, Washington DC 20555– before making the comment
NUCLEAR REGULATORY 0001; telephone: 301–415–2976, email: submissions available to the public or
COMMISSION Angela.Baxter@nrc.gov. entering the comment into ADAMS.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: II. Notice of Consideration of Issuance
[NRC–2015–0088] of Amendments to Facility Operating
I. Obtaining Information and
Submitting Comments Licenses and Combined Licenses and
Biweekly Notice; Applications and
Proposed No Significant Hazards
Amendments to Facility Operating A. Obtaining Information Consideration Determination
Licenses and Combined Licenses
Involving No Significant Hazards Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2015– The Commission has made a
Considerations 0088 when contacting the NRC about proposed determination that the
the availability of information for this following amendment requests involve
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory action. You may obtain publicly- no significant hazards consideration.
Commission. available information related to this Under the Commission’s regulations in
ACTION: Biweekly notice. action by any of the following methods: § 50.92 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal
• Federal rulemaking Web site: Go to Regulations (10 CFR), this means that
SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 189a. (2) http://www.regulations.gov and search operation of the facility in accordance
of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as for Docket ID NRC–2015–0088. with the proposed amendment would
amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear • NRC’s Agencywide Documents not (1) involve a significant increase in
Regulatory Commission (NRC) is Access and Management System the probability or consequences of an
publishing this regular biweekly notice. (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly- accident previously evaluated, or (2)
The Act requires the Commission to available documents online in the create the possibility of a new or
publish notice of any amendments ADAMS Public Documents collection at different kind of accident from any
issued, or proposed to be issued and http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ accident previously evaluated; or (3)
grants the Commission the authority to adams.html. To begin the search, select involve a significant reduction in a
issue and make immediately effective ‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and then margin of safety. The basis for this
any amendment to an operating license select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS proposed determination for each
or combined license, as applicable, Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS, amendment request is shown below.
upon a determination by the please contact the NRC’s Public The Commission is seeking public
Commission that such amendment Document Room (PDR) reference staff at comments on this proposed
involves no significant hazards 1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by determination. Any comments received
consideration, notwithstanding the email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The within 30 days after the date of
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
pendency before the Commission of a ADAMS accession number for each publication of this notice will be
request for a hearing from any person. document referenced (if it is available in considered in making any final
This biweekly notice includes all ADAMS) is provided the first time that determination.
notices of amendments issued, or it is mentioned in the SUPPLEMENTARY Normally, the Commission will not
proposed to be issued from March 19, INFORMATION section. issue the amendment until the
2015 to April 1, 2015. The last biweekly • NRC’s PDR: You may examine and expiration of 60 days after the date of
notice was published on March 31, purchase copies of public documents at publication of this notice. The
2015. the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One Commission may issue the license
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:42 Apr 13, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14APN1.SGM 14APN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_20091/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 2015 / Notices 20023
new failure modes, or change any modes of access openings to be opened doors are promptly closed after entry or exit,
operation. The proposed changes do not intermittently under administrative thereby restoring the secondary containment
involve a physical alteration of the plant, and control. boundary. The ability to open secondary
no new or different kind of equipment will Basis for proposed no significant containment access openings under
be installed. Consequently, there are no new administrative control, even if it means the
hazards consideration determination:
initiators that could result in a new or secondary containment boundary is
different kind of accident. As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the temporarily not intact, is acceptable due to
Therefore, the proposed changes do not licensee has provided its analysis of the the low probability of an event that requires
create the possibility of a new or different issue of no significant hazards secondary containment during the short time
kind of accident from any accident consideration, which is presented in which the secondary containment is open
previously evaluated. below: and the presence of administrative controls
3. Do the proposed changes involve a to rapidly close the opening.
1. Do the proposed changes involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety? Therefore, the proposed changes do not
significant increase in the probability or
Response: No. The proposed changes allow involve a significant reduction in a margin of
consequences of an accident previously
temporary conditions during which the safety.
evaluated?
secondary containment LCO and SRs are not Response: No. The proposed changes allow The NRC staff has reviewed the
met. Temporary conditions in which the temporary conditions during which the
secondary containment vacuum is below the licensee’s analysis and, based on this
secondary containment LCO and certain SRs review, it appears that the three
required limit are acceptable provided the are not met. The secondary containment is
conditions do not affect the ability of the standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
not an initiator of any accident previously
Standby Gas Treatment System to establish evaluated. As a result, the probability of any satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
the required secondary containment vacuum. accident previously evaluated is not proposes to determine that the
This condition is incorporated in the increased. The consequences of an accident amendment request involves no
proposed changes by requiring the condition previously evaluated while utilizing the significant hazards consideration.
to be momentary or under administrative proposed changes are no different than the Attorney for licensee: J. Bradley
control such that the conditions equivalent to consequences of an accident while utilizing Fewell, Esquire, Vice President and
the design condition can be quickly restored the existing 4-hour Completion Time for an
should secondary containment vacuum be
Deputy General Counsel, Exelon
inoperable secondary containment. As a Generation Company, LLC, 4300
required. Therefore, the safety function of the result, the consequences of an accident
secondary containment is not affected. The previously evaluated are not significantly
Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555.
allowance for both an inner and outer increased. NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A.
secondary containment access door to be Therefore, the proposed changes do not Broaddus.
open simultaneously for entry and exit does involve a significant increase in the Northern States Power Company—
not affect the safety function of the secondary probability or consequences of an accident Minnesota, Docket Nos. 50–282 and 50–
containment as the doors are promptly closed previously evaluated. 306, Prairie Island Nuclear Generating
after entry or exit, thereby restoring the 2. Do the proposed changes create the Plant, Units 1 and 2, Goodhue County,
secondary containment boundary. possibility of a new or different kind of Minnesota
Therefore, the proposed changes do not accident from any accident previously
involve a significant reduction in a margin of
Date of amendment request:
evaluated?
safety. Response: No. The proposed changes do
December 11, 2014. A publicly-available
not alter the protection system design, create version is in ADAMS under Accession
The NRC staff has reviewed the No. ML14349A749.
new failure modes, or change any modes of
licensee’s analysis and, based on this operation. The proposed changes do not Brief description of amendment
review, it appears that the three involve a physical alteration of the plant; and request: The proposed amendments
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are no new or different kind of equipment will would revise the technical specification
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff be installed. Consequently, there are no new (TS) 3.3.3, ‘‘EM [Event Monitoring]
proposes to determine that the initiators that could result in a new or Instrumentation,’’ to add the Steam
amendment request involves no different kind of accident.
Generator Water Level—Narrow Range
significant hazards consideration. Therefore, the proposed changes do not
create the possibility of a new or different Instruments to Table 3.3.3–1. In
Attorney for licensee: J. Bradley addition, the amendments would revise
kind of accident from any accident
Fewell, Esquire, Vice President and previously evaluated. Appendix B, ‘‘Additional Condition,’’ of
Deputy General Counsel, Exelon 3. Do the proposed changes involve a the Renewed Operating License for each
Generation Company, LLC, 4300 significant reduction in a margin of safety? unit regarding implementation of
Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555. Response: No. The proposed changes allow License Amendment Nos. 206 (Unit 1)
NRC Branch Chief: Doulas A. temporary conditions during which the and 193 (Unit 2) for Alternative Source
Broaddus. secondary containment LCO and certain SRs Term (AST), and removes two AST
are not met. Temporary conditions in which
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and the secondary containment is open is Additional Conditions for each unit that
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50–277 acceptable provided the conditions do not have been fulfilled.
and 50–278, Peach Bottom Atomic affect the ability of the Standby Gas Basis for proposed no significant
Power Station (PBAPS), Units 2 and 3, Treatment System to create a lower pressure hazards consideration determination:
York and Lancaster Counties, in the secondary containment than in the As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
Pennsylvania outside environment if required. This licensee provided its analysis of the
condition is incorporated in the proposed issue of no significant hazards
Date of amendment request: February changes by requiring the condition to be consideration, which is presented
23, 2015. A publicly-available version is under administrative control such that the
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
conditions equivalent to the design condition
below:
in ADAMS under Accession No.
ML15055A506. can be quickly restored should secondary 1. Do the proposed amendments involve a
Description of amendment request: containment vacuum be required. Therefore, significant increase in the probability or
the safety function of the secondary consequences of an accident previously
The proposed amendment would containment is not affected. The allowance evaluated?
modify a Technical Specification for both an inner and outer secondary Response: No.
Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) containment door to be open simultaneously The license amendment requests propose
and certain Surveillance Requirements for entry and exit does not affect the safety to add Steam Generator Water Level (narrow
(SRs) to allow secondary containment function of the secondary containment as the range) Instrumentation to Technical
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:42 Apr 13, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14APN1.SGM 14APN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_20091/page/4.svg)
![20024 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 2015 / Notices
Specification Event Monitoring create new failure modes or mechanisms and Services, Inc., 414 Nicollet Mall,
Instrumentation; revise license Additional do not change plant conditions from which Minneapolis, MN 55401.
Conditions to exclude Steam Generator Water some new material interaction may create a NRC Branch Chief: David L. Pelton.
Level (narrow range) Instrument new or different type of accident. Thus, the
implementation requirements from Technical Specification and license PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50–354,
Alternative Source Term license amendment Additional Condition changes do not create Hope Creek Generating Station, Unit 1,
implementation; and remove Alternative new failure modes or mechanisms, nor do Salem County, New Jersey
Source Term amendment implementation they generate new accident precursors.
Additional Conditions which have been Therefore, the proposed changes do not PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50–272
fulfilled. create the possibility of a new or different and 50–311, Salem Nuclear Generating
The Steam Generator Water Level (narrow kind of accident from any previously Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Salem
range) Instrumentation is not an accident evaluated. County, New Jersey
initiator and therefore addition of this The proposed removal of fulfilled
instrumentation to the Technical Additional Conditions is an administrative Date of amendment request:
Specifications does not increase the change and thus does not create the December 9, 2014. A publicly-available
probability of an accident. Addition of this possibility of a new or different kind of version is in ADAMS under Accession
instrumentation to the Technical accident. No. ML14343A926.
Specifications will bring it under the controls 3. Do the proposed amendments involve a Description of amendment request:
and testing requirements of the Technical significant reduction in a margin of safety? The proposed amendments would
Specifications. The proposed change will not Response: No. revise the Public Service Electric and
increase the consequences of previously- The license amendment requests propose Gas Nuclear LLC (PSEG) Environmental
evaluated accidents because the inclusion of to add Steam Generator Water Level (narrow
range) Instrumentation to Technical
Protection Plans (Non-Radiological),
these instruments in the technical
specification improves their reliability to Specification Event Monitoring Appendix B to the renewed facility
perform during a postulated accident. Instrumentation; revise license Additional operating license (FOL) numbers DPR–
Therefore, the proposed Technical Conditions to exclude Steam Generator Water 70 and DPR–75 for Salem Nuclear
Specification changes do not involve a Level (narrow range) Instrument Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, and
significant increase in the probability or implementation requirements from the renewed FOL number NPF–57 for
consequences of an accident previously Alternative Source Term license amendment Hope Creek Generating Station. The
evaluated. implementation; and remove Alternative proposed changes will simplify the
The Alternative Source Term license Source Term amendment implementation
Additional Conditions which have been
Aquatic Monitoring section of Appendix
amendment was previously analyzed and
fulfilled. B, modify the criteria for reporting
approved for implementation. The proposed
Additional Condition revision to exclude Addition of this instrumentation to the Unusual or Important Environmental
Steam Generator Water Level (narrow range) Technical Specifications will bring it under Events, and will clarify that PSEG
Instrumentation implementation the controls and testing requirements of the Nuclear must adhere to the currently
requirements from Alternative Source Term Technical Specifications. The proposed applicable Biological Opinion.
license amendment implementation clarifies change will not increase the consequences of Basis for proposed no significant
implementation requirements and allows previously evaluated accidents because hazards consideration determination:
completion of implementation activities. instrument upgrade and the inclusion of As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
Since the Alternative Source Term these instruments in the Technical
Specifications improve their reliability to
licensee has provided its analysis of the
amendment was previously approved, this issue of no significant hazards
change does not increase the probability or perform during a postulated accident.
consequences of a previously evaluated Therefore, the proposed changes do not consideration, which is presented
accident. involve a significant reduction in a margin of below, with NRC staff edits in square
Removal of license Additional Conditions safety. brackets:
which have been fulfilled is an The Alternative Source Term license
1. Do the proposed changes involve a
administrative change and thus this change amendment was previously analyzed and
significant increase in the probability or
does not increase the probability or approved for implementation. The proposed
consequences of an accident previously
consequences of a previously evaluated Additional Condition revision to exclude
evaluated?
accident. Steam Generator Water Level (narrow range)
Response: No.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not Instrumentation implementation
The [Environmental Protection Plan] EPP
involve a significant increase in the requirements from Alternative Source Term
provides for protection of non-radiological
probability or consequences of an accident license amendment implementation clarifies
environmental values during operation of the
previously evaluated. implementation requirements and allows
nuclear facility.
2. Do the proposed amendments create the completion of implementation activities.
The proposed changes do not have any
possibility of a new or different kind of Since the Alternative Source Term
impact on structures, systems and
accident from any accident previously [amendment] was previously approved, the
components (SSCs) of the plant, and no effect
evaluated? changes proposed in this license amendment on plant operations. The proposed changes
Response: No. do not involve a significant reduction in a do not impact any accident initiators, or
The license amendment requests propose margin of safety. analyzed events, or assumed mitigation of
to add Steam Generator Water Level (narrow The proposed removal of fulfilled accident or transient events. The proposed
range) Instrumentation to Technical Additional Conditions is administrative in changes do not result in the addition or
Specification Event Monitoring nature and thus does not involve a significant removal of any equipment.
Instrumentation; revise license Additional reduction in a margin of safety. Therefore, these proposed changes do not
Conditions to exclude Steam Generator Water The NRC staff has reviewed the represent a significant increase in the
Level (narrow range) Instrument licensee’s analysis and, based on this probability or consequences of an accident
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
implementation requirements from review, it appears that the three previously evaluated.
Alternative Source Term license amendment standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 2. Do the proposed changes create the
implementation; and remove Alternative possibility of a new or different kind of
Source Term amendment implementation
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff accident from any accident previously
Additional Conditions which have been proposes to determine that the evaluated?
fulfilled. amendment requests involve no Response: No.
The proposed Technical Specification significant hazards consideration. The proposed changes are administrative
changes and Additional Condition changes Attorney for licensee: Peter M. Glass, in nature and do not involve a modification
and the resulting instrument upgrades do not Assistant General Counsel, Xcel Energy to the physical configuration of the plant
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:42 Apr 13, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14APN1.SGM 14APN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_20091/page/5.svg)
![20026 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 2015 / Notices
previously evaluated. Similarly, because the License Condition 2.C (17) that activities described in the DSAR and PSDAR
proposed amendment does not alter the approves the License Termination Plan [post-shutdown decommissioning activities
design or operation of the nuclear plant or (LTP) and establishes the criteria for report]. Thus, the proposed changes do not
any plant SSCs, the proposed amendment affect the remaining plant systems,
does not represent a change to the
determining when changes to the LTP structures, or components in a way not
radiological effects of an accident, and require prior the U.S. Nuclear previously evaluated.
therefore, does not involve an increase in the Regulatory Commission (NRC) approval. There are sections of the LTP that refer to
consequences of an accident previously Basis for proposed no significant the decommissioning activities still
evaluated. hazards consideration determination: remaining (e.g.; removal of large components,
2. Does the proposed amendment create As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the structure removal, etc.). However, these
the possibility of a new or different kind of licensee has provided its analysis of the activities are performed in accordance with
accident from any accident previously issue of no significant hazards approved work packages/steps and undergo a
evaluated? 10 CFR 50.59 screening prior to initiation.
Response: No.
consideration, which is presented The proposed amendment merely makes
The proposed amendment would reclassify below: mention of these processes and does not
Fire Area Figures Tier 2* information. The (1) Does the change involve a significant bring about physical changes to the facility.
proposed amendment is not a modification, increase in the probability or consequences Therefore, the facility conditions for which
addition to, or removal of any plant SSCs. of an accident previously evaluated? the remaining postulated accident has been
Furthermore, the proposed amendment is not The only remaining accident after fuel evaluated is still valid and no new accident
a change to procedures or method of control transfer is completed in January 2015 is the scenarios, failure mechanisms, or single
of the nuclear plant or any plant SSCs. The Radwaste handling accident. Calculations failures are introduced by this amendment.
only impact of this activity is the were performed to determine the dose at the The system operating procedures are not
reclassification of information in the Updated Exclusion Area Boundary that would result affected. Therefore, the proposed changes
Final Safety Analysis Report. Because the from dropping a High Integrity Container in will not create the possibility of a new or
proposed amendment only reclassifies the former Interim Radwaste Storage Facility different kind of accident from any accident
information and does not change the design, (IRSF) such that its entire contents of previously evaluated.
construction, or operation of the nuclear radioactive, dewatered resin escape. A (3) Does the change involve a significant
plant or any plant operations, the fraction of the escaped resin is non reduction in a margin of safety?
amendment does not create the possibility of mechanistically assumed to be released as The LTP is a plan for demonstrating
a new or different kind of accident from any airborne radioactivity and pass from the IRSF compliance with the radiological criteria for
accident previously evaluated. directly to the environment, resulting in off- license termination as provided in 10 CFR
3. Does the proposed amendment involve 20.1402 (Reference 5). The margin of safety
site dose consequences. The solid-to-aerosol
a significant reduction in a margin of safety? defined in the statements of consideration for
release fraction is assumed to be the worst
Response: No. the final rule on the Radiological Criteria for
case non-mechanistic, mechanically initiated
The proposed amendment would reclassify License Termination is described as the
release fraction. The whole body and
Fire Area Figures Tier 2* information. The margin between the 100 mrem/yr public dose
inhalation dose at the closest point on the limit established in 10 CFR 20.1301 for
proposed amendment is not a modification,
addition to, or removal of any plant SSCs. Exclusion Area Boundary from the IRSF are licensed operation and the 25 mrem/yr dose
Furthermore, the proposed amendment is not then calculated. limit to the average member of the critical
a change to procedures or method of control The results of the radiological dose group at a site considered acceptable for
of the nuclear plant or any plant SSCs. The consequences for an accident involving the unrestricted use (one of the criteria of 10 CFR
only impact of this activity is the failure of a High Integrity Container show 20.1402). This margin of safety accounts for
reclassification of information in the Updated that the projected doses are insignificant in the potential effect of multiple sources of
Final Safety Analysis Report. comparison to the 10 CFR 100 guidelines, radiation exposure to the critical group.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does and are less than the EPA [Environmental Since the License Termination Plan is
not involve a significant reduction in a Protection Agency] PAGs [protective action designed to comply with the radiological
margin of safety. guidelines]. The projected dose at the Low criteria for license termination for
Population Zone would be less than at the unrestricted use, the LTP supports this
The NRC staff has reviewed the Exclusion Area Boundary and, since this
licensee’s analysis and, based on this margin of safety.
accident involves an instantaneous release, it In addition, the LTP provides the
review, it appears that the three is also within the 10 CFR 100 guidelines. methodologies and criteria that will be used
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are The proposed change does not affect the to perform remediation activities of residual
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff boundaries used to evaluate compliance with radioactivity to demonstrate compliance with
proposes to determine that the liquid or gaseous effluent limits, and has no the ALARA [as low as reasonably achievable]
amendment request involves no impact on plant operations. The proposed criterion of 10 CFR 20.1402.
significant hazards consideration. changes do not have an adverse impact on Additionally, the LTP is designed with
Attorney for licensee: Mr. M. Stanford the remaining decommissioning activities or recognition that (a) the methods in
any decommissioning related postulated MARSSIM (Multi-Agency Radiation Survey
Blanton, Balch & Bingham LLP, 1710
accident consequences. and Site Investigation Manual) (Reference 6)
Sixth Avenue North Birmingham, AL The proposed changes related to the and (b) the building surface contamination
35203–2015. approval of the LTP do not affect operating levels are not directly applicable to use with
NRC Branch Chief: Lawrence procedures or administrative controls that complex nonstructural components.
Burkhart. have the function of preventing or mitigating Therefore, the LTP states that nonstructural
the remaining decommissioning design basis components remaining in buildings (e.g.,
ZionSolutions LLC, Docket Nos. 50–295 accident. pumps, heat exchangers, etc.) will be
and 50–304, Zion Nuclear Power Station Therefore, the proposed changes do not evaluated against the criteria of Regulatory
(Zion), Units 1 and 2, Lake County, involve a significant increase in the Guide 1.86 (Reference 7) to determine if the
Illinois probability or consequences of any accident components can be released for unrestricted
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Date of amendment request: previously evaluated. use. The LTP also states that materials,
December 19, 2014, as supplemented on (2) Does the change create the possibility surveyed and evaluated as a part of normal
of a new or different kind of accident from decommissioning activities and prior to
February 26, 2015. Publicly available any accident previously evaluated? implementation of the final radiation
versions are in ADAMS under The accident analysis for the facility surveys, will be surveyed for release using
Accession Nos. ML15005A336 and related to decommissioning activities is current site procedures to demonstrate
ML15061A230, respectively. described in the DSAR [defueled safety compliance with the ‘‘no detectable’’ criteria.
Description of amendment request: analysis report]. The requested license Such materials that do not pass these criteria
The proposed amendment would add amendment is consistent with the plant will be controlled as contaminated.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:42 Apr 13, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14APN1.SGM 14APN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_20091/page/7.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 2015 / Notices 20027
Also, as previously discussed, the the Commission’s related letter, Safety January 16 and December 19, 2014,
bounding accident for decommissioning is Evaluation and/or Environmental provided additional information that
the resin container accident. Since the Assessment as indicated. All of these clarified the application, did not expand
bounding decommissioning accident results
items can be accessed as described in the scope of the application as originally
in more airborne radioactivity than can be
released from other decommissioning events, the ‘‘Obtaining Information and noticed, and did not change the staff’s
the margin of safety associated with the Submitting Comments’’ section of this original proposed no significant hazards
consequences of decommissioning accidents document. consideration determination as
is not reduced by this activity. published in the Federal Register.
Arizona Public Service Company, et al.,
Thus, the proposed change does not
involve a significant reduction in the margin Docket Nos. STN 50–528, STN 50–529, The Commission’s related evaluation
of safety. and STN 50–530, Palo Verde Nuclear of the amendments is contained in a
The NRC staff has reviewed the Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and Safety Evaluation dated March 30, 2015.
licensee’s analysis and, based on this 3, Maricopa County, Arizona No significant hazards consideration
review, it appears that the three Date of application for amendment: comments received: No.
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are November 20, 2013, as supplemented by
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff letters dated November 20, 2013, and Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket
proposes to determine that the January 16 and December 19, 2014. Nos. 50–413 and 50–414, Catawba
amendment request involves no Brief description of amendment: The Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York
significant hazards consideration. amendment modified Technical County, South Carolina, Duke Energy
Attorney for licensee: Russ Workman, Specification (TS) Surveillance Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50–369 and
Deputy General Counsel, Requirement (SR) 3.1.4.1 utilizing 50–370, McGuire Nuclear Station, Units
EnergySolutions, 423 West 300 South, Westinghouse Electric Company LLC’s 1 and 2, Mecklenburg County, North
Suite 200, Salt Lake City, UT 84101. topical report WCAP–16011–NP–A, Carolina
NRC Branch Chief: Bruce Watson. Revision 0, ‘‘Startup Test Activity
Reduction [STAR] Program,’’ February Date of application for amendments:
III. Notice of Issuance of Amendments November 14, 2013, as supplemented by
to Facility Operating Licenses and 2005. The changes are consistent with
NRC-approved Technical Specification letters dated June 27, and November 10,
Combined Licenses 2014.
Task Force (TSTF) Standard Technical
During the period since publication of Specification Change Traveler TSTF– Brief description of amendments: The
the last biweekly notice, the 486, Revision 2. The use of WCAP– amendments approve the use of DPC–
Commission has issued the following 16011–NP–A is justified by the licensee 3001–NE–P, Revision 1,
amendments. The Commission has in WCAP–17787–NP, Revision 0, ‘‘Palo ‘‘Multidimensional Reactor Transients
determined for each of these Verde Nuclear Generating Station STAR and Safety Analysis Physics Parameters
amendments that the application Program Implementation Report,’’ Methodology.’’
complies with the standards and August 2013.
requirements of the Atomic Energy Act Date of issuance: March 25, 2015.
The amendments also modify SR
of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the 3.1.4.2 not to require the moderator Effective date: This license
Commission’s rules and regulations. temperature coefficient (MTC) amendment is effective as of its date of
The Commission has made appropriate determination if the result of the MTC issuance and shall be implemented
findings as required by the Act and the determination required in TS 3.1.4.1 is within 30 days of issuance.
Commission’s rules and regulations in within a certain tolerance of the Amendment Nos.: 274, 270, 277, and
10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in corresponding design value. This 257. A publicly-available version of the
the license amendment. change is based on the methods application is in ADAMS under
A notice of consideration of issuance described in Combustion Engineering Accession No. ML15027A366;
of amendment to facility operating Owners Group Report CE NPSD–911–A documents related to these amendments
license or combined license, as and Amendment 1–A, ‘‘Analysis of are listed in the Safety Evaluation
applicable, proposed no significant Moderator Temperature Coefficients in enclosed with the amendments.
hazards consideration determination, Support of a Change in the Technical
and opportunity for a hearing in Renewed Facility Operating License
Specifications End-of-Cycle Negative
connection with these actions, was Nos. NPF–35, NPF–52, NPF–9, and
MTC Limits,’’ September 2000.
published in the Federal Register as Date of issuance: March 30, 2015. NPF–17: Amendments revised the
indicated. Effective date: As of the date of licenses.
Unless otherwise indicated, the issuance and shall be implemented Date of initial notice in Federal
Commission has determined that these within 90 days from the date of Register: February 27, 2014 (79 FR
amendments satisfy the criteria for issuance. 11147). The supplemental letters dated
categorical exclusion in accordance Amendment No.: Unit 1–195; Unit 2– June 27, and November 10, 2014,
with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant 195; Unit 3–195. A publicly-available provided additional information that
to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental version is in ADAMS under Accession clarified the application, did not expand
impact statement or environmental No. ML15070A124; documents related the scope of the application as originally
assessment need be prepared for these to these amendments are listed in the noticed, and did not change the staff’s
amendments. If the Commission has
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Safety Evaluation enclosed with the original proposed no significant hazards
prepared an environmental assessment amendments. consideration determination as
under the special circumstances Renewed Facility Operating License published in the Federal Register.
provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has Nos. NPF–41, NPF–51, and NPF–74: The
made a determination based on that amendment revised the Operating The Commission’s related evaluation
assessment, it is so indicated. Licenses and Technical Specifications. of the amendments is contained in a
For further details with respect to the Date of initial notice in Federal Safety Evaluation dated March 25, 2015.
action see (1) the applications for Register: February 27, 2014 (79 FR No significant hazards consideration
amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) 11146). The supplemental letters dated comments received: No.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:42 Apr 13, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14APN1.SGM 14APN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_20091/page/8.svg)
![20028 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 2015 / Notices
Duke Energy Florida, Inc., et al., Docket Settings] Functions,’’ Option A. The No significant hazards consideration
No. 50–302, Crystal River Unit 3 notice of availability of the models for comments received: No.
Nuclear Generating Plant, Citrus plant-specific adoption of TSTF–493,
Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50–
County, Florida Revision 4, was announced in the
368, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit No. 2
Date of amendment request: Federal Register on May 11, 2010 (75
(ANO–2), Pope County, Arkansas
September 26, 2013, as supplemented FR 26294).
Date of issuance: March 27, 2015. Date of application for amendment:
by letters dated March 28, May 23, and March 26, 2013, as supplemented by
Effective date: As of its date of
October 6, 2014. letters dated December 12, 2013, and
issuance and shall be implemented
Brief description of amendment: The
prior to restarting from refueling outage May 12, August 19, October 22, and
amendment revised the facility’s
R–22, scheduled for spring 2015. December 5, 2014.
emergency plan and emergency action Brief description of amendment: The
Amendment No.: 232. A publicly-
level scheme to reflect the low amendment revised the ANO–2
available version is in ADAMS under
likelihood of any credible accident at Technical Specification (TS)
Accession No. ML15063A010;
the facility in its permanently shutdown requirements for end states associated
documents related to this amendment
and defueled condition that could result with the implementation of the NRC-
are listed in the Safety Evaluation
in radiological releases requiring offsite approved Topical Report NPSD–1186,
enclosed with the amendment.
protective measures. Renewed Facility Operating License Revision 0, ‘‘Technical Justification for
Date of issuance: March 31, 2015. No. NPF–21: The amendment revised the Risk Informed Modification to
Effective date: As of the date of the Facility Operating License and Selected Required Action End States for
issuance and shall be implemented Technical Specifications. CEOG [Combustion Engineering Owners
within 60 days of issuance. Date of initial notice in Federal Group] Member PWRs [Pressurized-
Amendment No.: 246. A publicly- Register: July 22, 2014 (79 FR 42544). Water Reactors],’’ as well as Required
available version is in ADAMS under The supplemental letters dated August Actions revised by a specific Note in TS
Accession No. ML15027A209; 28, November 6, and December 15, Task Force (TSTF) change traveler
documents related to this amendment 2014, provided additional information TSTF–422, Revision 2, ‘‘Change in
are listed in the Safety Evaluation that clarified the application, did not Technical Specifications End States (CE
enclosed with the amendment. expand the scope of the application as NPSD–1186).’’ The Notice of
Facility Operating License No. DPR– originally noticed, and did not change Availability for TSTF–422, Revision 2,
72: Amendment revised the emergency the staff’s original proposed no was announced in the Federal Register
plan and the emergency action levels. significant hazards consideration on April 7, 2011 (76 FR 19510).
Date of initial notice in Federal determination as published in the Date of issuance: March 31, 2015.
Register: January 7, 2014 (79 FR 857). Federal Register. Effective date: As of the date of
The supplemental letters dated March The Commission’s related evaluation issuance and shall be implemented
28, May 23, and October 6, 2014, of the amendment is contained in a within 90 days from the date of
provided additional information that Safety Evaluation dated March 27, 2015. issuance.
clarified the application, did not expand No significant hazards consideration Amendment No.: 301. A publicly-
the scope of the application as originally comments received: No. available version is in ADAMS under
noticed, and did not change the staff’s Accession No. ML15068A319;
original proposed no significant hazards Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50–397, documents related to this amendment
consideration determination as Columbia Generating Station, Benton are listed in the Safety Evaluation
published in the Federal Register. County, Washington enclosed with the amendment.
The Commission’s related evaluation Date of application for amendment: Renewed Facility Operating License
of the amendment is contained in a June 25, 2014. No. NPF–6: Amendment revised the
Safety Evaluation dated March 31, 2015. Brief description of amendment: The Technical Specifications/license.
No significant hazards consideration amendment revised the Columbia Date of initial notice in Federal
comments received: No. Generating Station Cyber Security Plan Register: July 23, 2013 (78 FR 44172).
Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50–397, (CSP) Milestone 8 full implementation The supplemental letters dated
Columbia Generating Station, Benton date as set forth in the CSP December 12, 2013, and May 12, August
County, Washington Implementation Schedule. 19, October 22, and December 5, 2014,
Date of issuance: March 27, 2015. provided additional information that
Date of application for amendment: Effective date: As of its date of clarified the application, did not expand
March 24, 2014, as supplemented by issuance and shall be implemented the scope of the application as originally
letters dated May 8, August 28, within 30 days from the date of noticed, and did not change the staff’s
November 6, and December 15, 2014. issuance. original proposed no significant hazards
Brief description of amendment: The Amendment No.: 231. A publicly- consideration determination as
amendment revised Technical available version is in ADAMS under published in the Federal Register.
Specification (TS) Table 3.3.1.1–1, Accession No. ML15042A464; The Commission’s related evaluation
‘‘Reactor Protection System documents related to this amendment of the amendment is contained in a
Instrumentation,’’ Functions 7.a and 7.b are listed in the Safety Evaluation Safety Evaluation dated March 31, 2015.
to update Scram Discharge Volume
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
enclosed with the amendment. No significant hazards consideration
instrumentation nomenclature, add a Renewed Facility Operating License comments received: No.
surveillance requirement (SR), which No. NPF–21: The amendment revised
was previously omitted, and add the Facility Operating License. Exelon Generation Company, LLC,
footnotes to an SR consistent with TS Date of initial notice in Federal Docket Nos. 50–254 and 50–265, Quad
Task Force (TSTF) change traveler Register: October 7, 2014 (79 FR 60518). Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1
TSTF–493, Revision 4, ‘‘Clarify The Commission’s related evaluation and 2, Rock Island County, Illinois
Application of Setpoint Methodology of the amendment is contained in a Date of application for amendments:
for LSSS [Limiting Safety System Safety Evaluation dated March 27, 2015. June 10, 2013, as supplemented by
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:42 Apr 13, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14APN1.SGM 14APN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_20091/page/9.svg)
![20030 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 2015 / Notices
Effective date: As of its date of Date of issuance: March 30, 2015. consideration determination as
issuance, and shall be implemented Effective date: As of the date of published in the Federal Register.
within 30 days. issuance, to be implemented within 60 The Commission’s related evaluation
Amendment No.: 145. A publicly- days. of the amendment is contained in the
available version is in ADAMS under Amendment Nos.: 307 and 289. A Safety Evaluation dated December 16,
Accession No. ML15002A251; publicly-available version is in ADAMS 2014.
documents related to this amendment under Accession No. ML15063A293; No significant hazards consideration
are listed in the Safety Evaluation documents related to these amendments comments received: No.
enclosed with the amendment. are listed in the Safety Evaluation
Facility Operating License No. NPF– South Carolina Electric & Gas Company,
enclosed with the amendments. Docket Nos. 52–027 and 52–028, Virgil
86: Amendment revised the Facility Renewed Facility Operating License
Operating License and TSs. C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS)
Nos. DPR–70 and DPR–75: The Units 2 and 3, Fairfield County, South
Date of initial notice in Federal amendments revised the Technical
Register: January 6, 2015, (80 FR 525). Carolina
Specifications and the License.
The Commission’s related evaluation Date of amendment request: June 20,
Date of initial notice in Federal
of the amendment is contained in a 2014, and supplemented by letter dated
Safety Evaluation dated March 31, 2015. Register: June 6, 2014 (79 FR 32770).
The Commission’s related evaluation August 6, 2014.
No significant hazards consideration Description of amendment: The
comments received: No. of the amendments is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated March 30, 2015. amendment revises the Updated Final
Omaha Public Power District, Docket Safety Analysis Report in regard to Tier
No significant hazards consideration
No. 50–285, Fort Calhoun Station, Unit 2 and Tier 2* information related to fire
comments received: No.
No. 1, Washington County, Nebraska area boundaries. These changes include:
South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, adding of three new fire zones in the
Date of amendment request: Docket Nos. 52–027 and 52–028, Virgil middle annulus to provide fire barrier
November 7, 2014. C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS) enclosures for the Class 1E Electrical
Brief description of amendment: The
Units 2 and 3, Fairfield County, South Divisions B, C, and D containment
amendment revised Technical
Carolina penetrations; and eliminating the Class
Specification (TS) 3.1, Table 3–3, Item
3.c concerning containment wide range Date of amendment request: August 5, 1E Electrical Division A enclosure and
radiation monitors to correct a 2014, revised by letter dated August 28, making the Division A containment
typographical error introduced in TS 2014, and supplemented by letter dated penetration assemblies part of the
Amendment No. 152. November 3, 2014 (Non-Public). existing middle annulus fire zone.
Date of issuance: March 27, 2015. Date of issuance: December 30, 2014.
Description of amendment: The
Effective date: As of the date of Effective date: As of the date of
amendment revises the design of
issuance and shall be implemented issuance and shall be implemented
connections between reinforced
within 30 days from the date of within 90 days of issuance.
concrete (RC) and steel plate concrete Amendment No.: 22. A publicly-
issuance. composite construction (SC) included in
Amendment No.: 281. A publicly- available version is in ADAMS under
the VCSNS Units 2 and 3 updated Final Accession No. ML14328A233;
available version is in ADAMS under Safety Analysis Report and changes to
Accession No. ML15035A203; documents related to this amendment
the Technical Report, ‘‘APP–GW–GLR– are listed in the Safety Evaluation
documents related to this amendment 602, AP1000 Shield Building Design
are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Details for Select Wall and RC/SC Facility Combined Licenses No. NPF–
enclosed with the amendment. Connections,’’ (prepared by
Renewed Facility Operating License 93 and NPF–94: Amendment revised the
Westinghouse Electric Company and Facility Combined Licenses.
No. DPR–40: The amendment revised reviewed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
the license and Technical Date of initial notice in Federal
Commission as part of the design Register: October 28, 2014 (79 FR
Specifications. certification rule).
Date of initial notice in Federal 64228).
Date of issuance: December 16, 2014. The Commission’s related evaluation
Register: January 20, 2015 (80 FR 2751).
The Commission’s related evaluation Effective date: As of the date of of the amendment is contained in the
of the amendment is contained in a issuance and shall be implemented Safety Evaluation dated December 30,
safety evaluation dated March 27, 2015. within 90 days of issuance. 2014.
No significant hazards consideration Amendment No.: 21. A publicly- No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No. available version is in ADAMS under comments received: No.
Accession No. ML14339A717;
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50–272 documents related to this amendment Union Electric Company, Docket No.
and 50–311, Salem Nuclear Generating are listed in the Safety Evaluation 50–483, Callaway Plant, Unit 1,
Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Salem enclosed with the amendment. Callaway County, Missouri
County, New Jersey Facility Combined Licenses No. NPF– Date of application for amendment:
Date of application for amendments: 93 and NPF–94: Amendment revised the December 6, 2013, as supplemented by
March 24, 2014. Facility Combined Licenses. letters dated September 2 and December
Brief description of amendments: The Date of initial notice in Federal 11, 2014, and February 3, 2015.
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
amendments approved a change to Register: September 30, 2014 (79 FR Brief description of amendment: The
revise Surveillance Requirements 58824). The supplemental letter dated amendment changed the licensing basis
4.2.1.3, 4.2.1.4, and 4.2.2.2.f associated November 3, 2014, provided additional as described in the Final Safety Analysis
with Power Distribution Limits information that clarified the Report (FSAR)-Standard Plant Section
Technical Specification (TS) 3/4.2.1, application, did not expand the scope of 3.6.2.1.2.4, ‘‘ASME [American Society
‘‘Axial Flux Difference (AFD),’’ and TS the application as originally noticed, of Mechanical Engineers] Section III and
3/4.2.2, ‘‘Heat Flux Hot Channel and did not change the staff’s original Non-Nuclear Piping-Moderate-Energy,’’
Factor—FQ(Z).’’ proposed no significant hazards and FSAR-Standard Plant Table 3.6–2,
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:42 Apr 13, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14APN1.SGM 14APN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_20091/page/11.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 2015 / Notices 20031
‘‘Design Comparison to Regulatory ACTION: Exemption and combined • NRC’s PDR: You may examine and
Positions of Regulatory Guide 1.46, license amendment; issuance. purchase copies of public documents at
Revision 0, dated May 1973, titled the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One
‘Protection Against Pipe Whip Inside SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory White Flint North, 11555 Rockville
Containment,’ ’’ in particular regard to Commission (NRC) is granting an Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
the high-density polyethylene (HDPE) exemption to allow a departure from the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
piping installed in ASME Class 3 line certification information of Tier 1 of the Ruth Reyes, Office of New Reactors,
segments of the essential service water generic design control document (DCD) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
system. Also, new Reference 25 is added and issuing License Amendment No. 23 Washington, DC 20555–0001; telephone:
to FSAR-Standard Plant Section 3.6.3 to to Combined Licenses (COL), NPF–93 301–415–3249; email: Ruth.Reyes@
cite the NRC-approved version of the and NPF–94. The COLs were issued to nrc.gov.
HDPE requirements covered by Relief South Carolina Electric & Gas Company
(SCE&G), and South Carolina Public SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Request I3R–10 dated October 31, 2008.
Date of issuance: March 31, 2015. Service Authority (the licensee), for I. Introduction
Effective date: As of its date of construction and operation of the Virgil
C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS), The NRC is granting an exemption
issuance and shall be implemented from the provisions of Paragraph B of
within 60 days from the date of Units 2 and 3 located in Fairfield
County, South Carolina. Section III, ‘‘Scope and Contents,’’ of
issuance. appendix D, ‘‘Design Certification Rule
Amendment No.: 211. A publicly- The granting of the exemption allows
the changes to Tier 1 information for the AP1000,’’ to part 52 of Title 10
available version is in ADAMS under of the Code of Federal Regulations (10
Accession No. ML15064A028; requested in the amendment. Because
the acceptability of the exemption was CFR) and issuing License Amendment
documents related to this amendment No. 23 to COLs, NPF–93 and NPF–94,
are listed in the Safety Evaluation determined in part by the acceptability
of the amendment, the exemption and to the licensee. The exemption is
enclosed with the amendment. required by Paragraph A.4 of Section
Renewed Facility Operating License amendment are being issued
concurrently. VIII, ‘‘Processes for Changes and
No. NPF–30: The amendment revised Departures,’’ appendix D to 10 CFR part
the Operating License. ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID 52 to allow the licensee to depart from
Date of initial notice in Federal NRC–2008–0441 when contacting the Tier 1 information. With the requested
Register: March 18, 2014 (79 FR NRC about the availability of amendment, the licensee sought
15150). The supplements dated information regarding this document. changes to COL Appendix C and
September 2 and December 11, 2014, You may obtain publicly-available corresponding plant-specific Tier 1
and February 3, 2015, provided information related to this document information to correct editorial errors
additional information that clarified the using any of the following methods: and/or consistency errors (e.g.,
application, did not expand the scope of • Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to inconsistencies between Updated Final
the application as originally noticed, http://www.regulations.gov and search Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) (Tier 2)
and did not change the staff’s original for Docket ID NRC–2008–0441. Address and Tier 1 information, and
proposed no significant hazards questions about NRC dockets to Carol inconsistencies between information
consideration determination as Gallagher; telephone: 301–415–3463; from different locations within Tier 1).
published in the Federal Register. email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For Part of the justification for granting
The Commission’s related evaluation technical questions, contact the the exemption was provided by the
of the amendment is contained in a individual listed in the FOR FURTHER review of the amendment. Because the
Safety Evaluation dated March 31, 2015. INFORMATION CONTACT section of this exemption is necessary in order to issue
No significant hazards consideration document. the requested license amendment, the
comments received: No. • NRC’s Agencywide Documents NRC granted the exemption and issued
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 6th day Access and Management System the amendment concurrently, rather
of April 2015. (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly- than in sequence. This included issuing
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
available documents online in the a combined safety evaluation containing
ADAMS Public Documents collection at the NRC staff’s review of both the
A. Louise Lund,
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ exemption request and the license
Acting Director, Division of Operating Reactor adams.html. To begin the search, select amendment. The exemption met all
Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and then applicable regulatory criteria set forth in
select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS 10 CFR 50.12, 10 CFR 52.7, and
[FR Doc. 2015–08579 Filed 4–13–15; 8:45 am]
Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS, 52.63(b)(1). The license amendment was
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
please contact the NRC’s Public found to be acceptable as well. The
Document Room (PDR) reference staff at combined safety evaluation is available
NUCLEAR REGULATORY 1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by in ADAMS under Accession No.
COMMISSION email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The ML14345B029.
ADAMS accession number for each Identical exemption documents
document referenced (if it is available in (except for referenced unit numbers and
[Docket Nos. 52–027 and 52–028; NRC– ADAMS) is provided the first time that license numbers) were issued to the
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
2008–0441]
a document is referenced. The request licensee for VCSNS Units 2 and 3 (COLs
Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, for the amendment and exemption was NPF–93 and NPF–94). These documents
Units 2 and 3; South Carolina Electric submitted by the letter dated May 20, can be found in ADAMS under
& Gas Company; Tier 1 Editorial and 2014 (ADAMS Accession No. Accession Nos. ML14352A155 and
Consistency Changes ML14140A637). The licensee ML14352A164, respectively. The
supplemented this request by letter exemption is reproduced (with the
AGENCY:Nuclear Regulatory dated June 3, 2014 (ADAMS Accession exception of abbreviated titles and
Commission. No. ML14155A257). additional citations) in Section II of this
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:42 Apr 13, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14APN1.SGM 14APN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_20091/page/12.svg)
Document Created: 2015-12-18 11:10:22
Document Modified: 2015-12-18 11:10:22
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Notices | |
| Action | Biweekly notice. | |
| Dates | Comments must be filed by May 14, 2015. A request for a hearing must be filed by June 15, 2015. | |
| Contact | Angela Baxter, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2976, email: [email protected] | |
| FR Citation | 80 FR 20020 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR