80 FR 30097 - 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 100 (May 26, 2015)

Page Range		30097-30105
FR Document		2015-12661

Pursuant to Section 189a. (2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is publishing this regular biweekly notice. The Act requires the Commission to publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to be issued and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license or combined license, as applicable, upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person. This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or proposed to be issued from April 30, 2015, to May 13, 2015. The last biweekly notice was published on May 12, 2015.

Federal Register, Volume 80 Issue 100 (Tuesday, May 26, 2015)

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 100 (Tuesday, May 26, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30097-30105]
From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2015-12661]

[[Page 30097]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2015-0128]

Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility
Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant
Hazards Considerations

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Biweekly notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 189a. (2) of the Atomic Energy Act of
1954, as amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC) is publishing this regular biweekly notice. The Act requires the
Commission to publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to
be issued and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make
immediately effective any amendment to an operating license or combined
license, as applicable, upon a determination by the Commission that
such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration,
notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a
hearing from any person.
This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or
proposed to be issued from April 30, 2015, to May 13, 2015. The last
biweekly notice was published on May 12, 2015.

DATES: Comments must be filed by June 25, 2015. A request for a hearing
must be filed by July 27, 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-2015-0128. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-
3463; email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For technical questions, contact
the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this document.
Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Office of Administration,
Mail Stop: OWFN-12-H08, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555-0001.
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting
comments, see ``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Janet Burkhardt, Nuclear Reactor
Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-
0001; telephone: 301-415-1384, email: Janet.Burkhardt@nrc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments

A. Obtaining Information

Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0128 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-2015-0128.
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 pdr.resource@nrc.gov. 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-2015-0128, facility name, unit
number(s), application date, and subject in your comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact
information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your
comment submission. The NRC posts all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as entering the comment submissions into
ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove
identifying or contact information.
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons
for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to
include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be
publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should
state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to
remove such information before making the comment submissions available
to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.

II. Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility
Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses and Proposed No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination

The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under
the Commission's regulations in Sec. 50.92 of Title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (10 CFR), this means that operation of the facility
in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated, or (2) create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or
(3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis
for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown
below.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final
determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day
comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result,
for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the
Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment
period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a
notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after
issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will
occur very infrequently.

[[Page 30098]]

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 hearing.docket@nrc.gov,
or by telephone at 301-415-1677, to request (1) a digital
identification (ID) certificate, which allows the participant (or its
counsel or representative) to digitally sign documents and access the
E-Submittal server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and
(2) advise the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a
request or petition for hearing (even in instances in which the
participant, or its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-
issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the
Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the hearing in this
proceeding if the Secretary has not already established an electronic
docket.
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is
available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/getting-started.html. System requirements for accessing
the E-Submittal server are detailed in the NRC's ``Guidance for
Electronic Submission,'' which is available on the agency's public Web
site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants
may attempt to use other software not listed on the Web site, but
should note that the NRC's E-Filing system does not support unlisted
software, and the NRC Meta System Help Desk will not be able to offer
assistance in using unlisted software.
If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC
in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the
document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to
serve documents through the Electronic Information Exchange System,
users will be required to install a Web browser plug-in from the NRC's
Web site. Further information on the Web-based submission form,
including the installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on
the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html.
Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a
docket has been created, the participant can then

[[Page 30099]]

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
MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, 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, in some instances, a request to intervene will require
including information on local residence in order to demonstrate a
proximity assertion of interest in the proceeding. With respect to
copyrighted works, except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose
of the adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use
application, participants are requested not to include copyrighted
materials in their submission.
Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60
days from the date of publication of this notice. Requests for hearing,
petitions for leave to intervene, and motions for leave to file new or
amended contentions that are filed after the 60-day deadline will not
be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the
filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10
CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(iii).
For further details with respect to these license amendment
applications, see the application for amendment which is available for
public inspection in ADAMS and at the NRC's PDR. For additional
direction on accessing information related to this document, see the
``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' section of this
document.

Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Docket No. 50-423, Millstone Power
Station, Unit 3 (MPS3), New London County, Connecticut

Date of amendment request: August 19, 2014, as supplemented by
letter dated January 26, 2015. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS
under Accession Nos. ML14237A099 and ML15033A381, respectively.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the
MPS3 Technical Specification (TS) 3/4.7.1.2, ``Auxiliary Feedwater
System,'' Surveillance Requirement (SR) 4.7.1.2.1.b. The proposed
change is consistent with the Standard Technical Specifications for
Westinghouse Plants (NUREG-1431, Revision 4).
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:

1. The proposed amendment does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
Response: No.
The proposed amendment associated with the modifications to the
existing surveillance requirement will not cause an accident to
occur and will not result in any change in the operation of the
associated accident mitigation equipment. The ability of the
equipment associated with the proposed amendment to mitigate the
design basis accidents will not be affected. The proposed Technical
Specification surveillance requirement is sufficient to ensure the
required accident mitigation equipment will be available and
function properly for design basis accident mitigation. In addition,
the design basis accidents will remain the same postulated events
described in the MPS3 Final Safety Analysis Report, and the
consequences of those events will not be affected.
Therefore, the proposed amendment will not significantly
increase the probability or consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.
2. The proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a
new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
Response: No.
The proposed amendment to the Technical Specifications
surveillance requirement does not impact any system or component
that could cause an accident. The proposed amendment does not
involve a physical alteration of the plant. No new or different
types of equipment will be installed and there are no physical
modifications to existing equipment associated with the proposed
amendment. The proposed amendment will not alter the way any
structure, system, or component functions, and will not alter the
manner in which the plant is operated or require any new operator
actions. There will be no adverse effect on plant operation or
accident mitigation equipment. The response of the plant and the
operators following an accident will not be different. In addition,
the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new
failure mode associated with any equipment or personnel failures.

[[Page 30100]]

Therefore, the proposed amendment will not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. The proposed amendment does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment to the Technical Specification
surveillance requirement will not cause an accident to occur and
will not result in any change in the operation of the associated
accident mitigation equipment. The equipment associated with the
proposed Technical Specification surveillance requirement will
continue to be able to mitigate the design basis accidents as
assumed in the safety analysis. The proposed surveillance
requirement is adequate to ensure proper operation of the affected
accident mitigation equipment. In addition, the proposed amendment
will not affect equipment design or operation, and there are no
changes being made to the Technical Specification required safety
limits or safety system settings. The proposed amendment, in
conjunction with the IST [Inservice Testing] Program, will provide
adequate control measures to ensure the accident mitigation
functions are maintained.
Therefore, the proposed amendment will not result in 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: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion
Resource Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar Street, RS-2, Richmond, VA 23219.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Michael I. Dudek.

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287,
Oconee Nuclear Station (ONS), Units 1, 2, and 3, Oconee County, South
Carolina

Date of amendment request: September 18, 2014. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14269A078.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the
Technical Specifications (TS) to define a new time limit for restoring
inoperable Reactor Coolant System (RCS) leakage detection
instrumentation to operable status and establish alternate methods of
monitoring RCS leakage when one or more required monitors are
inoperable.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:

1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change modifies the operability requirements for
the Reactor Coolant System (RCS) leakage detection instrumentation
to include a containment atmosphere gaseous radioactivity monitor
and incorporates a reduction in the time allowed for the plant to
operate when the only TS-required operable RCS leakage detection
instrumentation monitor is the containment atmosphere gaseous
radioactivity monitor. Accidents described in the ONS Updated Final
Safety Analysis Report involving RCS leakage are both small and
large breaks in reactor coolant pressure boundary (RCPB) piping.
Such accidents already assume RCPB leakage (i.e., gross leakage).
Thus, any change to Technical Specifications involving equipment
that monitor[s] RCPB leakage is not a precursor to any accident
previously evaluated. In addition, any change to Technical
Specifications involving equipment that monitor[s] RCPB leakage is
not used to mitigate the consequences of any accident previously
evaluated.
Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed change does not
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of
an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change modifies the operability requirements for
the RCS leakage detection instrumentation to include a containment
atmosphere gaseous radioactivity monitor and incorporates a
reduction in the time allowed for the plant to operate when the only
TS-required operable RCS leakage detection instrumentation monitor
is the containment atmosphere gaseous radioactivity monitor. The
proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant
(no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a
change in the methods governing normal plant operation. The proposed
change maintains sufficient continuity and diversity of leak
detection capability that the probability of piping evaluated and
approved for Leak-Before-Break progressing to pipe rupture remains
extremely low.
Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed change does not
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from
any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change modifies the operability requirements for
the RCS leakage detection instrumentation to include a containment
atmosphere gaseous radioactivity monitor and incorporates a
reduction in the time allowed for the plant to operate when the only
TS-required operable RCS leakage detection instrumentation monitor
is the containment atmosphere gaseous radioactivity monitor. By
adding the option of utilizing a containment atmosphere gaseous
radioactivity monitor in place of the existing containment
atmosphere particulate radioactivity monitor, ONS more closely
conforms to NUREG-1430, Revision 3.0 TS limiting conditions for
operation requirements for RCS leakage detection instrumentation.
Since NUREG-1430 is an NRC-controlled document, the reduction in
margin of safety for adding the option of utilizing a containment
atmosphere gaseous radioactivity monitor in place of the existing
containment atmosphere particulate radioactivity monitor is
acceptable to the NRC and not considered significant. The reduced
amount of time the plant is allowed to operate with only the
containment atmosphere gaseous radioactivity monitor operable
increases the margin of safety by increasing the likelihood that an
increase in RCS leakage will be detected before it potentially
results in gross failure.
Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed change does not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Lara S. Nichols, Deputy General Counsel,
Duke Energy Corporation, 550 South Tryon Street--DEC45A, Charlotte, NC
28202-1802.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.

Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50-397, Columbia Generating Station (CGS),
Benton County, Washington

Date of amendment request: March 17, 2015. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15093A178.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would modify the
CGS Technical Specifications (TSs) by relocating specific surveillance
frequencies to a licensee-controlled program consistent with NRC-
approved Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-425,
Revision 3, ``Relocate Surveillance Frequencies to Licensee Control--
RITSTF [Risk-Informed Technical Specifications Task Force] Initiative
5b,'' dated March 18, 2009 (ADAMS Accession No. ML090850642). The
availability of this TS improvement program was announced in the
Federal Register on July 6, 2009 (74 FR 31996). Energy Northwest has
proposed certain plant-specific variations and deviations from TSTF-
425, Revision 3, as described in its application dated March 17, 2015.

[[Page 30101]]

Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:

1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change relocates the specified frequencies for
periodic surveillance requirements to licensee control under a new
Surveillance Frequency Control Program. Surveillance frequencies are
not an initiator to any accident previously evaluated. As a result,
the probability of any accident previously evaluated is not
significantly increased. The systems and components required by the
technical specifications for which the surveillance frequencies are
relocated are still required to be operable, meet the acceptance
criteria for the surveillance requirements, and be capable of
performing any mitigation function assumed in the accident analysis.
As a result, the consequences of any accident previously evaluated
are not significantly increased.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
Response: No.
No new or different accidents result from utilizing the proposed
change. The changes do not involve a physical alteration of the
plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be
installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant
operation. In addition, the changes do not impose any new or
different requirements. The changes do not alter assumptions made in
the safety analysis. The proposed changes are consistent with the
safety analysis assumptions and current plant operating practice.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in
the margin of safety?
Response: No.
The design, operation, testing methods, and acceptance criteria
for systems, structures, and components (SSCs), specified in
applicable codes and standards (or alternatives approved for use by
the NRC) will continue to be met as described in the plant licensing
basis (including the final safety analysis report and bases to the
Technical Specifications (TS)), because these are not affected by
changes to the surveillance frequencies. Similarly, there is no
impact to safety analysis acceptance criteria as described in the
plant licensing basis. To evaluate a change in the relocated
surveillance frequency, Energy Northwest will perform a
probabilistic risk evaluation using the guidance contained in NRC
approved [Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 04-10, Revision 1, ``Risk-
Informed Technical Specifications Initiative 5b, Risk-Informed
Method for Control of Surveillance Frequencies,'' April 2007 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML071360456)] in accordance with the TS Surveillance
Frequency Control Program. NEI 04-10, Revision 1, methodology
provides reasonable acceptance guidelines and methods for evaluating
the risk increase of proposed changes to surveillance frequencies
consistent with Regulatory Guide 1.177 [Revision 1, ``An Approach
for Plant-Specific, Risk-Informed Decisionmaking: Technical
Specifications,'' May 2011 (ADAMS Accession No. ML100910008)].
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: William A. Horin, Esq., Winston & Strawn,
1700 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20006-3817.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-272 and 50-311, Salem Nuclear
Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, Salem County, New Jersey

Date of amendment request: March 9, 2015, as supplemented by letter
dated April 10, 2015. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS under
Accession Nos. ML15068A359 and ML15100A406, respectively.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would create new
Technical Specification (TS) 3.9.2.1, ``Refueling Operations/Unborated
Water Source Isolation Valves,'' to isolate unborated water sources in
Mode 6 (Refueling) and revise the exiting TS 3.9.2, ``Refueling
Operations/Instrumentation,'' to support using the Gamma-Metrics Post
Accident Neutron Monitors (PANM) for neutron flux indication during
Mode 6. TS 3.9.2 is renumbered as TS 3.9.2.2 and the TS language is re-
worded to be consistent with the language in NUREG-1431, Revision 4,
``Standard Technical Specifications Westinghouse Plants.''
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.
A boron dilution event during Mode 6 has been precluded through
the proposed Technical Specification (TS) Limiting Condition for
Operation 3.9.2.1, which requires isolating unborated water sources
by securing valves in the closed position.
The primary function of the source range neutron flux monitors
in Mode 6 is to inform the operators of unexpected changes in core
reactivity. The proposed change to allow using the Gamma-Metric PANM
for neutron flux monitoring during Mode 6 does not increase the
probability of an accident previously evaluated, because the source
range neutron flux monitors are not accident initiators or
precursors.
The use of Gamma-Metrics PANM, does not significantly increase
the consequences of a boron dilution event. Boron dilution during
Mode 6 has been precluded by isolating unborated water sources by
securing valves in the closed position. The use of Gamma Metrics
PANM, does not affect the integrity of the fission product barriers
utilized for the mitigation of radiological dose consequences as a
result of an 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 changes create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The Gamma-Metrics PANMs are used for monitoring neutron flux and
criticality assessment in Mode 6. The proposed changes will not
adversely affect this monitoring capability. The proposed changes do
not involve any physical modification of plant systems, structures,
or components, or changes in parameters governing plant operation.
No new accident scenarios, failure mechanisms, or single failures
are introduced as a result of any of the proposed changes. Source
range neutron flux monitors are not accident initiators.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
Margin of safety is related to the confidence in the ability of
the fission product barriers to perform their intended functions.
These barriers include the fuel cladding, the reactor coolant system
pressure boundary, and the containment. The proposed TS changes do
not affect any of these barriers. No accident mitigating equipment
will be adversely impacted by the proposed changes. Boron dilution
during Mode 6 has been precluded by isolating unborated water
sources by securing valves in the closed position. The Gamma-Metrics
PANM are not explicitly credited in any accident analysis for Mode
6. The existing safety margins are preserved.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
reduction in the margin of safety.

[[Page 30102]]

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: Jeffrie J. Keenan, PSEG Nuclear LLC--N21,
P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038.
NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-
364, Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Houston County,
Alabama

Date of amendment request: April 13, 2015. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15103A656.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the
Technical Specifications consistent with NRC-approved Technical
Specification Task Force (TSTF) Technical Change Traveler 432-A,
Revision 1, ``Change in Technical Specifications End States, WCAP-
16294,'' dated November 29, 2010.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:

1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change modifies the end state (e.g., mode or other
specified condition) which the Required Actions specify must be
entered if compliance with the Limiting Conditions for Operation
(LCO) is not restored. The requested Technical Specifications (TS)
permit an end state of Mode 4 rather than an end state of Mode 5
contained in the current TS. In some cases, other Conditions and
Required Actions are revised to implement the proposed change.
Required Actions are not an initiator of any accident previously
evaluated. Therefore, the proposed change does not affect the
probability of any accident previously evaluated. The affected
systems continued to be required to be operable by the TS and the
Completion Times specified in the TS to restore equipment to
operable status or take other remedial Actions remain unchanged.
WCAP-16294-NP-A, Rev. 1, ``Risk-Informed Evaluation of Changes to
Tech Spec Required Action Endstates for Westinghouse NSSS PWRs,''
demonstrates that the proposed change does not significantly
increase the consequences of any accident previously evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change modifies the end state (e.g., mode or other
specified condition) which the Required Actions specify must be
entered if compliance with the LCO is not restored. In some cases,
other Conditions and Required Actions are revised to implement the
proposed change. The change does not involve a physical alteration
of the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be
installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant
operation. In addition, the change does not impose any new
requirements. The change does not alter assumptions made in the
safety analysis.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in
a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change modifies the end state (e.g., mode or other
specified condition) which the Required Actions specify must be
entered if compliance with the LCO is not restored. In some cases,
other Conditions and Required Actions are revised to implement the
proposed change. Remaining within the Applicability of the LCO is
acceptable because WCAP-16294-NP-A demonstrates that the plant risk
in MODE 4 is similar to or lower than MODE 5. As a result, no margin
of safety is significantly affected.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
reduction in the margin of safety.

The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Leigh D. Perry, SVP & General Counsel of
Operations and Nuclear, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 40 Iverness
Center Parkway, Birmingham, AL 35201.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-259, 50-260, and 50-296,
Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3, Limestone County,
Alabama

Date of amendment request: February 17, 2015. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15050A179.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise Table
3.3.6.1-1, ``Primary Containment Isolation Instrumentation,'' of the
Technical Specifications to correct an inadvertent omission made by
Amendment Nos. 251, 290, and 249 for Units 1, 2, and 3, respectively
(ADAMS Accession No. ML042730028). Specifically, the proposed revision
would add the number ``3'' to indicate Mode 3 for Function 5.g, Standby
Liquid Control System (SLCS) initiation, to the column entitled,
``Applicable Modes or Other Specified Conditions.'' When this
inadvertent error is corrected, SLCS will be required to be operable in
Modes 1, 2, and 3.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis
against the standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c). The NRC staff's review is
presented below:

1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change corrects Table 3.3.6.1-1 as stated above. As
corrected, Function 5.g, SLCS initiation, will be required to be
capable of performing its design safety function and is not rendered
inoperable if the reactor is placed into Mode 3. SLCS initiation
operable in Mode 3 is in the units' current licensing bases. Thus,
no previously evaluated accident consequence will be increased by
this change. Furthermore, the SLCS initiation was not postulated to
be an initiator of any previously evaluated accident.
Thus, restoring the requirement for SLCS initiation to be
available in Mode 3 will not have any impact on the probability of
occurrence of any previously evaluated accident.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of
the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be
installed) and does not change the methods governing normal plant
operation. In addition, the proposed change does not impose any new
or different requirements.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not affect any current plant safety
margin, analysis method, acceptance criterion, safety limit, safety
system setting, or reliability of equipment assumed in the safety
analyses.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.

Based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR
50.92(c)

[[Page 30103]]

are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority,
400 West Summit Hill Drive, 6A West Tower, Knoxville, TN 37902.
NRC Branch Chief: Shana R. Helton.

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 50-390, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant,
Unit 1, Rhea County, Tennessee

Date of amendment request: April 6, 2015. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15117A462.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the
Technical Specifications (TSs) by modifying the acceptance criteria for
the emergency diesel generator (DG) steady state frequency range in
associated surveillance requirements.
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 DGs are required to be operable in the event of a design
basis accident coincident with a loss of offsite power to mitigate
the consequences of the accident. The DGs are not accident
initiators and therefore these changes do not involve a significant
increase in the probability of an accident previously evaluated.
The accident analyses assume that at least one load group bus is
provided with power either from the offsite circuits or the DGs. The
change proposed in this license amendment request will continue to
assure that the DGs have the capacity and capability to assume their
maximum design basis accident loads. The proposed change does not
significantly alter how the plant would mitigate an accident
previously evaluated.
The proposed change does not adversely affect accident
initiators or precursors nor alter the design assumptions,
conditions, and configuration of the facility or the manner in which
the plant is operated and maintained. The proposed change does not
adversely affect the ability of structures, systems, and components
(SSC) to perform their intended safety function to mitigate the
consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance
limits. The proposed change does not affect the source term,
containment isolation, or radiological release assumptions used in
evaluating the radiological consequences of any accident previously
evaluated. Further, the proposed change does not increase the types
and amounts of radioactive effluent that may be released offsite,
nor significantly increase individual or cumulative occupational/
public radiation exposure.
Therefore, this 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 change does not involve a change in the plant
design, system operation, or the use of the DGs. The proposed change
requires the DGs to meet SR [surveillance requirement] acceptance
criteria that envelope the actual demand requirements for the DGs
during design basis conditions. These revised acceptance criteria
continue to demonstrate the capability and capacity of the DGs to
perform their required functions. There are no new failure modes or
mechanisms created due to testing the DGs within the proposed
acceptance criteria. Testing of the DGs at the proposed acceptance
criteria does not involve any modification in the operational limits
or physical design of plant systems. There are no new accident
precursors generated due to the proposed test loadings.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change will continue to demonstrate that the DGs
meet the TS definition of operability, that is, the proposed
acceptance criteria will continue to demonstrate that the DGs will
perform their safety function. The proposed testing will also
continue to demonstrate the capability and capacity of the DGs to
supply their required loads for mitigating a design basis accident.
The proposed change does not alter the manner in which safety
limits, limiting safety system settings or limiting conditions for
operation are determined. The safety analysis acceptance criteria
are not affected by this change. The proposed change will not result
in plant operation in a configuration outside the design basis.
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: General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority,
400 West Summit Hill Dr., ET 11A, Knoxville, TN 37902.
NRC Branch Chief: Jessie F. Quichocho.

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.

DTE Electric Company, Docket No. 50-341, Fermi 2, Monroe County,
Michigan

Date of amendment request: July 2, 2014.
Description of amendment: The amendment revised the Cyber Security
Plan (CSP) Milestone 8 implementation date. Milestone 8 pertains to
full implementation of the CSP for all safety, security, and emergency
preparedness functions.
Date of issuance: May 7, 2015.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 200. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under

[[Page 30104]]

Accession No. ML15096A043; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-43: Amendment revised the
Facility Operating License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 9, 2014 (79
FR 53458).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated May 7, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50-397, Columbia Generating Station (CGS),
Benton County, Washington

Date of application for amendment: November 17, 2014, as
supplemented by letter dated March 17, 2015.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment modified Technical
Specification (TS) 2.0, ``Safety Limits,'' to revise values for the
safety limit minimum critical power ratio (SLMCPR) for single and two
recirculation loop operation due to core loading fuel management
changes for the upcoming operating cycle. Specifically, the amendment
would increase the numeric values of SLMCPR in TS Section 2.1.1.2 to
incorporate the results of the CGS Cycle 23 SLMCPR analysis.
Date of issuance: May 11, 2015.
Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented
before plant start-up from the spring 2015 refueling outage (Cycle 23).
Amendment No.: 234. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML15098A254; 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 TS.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 3, 2015 (80 FR
5800). The supplemental letter dated March 17, 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 May 11, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-293, Pilgrim Nuclear
Power Station, Plymouth County, Massachusetts

Date of amendment request: December 10, 2014, as supplemented by
letters dated February 13 and March 11, 2015.
Brief description of amendment: This amendment revised the minimum
critical power ratio from >=1.08 to >=1.10 for two recirculation loop
operation and from >=1.11 to >=1.12 for single recirculation loop
operation in Technical Specification (TS) 2.1, ``Safety Limits.''
Date of issuance: May 6, 2015.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be
implemented within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 243. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML15114A021; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-35: Amendment revised
the License and TS.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 12, 2015 (80 FR
13030). The supplement dated March 11, 2015, provided additional
information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of
the application as originally noticed, and did not change the NRC
staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated May 6, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Entergy Operations, Inc., System Energy Resources, Inc., South
Mississippi Electric Power Association, and Entergy Mississippi, Inc.,
Docket No. 50-416, Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Claiborne
County, Mississippi

Date of application for amendment: October 7, 2014, as supplemented
by letter dated January 6, 2015.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Surveillance
Requirements (SRs) related to gas accumulation for the emergency core
cooling system and reactor core isolation cooling system. The amendment
also added new SRs related to gas accumulation for the residual heat
removal, shutdown cooling, and containment spray systems. The NRC staff
has concluded that the Technical Specification (TS) changes are
consistent with NRC-approved Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF)
Standard Technical Specifications Change Traveler TSTF-523, Revision 2,
``Generic Letter 2008-01, Managing Gas Accumulation,'' dated February
21, 2013, as part of the consolidated line item improvement process.
The TS Bases changes associated with these SRs were also changed as
proposed by the TSTF.
Date of issuance: May 12, 2015.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days of issuance.
Amendment No: 202. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML15104A623; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-29: The amendment revised the
Facility Operating License and TS.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 17, 2015 (80
FR 8360).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated May 12, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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: July 10, 2014.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised and added
Technical Specification (TS) surveillance requirements to address the
concerns discussed in Generic Letter 2008-01, ``Managing Gas
Accumulation in Emergency Core Cooling, Decay Heat Removal, and
Containment Spray Systems,'' dated January 11, 2008. The TS changes are
based on TS Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-523, Revision 2, ``Generic
Letter 2008-01, Managing Gas Accumulation,'' dated February 21, 2013.
Date of issuance: May 11, 2015.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 120 days.
Amendment Nos.: 216 and 178. A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No. ML15083A403; documents related to these
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the
amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-39 and NPF-85:
Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and TS.

[[Page 30105]]

Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 2, 2014 (79
FR 52064).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated May 11, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

STP Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 50-498 and 50-499, South
Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, Matagorda County, Texas

Date of amendment request: January 6, 2014, as supplemented by
letters dated June 9, December 4, and December 17, 2014.
Brief description of amendments: The license amendments revised
Technical Specification (TS) 3.3.1, ``Reactor Trip System
Instrumentation,'' with respect to the required actions and allowed
outage times for inoperable reactor trip breakers.
Date of issuance: April 29, 2015.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 1--205; Unit 2--193. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15075A146; documents related
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with
the amendments.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-76 and NPF-80: The amendments
revised the Facility Operating Licenses and TS.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 5, 2014 (79 FR
45481). The supplemental letters dated December 4 and December 17,
2014, provided additional information that clarified the application,
did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and
did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated April 29, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 18th day of May, 2015.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
A. Louise Lund,
Acting Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of
Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2015-12661 Filed 5-22-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

30098 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 26, 2015 / Notices

A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing statement of the alleged facts or expert documents over the internet, or in some
and Petition for Leave To Intervene opinion which support the contention cases to mail copies on electronic
Within 60 days after the date of and on which the requestor/petitioner storage media. Participants may not
publication of this notice, any person(s) intends to rely in proving the contention submit paper copies of their filings
whose interest may be affected by this at the hearing. The requestor/petitioner unless they seek an exemption in
action may file a request for a hearing must also provide references to those accordance with the procedures
and a petition to intervene with respect specific sources and documents of described below.
which the petitioner is aware and on To comply with the procedural
to issuance of the amendment to the
which the requestor/petitioner intends requirements of E-Filing, at least ten 10
subject facility operating license or
to rely to establish those facts or expert days prior to the filing deadline, the
combined license. Requests for a
opinion. The petition must include participant should contact the Office of
hearing and a petition for leave to
sufficient information to show that a the Secretary by email at
intervene shall be filed in accordance
genuine dispute exists with the hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by telephone
with the Commission’s ‘‘Agency Rules
applicant on a material issue of law or at 301–415–1677, to request (1) a digital
of Practice and Procedure’’ in 10 CFR
fact. Contentions shall be limited to identification (ID) certificate, which
part 2. Interested person(s) should allows the participant (or its counsel or
matters within the scope of the
consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, representative) to digitally sign
amendment under consideration. The
which is available at the NRC’s PDR, documents and access the E-Submittal
contention must be one which, if
located at One White Flint North, Room server for any proceeding in which it is
proven, would entitle the requestor/
O1–F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first participating; and (2) advise the
petitioner to relief. A requestor/
floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. The Secretary that the participant will be
petitioner who fails to satisfy these
NRC’s regulations are accessible submitting a request or petition for
requirements with respect to at least one
electronically from the NRC Library on contention will not be permitted to hearing (even in instances in which the
the NRC’s Web site at http:// participate as a party. participant, or its counsel or
www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc- Those permitted to intervene become representative, already holds an NRC-
collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing parties to the proceeding, subject to any issued digital ID certificate). Based upon
or petition for leave to intervene is filed limitations in the order granting leave to this information, the Secretary will
by the above date, the Commission or a intervene, and have the opportunity to establish an electronic docket for the
presiding officer designated by the participate fully in the conduct of the hearing in this proceeding if the
Commission or by the Chief hearing. Secretary has not already established an
Administrative Judge of the Atomic If a hearing is requested, the electronic docket.
Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will Commission will make a final Information about applying for a
rule on the request and/or petition; and determination on the issue of no digital ID certificate is available on the
the Secretary or the Chief significant hazards consideration. The NRC’s public Web site at http://
Administrative Judge of the Atomic final determination will serve to decide www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/
Safety and Licensing Board will issue a when the hearing is held. If the final getting-started.html. System
notice of a hearing or an appropriate determination is that the amendment requirements for accessing the E-
order. request involves no significant hazards Submittal server are detailed in the
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a consideration, the Commission may NRC’s ‘‘Guidance for Electronic
petition for leave to intervene shall set issue the amendment and make it Submission,’’ which is available on the
forth with particularity the interest of immediately effective, notwithstanding agency’s public Web site at http://
the petitioner in the proceeding, and the request for a hearing. Any hearing www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-
how that interest may be affected by the held would take place after issuance of submittals.html. Participants may
results of the proceeding. The petition the amendment. If the final attempt to use other software not listed
should specifically explain the reasons determination is that the amendment on the Web site, but should note that the
why intervention should be permitted request involves a significant hazards NRC’s E-Filing system does not support
with particular reference to the consideration, then any hearing held unlisted software, and the NRC Meta
following general requirements: (1) The would take place before the issuance of System Help Desk will not be able to
name, address, and telephone number of any amendment unless the Commission offer assistance in using unlisted
the requestor or petitioner; (2) the finds an imminent danger to the health software.
nature of the requestor’s/petitioner’s or safety of the public, in which case it If a participant is electronically
right under the Act to be made a party will issue an appropriate order or rule submitting a document to the NRC in
to the proceeding; (3) the nature and under 10 CFR part 2. accordance with the E-Filing rule, the
extent of the requestor’s/petitioner’s participant must file the document
property, financial, or other interest in B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing) using the NRC’s online, Web-based
the proceeding; and (4) the possible All documents filed in NRC submission form. In order to serve
effect of any decision or order which adjudicatory proceedings, including a documents through the Electronic
may be entered in the proceeding on the request for hearing, a petition for leave Information Exchange System, users
requestor’s/petitioner’s interest. The to intervene, any motion or other will be required to install a Web
petition must also identify the specific document filed in the proceeding prior browser plug-in from the NRC’s Web
contentions which the requestor/ to the submission of a request for site. Further information on the Web-
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

petitioner seeks to have litigated at the hearing or petition to intervene, and based submission form, including the
proceeding. documents filed by interested installation of the Web browser plug-in,
Each contention must consist of a governmental entities participating is available on the NRC’s public Web
specific statement of the issue of law or under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-
fact to be raised or controverted. In accordance with the NRC’s E-Filing rule submittals.html.
addition, the requestor/petitioner shall (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007). The E- Once a participant has obtained a
provide a brief explanation of the bases Filing process requires participants to digital ID certificate and a docket has
for the contention and a concise submit and serve all adjudicatory been created, the participant can then

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:50 May 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\26MYN1.SGM 26MYN1

30100 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 26, 2015 / Notices

Therefore, the proposed amendment will consideration, which is presented operable RCS leakage detection
not create the possibility of a new or different below: instrumentation monitor is the containment
kind of accident from any accident atmosphere gaseous radioactivity monitor. By
previously evaluated. 1. Does the proposed change involve a adding the option of utilizing a containment
3. The proposed amendment does not significant increase in the probability or atmosphere gaseous radioactivity monitor in
involve a significant reduction in a margin of consequences of an accident previously place of the existing containment atmosphere
safety? evaluated? particulate radioactivity monitor, ONS more
Response: No. closely conforms to NUREG–1430, Revision
Response: No.
The proposed change modifies the 3.0 TS limiting conditions for operation
The proposed amendment to the Technical
operability requirements for the Reactor
Specification surveillance requirement will requirements for RCS leakage detection
Coolant System (RCS) leakage detection
not cause an accident to occur and will not instrumentation. Since NUREG–1430 is an
instrumentation to include a containment
result in any change in the operation of the NRC-controlled document, the reduction in
atmosphere gaseous radioactivity monitor
associated accident mitigation equipment. margin of safety for adding the option of
and incorporates a reduction in the time
The equipment associated with the proposed utilizing a containment atmosphere gaseous
allowed for the plant to operate when the
Technical Specification surveillance radioactivity monitor in place of the existing
only TS-required operable RCS leakage
requirement will continue to be able to containment atmosphere particulate
detection instrumentation monitor is the
mitigate the design basis accidents as radioactivity monitor is acceptable to the
containment atmosphere gaseous
assumed in the safety analysis. The proposed NRC and not considered significant. The
radioactivity monitor. Accidents described in
surveillance requirement is adequate to the ONS Updated Final Safety Analysis reduced amount of time the plant is allowed
ensure proper operation of the affected Report involving RCS leakage are both small to operate with only the containment
accident mitigation equipment. In addition, and large breaks in reactor coolant pressure atmosphere gaseous radioactivity monitor
the proposed amendment will not affect boundary (RCPB) piping. Such accidents operable increases the margin of safety by
equipment design or operation, and there are already assume RCPB leakage (i.e., gross increasing the likelihood that an increase in
no changes being made to the Technical leakage). Thus, any change to Technical RCS leakage will be detected before it
Specification required safety limits or safety Specifications involving equipment that potentially results in gross failure.
system settings. The proposed amendment, monitor[s] RCPB leakage is not a precursor to Therefore, it is concluded that the
in conjunction with the IST [Inservice any accident previously evaluated. In proposed change does not involve a
Testing] Program, will provide adequate addition, any change to Technical significant reduction in a margin of safety.
control measures to ensure the accident Specifications involving equipment that The NRC staff has reviewed the
mitigation functions are maintained. monitor[s] RCPB leakage is not used to
Therefore, the proposed amendment will licensee’s analysis and, based on this
mitigate the consequences of any accident review, it appears that the three
not result in a significant reduction in a previously evaluated.
margin of safety. Therefore, it is concluded that the standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
proposed change does not involve a satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
The NRC staff has reviewed the proposes to determine that the
significant increase in the probability or
licensee’s analysis and, based on this consequences of an accident previously amendment request involves no
review, it appears that the three evaluated. significant hazards consideration.
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 2. Does the proposed change create the Attorney for licensee: Lara S. Nichols,
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff possibility of a new or different kind of Deputy General Counsel, Duke Energy
proposes to determine that the accident from any accident previously Corporation, 550 South Tryon Street—
amendment request involves no evaluated?
Response: No.
DEC45A, Charlotte, NC 28202–1802.
significant hazards consideration. NRC Branch Chief: Robert J.
Attorney for licensee: Lillian M. The proposed change modifies the
operability requirements for the RCS leakage Pascarelli.
Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion detection instrumentation to include a
Resource Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50–397,
containment atmosphere gaseous
Street, RS–2, Richmond, VA 23219. Columbia Generating Station (CGS),
radioactivity monitor and incorporates a
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Michael I. reduction in the time allowed for the plant Benton County, Washington
Dudek. to operate when the only TS-required Date of amendment request: March
operable RCS leakage detection 17, 2015. A publicly-available version is
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket instrumentation monitor is the containment in ADAMS under Accession No.
Nos. 50–269, 50–270, and 50–287, atmosphere gaseous radioactivity monitor.
ML15093A178.
Oconee Nuclear Station (ONS), Units 1, The proposed change does not involve a
physical alteration of the plant (no new or
Description of amendment request:
2, and 3, Oconee County, South
different type of equipment will be installed) The amendment would modify the CGS
Carolina
or a change in the methods governing normal Technical Specifications (TSs) by
Date of amendment request: plant operation. The proposed change relocating specific surveillance
September 18, 2014. A publicly- maintains sufficient continuity and diversity frequencies to a licensee-controlled
available version is in ADAMS under of leak detection capability that the program consistent with NRC-approved
Accession No. ML14269A078. probability of piping evaluated and approved Technical Specifications Task Force
Description of amendment request: for Leak-Before-Break progressing to pipe (TSTF) Traveler TSTF–425, Revision 3,
rupture remains extremely low.
The amendment would revise the Therefore, it is concluded that the
‘‘Relocate Surveillance Frequencies to
Technical Specifications (TS) to define proposed change does not create the Licensee Control—RITSTF [Risk-
a new time limit for restoring inoperable possibility of a new or different kind of Informed Technical Specifications Task
Reactor Coolant System (RCS) leakage accident from any previously evaluated. Force] Initiative 5b,’’ dated March 18,
detection instrumentation to operable 3. Does the proposed change involve a 2009 (ADAMS Accession No.
significant reduction in a margin of safety?
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

status and establish alternate methods of ML090850642). The availability of this
monitoring RCS leakage when one or Response: No. TS improvement program was
more required monitors are inoperable. The proposed change modifies the announced in the Federal Register on
operability requirements for the RCS leakage
Basis for proposed no significant detection instrumentation to include a
July 6, 2009 (74 FR 31996). Energy
hazards consideration determination: containment atmosphere gaseous Northwest has proposed certain plant-
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the radioactivity monitor and incorporates a specific variations and deviations from
licensee has provided its analysis of the reduction in the time allowed for the plant TSTF–425, Revision 3, as described in
issue of no significant hazards to operate when the only TS-required its application dated March 17, 2015.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:50 May 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\26MYN1.SGM 26MYN1

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 26, 2015 / Notices 30101

Basis for proposed no significant using the guidance contained in NRC consequences of an accident previously
hazards consideration determination: approved [Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 04– evaluated?
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 10, Revision 1, ‘‘Risk-Informed Technical Response: No.
Specifications Initiative 5b, Risk-Informed A boron dilution event during Mode 6 has
licensee has provided its analysis of the Method for Control of Surveillance been precluded through the proposed
issue of no significant hazards Frequencies,’’ April 2007 (ADAMS Accession Technical Specification (TS) Limiting
consideration, which is presented No. ML071360456)] in accordance with the Condition for Operation 3.9.2.1, which
below: TS Surveillance Frequency Control Program. requires isolating unborated water sources by
1. Does the proposed change involve a NEI 04–10, Revision 1, methodology provides securing valves in the closed position.
significant increase in the probability or reasonable acceptance guidelines and The primary function of the source range
consequences of any accident previously methods for evaluating the risk increase of neutron flux monitors in Mode 6 is to inform
evaluated? proposed changes to surveillance frequencies the operators of unexpected changes in core
consistent with Regulatory Guide 1.177 reactivity. The proposed change to allow
Response: No.
[Revision 1, ‘‘An Approach for Plant- using the Gamma-Metric PANM for neutron
The proposed change relocates the
Specific, Risk-Informed Decisionmaking: flux monitoring during Mode 6 does not
specified frequencies for periodic
Technical Specifications,’’ May 2011 increase the probability of an accident
surveillance requirements to licensee control
(ADAMS Accession No. ML100910008)]. previously evaluated, because the source
under a new Surveillance Frequency Control
Therefore, the proposed changes do not range neutron flux monitors are not accident
Program. Surveillance frequencies are not an
involve a significant reduction in a margin of initiators or precursors.
initiator to any accident previously
safety. The use of Gamma-Metrics PANM, does
evaluated. As a result, the probability of any
not significantly increase the consequences
accident previously evaluated is not The NRC staff has reviewed the of a boron dilution event. Boron dilution
significantly increased. The systems and licensee’s analysis and, based on this during Mode 6 has been precluded by
components required by the technical review, it appears that the three isolating unborated water sources by securing
specifications for which the surveillance standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are valves in the closed position. The use of
frequencies are relocated are still required to satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff Gamma Metrics PANM, does not affect the
be operable, meet the acceptance criteria for integrity of the fission product barriers
the surveillance requirements, and be
proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no utilized for the mitigation of radiological
capable of performing any mitigation dose consequences as a result of an accident.
function assumed in the accident analysis. significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: William A. Therefore, the proposed changes do not
As a result, the consequences of any accident involve a significant increase in the
previously evaluated are not significantly Horin, Esq., Winston & Strawn, 1700 K probability or consequences of an accident
increased. Street NW., Washington, DC 20006– previously evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not 3817. 2. Do the proposed changes create the
involve a significant increase in the NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. possibility of a new or different kind of
probability or consequences of an accident Markley. accident from any accident previously
previously evaluated. evaluated?
2. Does the proposed change create the PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50–272 Response: No.
possibility of a new or different kind of and 50–311, Salem Nuclear Generating The Gamma-Metrics PANMs are used for
accident from any previously evaluated? Station, Units 1 and 2, Salem County, monitoring neutron flux and criticality
Response: No. New Jersey assessment in Mode 6. The proposed changes
No new or different accidents result from will not adversely affect this monitoring
utilizing the proposed change. The changes Date of amendment request: March 9,
capability. The proposed changes do not
do not involve a physical alteration of the 2015, as supplemented by letter dated involve any physical modification of plant
plant (i.e., no new or different type of April 10, 2015. Publicly-available systems, structures, or components, or
equipment will be installed) or a change in versions are in ADAMS under changes in parameters governing plant
the methods governing normal plant Accession Nos. ML15068A359 and operation. No new accident scenarios, failure
operation. In addition, the changes do not ML15100A406, respectively. mechanisms, or single failures are introduced
impose any new or different requirements. Description of amendment request: as a result of any of the proposed changes.
The changes do not alter assumptions made Source range neutron flux monitors are not
The amendment would create new
in the safety analysis. The proposed changes accident initiators.
are consistent with the safety analysis Technical Specification (TS) 3.9.2.1,
‘‘Refueling Operations/Unborated Water Therefore, the proposed changes do not
assumptions and current plant operating create the possibility of a new or different
practice. Source Isolation Valves,’’ to isolate
kind of accident from any previously
Therefore, the proposed changes do not unborated water sources in Mode 6 evaluated.
create the possibility of a new or different (Refueling) and revise the exiting TS 3. Do the proposed changes involve a
kind of accident from any accident 3.9.2, ‘‘Refueling Operations/ significant reduction in a margin of safety?
previously evaluated. Instrumentation,’’ to support using the Response: No.
3. Does the proposed change involve a Gamma-Metrics Post Accident Neutron Margin of safety is related to the
significant reduction in the margin of safety? Monitors (PANM) for neutron flux confidence in the ability of the fission
Response: No. product barriers to perform their intended
indication during Mode 6. TS 3.9.2 is
The design, operation, testing methods, functions. These barriers include the fuel
and acceptance criteria for systems, renumbered as TS 3.9.2.2 and the TS
cladding, the reactor coolant system pressure
structures, and components (SSCs), specified language is re-worded to be consistent boundary, and the containment. The
in applicable codes and standards (or with the language in NUREG–1431, proposed TS changes do not affect any of
alternatives approved for use by the NRC) Revision 4, ‘‘Standard Technical these barriers. No accident mitigating
will continue to be met as described in the Specifications Westinghouse Plants.’’ equipment will be adversely impacted by the
plant licensing basis (including the final Basis for proposed no significant proposed changes. Boron dilution during
safety analysis report and bases to the hazards consideration determination: Mode 6 has been precluded by isolating
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Technical Specifications (TS)), because these As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the unborated water sources by securing valves
are not affected by changes to the licensee has provided its analysis of the in the closed position. The Gamma-Metrics
surveillance frequencies. Similarly, there is issue of no significant hazards PANM are not explicitly credited in any
no impact to safety analysis acceptance accident analysis for Mode 6. The existing
criteria as described in the plant licensing
consideration, which is presented
safety margins are preserved.
basis. To evaluate a change in the relocated below: Therefore, the proposed changes do not
surveillance frequency, Energy Northwest 1. Do the proposed changes involve a involve a significant reduction in the margin
will perform a probabilistic risk evaluation significant increase in the probability or of safety.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:50 May 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\26MYN1.SGM 26MYN1

30102 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 26, 2015 / Notices

The NRC staff has reviewed the probability or consequences of an accident Amendment Nos. 251, 290, and 249 for
licensee’s analysis and, based on this previously evaluated. Units 1, 2, and 3, respectively (ADAMS
review, it appears that the three 2. Does the proposed change create the Accession No. ML042730028).
possibility of a new or different kind of
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are Specifically, the proposed revision
accident from any accident previously
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff evaluated? would add the number ‘‘3’’ to indicate
proposes to determine that the Response: No. Mode 3 for Function 5.g, Standby
amendment request involves no The proposed change modifies the end Liquid Control System (SLCS) initiation,
significant hazards consideration. state (e.g., mode or other specified condition) to the column entitled, ‘‘Applicable
Attorney for licensee: Jeffrie J. Keenan, which the Required Actions specify must be Modes or Other Specified Conditions.’’
PSEG Nuclear LLC—N21, P.O. Box 236, entered if compliance with the LCO is not When this inadvertent error is corrected,
Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038. restored. In some cases, other Conditions and SLCS will be required to be operable in
NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Required Actions are revised to implement
Modes 1, 2, and 3.
Broaddus. the proposed change. The change does not
involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e.,
Basis for proposed no significant
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, no new or different type of equipment will hazards consideration determination:
Inc., Docket Nos. 50–348 and 50–364, be installed) or a change in the methods As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 governing normal plant operation. In licensee has provided its analysis of the
and 2, Houston County, Alabama addition, the change does not impose any issue of no significant hazards
new requirements. The change does not alter consideration. The NRC staff has
Date of amendment request: April 13, assumptions made in the safety analysis. reviewed the licensee’s analysis against
2015. A publicly-available version is in Therefore, the proposed change does not the standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c). The
ADAMS under Accession No. create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident
NRC staff’s review is presented below:
ML15103A656.
Description of amendment request: previously evaluated. 1. Does the proposed change involve a
3. Does the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the probability or
The amendments would revise the significant reduction in a margin of safety? consequences of an accident previously
Technical Specifications consistent with Response: No. evaluated?
NRC-approved Technical Specification The proposed change modifies the end Response: No.
Task Force (TSTF) Technical Change state (e.g., mode or other specified condition) The proposed change corrects Table
Traveler 432–A, Revision 1, ‘‘Change in which the Required Actions specify must be 3.3.6.1–1 as stated above. As corrected,
Technical Specifications End States, entered if compliance with the LCO is not Function 5.g, SLCS initiation, will be
WCAP–16294,’’ dated November 29, restored. In some cases, other Conditions and required to be capable of performing its
2010. Required Actions are revised to implement design safety function and is not rendered
Basis for proposed no significant the proposed change. Remaining within the inoperable if the reactor is placed into Mode
Applicability of the LCO is acceptable 3. SLCS initiation operable in Mode 3 is in
hazards consideration determination: because WCAP–16294–NP–A demonstrates the units’ current licensing bases. Thus, no
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the that the plant risk in MODE 4 is similar to previously evaluated accident consequence
licensee has provided its analysis of the or lower than MODE 5. As a result, no margin will be increased by this change.
issue of no significant hazards of safety is significantly affected. Furthermore, the SLCS initiation was not
consideration, which is presented Therefore, the proposed changes do not postulated to be an initiator of any previously
below: involve a significant reduction in the margin evaluated accident.
of safety. Thus, restoring the requirement for SLCS
1. Does the proposed change involve a initiation to be available in Mode 3 will not
significant increase in the probability or The NRC staff has reviewed the have any impact on the probability of
consequences of an accident previously licensee’s analysis and, based on this occurrence of any previously evaluated
evaluated? review, it appears that the three accident.
Response: No. standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 2. Does the proposed change create the
The proposed change modifies the end satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff possibility of a new or different kind of
state (e.g., mode or other specified condition) accident from any accident previously
which the Required Actions specify must be proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no evaluated?
entered if compliance with the Limiting Response: No.
Conditions for Operation (LCO) is not significant hazards consideration.
The proposed change does not involve a
restored. The requested Technical Attorney for licensee: Leigh D. Perry,
physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new
Specifications (TS) permit an end state of SVP & General Counsel of Operations or different type of equipment will be
Mode 4 rather than an end state of Mode 5 and Nuclear, Southern Nuclear installed) and does not change the methods
contained in the current TS. In some cases, Operating Company, 40 Iverness Center governing normal plant operation. In
other Conditions and Required Actions are Parkway, Birmingham, AL 35201. addition, the proposed change does not
revised to implement the proposed change. NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. impose any new or different requirements.
Required Actions are not an initiator of any Therefore, the proposed change does not
accident previously evaluated. Therefore, the
Pascarelli.
create the possibility of a new or different
proposed change does not affect the Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket kind of accident from any accident
probability of any accident previously Nos. 50–259, 50–260, and 50–296, previously evaluated.
evaluated. The affected systems continued to Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, 3. Does the proposed change involve a
be required to be operable by the TS and the significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Completion Times specified in the TS to and 3, Limestone County, Alabama
Response: No.
restore equipment to operable status or take Date of amendment request: February The proposed change does not affect any
other remedial Actions remain unchanged. 17, 2015. A publicly-available version is current plant safety margin, analysis method,
WCAP–16294–NP–A, Rev. 1, ‘‘Risk-Informed
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

in ADAMS under Accession No. acceptance criterion, safety limit, safety
Evaluation of Changes to Tech Spec Required ML15050A179. system setting, or reliability of equipment
Action Endstates for Westinghouse NSSS Description of amendment request: assumed in the safety analyses.
PWRs,’’ demonstrates that the proposed Therefore, the proposed change does not
change does not significantly increase the The amendment would revise Table
3.3.6.1–1, ‘‘Primary Containment involve a significant reduction in a margin of
consequences of any accident previously safety.
evaluated. Isolation Instrumentation,’’ of the
Therefore, the proposed change does not Technical Specifications to correct an Based on this review, it appears that
involve a significant increase in the inadvertent omission made by the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c)

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:50 May 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\26MYN1.SGM 26MYN1

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 26, 2015 / Notices 30103

are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff offsite, nor significantly increase individual III. Notice of Issuance of Amendments
proposes to determine that the or cumulative occupational/public radiation to Facility Operating Licenses and
amendment request involves no exposure. Combined Licenses
significant hazards consideration. Therefore, this proposed amendment does
not involve a significant increase in the During the period since publication of
Attorney for licensee: General probability or consequences of an accident the last biweekly notice, the
Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, previously evaluated. Commission has issued the following
400 West Summit Hill Drive, 6A West 2. Does the proposed amendment create amendments. The Commission has
Tower, Knoxville, TN 37902. the possibility of a new or different kind of determined for each of these
NRC Branch Chief: Shana R. Helton. accident from any accident previously amendments that the application
evaluated? complies with the standards and
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. Response: No.
50–390, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 1, requirements of the Atomic Energy Act
The proposed change does not involve a
Rhea County, Tennessee change in the plant design, system operation, of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the
or the use of the DGs. The proposed change Commission’s rules and regulations.
Date of amendment request: April 6, The Commission has made appropriate
requires the DGs to meet SR [surveillance
2015. A publicly-available version is in requirement] acceptance criteria that findings as required by the Act and the
ADAMS under Accession No. envelope the actual demand requirements for Commission’s rules and regulations in
ML15117A462. the DGs during design basis conditions. 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in
Description of amendment request: These revised acceptance criteria continue to the license amendment.
The amendment would revise the demonstrate the capability and capacity of A notice of consideration of issuance
Technical Specifications (TSs) by the DGs to perform their required functions. of amendment to facility operating
modifying the acceptance criteria for the There are no new failure modes or license or combined license, as
emergency diesel generator (DG) steady mechanisms created due to testing the DGs
applicable, proposed no significant
state frequency range in associated within the proposed acceptance criteria.
Testing of the DGs at the proposed hazards consideration determination,
surveillance requirements. acceptance criteria does not involve any and opportunity for a hearing in
Basis for proposed no significant modification in the operational limits or connection with these actions, was
hazards consideration determination: physical design of plant systems. There are published in the Federal Register as
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the no new accident precursors generated due to indicated.
licensee has provided its analysis of the the proposed test loadings. Unless otherwise indicated, the
issue of no significant hazards Therefore, the proposed amendment does Commission has determined that these
consideration, which is presented not create the possibility of a new or different amendments satisfy the criteria for
below: kind of accident from any accident categorical exclusion in accordance
previously evaluated. with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant
1. Does the proposed amendment involve 3. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant increase in the probability or a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental
consequences of an accident previously Response: No. impact statement or environmental
evaluated? The proposed change will continue to assessment need be prepared for these
Response: No. demonstrate that the DGs meet the TS amendments. If the Commission has
The DGs are required to be operable in the definition of operability, that is, the proposed prepared an environmental assessment
event of a design basis accident coincident acceptance criteria will continue to under the special circumstances
with a loss of offsite power to mitigate the demonstrate that the DGs will perform their provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has
consequences of the accident. The DGs are safety function. The proposed testing will made a determination based on that
not accident initiators and therefore these also continue to demonstrate the capability
changes do not involve a significant increase
assessment, it is so indicated.
and capacity of the DGs to supply their For further details with respect to the
in the probability of an accident previously required loads for mitigating a design basis
evaluated. action see (1) the applications for
accident.
The accident analyses assume that at least The proposed change does not alter the amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3)
one load group bus is provided with power manner in which safety limits, limiting safety the Commission’s related letter, Safety
either from the offsite circuits or the DGs. system settings or limiting conditions for Evaluation and/or Environmental
The change proposed in this license operation are determined. The safety analysis Assessment as indicated. All of these
amendment request will continue to assure acceptance criteria are not affected by this items can be accessed as described in
that the DGs have the capacity and capability change. The proposed change will not result the ‘‘Obtaining Information and
to assume their maximum design basis in plant operation in a configuration outside Submitting Comments’’ section of this
accident loads. The proposed change does the design basis.
not significantly alter how the plant would document.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does
mitigate an accident previously evaluated. not involve a significant reduction in a DTE Electric Company, Docket No. 50–
The proposed change does not adversely margin of safety. 341, Fermi 2, Monroe County, Michigan
affect accident initiators or precursors nor
alter the design assumptions, conditions, and The NRC staff has reviewed the Date of amendment request: July 2,
configuration of the facility or the manner in licensee’s analysis and, based on this 2014.
which the plant is operated and maintained. review, it appears that the three Description of amendment: The
The proposed change does not adversely standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are amendment revised the Cyber Security
affect the ability of structures, systems, and Plan (CSP) Milestone 8 implementation
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
components (SSC) to perform their intended date. Milestone 8 pertains to full
safety function to mitigate the consequences proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no implementation of the CSP for all safety,
of an initiating event within the assumed
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

significant hazards consideration. security, and emergency preparedness
acceptance limits. The proposed change does
not affect the source term, containment functions.
Attorney for licensee: General Date of issuance: May 7, 2015.
isolation, or radiological release assumptions Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority,
used in evaluating the radiological Effective date: As of the date of
400 West Summit Hill Dr., ET 11A, issuance and shall be implemented
consequences of any accident previously
evaluated. Further, the proposed change does
Knoxville, TN 37902. within 60 days of issuance.
not increase the types and amounts of NRC Branch Chief: Jessie F. Amendment No.: 200. A publicly-
radioactive effluent that may be released Quichocho. available version is in ADAMS under

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:50 May 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\26MYN1.SGM 26MYN1

Document Created: 2018-02-21 10:31:20
Document Modified: 2018-02-21 10:31:20

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 June 25, 2015. A request for a hearing must be filed by July 27, 2015.
Contact		Janet Burkhardt, Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555- 0001; telephone: 301-415-1384, email: [email protected]
FR Citation		80 FR 30097