80 FR 32624 - 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 110 (June 9, 2015)
Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 110 (June 9, 2015)
| Page Range | 32624-32634 | |
| FR Document | 2015-13815 |
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 110 (Tuesday, June 9, 2015)] [Notices] [Pages 32624-32634] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2015-13815] [[Page 32624]] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [NRC-2015-0142] 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 May 13, 2015 to May 27, 2015. The last biweekly notice was published on May 26, 2015. DATES: Comments must be filed by July 9, 2015. A request for a hearing must be filed by August 10, 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-2015-0142. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415- 3463; email: [email protected] Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Office of Administration, Mail Stop: OWFN-12-H08, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see ``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shirley Rohrer, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-5411, email: [email protected]. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments A. Obtaining Information Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0142 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-2015-0142. NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select ``ADAMS Public Documents'' and then select ``Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.'' For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected]. The ADAMS accession number for each document referenced (if it is available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that it is mentioned in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section. NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. B. Submitting Comments Please include Docket ID NRC-2015-0142, facility name, unit number(s), application date, and subject in your comment submission. The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC posts all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as entering the comment submissions into ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove identifying or contact information. If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS. II. Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses and Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in Sec. 50.92 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated, or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown below. The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination. Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60- day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30- day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will occur very infrequently. A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing and Petition for Leave To Intervene Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any person(s) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and a petition to intervene with respect to issuance of the amendment to the [[Page 32625]] subject facility operating license or combined license. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's ``Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure'' in 10 CFR part 2. Interested person(s) should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. The NRC's regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed by the above date, the Commission or a presiding officer designated by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order. As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must also identify the specific contentions which the requestor/petitioner seeks to have litigated at the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the requestor/petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the requestor/ petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The requestor/petitioner must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the requestor/petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the requestor/petitioner to relief. A requestor/ petitioner who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party. Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing. If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2. B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing) All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in accordance with the procedures described below. To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least ten 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at [email protected], or by telephone at 301-415-1677, to request (1) a digital identification (ID) certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or representative) to digitally sign documents and access the E-Submittal server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a request or petition for hearing (even in instances in which the participant, or its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC- issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the hearing in this proceeding if the Secretary has not already established an electronic docket. Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/getting-started.html. System requirements for accessing the E-Submittal server are detailed in the NRC's ``Guidance for Electronic Submission,'' which is available on the agency's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants may attempt to use other software not listed on the Web site, but should note that the NRC's E-Filing system does not support unlisted software, and the NRC Meta System Help Desk will not be able to offer assistance in using unlisted software. If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to serve documents through the Electronic Information Exchange System, users will be required to install a Web browser plug-in from the NRC's Web site. Further information on the Web-based submission form, including the installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the time the documents are submitted through the NRC's E-Filing [[Page 32626]] system. To be timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E- Filing system no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends the submitter an email notice confirming receipt of the document. The E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access to the document to the NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing request/petition to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access to the document via the E-Filing system. A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E- Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by email to [email protected], or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-7640. The NRC Meta System Help Desk is available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays. Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists. Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at http://ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the Commission, or the presiding officer. Participants are requested not to include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers, home addresses, or home phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC regulation or other law requires submission of such information. However, in some instances, a request to intervene will require including information on local residence in order to demonstrate a proximity assertion of interest in the proceeding. With respect to copyrighted works, except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use application, participants are requested not to include copyrighted materials in their submission. Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Requests for hearing, petitions for leave to intervene, and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the 60-day deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(iii). For further details with respect to these license amendment applications, see the application for amendment which is available for public inspection in ADAMS and at the NRC's PDR. For additional direction on accessing information related to this document, see the ``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' section of this document. Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., (DNC), Docket No. 50-336, Millstone Power Station, Unit 2 (MPS2), New London County, Connecticut Date of amendment request: October 31, 2014. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14310A187. Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the MPS2 Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) to allow the use of the encoded ultrasonic examination technique in lieu of the FSAR committed additional radiography examination for certain piping welds fabricated to ANSI [American National Standards Institute] B31.1.0. The amendment would also revise the MPS2 Facility Operating License No. DPR-65. Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: Criterion 1: Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. Previously evaluated accident consequences are not impacted by the proposed amendment because credited mitigating equipment continues to perform its design function. The proposed amendment does not significantly impact the probability of an accident previously evaluated because those Systems, Structures and Components (SSCs) that can initiate an accident are not significantly impacted. Based on the above, DNC concludes that the proposed amendment to the MPS2 FSAR to allow the use of UT [ultrasonic] in lieu of RT [radiography] examination for certain piping welds fabricated to ANSI B31.1.0, does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident or transient previously evaluated in the safety analysis report. Criterion 2: Does the proposed amendment create the possibility for a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed amendment does not create a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated because previously credited SSCs are not significantly impacted. The proposed amendment does not involve a physical alteration of the plant and no new or different types of equipment will be installed. There is no impact upon the existing failure modes and effects analysis; and conformance to the single failure criterion is maintained. Based on the above, DNC concludes that the proposed amendment to the MPS2 FSAR to allow the use of UT in lieu of RT examination for certain piping welds fabricated to ANSI B31.1.0, does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident or transient from any previously evaluated. Criterion 3: Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety? Response: No. The proposed amendment to the MPS2 FSAR will not cause an accident to occur and will not result in any change in the operation of the associated accident mitigation equipment. The proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in margin of safety because plant response to any transient or analyzed accident event is unchanged. [[Page 32627]] Based on the above, DNC concludes the proposed amendment to the MPS2 FSAR to allow the use of UT in lieu of RT examination for certain piping welds fabricated to ANSI B31.1.0, does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Attorney for licensee: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar Street, RS-2, Richmond, VA 23219. Acting NRC Branch Chief: Michael I. Dudek. Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370, McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina Date of amendment request: March 23, 2015. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15099A393. Description of amendment request: The amendments would modify the definition of RATED THERMAL POWER and delete a footnote that allowed for stagered implementation of the previously approved Measurement Uncertainty Recapture Power Uprate. Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: Criterion 1: Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. This LAR [license amendment request] proposes administrative non-technical changes only. These proposed changes do not adversely affect accident initiators or precursors nor alter the design assumptions, conditions, or configurations of the facility. The proposed changes do not alter or prevent the ability of structures, systems[,] and components (SSCs) to perform their intended function to mitigate the consequences of an initiating event witin the assumed acceptance limits. Given the above discussion, it is concluded the proposed amendment does not significantly increase the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Criterion 2: Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The LAR proposes administrative non-technical changes only. The proposed changes will not alter the design requirements of any SSC or its function during accident conditions. No new or different accidents result from the changes proposed. The changes do not involve a physical alteration of the plant or any changes in methods governing normal plant operation. The changes do not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis. Given the above discussion, it is concluded the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. Criterion 3: Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety? Response: No. This LAR proposes administrative non-technical changes only. The proposed changes do 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 these changes. The proposed changes will not result in plant operation in a configuration outside the design basis. The proposed changes do not adversely affect systems that respond to safely shutdown the plant and to maintain the plant in a safe shutdown condition. Given the above discussion, it is concluded [that] the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Attorney for licensee: Lara S. Nichols, Associate General Counsel, Duke Energy Corporation, 526 South Church Street--EC07H, Charlotte, NC 28202. NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli. NextEra Energy Point Beach, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-266 and 50-301, Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Town of Two Creeks, Manitowac County, Wisconsin Date of amendment request: March 27, 2015. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15086A378. Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would modify the technical specifications (TS) requirements regarding steam generator tube inspections and reporting as described in TS Task Force (TSTF) traveler TSTF-510, Revision 2, ``Revision to Steam Generator Program Inspection Frequencies and Tube Sample Selection.'' 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 provided 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 revises the Steam Generator (SG) Program to modify the frequency of verification of SG tube integrity and SG tube sample selection. A steam generator tube rupture (SGTR) event is one of the design basis accidents that are analyzed as part of a plant's licensing basis. The proposed SG tube inspection frequency and sample selection criteria will continue to ensure that the SG tubes are inspected such that the probability of a SGTR is not increased. The consequences of a SGTR are bounded by the conservative assumptions in the design basis accident analysis. The proposed change will not cause the consequences of a SGTR to exceed those assumptions. Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed changes to the Steam Generator Program will not introduce any adverse changes to the plant design basis or postulated accidents resulting from potential tube degradation. The proposed change does not affect the design of the SGs or their method of operation. In addition, the proposed change does not impact any other plant system or component. Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety? Response: No. The SG tubes in pressurized water reactors are an integral part of the reactor coolant pressure boundary and, as such, are relied upon to maintain the primary system's pressure and inventory. As part of the reactor coolant pressure boundary, the SG tubes are unique in that they are also relied upon as a heat transfer surface between the primary and secondary systems such that residual heat can be removed from the primary system. In addition, the SG tubes also isolate the radioactive fission products in the primary coolant from the secondary system. In summary, the safety function of a SG is maintained by ensuring the integrity of its tubes. Steam generator tube integrity is a function of the design, environment, and the physical condition of the tube. The proposed change does not affect tube design or operating environment. The proposed change will continue to require monitoring of the physical condition of the SG tubes such that there will not be a reduction in the margin of safety compared to the current requirements. [[Page 32628]] 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: William Blair, Managing Attorney--Nuclear, Florida Power & Light Company, P.O. Box 14000, 700 Universe Boulevard, Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420. NRC Branch Chief: David L. Pelton. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323, Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, San Luis Obispo County, California Date of amendment request: April 16, 2015. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15107A333. Description of amendment request: The amendments propose to revise the Best Estimate Analyzer for the Core Operations-Nuclear (BEACON) power distribution monitoring system methodology described in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) Section 4.3.2.2, ``Power Distribution,'' to the method described in the Westinghouse Electric Company LLC proprietary topical report (TR) WCAP-12472-P-A, Addendum 4, ``BEACON Core Monitoring and Operation Support System.'' These amendments also propose to revise Technical Specification (TS) 5.6.5, ``CORE OPERATING LIMITS REPORT (COLR),'' Section b to replace Westinghouse proprietary TR WCAP-11596-P-A, ``Qualification of the PHOENIX-P/ANC Nuclear Design System for Pressurized Water Reactor Cores,'' with NRC-approved proprietary TR WCAP-16045-P-A, ``Qualification of the Two-Dimensional Transport Code PARAGON,'' and NRC-approved proprietary TR WCAP-16045-P-A, Addendum 1-A, ``Qualification of the NEXUS Nuclear Data Methodology.'' 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 would revise the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) to allow the use of the BEACON code methodology contained in the NRC-approved WCAP-12472-P-A, Addendum 4, Revision 0, instead of the BEACON methodology contained in NRC- approved WCAP-12472-P-A, Addendum 1-A. In addition, the proposed change would revise Technical Specification (TS) 5.6.5, ``CORE OPERATING LIMITS REPORT (COLR),'' Section b to replace WCAP-11596-P- A, ``Qualification of the Phoenix-P/ANC Nuclear Design System for Pressurized Water Reactor Cores,'' with NRC-approved WCAP-16045-P-A, ``Qualification of the Two-Dimensional Transport Code PARAGON,'' and NRC-approved WCAP-16045-P-A, Addendum 1-A, ``Qualification of the NEXUS Nuclear Data Methodology,'' in the list of NRC-approved analytical limits used to determine core operating limits[,] [s]pecifically the limit for refueling boron concentration (i.e., the shutdown margin) required by TS 3.9.1, ``Boron Concentration.'' The changes to the BEACON system and TS 5.6.5 core operating limits methodologies, which this license amendment proposes, are improvements over the current methodologies in use at the Diablo Canyon Power Plant (DCPP). The NRC staff reviewed and approved these methodologies and concluded that these analytical methods are acceptable as a replacement for the current analytical methods. Thus the BEACON system operation to perform power distribution calculations and the core operating limits determined using the proposed analytical methods will continue to assure that the plant operates in a safe manner and, thus, the proposed changes do not involve an increase in the probability of an accident. The BEACON system power distribution calculations and the core operating limits determined by use of the proposed new methodologies will not increase the reactor power level or the core fission product inventory, and will not change any transport assumptions or the shutdown margin requirements of the TS. In addition, the proposed changes will not alter any accident analyses assumptions discussed in the UFSAR. As such, the DCPP will continue to operate within the power distribution limits and shutdown margins required by the plant TS and within the assumptions of the safety analyses described in the UFSAR. As such, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the consequences of an accident. 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 accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed change involves the use of new and NRC-approved methodologies used by the BEACON System to perform core power distribution calculations and in TS 5.6.5, ``CORE OPERATING LIMITS REPORT (COLR),'' to determine core operating limits (i.e., refueling boron concentration or shutdown margin requirement). The proposed change provides revised analytical methods for the BEACON system and determining core operating limit for refueling boron concentration, and does not change any system functions or maintenance activities. The change does not involve physical alteration of the plant, that is, no new or different type of equipment will be installed. The change does not alter assumptions made in the safety analyses and continues to assure the plant is operated within safe limits. This change does not create new failure modes or mechanisms that are not identifiable during testing, and no new accident precursors are generated. The BEACON system is not used to control the performance of any plant equipment. The BEACON system core power distribution calculations and core operating limits developed using the new methodologies will be determined using NRC-approved methodologies, and will remain consistent with all applicable plant safety analysis limits addressed in the DCPP UFSAR and the shutdown margin requirements of the TS. As such, use of the new BEACON and COLR methodologies will not cause a new or different accident. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The margin of safety is established through equipment design, operating parameters, and the setpoints at which automatic actions are initiated. The proposed changes do not physically alter safety- related systems, nor does it affect the way in which safety related systems perform their functions. The setpoints at which protective actions are initiated are not altered by the proposed changes. Therefore, sufficient equipment remains available to actuate upon demand for the purpose of mitigating an analyzed event. The proposed methodology changes are an improvement that will allow more accurate modeling of core performance and determination of the required refueling boron concentration. The NRC has reviewed and approved these methodologies for their intended use in lieu of the current methodologies; thus, the margin of safety is not reduced due to this change. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Attorney for licensee: Jennifer Post, Esq., Pacific Gas and Electric Company, P.O. Box 7442, San Francisco, California 94120. NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley. [[Page 32629]] Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52- 026, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) Units 3 and 4, Burke County, Georgia Date of amendment request: May 26, 2015. A publically-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15146A444. Description of amendment request: The proposed change would amend Combined License Nos. NPF-91 and NPF-92 for the VEGP Units 3 and 4. The requested amendment proposes to depart from Tier 2* and associated Tier 2 information in the VEGP Units 3 and 4 Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) (which includes the plant specific Design Control Document Tier 2 information) to revise the application of American Institute for Steel Construction (AISC) N690-1994, Specification for the Design, Fabrication and Erection of Steel Safety Related Structures for Nuclear Facilities, to allow use of American Welding Society (AWS) D1.1-2000, Structural Welding Code-Steel, in lieu of the AWS D1.1-1992 edition identified in AISC N690-1994. Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The design functions of the nuclear island structures are to provide support, protection, and separation for the seismic Category I mechanical and electrical equipment located in the nuclear island. The nuclear island structures are structurally designed to meet seismic Category I requirements as defined in Regulatory Guide 1.29. The design functions of the seismic Category II portions of the annex building and turbine building are to provide integrity for non-seismic items located in the proximity of safety-related items, the failure of which during a safe shutdown earthquake could result in loss of function of safety-related items. The use of AWS D1.1-2000 provides criteria for the design, qualification, fabrication, and inspection of welds for nuclear island structures and seismic Category II portions of the annex building and turbine building. These structures continue to meet the applicable portions of ACI [American Concrete Institute] 349, the remaining applicable portions of AISC N690 not related to requirements for welding, including the supplemental requirements described in UFSAR Subsections 3.8.4.4.1 and 3.8.4.5, and the supplemental requirements identified in the UFSAR Subsection 3.8.3 for structural modules. The use of AWS D1.1-2000 does not have an adverse impact on the response of the nuclear island structures, or seismic Category II portions of the annex building and turbine building to safe shutdown earthquake ground motions or loads due to anticipated transients or postulated accident conditions. The change does not impact the support, design, or operation of mechanical and fluid systems. There is no change to plant systems or the response of systems to postulated accident conditions. There is no change to the predicted radioactive releases due to normal operation or postulated accident conditions. The plant response to previously evaluated accidents or external events is not adversely affected, nor does the change described create any new accident precursors. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed change includes the use of AWS D1.1-2000 to provide criteria for the design, qualification, fabrication, and inspection of welds for nuclear island structures and the seismic Category II portions of the annex building and turbine building. The proposed change provides a consistent set of requirements for welding of structures required to be designed to the requirements of ACI 349 and AISC N690. The change to the details does not change the design function, support, design, or operation of mechanical and fluid systems. The change to the weld details does not result in a new failure mechanism for the pertinent structures or new accident precursors. As a result, the design function of the structures is not adversely affected by the proposed change. 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 AWS D1.1-2000 code is a consensus standard written, revised, and approved by industry experts experienced in welding and weld design. The proposed change adds AWS D1.1-2000 to the list of applicable codes and standards in the UFSAR. The 2000 edition includes criteria that consider directionality in the weld which allows for an increase factor on structural fillet weld strength relative to the angle of load direction. These changes are supported by tests that provide the justification for criteria that consider the directionality. The testing and analysis is reported in an AISC Journal Article, ``Proposed Working Stresses for Fillet Welds in Building Construction,'' by T. R. Higgins and FR Preece. These changes can be similarly applied to welds in the AP1000 to continue to provide the necessary safety margin. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Attorney for licensee: M. Stanford Blanton, Balch & Bingham LLP, 1710 Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 35203-2015. NRC Branch Chief: Lawrence J. Burkhart. Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 50-259, Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Unit 1, Limestone County, Alabama Date of amendment request: March 9, 2015. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15111A396. Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the Technical Specifications (TS) Section 3.1.4, ``Control Rod Scram Times,'' based on industry Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Change Traveler TSTF-460-A, Revision 0, that has been approved (August 23, 2004; 69 FR 51864) generically for the boiling water reactor (BWR) Standard Technical Specifications, NUREG-1433 (BWR/4). The required frequency of Surveillance Requirement 3.1.4.2 regarding control rod scram time testing will be changed from ``120 days cumulative operation in MODE 1'' to ``200 days cumulative operation in MODE 1.'' The 200-day frequency is based on operating experience that has shown control rod scram times do not significantly change over an operating cycle. 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 (NSHC) by adopting the NSHC that the NRC published on August 23, 2004 (69 FR 51854), which is presented below: 1. Does the change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed change extends the frequency for testing control rod scram time testing from every 120 days of cumulative Mode 1 operation to 200 days of cumulative Mode 1 operation. The frequency of surveillance testing is not an initiator of any accident previously evaluated. The frequency of surveillance testing does not affect the ability to mitigate any accident previously evaluated, as the tested component is still required to be operable. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the [[Page 32630]] probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed change extends the frequency for testing control rod scram time testing from every 120 days of cumulative Mode 1 operation to 200 days of cumulative Mode 1 operation. The proposed change does not result in any new or different modes of plant operation. Therefore, 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 extends the frequency for testing control rod scram time testing from every 120 days of cumulative Mode 1 operation to 200 days of cumulative Mode 1 operation. The proposed change continues to test the control rod scram time to ensure the assumptions in the safety analysis are protected. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on its own analysis, determines 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 Drive, 6A West Tower, Knoxville, TN 37902. NRC Branch Chief: Shana R. Helton. Union Electric Company, Docket No. 50-483, Callaway Plant, Unit 1, Callaway County, Missouri Date of amendment request: March 12, 2015. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15071A403. Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would modify Technical Specification (TS) requirements in order to address NRC Generic Letter 2008-01, ``Managing Gas Accumulation in Emergency Core Cooling, Decay Heat Removal, and Containment Spray Systems,'' dated January 11, 2008 (ADAMS Accession No. ML072910759), as described in TS Task Force (TSTF) traveler TSTF-523-A, Revision 2, ``Generic Letter 2008-01, Managing Gas Accumulation'' (ADAMS Accession No. ML13053A075). 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 revises or adds Surveillance Requirements (SRs) that require verification that the Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS), the Residual Heat Removal (RHR) System, and the Containment Spray (CS) System, are not rendered inoperable due to accumulated gas and to provide allowances that permit performance of the verification. Gas accumulation in the subject systems is not an initiator of any accident previously evaluated. As a result, the probability of any accident previously evaluated is not significantly increased. The proposed SRs ensure that the subject systems continue to be capable to perform their assumed safety function and are not rendered inoperable due to gas accumulation. Thus, the consequences of any accident previously evaluated are not significantly increased. Based on the above, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed change revises or adds SRs that require verification that the ECCS, the RHR System, and the CS System are not rendered inoperable due to accumulated gas and to provide allowances that permit performance of the revised verification. The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant operation. In addition, the proposed change does not impose any new or different requirements that could initiate an accident. The proposed change does not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis and is consistent with the safety analysis assumptions. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The proposed change revises or adds SRs that require verification that the ECCS, the RHR System, and the CS System are not rendered inoperable due to accumulated gas and to provide allowances which permit performance of the revised verification. The proposed change adds new requirements to manage gas accumulation in order to ensure the subject systems are capable of performing their assumed safety functions. The proposed SRs are more comprehensive than the current SRs and will ensure that the assumptions of the safety analysis are protected. The proposed change does not adversely affect any current plant safety margins or the reliability of the equipment assumed in the safety analysis. Therefore, there are no changes being made to any safety analysis assumptions, safety limits, or limiting safety system settings that would adversely affect plant safety as a result of the proposed change. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Attorney for licensee: John O'Neill, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, 2300 N Street NW., Washington, DC 20037. NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley. Union Electric Company, Docket No. 50-483, Callaway Plant, Unit 1, Callaway County, Missouri Date of amendment request: March 9, 2015, as supplemented by letter dated April 8, 2015. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML15068A422 and ML15098A575. Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would modify Technical Specification (TS) requirements regarding steam generator tube inspections and reporting as described in TS Task Force (TSTF) traveler TSTF-510, Revision 2, ``Revision to Steam Generator Program Inspection Frequencies and Tube Sample Selection'' (ADAMS Accession No. ML110610350), with some minor administrative differences. 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 revises the Steam Generator (SG) Program to modify the frequency of verification of SG tube integrity and SG tube sample selection. A steam generator tube rupture (SGTR) event is one of the design basis accidents that are analyzed as part of the plant's licensing basis. The proposed SG tube inspection frequency and sample selection criteria will continue to ensure that the SG tubes are inspected such that the probability of [an] SGTR is not increased. The consequences of [an] SGTR are bounded by the conservative assumptions in the design basis accident analysis. The proposed change will not cause the [[Page 32631]] consequences of [an] SGTR to exceed those assumptions. Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed changes to the Steam Generator Program will not introduce any adverse changes to the plant design basis or postulated accidents resulting from potential tube degradation. The proposed change does not affect the design of the SGs or their method of operation. In addition, the proposed change does not impact any other plant system or component. Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The SG tubes in pressurized water reactors are an integral part of the reactor coolant pressure boundary and, as such, are relied upon to maintain the primary system's pressure and inventory. As part of the reactor coolant pressure boundary, the SG tubes are unique in that they are also relied upon as a heat transfer surface between the primary and secondary systems such that residual heat can be removed from the primary system. In addition, the SG tubes also isolate the radioactive fission products in the primary coolant from the secondary system. These safety functions are maintained by ensuring integrity of the SG tubes. Steam generator tube integrity is a function of the design, environment, and the physical condition of the tube. The proposed change does not affect tube design or operating environment. The proposed change will continue to require monitoring of the physical condition of the SG tubes such that there will not be a reduction in the margin of safety compared to the current requirements. 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' analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Attorney for licensee: John O'Neill, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, 2300 N Street, NW., Washington, DC 20037. NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley. 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. Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Docket No. 50-336, Millstone Power Station, Unit 2 (MPS2), New London County, Connecticut Date of amendment request: April 11, 2014. Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical Specifications (TSs), adding topical report BAW-10240(P)(A), ``Incorporation of M5TM Properties in Framatome ANP Approved Methods,'' to the referenced analytical methods in TS 6.9.1.8.b, ``Core Operating Limits Report,'' as an acceptable method used to determine core operating limits for MPS2. Date of issuance: May 18, 2015. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days from the date of issuance. Amendment No.: 319. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15093A441; documents related to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment. Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-65: Amendment revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and TSs. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 25, 2014 (79 FR 70212). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 18, 2015. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Docket No. 50-336, Millstone Power Station, Unit 2, New London County, Connecticut Date of amendment request: March 28, 2014. Brief description of amendment: The proposed amendment deletes the Technical Specification (TS) Index and makes several other editorial, corrective and minor changes to the TSs. Date of issuance: May 20, 2015. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 30 days from the date of issuance. Amendment No.: 320. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14093A027; documents related to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment. Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-65: Amendment revised the Renewed Operating License and TSs. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 25, 2014 (79 FR 70212). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 20, 2015. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Docket No. 50-423, Millstone Power Station, Unit 3, New London County, Connecticut Date of amendment request: March 28, 2014. Brief description of amendment: The amendment deleted the Technical Specification (TS) index and made other editorial, corrective, and minor changes to the TSs. [[Page 32632]] Date of issuance: May 20, 2015. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 30 days from the date of issuance. Amendment No.: 261. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15098A034; documents related to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment. Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-49: Amendment revised the Renewed Operating License and TSs. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 25, 2014 (79 FR 70213). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 20, 2015. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Duke Energy Progress, Inc., Docket No. 50-261, H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant Unit 2, Darlington County, South Carolina Date of application for amendment: June 7, 2013, as supplemented by letter dated July 24, 2014. Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical Specifications (TSs) by deleting Surveillance Requirements (SRs) 3.1.7.1, 3.1.7.2, and 3.1.7.3 of TS 3.1.7, ``Rod Position Indication,'' and renumbering SR 3.1.7.4 as SR 3.1.7.1. Date of issuance: May 27, 2015. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 120 days of issuance. Amendment No.: 241. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15068A386; documents related to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation (SE) enclosed with the amendment. Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-23: Amendment revised the Facility Operating License and TSs. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 20, 2013 (78 FR 51222). The supplemental letter dated July 24, 2014, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the Federal Register. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a SE dated May 27, 2015. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Duke Energy Progress, Inc., Docket No. 50-261, H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant Unit 2, Hartsville, South Carolina Date of amendment request: June 20, 2014. Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical Specification (TS) 5.5.9 for the Steam Generator Program accident- induced leakage rate value for any design-basis accident, other than a steam generator tube rupture. Date of issuance: May 26, 2015. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 120 days of issuance. Amendment No.: 240. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15062A343; documents related to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation (SE) enclosed with the amendment. Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-23: Amendment revised the Facility Operating License and TSs. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 16, 2014 (79 FR 55510). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in an SE dated May 26, 2015. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-247 and 50-286, Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3, Westchester County, New York Date of amendment request: April 1, 2014. Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the technical specifications (TSs) by implementing Technical Specification Task Force Technical Change Traveler 510, Revision 2, ``Revision to Steam Generator Program Inspection Frequencies and Tube Sample Selection.'' Date of issuance: May 26, 2015. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 30 days of issuance. Amendment Nos.: 281 and 257. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15110A009; documents related to these amendments are listed in the safety evaluation (SE) enclosed with the amendments. Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-26 and DPR-64: Amendments revised the facility operating license and TSs. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 8, 2014 (79 FR 38588). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in an SE dated May 26, 2015. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-255, Palisades Nuclear Plant (PNP), Van Buren County, Michigan Date of application for amendment: June 11, 2014. Brief description of amendment: The amendment modified PNP technical specifications (TSs) to adopt the changes described in TS Task Force (TSTF) traveler TSTF-426, Revision 5, ``Revise or Add Actions to Preclude Entry into [Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO)] 3.0.3--[Risk-Informed TSTF (RITSTF)] Initiatives 6b and 6c'' (ADAMS Accession No. ML113260461). Date of issuance: May 18, 2015. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 90 days. Amendment No.: 256. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15103A059; documents related to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment. Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-20: Amendment revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 2, 2014 (79 FR 52062). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 18, 2015. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Exelon Generation Company, LLC (EGC), Docket No. 50-410, Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 2, Oswego County, New York Date of amendment request: November 17, 2014, as supplemented by letter dated March 20, 2015. Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 2, Technical Specification (TS) Allowable Value for the Main Steam Line Tunnel Lead Enclosure Temperature-High instrumentation from an ambient temperature dependent (variable setpoint) to ambient temperature independent (constant Allowable Value). The changes deleted Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.3.6.1.2 and revise the Allowable Value for Function 1.g on Table 3.3.6.1-1, ``Primary Containment Isolation Instrumentation.'' Date of issuance: May 26, 2015. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days of issuance. Amendment No.: 147. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under [[Page 32633]] Accession No. ML15110A008; documents the Safety Evaluation related to this amendment enclosed with the amendment. Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-69: Amendment revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and TSs. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 3, 2015 (80 FR 11476). The supplemental letter dated March 20, 2015, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the Federal Register. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 26, 2015. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket No. 50-412, Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 2, (BVPS-2) Beaver County, Pennsylvania Date of amendment request: June 2, 2014, as supplemented by letter dated August 8, 2014. Description of amendment request: The amendment changes the BVPS-2 technical specifications (TS). Specifically, the amendment revised TS 4.3.2, ``Drainage,'' to correct the minimum drain elevation for the spent fuel storage pool specified in the TS. In accordance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 50, Appendix B, Section XVI, ``Corrective Action,'' the amendment was required to resolve a TS discrepancy regarding an existing plant design feature. Date of Issuance: May 20, 2015. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 90 days of issuance. Amendment No.: 181. A publicly available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15086A251. Facility Operating License No. NPF-73: Amendment revised the Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 30, 2014 (79 FR 58816). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 20, 2015. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, Docket No. 50-440, Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, Lake County, Ohio Date of application for amendment: December 6, 2013, as supplemented by letters dated February 27, July 22, October 8, 2014, and February 4, 2015. Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises the Updated Safety Analyses Report (USAR) to reflect updated radiological dose calculations based upon using an alternative source term methodology for the applicable design bases events and to revise the technical specification (TS) definition of DOSE EQUIVALENT IODINE-131. Date of issuance: March 30, 2015. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 30 days. Amendment No.: 166. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15075A139; documents related to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment. Facility Operating License No. NPF-58: This amendment revised the TSs and License. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 15, 2014 (79 FR 21298). The July 22, October 8, 2014, and February 4, 2015, supplements contained clarifying information and did not change the NRC staff's initial proposed finding of no significant hazards condition. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated March 30, 2015. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC, Docket No. 50-443, Seabrook Station, Unit 1, Rockingham County, New Hampshire Date of amendment request: January 30, 2012, as supplemented by letters dated May 10, 2012, September 20, 2012, March 27, 2013, December 20, 2013, January 29, 2014, March 13, 2014, and February 25, 2015. Description of amendment request: The original application proposed revisions to the technical specifications (TSs) for new and spent fuel storage as a result of the new criticality analyses for the new fuel vault (NFV) and spent fuel pool (SFP). By letter dated December 20, 2013 (ADAMS Accession No. ML13360A045), NextEra requested that the SFP and NFV be separated into two separate license amendment requests. This amendment revised the TSs related to the NFV. On September 3, 2014, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued Amendment No. 142 that revised the TSs related to spent fuel storage as a result of new criticality analyses for the SFP. Date of issuance: May 18, 2015. Effective date: As of its date of issuance, and shall be implemented within 60 days. Amendment No.: 148. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15118A632; documents related to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment. Facility Operating License No. NPF-86: Amendment revised the Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 14, 2012 (77 FR 48559). The supplemental letters dated September 20, 2012, March 27, 2013, December 20, 2013, January 29, 2014, March 13, 2014, and February 25, 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 18, 2015. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Northern States Power Company--Minnesota, Docket Nos. 50-282 and 50- 306, Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, Goodhue County, Minnesota Date of amendment request: June 9, 2014, as supplemented by letter dated December 17, 2014. Brief description of amendment: The amendments revised Technical Specification (TS) 3.8.1, ``AC [Alternating Current] Source-- Operating,'' to revise the emergency diesel generator steady-state voltage and frequency limits specified in Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.8.1.2, SR 3.8.1.6, and SR 3.8.1.9. Date of issuance: May 21, 2015. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 90 days of issuance. Amendment Nos.: Unit 1--214; Unit 2--202. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15086A046; documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments. Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-42 and DPR-60: These amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and the Technical Specifications. [[Page 32634]] Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 5, 2014 (79 FR 45479). The supplement dated 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 May 21, 2015. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Northern States Power Company--Minnesota, Docket Nos. 50-282 and 50- 306, Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, Goodhue County, Minnesota Date of amendment requests: February 20, 2013, as supplemented by letters dated June 25, 2013; September 15, 2014; and February 26, 2015. Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical Specification (TS) 3.5.3, ``ECCS [Emergency Core Cooling Systems]-- Shutdown,'' to remove Note 1 and change the Mode Applicability to eliminate the potential for non-conservative plant operation. Date of issuance: May 20, 2015. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 90 days of issuance. Amendment Nos.: Unit 1--213; Unit 2--201. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15062A013; documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments. Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-42 and DPR-60: These amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and the Technical Specifications. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 20, 2013 (78 FR 51229). The supplement dated September 15, 2014, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the Federal Register. The Commission issued a revised no significant hazards consideration on March 17, 2015 (80 FR 13910), to consider the aspects of the proposed Mode Applicability change in the February 26, 2015, supplemental letter. The revised notice also included the correct initial submittal date of February 20, 2013. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 20, 2015. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, Docket Nos. 52-027 and 52-028, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3, Fairfield County, South Carolina Date of amendment request: February 27, 2014, and supplemented by letter dated August 21, 2014. Description of amendment: The amendment revises the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report in regard to Tier 2 and Tier 2* information related to the CA03 structural module, which is the in-containment refueling water storage tank (IRWST) west wall. The changes sought to clarify the materials used in fabrication of the module, as well as the design details related to the horizontal stiffeners used to support the IRWST, and module legs used to anchor the module in place. Date of issuance: April 17, 2015. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 90 days of issuance. Amendment No.: 25. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15029A419; documents related to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment. Facility Combined Licenses No. NPF-93 and NPF-94: Amendment revised the Facility Combined Licenses. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 29, 2014 (79 FR 24024). The supplemental letter dated August 21, 2014, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the Federal Register. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in the Safety Evaluation dated April 17, 2015. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-338 and 50-339, North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Louisa County, Virginia Date of amendment request: February 4, 2015. Brief description of amendment: The license amendments approve changes to the Technical Specification (TS) TS 3.1.7, ``Rod Position Indication,'' to provide an additional monitoring option for an inoperable control rod position indicator. Specifically, the proposed changes would allow monitoring of control rod drive mechanism stationary gripper coil voltage every eight hours as an alternative to using the movable in core detectors every eight hours to verify control rod position. Date of issuance: May 14, 2015. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 30 days from the date of issuance. Amendment Nos.: 273 and 255. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15083A436. Documents related to the amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments. Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-4 and NPF-7: Amendments changed the licenses and Technical Specification. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 3, 2015 (80 FR 11488). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 14, 2015. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. ZionSolutions, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-295 and 50-304, Zion Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Lake County, Illinois Date of application for amendment: May 27, 2014, as supplemented by letter dated November 6, 2014. Brief description of amendment: This amendment revises the Zion Nuclear Power Station Licenses to approve the revised Emergency Plan. Date of issuance: May 14, 2015. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days. Amendment Nos.: 189 and 176. Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-39 and NPF-48: These amendments revise the Licenses. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 22, 2014, (79 FR 42553). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 14, 2015. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 1st day of June 2015. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. A. Louise Lund, Acting Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. 2015-13815 Filed 6-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
![32624 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 110 / Tuesday, June 9, 2015 / Notices
NUCLEAR REGULATORY SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: II. Notice of Consideration of Issuance
COMMISSION of Amendments to Facility Operating
I. Obtaining Information and
Licenses and Combined Licenses and
[NRC–2015–0142] Submitting Comments
Proposed No Significant Hazards
Biweekly Notice: Applications and A. Obtaining Information Consideration Determination
Amendments to Facility Operating Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2015– The Commission has made a
Licenses and Combined Licenses 0142 when contacting the NRC about proposed determination that the
Involving No Significant Hazards the availability of information for this following amendment requests involve
Considerations action. You may obtain publicly- no significant hazards consideration.
available information related to this Under the Commission’s regulations in
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory action by any of the following methods: § 50.92 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Commission. • Federal rulemaking Web site: Go to Regulations (10 CFR), this means that
ACTION: Biweekly notice. http://www.regulations.gov and search operation of the facility in accordance
for Docket ID NRC–2015–0142. with the proposed amendment would
SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 189a. (2) • NRC’s Agencywide Documents
of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as not (1) involve a significant increase in
Access and Management System the probability or consequences of an
amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-
Regulatory Commission (NRC) is accident previously evaluated, or (2)
available documents online in the create the possibility of a new or
publishing this regular biweekly notice. ADAMS Public Documents collection at
The Act requires the Commission to different kind of accident from any
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ accident previously evaluated; or (3)
publish notice of any amendments adams.html. To begin the search, select
issued, or proposed to be issued and involve a significant reduction in a
‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and then margin of safety. The basis for this
grants the Commission the authority to select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS
issue and make immediately effective proposed determination for each
Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS, amendment request is shown below.
any amendment to an operating license please contact the NRC’s Public
or combined license, as applicable, The Commission is seeking public
Document Room (PDR) reference staff at comments on this proposed
upon a determination by the 1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by
Commission that such amendment determination. Any comments received
email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The within 30 days after the date of
involves no significant hazards ADAMS accession number for each
consideration, notwithstanding the publication of this notice will be
document referenced (if it is available in considered in making any final
pendency before the Commission of a ADAMS) is provided the first time that
request for a hearing from any person. determination.
it is mentioned in the SUPPLEMENTARY Normally, the Commission will not
This biweekly notice includes all INFORMATION section.
issue the amendment until the
notices of amendments issued, or • NRC’s PDR: You may examine and
proposed to be issued from May 13, expiration of 60 days after the date of
purchase copies of public documents at
2015 to May 27, 2015. The last biweekly the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One publication of this notice. The
notice was published on May 26, 2015. White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Commission may issue the license
Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. amendment before expiration of the 60-
DATES: Comments must be filed by July
day period provided that its final
9, 2015. A request for a hearing must be B. Submitting Comments determination is that the amendment
filed by August 10, 2015. involves no significant hazards
Please include Docket ID NRC–2015–
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments consideration. In addition, the
0142, facility name, unit number(s),
by any of the following methods (unless application date, and subject in your Commission may issue the amendment
this document describes a different comment submission. prior to the expiration of the 30-day
method for submitting comments on a The NRC cautions you not to include comment period should circumstances
specific subject): identifying or contact information that change during the 30-day comment
• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to you do not want to be publicly period such that failure to act in a
http://www.regulations.gov and search disclosed in your comment submission. timely way would result, for example in
for Docket ID NRC–2015–0142. Address The NRC posts all comment derating or shutdown of the facility.
questions about NRC dockets to Carol submissions at http:// Should the Commission take action
Gallagher; telephone: 301–415–3463; www.regulations.gov as well as entering prior to the expiration of either the
email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov the comment submissions into ADAMS. comment period or the notice period, it
• Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, The NRC does not routinely edit will publish in the Federal Register a
Office of Administration, Mail Stop: comment submissions to remove notice of issuance. Should the
OWFN–12–H08, U.S. Nuclear identifying or contact information. Commission make a final No Significant
Regulatory Commission, Washington, If you are requesting or aggregating Hazards Consideration Determination,
DC 20555–0001. comments from other persons for any hearing will take place after
For additional direction on obtaining submission to the NRC, then you should issuance. The Commission expects that
information and submitting comments, inform those persons not to include the need to take this action will occur
see ‘‘Obtaining Information and identifying or contact information that very infrequently.
Submitting Comments’’ in the they do not want to be publicly
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of disclosed in their comment submission. A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing
this document. and Petition for Leave To Intervene
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Your request should state that the NRC
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: does not routinely edit comment Within 60 days after the date of
Shirley Rohrer, Office of Nuclear submissions to remove such information publication of this notice, any person(s)
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear before making the comment whose interest may be affected by this
Regulatory Commission, Washington, submissions available to the public or action may file a request for a hearing
DC 20555–0001; telephone: 301–415– entering the comment submissions into and a petition to intervene with respect
5411, email: Shirley.Rohrer@nrc.gov. ADAMS. to issuance of the amendment to the
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:12 Jun 08, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00101 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\09JNN1.SGM 09JNN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_32734/page/1.svg)
![32626 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 110 / Tuesday, June 9, 2015 / Notices
system. To be timely, an electronic a participant or party to use E-Filing if [American National Standards Institute]
filing must be submitted to the E-Filing the presiding officer subsequently B31.1.0. The amendment would also
system no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern determines that the reason for granting revise the MPS2 Facility Operating
Time on the due date. Upon receipt of the exemption from use of E-Filing no License No. DPR–65.
a transmission, the E-Filing system longer exists. Basis for proposed no significant
time-stamps the document and sends Documents submitted in adjudicatory hazards consideration determination:
the submitter an email notice proceedings will appear in the NRC’s As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
confirming receipt of the document. The electronic hearing docket which is licensee has provided its analysis of the
E-Filing system also distributes an email available to the public at http:// issue of no significant hazards
notice that provides access to the ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded consideration, which is presented
document to the NRC’s Office of the pursuant to an order of the Commission, below:
General Counsel and any others who or the presiding officer. Participants are
Criterion 1:
have advised the Office of the Secretary requested not to include personal
Does the proposed amendment involve a
that they wish to participate in the privacy information, such as social significant increase in the probability or
proceeding, so that the filer need not security numbers, home addresses, or consequences of an accident previously
serve the documents on those home phone numbers in their filings, evaluated?
participants separately. Therefore, unless an NRC regulation or other law Response: No.
applicants and other participants (or requires submission of such Previously evaluated accident
their counsel or representative) must information. However, in some consequences are not impacted by the
apply for and receive a digital ID instances, a request to intervene will proposed amendment because credited
certificate before a hearing request/ require including information on local mitigating equipment continues to perform
petition to intervene is filed so that they residence in order to demonstrate a its design function. The proposed
amendment does not significantly impact the
can obtain access to the document via proximity assertion of interest in the
probability of an accident previously
the E-Filing system. proceeding. With respect to copyrighted evaluated because those Systems, Structures
A person filing electronically using works, except for limited excerpts that and Components (SSCs) that can initiate an
the NRC’s adjudicatory E-Filing system serve the purpose of the adjudicatory accident are not significantly impacted.
may seek assistance by contacting the filings and would constitute a Fair Use Based on the above, DNC concludes that
NRC Meta System Help Desk through application, participants are requested the proposed amendment to the MPS2 FSAR
the ‘‘Contact Us’’ link located on the not to include copyrighted materials in to allow the use of UT [ultrasonic] in lieu of
NRC’s public Web site at http:// their submission. RT [radiography] examination for certain
www.nrc.gov/site-help/e- Petitions for leave to intervene must piping welds fabricated to ANSI B31.1.0,
submittals.html, by email to be filed no later than 60 days from the does not involve a significant increase in the
date of publication of this notice. probability or consequences of an accident or
MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a toll-
transient previously evaluated in the safety
free call at 1–866–672–7640. The NRC Requests for hearing, petitions for leave analysis report.
Meta System Help Desk is available to intervene, and motions for leave to Criterion 2:
between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern file new or amended contentions that Does the proposed amendment create the
Time, Monday through Friday, are filed after the 60-day deadline will possibility for a new or different kind of
excluding government holidays. not be entertained absent a accident from any accident previously
Participants who believe that they determination by the presiding officer evaluated?
have a good cause for not submitting that the filing demonstrates good cause Response: No.
documents electronically must file an by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR The proposed amendment does not create
exemption request, in accordance with 2.309(c)(1)(i)–(iii). a new or different kind of accident from any
10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper For further details with respect to accident previously evaluated because
previously credited SSCs are not significantly
filing requesting authorization to these license amendment applications, impacted. The proposed amendment does
continue to submit documents in paper see the application for amendment not involve a physical alteration of the plant
format. Such filings must be submitted which is available for public inspection and no new or different types of equipment
by: (1) First class mail addressed to the in ADAMS and at the NRC’s PDR. For will be installed. There is no impact upon the
Office of the Secretary of the additional direction on accessing existing failure modes and effects analysis;
Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory information related to this document, and conformance to the single failure
Commission, Washington, DC 20555– see the ‘‘Obtaining Information and criterion is maintained.
0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Submitting Comments’’ section of this Based on the above, DNC concludes that
Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, document. the proposed amendment to the MPS2 FSAR
express mail, or expedited delivery to allow the use of UT in lieu of RT
service to the Office of the Secretary, Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., examination for certain piping welds
(DNC), Docket No. 50–336, Millstone fabricated to ANSI B31.1.0, does not create
Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, the possibility of a new or different kind of
11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Power Station, Unit 2 (MPS2), New
London County, Connecticut accident or transient from any previously
Maryland, 20852, Attention: evaluated.
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Date of amendment request: October Criterion 3:
Participants filing a document in this 31, 2014. A publicly-available version is Does the proposed amendment involve a
manner are responsible for serving the in ADAMS under Accession No. significant reduction in the margin of safety?
document on all other participants. ML14310A187. Response: No.
Filing is considered complete by first- Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment to the MPS2
FSAR will not cause an accident to occur and
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
class mail as of the time of deposit in The amendment would revise the MPS2
Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) to will not result in any change in the operation
the mail, or by courier, express mail, or
of the associated accident mitigation
expedited delivery service upon allow the use of the encoded ultrasonic equipment. The proposed amendment does
depositing the document with the examination technique in lieu of the not involve a significant reduction in margin
provider of the service. A presiding FSAR committed additional of safety because plant response to any
officer, having granted an exemption radiography examination for certain transient or analyzed accident event is
request from using E-Filing, may require piping welds fabricated to ANSI unchanged.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:12 Jun 08, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00103 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\09JNN1.SGM 09JNN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_32734/page/3.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 110 / Tuesday, June 9, 2015 / Notices 32627
Based on the above, DNC concludes the Response: No. As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
proposed amendment to the MPS2 FSAR to The LAR proposes administrative non- licensee has provided its analysis of the
allow the use of UT in lieu of RT technical changes only. The proposed issue of no significant hazards
examination for certain piping welds changes will not alter the design
fabricated to ANSI B31.1.0, does not involve
consideration, which is provided below:
requirements of any SSC or its function
a significant reduction in the margin of during accident conditions. No new or 1. Does the proposed change involve a
safety. different accidents result from the changes significant increase in the probability or
proposed. The changes do not involve a consequences of any accident previously
The NRC staff has reviewed the evaluated?
physical alteration of the plant or any
licensee’s analysis and, based on this changes in methods governing normal plant Response: No.
review, it appears that the three operation. The changes do not alter The proposed change revises the Steam
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are assumptions made in the safety analysis. Generator (SG) Program to modify the
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff Given the above discussion, it is concluded frequency of verification of SG tube integrity
proposes to determine that the the proposed amendment does not create the and SG tube sample selection. A steam
amendment request involves no possibility of a new or different kind of generator tube rupture (SGTR) event is one of
accident from any accident previously the design basis accidents that are analyzed
significant hazards consideration.
evaluated. as part of a plant’s licensing basis. The
Attorney for licensee: Lillian M. proposed SG tube inspection frequency and
Criterion 3:
Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion sample selection criteria will continue to
Does the proposed amendment involve a
Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar significant reduction in the margin of safety? ensure that the SG tubes are inspected such
Street, RS–2, Richmond, VA 23219. Response: No. that the probability of a SGTR is not
Acting NRC Branch Chief: Michael I. This LAR proposes administrative non- increased. The consequences of a SGTR are
Dudek. technical changes only. The proposed bounded by the conservative assumptions in
changes do not alter the manner in which the design basis accident analysis. The
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket proposed change will not cause the
safety limits, limiting safety system settings
Nos. 50–369 and 50–370, McGuire or limiting conditions for operation are consequences of a SGTR to exceed those
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, determined. The safety analysis acceptance assumptions.
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina criteria are not affected by these changes. The Therefore, it is concluded that this change
proposed changes will not result in plant does not involve a significant increase in the
Date of amendment request: March probability or consequences of an accident
23, 2015. A publicly-available version is operation in a configuration outside the
previously evaluated.
design basis. The proposed changes do not
in ADAMS under Accession No. adversely affect systems that respond to
2. Does the proposed change create the
ML15099A393. possibility of a new or different kind of
safely shutdown the plant and to maintain
Description of amendment request: accident from any previously evaluated?
the plant in a safe shutdown condition.
The amendments would modify the Response: No.
Given the above discussion, it is concluded
definition of RATED THERMAL The proposed changes to the Steam
[that] the proposed amendment does not
Generator Program will not introduce any
POWER and delete a footnote that involve a significant reduction in the margin
adverse changes to the plant design basis or
allowed for stagered implementation of of safety. postulated accidents resulting from potential
the previously approved Measurement The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee’s tube degradation. The proposed change does
Uncertainty Recapture Power Uprate. analysis and, based on this review, it appears not affect the design of the SGs or their
Basis for proposed no significant that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) method of operation. In addition, the
hazards consideration determination: are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposed change does not impact any other
proposes to determine that the amendment plant system or component.
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the request involves no significant hazards
licensee has provided its analysis of the Therefore, it is concluded that this change
consideration. does not create the possibility of a new or
issue of no significant hazards
Attorney for licensee: Lara S. Nichols, different kind of accident from any accident
consideration, which is presented previously evaluated.
below: Associate General Counsel, Duke Energy
Corporation, 526 South Church Street— 3. Does the proposed change involve a
Criterion 1: significant reduction in the margin of safety?
EC07H, Charlotte, NC 28202. Response: No.
Does the proposed amendment involve a NRC Branch Chief: Robert J.
significant increase in the probability or The SG tubes in pressurized water reactors
consequences of an accident previously Pascarelli. are an integral part of the reactor coolant
evaluated? NextEra Energy Point Beach, LLC, pressure boundary and, as such, are relied
Response: No. upon to maintain the primary system’s
Docket Nos. 50–266 and 50–301, Point
This LAR [license amendment request] pressure and inventory. As part of the reactor
proposes administrative non-technical Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, coolant pressure boundary, the SG tubes are
changes only. These proposed changes do not Town of Two Creeks, Manitowac unique in that they are also relied upon as
adversely affect accident initiators or County, Wisconsin a heat transfer surface between the primary
precursors nor alter the design assumptions, Date of amendment request: March and secondary systems such that residual
conditions, or configurations of the facility. heat can be removed from the primary
27, 2015. A publicly-available version is
The proposed changes do not alter or prevent system. In addition, the SG tubes also isolate
the ability of structures, systems[,] and in ADAMS under Accession No. the radioactive fission products in the
components (SSCs) to perform their intended ML15086A378. primary coolant from the secondary system.
function to mitigate the consequences of an Description of amendment request: In summary, the safety function of a SG is
initiating event witin the assumed The proposed amendment would maintained by ensuring the integrity of its
acceptance limits. modify the technical specifications (TS) tubes.
Given the above discussion, it is concluded requirements regarding steam generator Steam generator tube integrity is a function
the proposed amendment does not tube inspections and reporting as of the design, environment, and the physical
condition of the tube. The proposed change
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
significantly increase the probability or described in TS Task Force (TSTF)
consequences of an accident previously does not affect tube design or operating
traveler TSTF–510, Revision 2,
evaluated. environment. The proposed change will
Criterion 2: ‘‘Revision to Steam Generator Program continue to require monitoring of the
Does the proposed amendment create the Inspection Frequencies and Tube physical condition of the SG tubes such that
possibility of a new or different kind of Sample Selection.’’ there will not be a reduction in the margin
accident from any accident previously Basis for proposed no significant of safety compared to the current
evaluated? hazards consideration determination: requirements.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:12 Jun 08, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00104 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\09JNN1.SGM 09JNN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_32734/page/4.svg)
![32628 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 110 / Tuesday, June 9, 2015 / Notices
Therefore, it is concluded that the The proposed change would revise the The proposed change provides revised
proposed change does not involve a Updated Final Safety Analysis Report analytical methods for the BEACON system
significant reduction in a margin of safety. (UFSAR) to allow the use of the BEACON and determining core operating limit for
code methodology contained in the NRC- refueling boron concentration, and does not
The NRC staff has reviewed the approved WCAP–12472–P–A, Addendum 4, change any system functions or maintenance
licensee’s analysis and, based on this Revision 0, instead of the BEACON activities. The change does not involve
review, it appears that the three methodology contained in NRC-approved physical alteration of the plant, that is, no
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are WCAP–12472–P–A, Addendum 1–A. In new or different type of equipment will be
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff addition, the proposed change would revise installed. The change does not alter
proposes to determine that the Technical Specification (TS) 5.6.5, ‘‘CORE assumptions made in the safety analyses and
OPERATING LIMITS REPORT (COLR),’’ continues to assure the plant is operated
amendment request involves no Section b to replace WCAP–11596–P–A,
significant hazards consideration. within safe limits. This change does not
‘‘Qualification of the Phoenix-P/ANC Nuclear create new failure modes or mechanisms that
Attorney for licensee: William Blair, Design System for Pressurized Water Reactor are not identifiable during testing, and no
Managing Attorney—Nuclear, Florida Cores,’’ with NRC-approved WCAP–16045– new accident precursors are generated.
Power & Light Company, P.O. Box P–A, ‘‘Qualification of the Two-Dimensional The BEACON system is not used to control
14000, 700 Universe Boulevard, Juno Transport Code PARAGON,’’ and NRC- the performance of any plant equipment. The
Beach, FL 33408–0420. approved WCAP–16045–P–A, Addendum 1– BEACON system core power distribution
A, ‘‘Qualification of the NEXUS Nuclear Data calculations and core operating limits
NRC Branch Chief: David L. Pelton. Methodology,’’ in the list of NRC-approved developed using the new methodologies will
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, analytical limits used to determine core be determined using NRC-approved
Docket Nos. 50–275 and 50–323, Diablo operating limits[,] [s]pecifically the limit for
methodologies, and will remain consistent
refueling boron concentration (i.e., the
Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 shutdown margin) required by TS 3.9.1,
with all applicable plant safety analysis
and 2, San Luis Obispo County, limits addressed in the DCPP UFSAR and the
‘‘Boron Concentration.’’
California shutdown margin requirements of the TS. As
The changes to the BEACON system and
TS 5.6.5 core operating limits methodologies, such, use of the new BEACON and COLR
Date of amendment request: April 16, methodologies will not cause a new or
which this license amendment proposes, are
2015. A publicly-available version is in improvements over the current different accident.
ADAMS under Accession No. methodologies in use at the Diablo Canyon Therefore, the proposed change does not
ML15107A333. Power Plant (DCPP). The NRC staff reviewed create the possibility of a new or different
Description of amendment request: and approved these methodologies and accident from any accident previously
concluded that these analytical methods are evaluated.
The amendments propose to revise the 3. Does the proposed change involve a
Best Estimate Analyzer for the Core acceptable as a replacement for the current
analytical methods. Thus the BEACON significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Operations-Nuclear (BEACON) power Response: No.
system operation to perform power
distribution monitoring system distribution calculations and the core The margin of safety is established through
methodology described in the Updated operating limits determined using the equipment design, operating parameters, and
Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) proposed analytical methods will continue to the setpoints at which automatic actions are
Section 4.3.2.2, ‘‘Power Distribution,’’ to assure that the plant operates in a safe initiated. The proposed changes do not
the method described in the manner and, thus, the proposed changes do physically alter safety-related systems, nor
Westinghouse Electric Company LLC not involve an increase in the probability of does it affect the way in which safety related
an accident. systems perform their functions. The
proprietary topical report (TR) WCAP– setpoints at which protective actions are
The BEACON system power distribution
12472–P–A, Addendum 4, ‘‘BEACON initiated are not altered by the proposed
calculations and the core operating limits
Core Monitoring and Operation Support determined by use of the proposed new changes. Therefore, sufficient equipment
System.’’ These amendments also methodologies will not increase the reactor remains available to actuate upon demand for
propose to revise Technical power level or the core fission product the purpose of mitigating an analyzed event.
Specification (TS) 5.6.5, ‘‘CORE inventory, and will not change any transport The proposed methodology changes are an
OPERATING LIMITS REPORT (COLR),’’ assumptions or the shutdown margin improvement that will allow more accurate
Section b to replace Westinghouse requirements of the TS. In addition, the modeling of core performance and
proprietary TR WCAP–11596–P–A, proposed changes will not alter any accident determination of the required refueling boron
analyses assumptions discussed in the concentration. The NRC has reviewed and
‘‘Qualification of the PHOENIX–P/ANC approved these methodologies for their
UFSAR. As such, the DCPP will continue to
Nuclear Design System for Pressurized operate within the power distribution limits intended use in lieu of the current
Water Reactor Cores,’’ with NRC- and shutdown margins required by the plant methodologies; thus, the margin of safety is
approved proprietary TR WCAP–16045– TS and within the assumptions of the safety not reduced due to this change.
P–A, ‘‘Qualification of the Two- analyses described in the UFSAR. As such, Therefore, the proposed change does not
Dimensional Transport Code the proposed changes do not involve a involve a significant reduction in a margin of
PARAGON,’’ and NRC-approved significant increase in the consequences of an safety.
proprietary TR WCAP–16045–P–A, accident.
Therefore, the proposed change does not The NRC staff has reviewed the
Addendum 1–A, ‘‘Qualification of the
involve a significant increase in the licensee’s analysis and, based on this
NEXUS Nuclear Data Methodology.’’ probability or consequences of an accident review, it appears that the three
Basis for proposed no significant previously evaluated. standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
hazards consideration determination: 2. Does the proposed change create the satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the possibility of a new or different accident
proposes to determine that the
licensee has provided its analysis of the from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No. amendment requests involve no
issue of no significant hazards significant hazards consideration.
The proposed change involves the use of
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
consideration, which is presented
new and NRC-approved methodologies used Attorney for licensee: Jennifer Post,
below: by the BEACON System to perform core Esq., Pacific Gas and Electric Company,
1. Does the proposed change involve a power distribution calculations and in TS P.O. Box 7442, San Francisco, California
significant increase in the probability or 5.6.5, ‘‘CORE OPERATING LIMITS REPORT
consequences of an accident previously (COLR),’’ to determine core operating limits
94120.
evaluated? (i.e., refueling boron concentration or NRC Branch Chief: Michael T.
Response: No. shutdown margin requirement). Markley.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:12 Jun 08, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00105 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\09JNN1.SGM 09JNN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_32734/page/5.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 110 / Tuesday, June 9, 2015 / Notices 32629
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, use of AWS D1.1–2000 does not have an The NRC staff has reviewed the
Inc., Docket Nos. 52–025 and 52–026, adverse impact on the response of the licensee’s analysis and, based on this
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) nuclear island structures, or seismic Category review, it appears that the three
II portions of the annex building and turbine
Units 3 and 4, Burke County, Georgia standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
building to safe shutdown earthquake ground
Date of amendment request: May 26, motions or loads due to anticipated satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
2015. A publically-available version is transients or postulated accident conditions. proposes to determine that the
in ADAMS under Accession No. The change does not impact the support, amendment request involves no
ML15146A444. design, or operation of mechanical and fluid significant hazards consideration.
Description of amendment request: systems. There is no change to plant systems Attorney for licensee: M. Stanford
or the response of systems to postulated Blanton, Balch & Bingham LLP, 1710
The proposed change would amend accident conditions. There is no change to
Combined License Nos. NPF–91 and Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL
the predicted radioactive releases due to 35203–2015.
NPF–92 for the VEGP Units 3 and 4. The normal operation or postulated accident NRC Branch Chief: Lawrence J.
requested amendment proposes to conditions. The plant response to previously
evaluated accidents or external events is not
Burkhart.
depart from Tier 2* and associated Tier
2 information in the VEGP Units 3 and adversely affected, nor does the change Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No.
4 Updated Final Safety Analysis Report described create any new accident 50–259, Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant,
precursors.
(UFSAR) (which includes the plant Unit 1, Limestone County, Alabama
Therefore, the proposed amendment does
specific Design Control Document Tier not involve a significant increase in the Date of amendment request: March 9,
2 information) to revise the application probability or consequences of an accident 2015. A publicly-available version is in
of American Institute for Steel previously evaluated. ADAMS under Accession No.
Construction (AISC) N690–1994, 2. Does the proposed amendment create ML15111A396.
Specification for the Design, Fabrication the possibility of a new or different kind of Description of amendment request:
and Erection of Steel Safety Related accident from any accident previously The amendment would revise the
Structures for Nuclear Facilities, to evaluated?
Response: No.
Technical Specifications (TS) Section
allow use of American Welding Society 3.1.4, ‘‘Control Rod Scram Times,’’
The proposed change includes the use of
(AWS) D1.1–2000, Structural Welding based on industry Technical
AWS D1.1–2000 to provide criteria for the
Code-Steel, in lieu of the AWS D1.1– design, qualification, fabrication, and Specifications Task Force (TSTF)
1992 edition identified in AISC N690– inspection of welds for nuclear island Change Traveler TSTF–460–A, Revision
1994. structures and the seismic Category II 0, that has been approved (August 23,
Basis for proposed no significant portions of the annex building and turbine 2004; 69 FR 51864) generically for the
hazards consideration determination: building. The proposed change provides a boiling water reactor (BWR) Standard
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the consistent set of requirements for welding of Technical Specifications, NUREG–1433
licensee has provided its analysis of the structures required to be designed to the
requirements of ACI 349 and AISC N690. The
(BWR/4). The required frequency of
issue of no significant hazards Surveillance Requirement 3.1.4.2
change to the details does not change the
consideration, which is presented regarding control rod scram time testing
design function, support, design, or operation
below: of mechanical and fluid systems. The change will be changed from ‘‘120 days
1. Does the proposed amendment involve to the weld details does not result in a new cumulative operation in MODE 1’’ to
a significant increase in the probability or failure mechanism for the pertinent ‘‘200 days cumulative operation in
consequences of an accident previously structures or new accident precursors. As a MODE 1.’’ The 200-day frequency is
evaluated? result, the design function of the structures based on operating experience that has
Response: No. is not adversely affected by the proposed shown control rod scram times do not
The design functions of the nuclear island change.
structures are to provide support, protection, Therefore, the proposed amendment does
significantly change over an operating
and separation for the seismic Category I not create the possibility of a new or different cycle.
mechanical and electrical equipment located kind of accident from any accident Basis for proposed no significant
in the nuclear island. The nuclear island previously evaluated. hazards consideration determination:
structures are structurally designed to meet 3. Does the proposed amendment involve As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
seismic Category I requirements as defined in a significant reduction in a margin of safety? licensee has provided its analysis of the
Regulatory Guide 1.29. The design functions Response: No. issue of no significant hazards
of the seismic Category II portions of the The AWS D1.1–2000 code is a consensus consideration (NSHC) by adopting the
annex building and turbine building are to standard written, revised, and approved by NSHC that the NRC published on
provide integrity for non-seismic items industry experts experienced in welding and
August 23, 2004 (69 FR 51854), which
located in the proximity of safety-related weld design. The proposed change adds
items, the failure of which during a safe AWS D1.1–2000 to the list of applicable is presented below:
shutdown earthquake could result in loss of codes and standards in the UFSAR. The 2000 1. Does the change involve a significant
function of safety-related items. edition includes criteria that consider increase in the probability or consequences
The use of AWS D1.1–2000 provides directionality in the weld which allows for of an accident previously evaluated?
criteria for the design, qualification, an increase factor on structural fillet weld Response: No.
fabrication, and inspection of welds for strength relative to the angle of load The proposed change extends the
nuclear island structures and seismic direction. These changes are supported by frequency for testing control rod scram time
Category II portions of the annex building tests that provide the justification for criteria testing from every 120 days of cumulative
and turbine building. These structures that consider the directionality. The testing Mode 1 operation to 200 days of cumulative
continue to meet the applicable portions of and analysis is reported in an AISC Journal Mode 1 operation. The frequency of
ACI [American Concrete Institute] 349, the Article, ‘‘Proposed Working Stresses for Fillet surveillance testing is not an initiator of any
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
remaining applicable portions of AISC N690 Welds in Building Construction,’’ by T. R. accident previously evaluated. The frequency
not related to requirements for welding, Higgins and FR Preece. These changes can be of surveillance testing does not affect the
including the supplemental requirements similarly applied to welds in the AP1000 to ability to mitigate any accident previously
described in UFSAR Subsections 3.8.4.4.1 continue to provide the necessary safety evaluated, as the tested component is still
and 3.8.4.5, and the supplemental margin. Therefore, the proposed amendment required to be operable.
requirements identified in the UFSAR does not involve a significant reduction in a Therefore, the proposed change does not
Subsection 3.8.3 for structural modules. The margin of safety. involve a significant increase in the
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:12 Jun 08, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00106 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\09JNN1.SGM 09JNN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_32734/page/6.svg)
![32630 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 110 / Tuesday, June 9, 2015 / Notices
probability or consequences of an accident consideration, which is presented changes being made to any safety analysis
previously evaluated. below: assumptions, safety limits, or limiting safety
2. Does the change create the possibility of system settings that would adversely affect
a new or different kind of accident from any 1. Does the proposed change involve a plant safety as a result of the proposed
accident previously evaluated? significant increase in the probability or change.
Response: No. consequences of an accident previously Therefore, the proposed change does not
The proposed change extends the evaluated? involve a significant reduction in a margin of
Response: No. safety.
frequency for testing control rod scram time
The proposed change revises or adds
testing from every 120 days of cumulative The NRC staff has reviewed the
Surveillance Requirements (SRs) that require
Mode 1 operation to 200 days of cumulative
verification that the Emergency Core Cooling licensee’s analysis and, based on this
Mode 1 operation. The proposed change does
System (ECCS), the Residual Heat Removal review, it appears that the three
not result in any new or different modes of
(RHR) System, and the Containment Spray standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
plant operation.
(CS) System, are not rendered inoperable due satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
Therefore, the proposed change does not
to accumulated gas and to provide
create the possibility of a new or different proposes to determine that the
allowances that permit performance of the
kind of accident from any previously verification. Gas accumulation in the subject amendment request involves no
evaluated. systems is not an initiator of any accident significant hazards consideration.
3. Does the proposed change involve a previously evaluated. As a result, the Attorney for licensee: John O’Neill,
significant reduction in a margin of safety? probability of any accident previously Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman
Response: No. evaluated is not significantly increased. The LLP, 2300 N Street NW., Washington,
The proposed change extends the proposed SRs ensure that the subject systems
frequency for testing control rod scram time
DC 20037.
continue to be capable to perform their NRC Branch Chief: Michael T.
testing from every 120 days of cumulative assumed safety function and are not rendered
Mode 1 operation to 200 days of cumulative Markley.
inoperable due to gas accumulation. Thus,
Mode 1 operation. The proposed change the consequences of any accident previously Union Electric Company, Docket No.
continues to test the control rod scram time evaluated are not significantly increased. 50–483, Callaway Plant, Unit 1,
to ensure the assumptions in the safety Based on the above, the proposed change
analysis are protected.
Callaway County, Missouri
does not involve a significant increase in the
Therefore, the proposed change does not probability or consequences of an accident Date of amendment request: March 9,
involve a significant reduction in a margin of previously evaluated. 2015, as supplemented by letter dated
safety. 2. Does the proposed change create the April 8, 2015. Publicly-available
The NRC staff has reviewed the possibility of a new or different kind of versions are in ADAMS under
licensee’s analysis and, based on its accident from any accident previously Accession Nos. ML15068A422 and
evaluated? ML15098A575.
own analysis, determines that the three Response: No.
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are Description of amendment request:
The proposed change revises or adds SRs
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff The proposed amendment would
that require verification that the ECCS, the
proposes to determine that the RHR System, and the CS System are not modify Technical Specification (TS)
amendment request involves no rendered inoperable due to accumulated gas requirements regarding steam generator
significant hazards consideration. and to provide allowances that permit tube inspections and reporting as
Attorney for licensee: General performance of the revised verification. The described in TS Task Force (TSTF)
Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, proposed change does not involve a physical traveler TSTF–510, Revision 2,
alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or ‘‘Revision to Steam Generator Program
400 West Summit Hill Drive, 6A West different type of equipment will be installed)
Tower, Knoxville, TN 37902. Inspection Frequencies and Tube
or a change in the methods governing normal
NRC Branch Chief: Shana R. Helton. Sample Selection’’ (ADAMS Accession
plant operation. In addition, the proposed
change does not impose any new or different No. ML110610350), with some minor
Union Electric Company, Docket No. administrative differences.
requirements that could initiate an accident.
50–483, Callaway Plant, Unit 1, The proposed change does not alter Basis for proposed no significant
Callaway County, Missouri assumptions made in the safety analysis and hazards consideration determination:
Date of amendment request: March is consistent with the safety analysis As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
12, 2015. A publicly-available version is assumptions. licensee has provided its analysis of the
Therefore, the proposed change does not issue of no significant hazards
in ADAMS under Accession No. create the possibility of a new or different
ML15071A403. consideration, which is presented
kind of accident from any accident
Description of amendment request: previously evaluated.
below:
The proposed amendment would 3. Does the proposed change involve a 1. Does the proposed change involve a
modify Technical Specification (TS) significant reduction in a margin of safety? significant increase in the probability or
requirements in order to address NRC Response: No. consequences of an accident previously
Generic Letter 2008–01, ‘‘Managing Gas The proposed change revises or adds SRs evaluated?
that require verification that the ECCS, the Response: No.
Accumulation in Emergency Core
RHR System, and the CS System are not The proposed change revises the Steam
Cooling, Decay Heat Removal, and rendered inoperable due to accumulated gas Generator (SG) Program to modify the
Containment Spray Systems,’’ dated and to provide allowances which permit frequency of verification of SG tube integrity
January 11, 2008 (ADAMS Accession performance of the revised verification. The and SG tube sample selection. A steam
No. ML072910759), as described in TS proposed change adds new requirements to generator tube rupture (SGTR) event is one of
Task Force (TSTF) traveler TSTF–523– manage gas accumulation in order to ensure the design basis accidents that are analyzed
A, Revision 2, ‘‘Generic Letter 2008–01, the subject systems are capable of performing as part of the plant’s licensing basis. The
their assumed safety functions. The proposed proposed SG tube inspection frequency and
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Managing Gas Accumulation’’ (ADAMS
SRs are more comprehensive than the current sample selection criteria will continue to
Accession No. ML13053A075).
SRs and will ensure that the assumptions of ensure that the SG tubes are inspected such
Basis for proposed no significant the safety analysis are protected. The that the probability of [an] SGTR is not
hazards consideration determination: proposed change does not adversely affect increased. The consequences of [an] SGTR
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the any current plant safety margins or the are bounded by the conservative assumptions
licensee has provided its analysis of the reliability of the equipment assumed in the in the design basis accident analysis. The
issue of no significant hazards safety analysis. Therefore, there are no proposed change will not cause the
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:12 Jun 08, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00107 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\09JNN1.SGM 09JNN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_32734/page/7.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 110 / Tuesday, June 9, 2015 / Notices 32631
consequences of [an] SGTR to exceed those III. Notice of Issuance of Amendments Date of issuance: May 18, 2015.
assumptions. to Facility Operating Licenses and Effective date: As of the date of
Therefore, it is concluded that this change Combined Licenses issuance and shall be implemented
does not involve a significant increase in the within 60 days from the date of
During the period since publication of
probability or consequences of an accident issuance.
the last biweekly notice, the
previously evaluated. Amendment No.: 319. A publicly-
2. Does the proposed change create the
Commission has issued the following
amendments. The Commission has available version is in ADAMS under
possibility of a new or different kind of Accession No. ML15093A441;
accident from any accident previously determined for each of these
amendments that the application documents related to this amendment
evaluated? are listed in the Safety Evaluation
Response: No. complies with the standards and
requirements of the Atomic Energy Act enclosed with the amendment.
The proposed changes to the Steam Renewed Facility Operating License
Generator Program will not introduce any of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the
Commission’s rules and regulations. No. DPR–65: Amendment revised the
adverse changes to the plant design basis or
The Commission has made appropriate Renewed Facility Operating License and
postulated accidents resulting from potential
findings as required by the Act and the TSs.
tube degradation. The proposed change does
Commission’s rules and regulations in Date of initial notice in Federal
not affect the design of the SGs or their
10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in Register: November 25, 2014 (79 FR
method of operation. In addition, the
proposed change does not impact any other the license amendment. 70212).
plant system or component. A notice of consideration of issuance The Commission’s related evaluation
Therefore, it is concluded that this change of amendment to facility operating of the amendment is contained in a
does not create the possibility of a new or license or combined license, as Safety Evaluation dated May 18, 2015.
different kind of accident from any accident applicable, proposed no significant No significant hazards consideration
previously evaluated. hazards consideration determination, comments received: No.
3. Does the proposed change involve a and opportunity for a hearing in Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc.,
significant reduction in a margin of safety? connection with these actions, was Docket No. 50–336, Millstone Power
Response: No. published in the Federal Register as Station, Unit 2, New London County,
The SG tubes in pressurized water reactors indicated. Connecticut
are an integral part of the reactor coolant Unless otherwise indicated, the
pressure boundary and, as such, are relied Commission has determined that these Date of amendment request: March
upon to maintain the primary system’s amendments satisfy the criteria for 28, 2014.
pressure and inventory. As part of the reactor categorical exclusion in accordance Brief description of amendment: The
coolant pressure boundary, the SG tubes are with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant proposed amendment deletes the
unique in that they are also relied upon as to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental Technical Specification (TS) Index and
a heat transfer surface between the primary impact statement or environmental makes several other editorial, corrective
and secondary systems such that residual assessment need be prepared for these and minor changes to the TSs.
heat can be removed from the primary amendments. If the Commission has Date of issuance: May 20, 2015.
system. In addition, the SG tubes also isolate prepared an environmental assessment Effective date: As of the date of
the radioactive fission products in the under the special circumstances issuance and shall be implemented
primary coolant from the secondary system. provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has within 30 days from the date of
These safety functions are maintained by issuance.
made a determination based on that
ensuring integrity of the SG tubes. Amendment No.: 320. A publicly-
assessment, it is so indicated.
Steam generator tube integrity is a function For further details with respect to the available version is in ADAMS under
of the design, environment, and the physical Accession No. ML14093A027;
action see (1) the applications for
condition of the tube. The proposed change documents related to this amendment
amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3)
does not affect tube design or operating are listed in the Safety Evaluation
the Commission’s related letter, Safety
environment. The proposed change will enclosed with the amendment.
continue to require monitoring of the
Evaluation and/or Environmental
Assessment as indicated. All of these Renewed Facility Operating License
physical condition of the SG tubes such that No. DPR–65: Amendment revised the
there will not be a reduction in the margin items can be accessed as described in
the ‘‘Obtaining Information and Renewed Operating License and TSs.
of safety compared to the current
Submitting Comments’’ section of this Date of initial notice in Federal
requirements.
document. Register: November 25, 2014 (79 FR
Therefore, it is concluded that the
70212).
proposed change does not involve a Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc.,
significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The Commission’s related evaluation
Docket No. 50–336, Millstone Power of the amendment is contained in a
Station, Unit 2 (MPS2), New London Safety Evaluation dated May 20, 2015.
The NRC staff has reviewed the
County, Connecticut No significant hazards consideration
licensee’ analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three Date of amendment request: April 11, comments received: No.
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 2014.
Brief description of amendment: The Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc.,
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff Docket No. 50–423, Millstone Power
proposes to determine that the amendment revised the Technical
Specifications (TSs), adding topical Station, Unit 3, New London County,
amendment request involves no Connecticut
significant hazards consideration. report BAW–10240(P)(A),
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
‘‘Incorporation of M5TM Properties in Date of amendment request: March
Attorney for licensee: John O’Neill, Framatome ANP Approved Methods,’’ 28, 2014.
Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman to the referenced analytical methods in Brief description of amendment: The
LLP, 2300 N Street, NW., Washington, TS 6.9.1.8.b, ‘‘Core Operating Limits amendment deleted the Technical
DC 20037. Report,’’ as an acceptable method used Specification (TS) index and made other
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. to determine core operating limits for editorial, corrective, and minor changes
Markley. MPS2. to the TSs.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:12 Jun 08, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00108 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\09JNN1.SGM 09JNN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_32734/page/8.svg)
![32632 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 110 / Tuesday, June 9, 2015 / Notices
Date of issuance: May 20, 2015. Duke Energy Progress, Inc., Docket No. Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.,
Effective date: As of the date of 50–261, H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Docket No. 50–255, Palisades Nuclear
issuance and shall be implemented Plant Unit 2, Hartsville, South Carolina Plant (PNP), Van Buren County,
within 30 days from the date of Date of amendment request: June 20, Michigan
issuance. 2014. Date of application for amendment:
Amendment No.: 261. A publicly- Brief description of amendment: The June 11, 2014.
available version is in ADAMS under amendment revised Technical Brief description of amendment: The
Accession No. ML15098A034; Specification (TS) 5.5.9 for the Steam amendment modified PNP technical
documents related to this amendment Generator Program accident-induced specifications (TSs) to adopt the
are listed in the Safety Evaluation leakage rate value for any design-basis changes described in TS Task Force
enclosed with the amendment. accident, other than a steam generator (TSTF) traveler TSTF–426, Revision 5,
Renewed Facility Operating License tube rupture. ‘‘Revise or Add Actions to Preclude
No. NPF–49: Amendment revised the Date of issuance: May 26, 2015. Entry into [Limiting Condition for
Renewed Operating License and TSs. Effective date: As of the date of Operation (LCO)] 3.0.3—[Risk-Informed
issuance and shall be implemented TSTF (RITSTF)] Initiatives 6b and 6c’’
Date of initial notice in Federal
within 120 days of issuance. (ADAMS Accession No. ML113260461).
Register: November 25, 2014 (79 FR Amendment No.: 240. A publicly-
70213). Date of issuance: May 18, 2015.
available version is in ADAMS under Effective date: As of the date of
The Commission’s related evaluation Accession No. ML15062A343; issuance and shall be implemented
of the amendment is contained in a documents related to this amendment within 90 days.
Safety Evaluation dated May 20, 2015. are listed in the Safety Evaluation (SE) Amendment No.: 256. A publicly-
No significant hazards consideration enclosed with the amendment. available version is in ADAMS under
comments received: No. Renewed Facility Operating License Accession No. ML15103A059;
Duke Energy Progress, Inc., Docket No. No. DPR–23: Amendment revised the documents related to this amendment
50–261, H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Facility Operating License and TSs. are listed in the Safety Evaluation
Date of initial notice in Federal enclosed with the amendment.
Plant Unit 2, Darlington County, South
Register: September 16, 2014 (79 FR Renewed Facility Operating License
Carolina
55510). No. DPR–20: Amendment revised the
Date of application for amendment: The Commission’s related evaluation Renewed Facility Operating License and
June 7, 2013, as supplemented by letter of the amendment is contained in an SE Technical Specifications
dated July 24, 2014. dated May 26, 2015. Date of initial notice in Federal
Brief description of amendment: The No significant hazards consideration
Register: September 2, 2014 (79 FR
amendment revised the Technical comments received: No.
52062).
Specifications (TSs) by deleting Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., The Commission’s related evaluation
Surveillance Requirements (SRs) 3.1.7.1, Docket Nos. 50–247 and 50–286, Indian of the amendment is contained in a
3.1.7.2, and 3.1.7.3 of TS 3.1.7, ‘‘Rod Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3, Safety Evaluation dated May 18, 2015.
Position Indication,’’ and renumbering Westchester County, New York No significant hazards consideration
SR 3.1.7.4 as SR 3.1.7.1. comments received: No.
Date of amendment request: April 1,
Date of issuance: May 27, 2015. 2014. Exelon Generation Company, LLC
Effective date: As of the date of Brief description of amendments: The (EGC), Docket No. 50–410, Nine Mile
issuance and shall be implemented amendments revised the technical Point Nuclear Station, Unit 2, Oswego
within 120 days of issuance. specifications (TSs) by implementing County, New York
Amendment No.: 241. A publicly- Technical Specification Task Force
available version is in ADAMS under Technical Change Traveler 510, Date of amendment request:
Accession No. ML15068A386; Revision 2, ‘‘Revision to Steam November 17, 2014, as supplemented by
documents related to this amendment Generator Program Inspection letter dated March 20, 2015.
are listed in the Safety Evaluation (SE) Frequencies and Tube Sample Brief description of amendment: The
enclosed with the amendment. Selection.’’ amendment revised the Nine Mile Point
Date of issuance: May 26, 2015. Nuclear Station, Unit 2, Technical
Renewed Facility Operating License Specification (TS) Allowable Value for
No. DPR–23: Amendment revised the Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented the Main Steam Line Tunnel Lead
Facility Operating License and TSs. Enclosure Temperature-High
Date of initial notice in Federal within 30 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 281 and 257. A instrumentation from an ambient
Register: August 20, 2013 (78 FR temperature dependent (variable
publicly-available version is in ADAMS
51222). The supplemental letter dated setpoint) to ambient temperature
under Accession No. ML15110A009;
July 24, 2014, provided additional independent (constant Allowable
documents related to these amendments
information that clarified the Value). The changes deleted
are listed in the safety evaluation (SE)
application, did not expand the scope of Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.3.6.1.2
enclosed with the amendments.
the application as originally noticed, and revise the Allowable Value for
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR–
and did not change the staff’s original Function 1.g on Table 3.3.6.1–1,
26 and DPR–64: Amendments revised
proposed no significant hazards ‘‘Primary Containment Isolation
the facility operating license and TSs.
consideration determination as
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Date of initial notice in Federal Instrumentation.’’
published in the Federal Register. Register: July 8, 2014 (79 FR 38588). Date of issuance: May 26, 2015.
The Commission’s related evaluation The Commission’s related evaluation Effective date: As of the date of
of the amendment is contained in a SE of the amendment is contained in an SE issuance and shall be implemented
dated May 27, 2015. dated May 26, 2015. within 60 days of issuance.
No significant hazards consideration No significant hazards consideration Amendment No.: 147. A publicly-
comments received: No. comments received: No. available version is in ADAMS under
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:12 Jun 08, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00109 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\09JNN1.SGM 09JNN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_32734/page/9.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 110 / Tuesday, June 9, 2015 / Notices 32633
Accession No. ML15110A008; FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating 142 that revised the TSs related to spent
documents the Safety Evaluation related Company, Docket No. 50–440, Perry fuel storage as a result of new criticality
to this amendment enclosed with the Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, Lake analyses for the SFP.
amendment. County, Ohio Date of issuance: May 18, 2015.
Effective date: As of its date of
Renewed Facility Operating License Date of application for amendment:
issuance, and shall be implemented
No. NPF–69: Amendment revised the December 6, 2013, as supplemented by
within 60 days.
Renewed Facility Operating License and letters dated February 27, July 22, Amendment No.: 148. A publicly-
TSs. October 8, 2014, and February 4, 2015. available version is in ADAMS under
Date of initial notice in Federal Brief description of amendment: The Accession No. ML15118A632;
Register: March 3, 2015 (80 FR 11476). amendment revises the Updated Safety documents related to this amendment
The supplemental letter dated March Analyses Report (USAR) to reflect are listed in the Safety Evaluation
20, 2015, provided additional updated radiological dose calculations enclosed with the amendment.
information that clarified the based upon using an alternative source Facility Operating License No. NPF–
application, did not expand the scope of term methodology for the applicable 86: Amendment revised the Facility
the application as originally noticed, design bases events and to revise the Operating License and Technical
and did not change the staff’s original technical specification (TS) definition of Specifications.
proposed no significant hazards DOSE EQUIVALENT IODINE–131. Date of initial notice in Federal
consideration determination as Date of issuance: March 30, 2015. Register: August 14, 2012 (77 FR
published in the Federal Register. Effective date: As of the date of 48559). The supplemental letters dated
issuance and shall be implemented September 20, 2012, March 27, 2013,
The Commission’s related evaluation within 30 days.
of the amendment is contained in a December 20, 2013, January 29, 2014,
Amendment No.: 166. A publicly- March 13, 2014, and February 25, 2015,
Safety Evaluation dated May 26, 2015. available version is in ADAMS under provided additional information that
No significant hazards consideration Accession No. ML15075A139; clarified the application, did not expand
comments received: No. documents related to this amendment the scope of the application as originally
are listed in the Safety Evaluation noticed, and did not change the staff’s
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating enclosed with the amendment.
Company, et al., Docket No. 50–412, original proposed no significant hazards
Facility Operating License No. NPF– consideration determination as
Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 2, 58: This amendment revised the TSs
(BVPS–2) Beaver County, Pennsylvania published in the Federal Register.
and License. The Commission’s related evaluation
Date of amendment request: June 2, Date of initial notice in Federal of the amendment is contained in a
2014, as supplemented by letter dated Register: April 15, 2014 (79 FR 21298). Safety Evaluation dated May 18, 2015.
August 8, 2014. The July 22, October 8, 2014, and No significant hazards consideration
February 4, 2015, supplements comments received: No.
Description of amendment request: contained clarifying information and
The amendment changes the BVPS–2 did not change the NRC staff’s initial Northern States Power Company—
technical specifications (TS). proposed finding of no significant Minnesota, Docket Nos. 50–282 and 50–
Specifically, the amendment revised TS hazards condition. 306, Prairie Island Nuclear Generating
4.3.2, ‘‘Drainage,’’ to correct the The Commission’s related evaluation Plant, Units 1 and 2, Goodhue County,
minimum drain elevation for the spent of the amendment is contained in a Minnesota
fuel storage pool specified in the TS. In Safety Evaluation dated March 30, 2015. Date of amendment request: June 9,
accordance with Title 10 of the Code of No significant hazards consideration 2014, as supplemented by letter dated
Federal Regulations, Part 50, Appendix comments received: No. December 17, 2014.
B, Section XVI, ‘‘Corrective Action,’’ the Brief description of amendment: The
amendment was required to resolve a NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC, Docket
No. 50–443, Seabrook Station, Unit 1, amendments revised Technical
TS discrepancy regarding an existing Specification (TS) 3.8.1, ‘‘AC
plant design feature. Rockingham County, New Hampshire
[Alternating Current] Source—
Date of Issuance: May 20, 2015. Date of amendment request: January Operating,’’ to revise the emergency
Effective date: As of the date of 30, 2012, as supplemented by letters diesel generator steady-state voltage and
issuance and shall be implemented dated May 10, 2012, September 20, frequency limits specified in
within 90 days of issuance. 2012, March 27, 2013, December 20, Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.8.1.2,
2013, January 29, 2014, March 13, 2014, SR 3.8.1.6, and SR 3.8.1.9.
Amendment No.: 181. A publicly and February 25, 2015. Date of issuance: May 21, 2015.
available version is in ADAMS under Description of amendment request: Effective date: As of the date of
Accession No. ML15086A251. The original application proposed issuance and shall be implemented
Facility Operating License No. NPF– revisions to the technical specifications within 90 days of issuance.
73: Amendment revised the Facility (TSs) for new and spent fuel storage as Amendment Nos.: Unit 1—214; Unit
Operating License and Technical a result of the new criticality analyses 2—202. A publicly-available version is
Specifications. for the new fuel vault (NFV) and spent in ADAMS under Accession No.
Date of initial notice in Federal fuel pool (SFP). By letter dated ML15086A046; documents related to
Register: September 30, 2014 (79 FR December 20, 2013 (ADAMS Accession these amendments are listed in the
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
58816). No. ML13360A045), NextEra requested Safety Evaluation enclosed with the
that the SFP and NFV be separated into amendments.
The Commission’s related evaluation two separate license amendment Renewed Facility Operating License
of the amendment is contained in a requests. This amendment revised the Nos. DPR–42 and DPR–60: These
Safety Evaluation dated May 20, 2015. TSs related to the NFV. On September amendments revised the Renewed
No significant hazards consideration 3, 2014, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Facility Operating License and the
comments received: No. Commission issued Amendment No. Technical Specifications.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:12 Jun 08, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00110 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\09JNN1.SGM 09JNN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_32734/page/10.svg)
![32634 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 110 / Tuesday, June 9, 2015 / Notices
Date of initial notice in Federal correct initial submittal date of February for an inoperable control rod position
Register: August 5, 2014 (79 FR 45479). 20, 2013. indicator. Specifically, the proposed
The supplement dated December 17, The Commission’s related evaluation changes would allow monitoring of
2014, provided additional information of the amendments is contained in a control rod drive mechanism stationary
that clarified the application, did not Safety Evaluation dated May 20, 2015. gripper coil voltage every eight hours as
expand the scope of the application as No significant hazards consideration an alternative to using the movable in
originally noticed, and did not change comments received: No. core detectors every eight hours to
the staff’s original proposed no South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, verify control rod position.
significant hazards consideration Docket Nos. 52–027 and 52–028, Virgil Date of issuance: May 14, 2015.
determination as published in the C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and Effective date: As of the date of
Federal Register. 3, Fairfield County, South Carolina issuance and shall be implemented
The Commission’s related evaluation within 30 days from the date of
of the amendments is contained in a Date of amendment request: February
issuance.
Safety Evaluation dated May 21, 2015. 27, 2014, and supplemented by letter
dated August 21, 2014. Amendment Nos.: 273 and 255. A
No significant hazards consideration publicly-available version is in ADAMS
comments received: No. Description of amendment: The
amendment revises the Updated Final under Accession No. ML15083A436.
Northern States Power Company— Safety Analysis Report in regard to Tier Documents related to the amendments
Minnesota, Docket Nos. 50–282 and 50– 2 and Tier 2* information related to the are listed in the Safety Evaluation
306, Prairie Island Nuclear Generating CA03 structural module, which is the enclosed with the amendments.
Plant, Units 1 and 2, Goodhue County, in-containment refueling water storage Renewed Facility Operating License
Minnesota tank (IRWST) west wall. The changes Nos. NPF–4 and NPF–7: Amendments
sought to clarify the materials used in changed the licenses and Technical
Date of amendment requests: Specification.
February 20, 2013, as supplemented by fabrication of the module, as well as the
letters dated June 25, 2013; September design details related to the horizontal Date of initial notice in Federal
15, 2014; and February 26, 2015. stiffeners used to support the IRWST, Register: March 3, 2015 (80 FR 11488).
Brief description of amendments: The and module legs used to anchor the The Commission’s related evaluation
amendments revised Technical module in place. of the amendments is contained in a
Specification (TS) 3.5.3, ‘‘ECCS Date of issuance: April 17, 2015. Safety Evaluation dated May 14, 2015.
Effective date: As of the date of No significant hazards consideration
[Emergency Core Cooling Systems]—
issuance and shall be implemented comments received: No.
Shutdown,’’ to remove Note 1 and
within 90 days of issuance.
change the Mode Applicability to ZionSolutions, LLC, Docket Nos. 50–295
Amendment No.: 25. A publicly-
eliminate the potential for non- and 50–304, Zion Nuclear Power
available version is in ADAMS under
conservative plant operation. Station, Units 1 and 2, Lake County,
Accession No. ML15029A419;
Date of issuance: May 20, 2015. Illinois
documents related to this amendment
Effective date: As of the date of are listed in the Safety Evaluation
issuance and shall be implemented Date of application for amendment:
enclosed with the amendment. May 27, 2014, as supplemented by letter
within 90 days of issuance. Facility Combined Licenses No. NPF–
Amendment Nos.: Unit 1—213; Unit dated November 6, 2014.
93 and NPF–94: Amendment revised the Brief description of amendment: This
2—201. A publicly-available version is Facility Combined Licenses.
in ADAMS under Accession No. amendment revises the Zion Nuclear
Date of initial notice in Federal
ML15062A013; documents related to Power Station Licenses to approve the
Register: April 29, 2014 (79 FR 24024).
these amendments are listed in the revised Emergency Plan.
The supplemental letter dated August
Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 21, 2014, provided additional Date of issuance: May 14, 2015.
amendments. information that clarified the Effective date: As of the date of
Renewed Facility Operating License application, did not expand the scope of issuance and shall be implemented
Nos. DPR–42 and DPR–60: These the application as originally noticed, within 60 days.
amendments revised the Renewed and did not change the staff’s original Amendment Nos.: 189 and 176.
Facility Operating License and the proposed no significant hazards Facility Operating License Nos. NPF–
Technical Specifications. consideration determination as 39 and NPF–48: These amendments
Date of initial notice in Federal published in the Federal Register. revise the Licenses.
Register: August 20, 2013 (78 FR The Commission’s related evaluation Date of initial notice in Federal
51229). The supplement dated of the amendment is contained in the Register: July 22, 2014, (79 FR 42553).
September 15, 2014, provided Safety Evaluation dated April 17, 2015. The Commission’s related evaluation
additional information that clarified the No significant hazards consideration of the amendment is contained in a
application, did not expand the scope of comments received: No. Safety Evaluation dated May 14, 2015.
the application as originally noticed,
Virginia Electric and Power Company, No significant hazards consideration
and did not change the staff’s original
Docket Nos. 50–338 and 50–339, North comments received: No.
proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination as Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 1st day
published in the Federal Register. The Louisa County, Virginia of June 2015.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Commission issued a revised no Date of amendment request: February For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
significant hazards consideration on 4, 2015. A. Louise Lund,
March 17, 2015 (80 FR 13910), to Brief description of amendment: The Acting Director, Division of Operating Reactor
consider the aspects of the proposed license amendments approve changes to Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Mode Applicability change in the the Technical Specification (TS) TS Regulation.
February 26, 2015, supplemental letter. 3.1.7, ‘‘Rod Position Indication,’’ to [FR Doc. 2015–13815 Filed 6–8–15; 8:45 am]
The revised notice also included the provide an additional monitoring option BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:12 Jun 08, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00111 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\09JNN1.SGM 09JNN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_32734/page/11.svg)
Document Created: 2015-12-15 15:25:26
Document Modified: 2015-12-15 15:25:26
| 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 July 9, 2015. A request for a hearing must be filed by August 10, 2015. | |
| Contact | Shirley Rohrer, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-5411, email: [email protected] | |
| FR Citation | 80 FR 32624 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR