80 FR 35978 - 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 120 (June 23, 2015)

Page Range		35978-35990
FR Document		2015-15275

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 28, 2015, to June 10, 2015. The last biweekly notice was published on June 9, 2015.

Federal Register, Volume 80 Issue 120 (Tuesday, June 23, 2015)

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 120 (Tuesday, June 23, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35978-35990]
From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2015-15275]

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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2015-0155]

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 28, 2015, to June 10, 2015. The last
biweekly notice was published on June 9, 2015.

DATES: Comments must be filed by July 23, 2015. A request for a hearing
must be filed by August 24, 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-2015-0155. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-
3463; email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For technical questions, contact
the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this document.
Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Office of Administration,
Mail Stop: OWFN-12-H08, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555-0001.
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting
comments, see ``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments

A. Obtaining Information

Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0155 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-2015-0155.
NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the
ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select ``ADAMS Public Documents'' and
then select ``Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.'' For problems with ADAMS,
please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at
1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The
ADAMS accession number for each document referenced (if it is available
in ADAMS) is provided the first time that it is mentioned in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.
NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

B. Submitting Comments

Please include Docket ID NRC-2015-0155, facility name, unit
number(s), application date, and subject in your comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact
information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your
comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into
ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove
identifying or contact information.
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons
for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to
include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be
publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should
state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to
remove such information before making the comment submissions available
to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.

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

The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under
the Commission's regulations in Sec. 50.92 of Title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (10 CFR), this means that operation of the facility
in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated, or (2) create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or
(3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis
for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown
below.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final
determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The
Commission may issue the license

[[Page 35979]]

amendment before expiration of the 60-day period provided that its
final determination is that the amendment involves no significant
hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the
amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period should
circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure
to act in a timely way would result, for example in derating or
shutdown of the facility. Should the Commission take action prior to
the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it
will publish in the Federal Register a notice of issuance. Should the
Commission make a final No Significant Hazards Consideration
Determination, any hearing will take place after issuance. The
Commission expects that the need to take this action will occur very
infrequently.

A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing and Petition for Leave To Intervene

Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any
person(s) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a
request for a hearing and a petition to intervene with respect to
issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license or
combined license. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to
intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's ``Agency
Rules of Practice and Procedure'' in 10 CFR Part 2. Interested
person(s) should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is
available at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room O1-
F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. The
NRC's regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on
the NRC's Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is
filed by the above date, the Commission or a presiding officer
designated by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of
the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request
and/or petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of
the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing
or an appropriate order.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the
following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone
number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the
proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's
property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the
proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must
also identify the specific contentions which the requestor/petitioner
seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the
requestor/petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for
the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert
opinion which support the contention and on which the requestor/
petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing.
The requestor/petitioner must also provide references to those specific
sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the
requestor/petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert
opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that
a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law
or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of
the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if
proven, would entitle the requestor/petitioner to relief. A requestor/
petitioner who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at
least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding,
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene,
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the
hearing.
If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The
final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If
the final determination is that the amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the
amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the
request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance
of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment
request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing
held would take place before the issuance of any amendment unless the
Commission finds an imminent danger to the health or safety of the
public, in which case it will issue an appropriate order or rule under
10 CFR part 2.

B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)

All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a
request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or
other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a
request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by
interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c),
must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139;
August 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit
and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some
cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not
submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in
accordance with the procedures described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least
ten (10) days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should
contact the Office of the Secretary by email at hearing.docket@nrc.gov,
or by telephone at 301-415-1677, to request (1) a digital
identification (ID) certificate, which allows the participant (or its
counsel or representative) to digitally sign documents and access the
E-Submittal server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and
(2) advise the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a
request or petition for hearing (even in instances in which the
participant, or its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-
issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the
Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the hearing in this
proceeding if the Secretary has not already established an electronic
docket.
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is
available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/getting-started.html. System requirements for accessing
the E-Submittal server are detailed in the NRC's ``Guidance for
Electronic Submission,'' which is available on the agency's public Web
site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants
may attempt to use other software not listed on the Web site, but
should note that the NRC's E-Filing system does not support

[[Page 35980]]

unlisted software, and the NRC Meta System Help Desk will not be able
to offer assistance in using unlisted software.
If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC
in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the
document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to
serve documents through the Electronic Information Exchange System,
users will be required to install a Web browser plug-in from the NRC's
Web site. Further information on the Web-based submission form,
including the installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on
the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html.
Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a
docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for
hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in
Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance
available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the time the
documents are submitted through the NRC's E -Filing system. To be
timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system
no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of
a transmission, the E -Filing system time-stamps the document and sends
the submitter an email notice confirming receipt of the document. The
E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access
to the document to the NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any
others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to
participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the
documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and
other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for
and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing request/petition
to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access to the document
via the E-Filing system.
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-
Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System
Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC's public
Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by email to
MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-7640. The
NRC Meta System Help Desk is available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m.,
Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays.
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not
submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in
accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing
requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper
format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention:
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or
expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth
Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff.
Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for
serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered
complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or
by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing
the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer,
having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a
participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer
subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from
use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
http://ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the
Commission, or the presiding officer. Participants are requested not to
include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers,
home addresses, or home phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC
regulation or other law requires submission of such information.
However, in some instances, a request to intervene will require
including information on local residence in order to demonstrate a
proximity assertion of interest in the proceeding. With respect to
copyrighted works, except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose
of the adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use
application, participants are requested not to include copyrighted
materials in their submission.
Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60
days from the date of publication of this notice. Requests for hearing,
petitions for leave to intervene, and motions for leave to file new or
amended contentions that are filed after the 60-day deadline will not
be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the
filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10
CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(iii).
For further details with respect to these license amendment
applications, see the application for amendment which is available for
public inspection in ADAMS and at the NRC's PDR. For additional
direction on accessing information related to this document, see the
``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' section of this
document.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414, Catawba
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 (CNS), York County, South Carolina
Date of amendment request: April 30, 2015. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15125A149.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would
modify the Emergency Action Levels for the CNS based on Nuclear Energy
Institute (NEI) 99-01, Revision 6, ``Development of Emergency Action
Levels for Non-Passive Reactors.''
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.
These changes affect the CNS Emergency Plan and do not alter any
of the requirements of the Operating License or the Technical
Specifications. The proposed changes do not modify any plant
equipment and do not impact any failure modes that could lead to an
accident. Additionally, the proposed changes do not impact the
consequence of any analyzed accident since the changes do not affect
any equipment related to accident mitigation. Based on this
discussion, the proposed amendment does not increase the probability
or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
These changes affect the CNS Emergency Plan and do no alter any
of the requirements of the Operating License or the Technical
Specifications. They do not modify any plant equipment and there is
no impact on the capability of the existing equipment to perform
their intended functions. No system setpoints are being modified and
no changes are being made to the method in which plant

[[Page 35981]]

operations are conducted. No new failure modes are introduced by the
proposed changes. The proposed amendment does not introduce accident
initiators or malfunctions that would cause a new or different kind
of accident.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in the margin of safety?
Response: No.
These changes affect the CNS Emergency Plan and do not alter any
of the requirements of the Operating License or the Technical
Specifications. The proposed changes do not affect any of the
assumptions used in the accident analysis, not do they affect any
operability requirements for equipment important to plant safety.
Therefore, the proposed changes will not result in a significant
reduction in the margin of safety as defined in the bases for
technical specifications covered in this license amendment request.

1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises 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 [an] 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 [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 amendment 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 of
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 amendment 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 [an]
SG is maintained by ensuring the integrity of its tubes.
[SG] 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'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.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370, McGuire
Nuclear Station (MNS), Units 1 and 2, Mecklenburg County, North
Carolina
Date of amendment request: May 7, 2015. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15141A047.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would
modify the Emergency Action Levels for the MNS based on Nuclear Energy
Institute (NEI) 99-01, Revision 6, ``Development of Emergency Action
Levels for Non-Passive Reactors.''
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.
These changes affect the MNS Emergency Plan and do not alter any
of the requirements of the Operating License or the Technical
Specifications. The proposed changes do not modify any plant
equipment and do not impact any failure modes that could lead to an
accident. Additionally, the proposed changes do not impact the
consequence of any analyzed accident since the changes do not affect
any equipment related to accident mitigation. Based on this
discussion, the proposed amendment does not increase the probability
or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
These changes affect the MNS Emergency Plan and do not any of
the requirements of the Operating License or the Technical
Specifications. They do not modify any plant equipment and there is
no impact on the capability of the existing equipment to perform its
intended functions. No system setpoints are being modified and no
changes

[[Page 35982]]

are being made to the method in which plant operations are
conducted. No new failure modes are introduced by the proposed
changes. The proposed amendment does not introduce accident
initiators or malfunctions that would cause a new or different kind
of accident.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in the margin of safety?
Response: No.
These changes affect the MNS Emergency Plan and do not alter any
of the requirements of the Operating License or the Technical
Specifications. The proposed changes do not affect any of the
assumptions used in the accident analysis, nor do they affect any
operability requirements for equipment important to plant safety.
Therefore, the proposed changes will not result in a significant
reduction in the margin of safety as defined in the bases for
technical specifications covered in this license amendment request.

1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change to the CSP Implementation Schedule is
administrative in nature. This change does not alter accident
analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the function of
plant systems or the manner in which systems are operated,
maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed change does
not require any plant modifications which affect the performance
capability of the structures, systems, and components relied upon to
mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents and has no impact
on the probability or consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change to the CSP Implementation Schedule is
administrative in nature. This proposed change does not alter
accident analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the
function of plant systems or the manner in which systems are
operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed
change does not require any plant modifications which affect the
performance capability of the structures, systems, and components
relied upon to mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents and
does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously evaluated.
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.
Plant safety margins are established through limiting conditions
for operation, limiting safety system settings, and safety limits
specified in the technical specifications. The proposed change to
the CSP Implementation Schedule is administrative in nature. In
addition, the milestone date delay for full implementation of the
CSP has no substantive impact because other measures have been taken
which provide adequate protection during this period of time.
Because there is no change to established safety margins as a result
of this change, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
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: Joseph A. Aluise, Associate General
Counsel--Nuclear, Entergy Services, Inc., 639 Loyola Avenue, New
Orleans, Louisiana 70113.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-
364, Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Houston County,
Alabama
Date of amendment request: May 12, 2015. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15132A722.
Description of amendment request: The proposed change revises and
adds Surveillance Requirements to verify that the system locations
susceptible to gas accumulation are sufficiently filled with water and
to provide allowances that permit performance of the verification. The
licensee stated that the proposed amendment is consistent with
Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF)-523, Revision 2, ``Generic
Letter 2008-01, Managing Gas Accumulation.''
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:

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 [and] 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 which permit performance
of the revised verification. Gas accumulation in the subject systems
is not an initiator of any accident previously evaluated. As a
result, the probability of any accident previously evaluated is not
significantly increased. The proposed SRs ensure that the subject
systems continue to be capable to perform their assumed safety
function and are not rendered inoperable due to gas accumulation.
Thus, the consequences of any accident previously evaluated are not
significantly increased.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
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 [and] 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

[[Page 35983]]

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 [and] 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: Leigh D. Perry, SVP & General Counsel of
Operations and Nuclear, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 40 Iverness
Center Parkway, Birmingham, AL 35201.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket No. 50-424, Vogtle
Electric Generating Plant, Unit 1 (VEGP), Burke County, Georgia
Date of amendment request: June 4, 2015. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15155B593.
Description of amendment request: The licensee proposes to modify
the VEGP Technical Specifications to provide a one-time change to
Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) 3.5.2, ``ECCS [Emergency Core
Cooling System]--Operating.'' This LCO requires that two ECCS trains be
OPERABLE in Modes 1, 2, or 3. An ECCS train consists of a centrifugal
charging system, a safety injection (SI) system, and a residual heat
removal (RHR) system. Condition 3.5.2.A requires that, if one of the
required trains is inoperable, and that 100 percent of the ECCS flow
equivalent to a single OPERABLE ECCS train is available, then the
inoperable train must be restored to OPERABLE status in 72 hours.
Otherwise, the reactor must be taken to Mode 3 in 6 hours and to Mode 4
in 12 hours.
The proposed amendment revises the Completion Time (CT) for
Condition 3.5.2.A from 72 hours to 7 days to allow for replacement of
the train 1A RHR pump motor. This change will be applicable only one
time on VEGP prior to the Cycle 19 shutdown.
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 emergency core cooling systems (ECCS), including the
Residual Heat Removal system, are designed for the mitigation of
design basis accidents or transients, such as a Loss of Coolant
Accident (LOCA).
They are not designed, nor do they serve, for the prevention of
those events. Consequently, the proposed amendment does not increase
the probability of a previously evaluated accident occurring.
Should an accident occur during the period of time that the RHR
pump is out of service, the remaining ECCS components would serve to
provide the minimum amount of flow assumed in the accident analyses.
Even assuming failure of a charging pump or an SI system on either
of the trains, sufficient ECCS flow would still be provided to the
reactor vessel to mitigate the consequences of the event.
Furthermore, a risk informed analysis performed in support of this
amendment request demonstrates that the consequences of an accident
are not significantly increased. As such, the proposed change does
not involve a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of a previously evaluated accident.
Also, appropriate compensatory measures will be implemented
during the time of the extended Completion Time for the RHR pumps.
These actions are intended to decrease the chances of an initiating
event occurring during the time of the extended CT and also to
minimize the chances of losing any ECCS components.
For the above reasons, the proposed changes will not result in 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.
Replacement of the 1A RHR pump motor for the extended Completion
Time period does not introduce any new or unanalyzed modes of
operation. The replacement of the pump motor does not involve any
unanalyzed modifications to the design or operational limits of the
RHR system. Therefore, no new failure modes or accident precursors
are created due to the motor replacement during the extended
Completion Time.
For the reasons noted above, the proposed change will not create
the possibility of a new or different accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The margin of safety is related to the ability of the fission
product barriers to perform their design functions during and
following an accident situation. These barriers include the fuel
cladding, the reactor coolant system, and the containment. The
performance of these fission product barriers will not be
significantly affected by the proposed change. The risk implications
of this amendment request were evaluated and found to be acceptable.
During the extended Completion Time for the 1A RHR pump, the
ECCS will remain capable of providing adequate flow to the reactor
vessel to mitigate the consequences of a design basis event such as
LOCA. Also, compensatory actions will be put in place to minimize
the probability of an initiating event during the extended CT period
as well as to minimize the chances of a loss of one of the remaining
ECCSs. A risk informed analysis has also been performed which shows
that the incremental plant risk has increased by an acceptable
amount.
For the reasons noted above, there is no significant reduction
in a margin of safety.

[[Page 35984]]

Description of amendment request: The licensee proposes to modify
the VEGP Technical Specifications to incorporate risk-informed
requirements for selected Required Action end states. Specifically, the
proposed change would permit a Required Action end state of Mode 4
rather than an end state of Mode 5. The licensee states that the
proposed changes are consistent with Technical Specification Task Force
(TSTF) Technical Change Traveler 432-A, Revision 1.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:

1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change modifies the end state (e.g., mode or other
specified condition) which the Required Actions specify must be
entered if compliance with the Limiting Conditions for Operation
(LCO) is not restored. The requested Technical Specifications (TS)
permit an end state of Mode 4 rather than an end state of Mode 5
contained in the current TS. In some cases, other Conditions and
Required Actions are revised to implement the proposed change.
Required Actions are not an initiator of any accident previously
evaluated. Therefore, the proposed change does not affect the
probability of any accident previously evaluated. The affected
systems continue to be required to be operable by the TS and the
Completion Times specified in the TS to restore equipment to
operable status or take other remedial Actions remain unchanged.
WCAP-16294-NP-A, Rev. 1, ``Risk-Informed Evaluation of Changes
to [Technical Specification] Required Action Endstates for
Westinghouse NSSS PWRs [nuclear steam supply system pressurized-
water reactors],'' demonstrates that the proposed change does not
significantly increase the consequences of any accident previously
evaluated. [WCAP-16294-NP-A, Rev. 1 is publicly available in ADAMS
at Accession No. ML103430249.]
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change modifies the end state (e.g., mode or other
specified condition) which the Required Actions specify must be
entered if compliance with the LCO is not restored. In some cases,
other Conditions and Required Actions are revised to implement the
proposed change. The change does not involve a physical alteration
of the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be
installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant
operation. In addition, the change does not impose any new
requirements. The change does not alter assumptions made in the
safety analysis.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change modifies the end state (e.g., mode or other
specified condition) which the Required Actions specify must be
entered if compliance with the LCO is not restored. In some cases,
other Conditions and Required Actions are revised to implement the
proposed change. Remaining within the Applicability of the LCO is
acceptable because WCAP-16294-NP-A demonstrates that the plant risk
in MODE 4 is similar to or lower than MODE 5. As a result, no margin
of safety is significantly affected.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.

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 which permit performance
of the revised verification. Gas accumulation in the subject systems
is not an initiator of any accident previously evaluated. As a
result, the probability of any accident previously evaluated is not
significantly increased. The proposed SRs ensure that the subject
systems continue to be capable to perform their assumed safety
function and are not rendered inoperable due to gas accumulation.
Thus, the consequences of any accident previously evaluated are not
significantly increased.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
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 which permit performance of the revised verification. The
proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant
(i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a
change in the methods governing normal plant operation. In addition,
the proposed change does not impose any new or different
requirements that could initiate an accident. The proposed change
does not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis and is
consistent with the safety analysis assumptions.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
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.

[[Page 35985]]

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: Jennifer M. Buettner, Associate General
Counsel, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 40 Inverness Center
Parkway, Birmingham, AL 35201.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
STP Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 50-498 and 50-499, South
Texas Project, Units 1 and 2 (STP), Matagorda County, Texas
Date of amendment request: April 23, 2015. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15121A818.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would modify the
STP Technical Specification (TS) requirements regarding steam generator
tube inspections and reporting based on Technical Specification Task
Force (TSTF)-510-A, Revision 2, ``Revision to Steam Generator Program
Inspection Frequencies and Tube Sample Selection.'' The proposed change
revises the TS Limiting Condition for Operation 3.4.5, ``Steam
Generator Tube Integrity''; Surveillance Requirement 4.4.5.2;
Administrative Controls Specification 6.8.3.o, ``Steam Generator
Program''; and TS 6.9.1.7, Steam Generator Tube Inspection Report. The
proposed changes address implementation of inspection periods and other
administrative changes.
The NRC staff issued a Notice of Availability of models for plant-
specific adoption of TSTF-510, Revision 2, in the Federal Register on
October 27, 2011 (76 FR 66763), as part of the Consolidated Line Item
Improvement Process (CLIIP). The notice referenced a model safety
evaluation and model no significant hazards consideration determination
published in the Federal Register on August 2, 2002 (67 FR 50475).
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 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 [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 consequences of [an] SGTR to
exceed those assumptions. The proposed change to reporting
requirements and clarifications of the existing requirements have no
[effect] on the probability or consequences of SGTR.
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, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different type 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. In summary, the safety function of [an]
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.
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 standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
request for amendments involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Steve Frantz, Esq., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius,
1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-259, 50-260, and 50-296,
Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3, Limestone County,
Alabama
Date of amendment request: March 9, 2015. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15068A407.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the
Technical Specifications (TSs) definition of ``Shutdown Margin'' (SDM)
to require calculation of the SDM at a reactor moderator temperature of
68 degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F) or a higher temperature that represents
the most reactive state throughout the operating cycle. This change is
needed to address new boiling water reactor (BWR) fuel designs, which
may be more reactive at shutdown temperatures above 68 [deg]F. This
proposed change is in accordance with the industry Technical
Specifications Task Force (TSTF) initiative identified as Change
Traveler TSTF-535, Revision 0, ``Revise Shutdown Margin Definition to
Address Advanced Fuel Designs.'' The availability of this TS
improvement was announced in the Federal Register published on February
26, 2013 (78 FR 13100), as part of NRC's Consolidated Line Item
Improvement Process.
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 definition of SDM. SDM is not an
initiator to any accident previously evaluated. Accordingly, the
proposed change to the definition of SDM has no effect on the
probability of any accident previously evaluated. SDM is an
assumption in the analysis of some previously evaluated accidents
and inadequate SDM could lead to an increase in consequences for
those accidents. However, the proposed change revises the SDM

[[Page 35986]]

definition to ensure that the correct SDM is determined for all fuel
types at all times during the fuel cycle. As a result, the proposed
change does not adversely affect the consequences of any accident
previously evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises the definition of SDM. The change
does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or
different type of equipment will be installed) or a change in the
methods governing normal plant operations. The change does not alter
assumptions made in the safety analysis regarding SDM.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises the definition of SDM. The change
does not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety
system settings or limiting conditions for operation are determined.
The proposed change ensures that the SDM assumed in determining
safety limits, limiting safety system settings, or limiting
conditions for operation is correct for all BWR fuel types at all
times during the fuel cycle.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in margin of safety.

1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change adds a Surveillance Requirement (SR) that
requires verification that the SI System is not rendered inoperable
due to accumulated gas and to provide allowances which permit
performance of the revised verification. Gas accumulation in the SI
System 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 SR ensures that the SI
System continues to be capable of performing its assumed safety
function and is not rendered inoperable due to gas accumulation.
Thus, the consequences of any accident previously evaluated are not
significantly increased.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
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 adds [an] SR that requires verification that
the SI System is not rendered inoperable due to accumulated gas and
to provide allowances which permit performance of the revised
verification. The proposed change does not involve a physical
alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment
will be installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant
operation. In addition, the proposed change does not impose any new
or different requirements that could initiate an accident. The
proposed change does not alter assumptions made in the safety
analysis and is consistent with the safety analysis assumptions.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change adds [an] SR that requires verification that
the SI System is not rendered inoperable due to accumulated gas and
to provide allowances which permit performance of the revised
verification. The proposed change adds a new requirement to manage
gas accumulation to ensure the SI System is capable of performing
its assumed safety functions. The proposed SR is comprehensive 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.

III. Previously Published Notice of Consideration of Issuance of
Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses,
Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and
Opportunity for a Hearing

The following notice was previously published as a separate
individual notice. The notice content was the same as above. It was
published as an individual notice either because time did not allow the
Commission to wait for this biweekly notice or because the action
involved exigent circumstances. It is repeated here because the
biweekly notice lists all amendments issued or proposed to be issued
involving no significant hazards consideration.
For details, see the individual notice in the Federal Register on
the day and page cited. This notice does not extend the notice period
of the original notice.

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

Date of amendment request: April 1, 2015, as supplemented by letter
dated May 7, 2015. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS under
Accession Nos. ML15096A151 and ML15127A511, respectively.
Brief description of amendment request: The amendment would revise
the approved Cyber Security Plan and license condition and clarify the
demarcation point between digital components under NRC jurisdiction and
those under the jurisdiction of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission.
Date of publication of individual notice in Federal Register: June
1, 2015 (80 FR 31076).

[[Page 35987]]

Expiration dates of individual notice: July 1, 2015 (public
comments); July 31, 2015 (hearing requests).

IV. 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.

Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, LLC, and Entergy Operations, Inc.,
Docket No. 50-458, River Bend Station, Unit 1, West Feliciana Parish,
Louisiana

Date of amendment request: July 29, 2013, as supplemented by
letters dated September 23, 2014, January 12, and March 30, 2015.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment added a permanent
exception to the River Bend Station, Unit 1 Technical Requirements
Manual (TRM) Section 3.9.14, ``Crane Travel--Spent and New Fuel
Storage, Transfer, and Upper Containment Fuel Pools,'' to allow for
movement of fuel pool gates over fuel assemblies for maintenance. This
exception will also be described by a revision to the Updated Safety
Analysis Report (USAR) Section 9.1.2.2.2, ``Fuel Building Fuel
Storage,'' and Section 9.1.2.3.3, ``Protection Features of Spent Fuel
Storage Facilities.''
Date of issuance: June 2, 2015.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
120 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 186. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML15117A575; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-47: The amendment revised the
TRM and the USAR.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 10, 2013 (78
FR 74181). The supplements dated September 23, 2014, January 12, and
March 30, 2015, provided additional information that clarified the
application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally
noticed, and did not change the NRC staff's original proposed no
significant hazards consideration determination as published in the
Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 2, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket No. 50-440, Perry
Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No. 1, Lake County, Ohio

Date of application for amendment: January 9, 2015, as supplemented
by letter dated May 6, 2015.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the operating
license to extend the completion date for full implementation of Perry
Nuclear Power Plant Cyber Security Plan from the beginning of July 2015
to the end of December 2017.
Date of issuance: June 10, 2015.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days.
Amendment No.: 167. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML15133A502; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-58: The amendment revised the
License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 7, 2015 (80 FR
18658). The supplemental letter dated May 6, 2015, did not expand the
scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the
staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 10, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Florida Power & Light Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389,
St. Lucie Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, St. Lucie County, Florida.

Date of application for amendment: June 9, 2014, as supplemented by
letter dated April 3, 2015.
Brief description of amendment: The amendments clarify the
requirement for the Shift Technical Advisor (STA) in TS 6.2.2.e to
allow the STA position be filled for each unit by a dedicated STA, an
STA qualified Shift Supervisor, or an STA qualified Senior Reactor
Operator. Additionally, the dedicated STA or the STA qualified Shift
Supervisor can fill the STA position on both units.
Date of issuance: June 1, 2015.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 221 and 171. A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No. ML14350A008; documents related to these
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the
amendments.
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-67 and NPF-16: Amendments
revised the license and technical specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 30, 2014 (79
FR 58818). The supplement dated April 3, 2015, provided additional
information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of
the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's
original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as
published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 1, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Florida Power & Light Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389,
St. Lucie Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, St. Lucie County, Florida

Date of amendment request: June 30, 2014, as supplemented by letter
dated August 19, 2014.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the
completion

[[Page 35988]]

date for Milestone 8, full implementation, of the Cyber Security Plan
from December 31, 2015, to December 17, 2017.
Date of Issuance: June 5, 2015.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 222 and 172. A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No. ML15121A182; documents related to these
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the
amendments.
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-67 and NPF-16: Amendments
revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 4, 2014 (79 FR
65431).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 5, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Florida Power & Light Company, Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251, Turkey
Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 3 and 4, Miami-Dade County, Florida

Date of amendment requests: June 28, 2012, as supplemented by
letters dated September 19, 2012; March 18, April 16, and May 15, 2013;
January 7, April 4, June 6, July 18, September 12, November 5, and
December 2, 2014; and February 18, 2015.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments transition the
Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 3 and 4 fire protection
program to a new risk-informed, performance-based alternative in
accordance with 10 CFR 50.48(c), which incorporates by reference the
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard 805 (NFPA 805),
``Performance-Based Standard for Fire Protection for Light Water
Reactor Electric Generating Plants,'' 2001 Edition. Copies of NFPA 805
may be purchased from the NFPA Customer Service Department, 1
Batterymarch Park, P.O. Box 9101, Quincy, Massachusetts 02269-9101 and
in PDF format through the NFPA Online Catalog (http://www.nfpa.org) or
by calling 1-800-344-3555 or 617-770-3000. Copies are also available
for inspection at the NRC Library, Two White Flint North, 11545
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852-2738, and at the NRC PDR, One
White Flint North, Room O1-F15, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland 20852-2738.
Date of issuance: May 28, 2015.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
as described in the transition license conditions.
Amendment Nos.: 262 and 257. A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No. ML15061A237; documents related to these
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the
amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-31 and DPR-41:
Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 4, 2014 (79 FR
6648). The supplemental letters dated January 7, April 4, June 6, July
18, September 12, November 5, and December 2, 2014; and February 18,
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 28, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Nebraska Public Power District, Docket No. 50-298, Cooper Nuclear
Station (CNS), Nemaha County, Nebraska

Date of amendment request: July 14, 2014.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment deleted CNS Technical
Specification (TS) 5.5.3, ``Post Accident Sampling,'' thereby
eliminating the program requirements to have and maintain the post-
accident sampling system. The changes are consistent with NRC-approved
Industry/Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Standard Technical
Specification Change Traveler, TSTF-413, ``Elimination of Requirements
for a Post Accident Sampling System (PASS).'' The availability of this
TS improvement was announced in the Federal Register on March 20, 2002
(67 FR 13027), as part of the consolidated line item improvement
process. CNS will continue to have the ability to obtain samples,
utilizing PASS, following an accident.
Date of issuance: May 29, 2015.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 250. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML15135A005; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-46: Amendment revised
the Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 30, 2014 (79
FR 58819).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated May 29, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Northern States Power Company--Minnesota, Docket No. 50-263, Monticello
Nuclear Generating Plant (MNGP), Wright County, Minnesota

Date of amendment request: July 15, 2013, as supplemented by
letters dated January 31, 2014, March 12, 2014, April 29, 2014, May 9,
2014 (two letters), and November 11, 2014.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical
Specifications (TSs) to reflect the use of fuel and safety analysis
methods appropriate for the AREVA ATRIUM 10XM fuel bundle design.
Specifically, the changes affect TS 2.1, ``Safety Limits,'' to revise
the reactor steam dome pressure safety limit value; TS 4.2.1, ``Fuel
Assemblies,'' to more accurately reflect the fuel assembly design
feature as a ``water channel'' as opposed to a ``water rod;'' and TS
5.6.3, ``Core Operating Limits Report (COLR),'' to add AREVA safety
analysis methods to the references list used in determining core
operating limits in the COLR.
Date of issuance: June 5, 2015.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 120 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 188. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Package Accession No. ML15072A143; documents related to this amendment
are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-22: This amendment
revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and the Technical
Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 9, 2014 (79
FR 53460). The supplemental letter dated November 11, 2014, provided
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change
the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 5, 2015.

[[Page 35989]]

No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

PPL Susquehanna, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-387 and 50-388, Susquehanna Steam
Electric Station, Units 1 and 2, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania

Date of amendment request: July 11, 2014, as supplemented by
letters dated October 24, 2014, November 6, 2014, November 25, 2014,
December 10, 2014, January 5, 2015, January 13, 2015, March 9, 2015,
March 13, 2015, March 18, 2015, March 31, 2015, April 24, 2015, and May
1, 2015.
Brief description of amendments: By Order dated April 10, 2015, as
published in the Federal Register on April 20, 2015 (80 FR 21767), the
NRC approved an indirect license transfer for Renewed Facility
Operating Licenses NPF-14 and NPF-22 for the Susquehanna Steam Electric
Station, Units 1 and 2. This amendment reflects the indirect transfer
of the licenses to Talen Energy Corporation and the name change of the
licensee from PPL Susquehanna, LLC to Susquehanna Nuclear, LLC.
Date of issuance: June 1, 2015.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days
Amendment Nos.: 262 for Unit 1 and 243 for Unit 2. A publicly-
available version of the Amendment and the Order are in ADAMS under
Accession Nos. ML15054A066 and ML15054A058, respectively; documents
related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation
enclosed with the Order dated April 10, 2015. Subsequent to the
issuance of the Order, the licensee submitted letters dated April 24,
2015 (ADAMS Accession No. ML15127A263), and May 1, 2015 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML15133A335). These letters provided additional
notifications of regulatory approvals and the closing transaction date,
as was required by the Order.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-14 and NPF-22: The
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 6, 2014 (79 FR
60192). The supplemental letters dated October 24, 2014, November 6,
2014, November 25, 2014, December 10, 2014, January 5, 2015, January
13, 2015, March 9, 2015, March 13, 2015, March 18, 2015, March 31,
2015, April 24, 2015, and May 1, 2015, contained clarifying
information, did not expand the application beyond the scope of the
notice as originally published in the Federal Register, and did not
affect the applicability of the generic no significant hazards
consideration determination.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated April 10, 2015.
Comments received: Yes. The comments received on the License
Transfer Request are addressed in the Safety Evaluation dated April 10,
2015.

Southern California Edison Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-206, 50-361,
50-362, and 72-041 San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS), Units
1, 2, and 3, and the Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation, San
Diego County, California

Date of amendment request: March 31, 2014, as supplemented by
letters dated October 21, 2014, and April 29, 2015.
Brief description of amendment: The amendments revised the SONGS
emergency action level scheme to reflect the low likelihood of any
credible accident at the facility in its permanently shutdown and
defueled condition that could result in radiological releases requiring
offsite protective measures.
Date of issuance: June 5, 2015.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 1--166; Unit 2--228; Unit 3--221. A publicly-
available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15105A349;
documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety
Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-13, NPF-10, and NPF-15: The
amendments revised the emergency action levels.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 23, 2014 (79
FR 77048). The supplemental letter dated April 29, 2015, provided
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change
the NRC staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 5, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-
425, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), Units 1 and 2, Burke
County, Georgia and Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket
Nos. 50-348 and 50-364, Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant (Farley), Units
1 and 2, Houston County, Alabama

Date of application for amendment: September 17, 2014, as
supplemented by letter dated February 13, 2015.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the
Technical Specification (TS) Surveillance Requirement 3.1.3.2 and TS
5.6.5 related to the moderator temperature coefficient.
Date of issuance: June 2, 2015.
Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: Farley Unit 1--198, Farley Unit 2--194, VEGP Unit
1--174, VEGP Unit 2--156. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS
under Accession No. ML15083A098, documents related to these amendments
are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-2, NPF-8, NPF-68, NPF-81: The
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 2, 2014 (79 FR
71455). The supplemental letter dated February 13, 2015, provided
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change
the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 2, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

Date of amendment request: July 24, 2014.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the reactor
coolant pump flywheel inspection surveillance requirements to extend
the allowable inspection interval to 20 years. The NRC staff issued a
notice of availability of a model safety evaluation and model no
significant hazards consideration (NSHC) determination for referencing
in license amendment applications in the

[[Page 35990]]

Federal Register on October 22, 2003 (68 FR 60422). The licensee
affirmed the applicability of the model NSHC determination in its
application dated July 24, 2014.
Date of issuance: May 28, 2015.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 99. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML15092A761; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-90: Amendment revised the
Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 30, 2014 (79
FR 58827).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated May 28, 2015.
NSHC determination comments received: No.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 12th 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. 2015-15275 Filed 6-22-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 120 / Tuesday, June 23, 2015 / Notices 35979

amendment before expiration of the 60- with particular reference to the consideration, then any hearing held
day period provided that its final following general requirements: (1) The would take place before the issuance of
determination is that the amendment name, address, and telephone number of any amendment unless the Commission
involves no significant hazards the requestor or petitioner; (2) the finds an imminent danger to the health
consideration. In addition, the nature of the requestor’s/petitioner’s or safety of the public, in which case it
Commission may issue the amendment right under the Act to be made a party will issue an appropriate order or rule
prior to the expiration of the 30-day to the proceeding; (3) the nature and under 10 CFR part 2.
comment period should circumstances extent of the requestor’s/petitioner’s
B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)
change during the 30-day comment property, financial, or other interest in
period such that failure to act in a the proceeding; and (4) the possible All documents filed in NRC
timely way would result, for example in effect of any decision or order which adjudicatory proceedings, including a
derating or shutdown of the facility. may be entered in the proceeding on the request for hearing, a petition for leave
Should the Commission take action requestor’s/petitioner’s interest. The to intervene, any motion or other
prior to the expiration of either the petition must also identify the specific document filed in the proceeding prior
comment period or the notice period, it contentions which the requestor/ to the submission of a request for
will publish in the Federal Register a petitioner seeks to have litigated at the hearing or petition to intervene, and
notice of issuance. Should the proceeding. documents filed by interested
Commission make a final No Significant Each contention must consist of a governmental entities participating
Hazards Consideration Determination, specific statement of the issue of law or under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in
any hearing will take place after fact to be raised or controverted. In accordance with the NRC’s E-Filing rule
issuance. The Commission expects that addition, the requestor/petitioner shall (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007). The E-
the need to take this action will occur provide a brief explanation of the bases Filing process requires participants to
very infrequently. for the contention and a concise submit and serve all adjudicatory
statement of the alleged facts or expert documents over the internet, or in some
A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing opinion which support the contention cases to mail copies on electronic
and Petition for Leave To Intervene and on which the requestor/petitioner storage media. Participants may not
Within 60 days after the date of intends to rely in proving the contention submit paper copies of their filings
publication of this notice, any person(s) at the hearing. The requestor/petitioner unless they seek an exemption in
whose interest may be affected by this must also provide references to those accordance with the procedures
action may file a request for a hearing specific sources and documents of described below.
and a petition to intervene with respect which the petitioner is aware and on To comply with the procedural
to issuance of the amendment to the which the requestor/petitioner intends requirements of E-Filing, at least ten
subject facility operating license or to rely to establish those facts or expert (10) days prior to the filing deadline, the
combined license. Requests for a opinion. The petition must include participant should contact the Office of
hearing and a petition for leave to sufficient information to show that a the Secretary by email at
intervene shall be filed in accordance genuine dispute exists with the hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by telephone
with the Commission’s ‘‘Agency Rules applicant on a material issue of law or at 301–415–1677, to request (1) a digital
of Practice and Procedure’’ in 10 CFR fact. Contentions shall be limited to identification (ID) certificate, which
Part 2. Interested person(s) should matters within the scope of the allows the participant (or its counsel or
consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, amendment under consideration. The representative) to digitally sign
which is available at the NRC’s PDR, contention must be one which, if documents and access the E-Submittal
located at One White Flint North, Room proven, would entitle the requestor/ server for any proceeding in which it is
O1–F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first petitioner to relief. A requestor/ participating; and (2) advise the
floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. The petitioner who fails to satisfy these Secretary that the participant will be
NRC’s regulations are accessible requirements with respect to at least one submitting a request or petition for
electronically from the NRC Library on contention will not be permitted to hearing (even in instances in which the
the NRC’s Web site at http:// participate as a party. participant, or its counsel or
www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc- Those permitted to intervene become representative, already holds an NRC-
collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing parties to the proceeding, subject to any issued digital ID certificate). Based upon
or petition for leave to intervene is filed limitations in the order granting leave to this information, the Secretary will
by the above date, the Commission or a intervene, and have the opportunity to establish an electronic docket for the
presiding officer designated by the participate fully in the conduct of the hearing in this proceeding if the
Commission or by the Chief hearing. Secretary has not already established an
Administrative Judge of the Atomic If a hearing is requested, the electronic docket.
Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will Commission will make a final Information about applying for a
rule on the request and/or petition; and determination on the issue of no digital ID certificate is available on the
the Secretary or the Chief significant hazards consideration. The NRC’s public Web site at http://
Administrative Judge of the Atomic final determination will serve to decide www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/
Safety and Licensing Board will issue a when the hearing is held. If the final getting-started.html. System
notice of a hearing or an appropriate determination is that the amendment requirements for accessing the E-
order. request involves no significant hazards Submittal server are detailed in the
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a consideration, the Commission may NRC’s ‘‘Guidance for Electronic
petition for leave to intervene shall set issue the amendment and make it Submission,’’ which is available on the
forth with particularity the interest of immediately effective, notwithstanding agency’s public Web site at http://
the petitioner in the proceeding, and the request for a hearing. Any hearing www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-
how that interest may be affected by the held would take place after issuance of submittals.html. Participants may
results of the proceeding. The petition the amendment. If the final attempt to use other software not listed
should specifically explain the reasons determination is that the amendment on the Web site, but should note that the
why intervention should be permitted request involves a significant hazards NRC’s E-Filing system does not support

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:39 Jun 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23JNN1.SGM 23JNN1

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 120 / Tuesday, June 23, 2015 / Notices 35981

operations are conducted. No new failure consideration, which is presented Therefore, it is concluded that the
modes are introduced by the proposed below: proposed change does not involve a
changes. The proposed amendment does not significant reduction in a margin of safety.
introduce accident initiators or malfunctions 1. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant increase in the probability or The NRC staff has reviewed the
that would cause a new or different kind of
accident. consequences of an accident previously licensee’s analysis and, based on this
Therefore, the proposed amendment does evaluated? review, it appears that the three
Response: No. standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
not create the possibility of a new or different
The proposed change revises the Steam satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
kind of accident from any accident
Generator (SG) Program to modify the
previously evaluated. proposes to determine that the
frequency of verification of SG tube integrity
3. Does the proposed amendment involve amendment request involves no
and SG tube sample selection. A steam
a significant reduction in the margin of significant hazards consideration.
generator tube rupture (SGTR) event is one of
safety? Attorney for licensee: Lara S. Nichols,
the design basis accidents that are analyzed
Response: No. Associate General Counsel, Duke Energy
as part of a plant’s licensing basis. The
These changes affect the CNS Emergency
proposed SG tube inspection frequency and Corporation, 526 South Church Street—
Plan and do not alter any of the requirements sample selection criteria will continue to
of the Operating License or the Technical EC07H, Charlotte, NC 28202.
ensure that the SG tubes are inspected such NRC Branch Chief: Robert J.
Specifications. The proposed changes do not that the probability of [an] SGTR is not
affect any of the assumptions used in the Pascarelli.
increased. The consequences of a SGTR are
accident analysis, not do they affect any bounded by the conservative assumptions in Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket
operability requirements for equipment the design basis accident analysis. The Nos. 50–369 and 50–370, McGuire
important to plant safety. proposed change will not cause the
Therefore, the proposed changes will not Nuclear Station (MNS), Units 1 and 2,
consequences of [an] SGTR to exceed those Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
result in a significant reduction in the margin assumptions.
of safety as defined in the bases for technical Therefore, it is concluded that this change Date of amendment request: May 7,
specifications covered in this license does not involve a significant increase in the 2015. A publicly-available version is in
amendment request. probability or consequences of an accident ADAMS under Accession No.
The NRC staff has reviewed the previously evaluated. ML15141A047.
licensee’s analysis and, based on this 2. Does the proposed amendment create Description of amendment request:
review, it appears that the three the possibility of a new or different kind of The proposed amendments would
accident from any accident previously
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are modify the Emergency Action Levels for
evaluated?
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff Response: No. the MNS based on Nuclear Energy
proposes to determine that the The proposed changes to the Steam Institute (NEI) 99–01, Revision 6,
amendment request involves no Generator Program will not introduce any ‘‘Development of Emergency Action
significant hazards consideration. adverse changes to the plant design basis of Levels for Non-Passive Reactors.’’
Attorney for licensee: Lara S. Nichols, postulated accidents resulting from potential Basis for proposed no significant
Associate General Counsel, Duke Energy tube degradation. The proposed change does hazards consideration determination:
Corporation, 526 South Church Street— not affect the design of the SGs or their As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
method of operation. In addition, the licensee has provided its analysis of the
EC07H, Charlotte, NC 28202.
proposed change does not impact any other
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. plant system or component.
issue of no significant hazards
Pascarelli. Therefore, it is concluded that this change consideration, which is presented
does not create the possibility of a new or below:
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket 1. Does the proposed amendment involve
Nos. 50–413 and 50–414, Catawba different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated. a significant increase in the probability or
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York 3. Does the proposed amendment involve consequences of an accident previously
County, South Carolina; Docket Nos. a significant reduction in the margin of evaluated?
50–369 and 50–370, McGuire Nuclear safety? Response: No.
Station, Units 1 and 2, Mecklenburg Response: No. These changes affect the MNS Emergency
County, North Carolina; and Docket The SG tubes in pressurized water reactors Plan and do not alter any of the requirements
Nos. 50–269, 50–270, and 50–287, are an integral part of the reactor coolant of the Operating License or the Technical
pressure boundary and, as such, are relied Specifications. The proposed changes do not
Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and modify any plant equipment and do not
3, Oconee County, South Carolina upon to maintain the primary system’s
pressure and inventory. As part of the reactor impact any failure modes that could lead to
Date of amendment request: April 16, coolant pressure boundary, the SG tubes are an accident. Additionally, the proposed
2015. A publicly-available version is unique in that they are also relied upon as changes do not impact the consequence of
available at ADAMS Accession No. a heat transfer surface between the primary any analyzed accident since the changes do
and secondary systems such that residual not affect any equipment related to accident
ML15119A224.
heat can be removed from the primary mitigation. Based on this discussion, the
Description of amendment request: proposed amendment does not increase the
system. In addition, the SG tubes also isolate
The amendment would modify probability or consequences of an accident
the radioactive fission products in the
Technical Specification (TS) primary coolant from the secondary system. previously evaluated.
requirements regarding steam generator In summary, the safety function of [an] SG is 2. Does the proposed amendment create
tube inspections and reporting as maintained by ensuring the integrity of its the possibility of a new or different kind of
described in Technical Specification tubes. accident from any accident previously
Task Force (TSTF)-510, Revision 2, [SG] tube integrity is a function of the evaluated?
design, environment, and the physical Response: No.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

‘‘Revision to Steam Generator Program
Inspection Frequencies and Tube condition of the tube. The proposed change These changes affect the MNS Emergency
does not affect tube design or operating Plan and do not any of the requirements of
Sample Selection.’’ the Operating License or the Technical
environment. The proposed change will
Basis for proposed no significant continue to require monitoring of the Specifications. They do not modify any plant
hazards consideration determination: physical condition of the SG tubes such that equipment and there is no impact on the
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the there will not be a reduction in the margin capability of the existing equipment to
licensee has provided its analysis of the of safety compared to the current perform its intended functions. No system
issue of no significant hazards requirements. setpoints are being modified and no changes

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:39 Jun 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23JNN1.SGM 23JNN1

35982 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 120 / Tuesday, June 23, 2015 / Notices

are being made to the method in which plant The proposed change to the CSP Nuclear, Entergy Services, Inc., 639
operations are conducted. No new failure Implementation Schedule is administrative Loyola Avenue, New Orleans, Louisiana
modes are introduced by the proposed in nature. This change does not alter accident 70113.
changes. The proposed amendment does not analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or NRC Branch Chief: Michael T.
introduce accident initiators or malfunctions affect the function of plant systems or the
manner in which systems are operated, Markley.
that would cause a new or different kind of
accident. maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. Southern Nuclear Operating Company,
Therefore, the proposed amendment does The proposed change does not require any Inc., Docket Nos. 50–348 and 50–364,
not create the possibility of a new or different plant modifications which affect the
Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1
kind of accident from any accident performance capability of the structures,
systems, and components relied upon to and 2, Houston County, Alabama
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve mitigate the consequences of postulated Date of amendment request: May 12,
a significant reduction in the margin of accidents and has no impact on the 2015. A publicly-available version is in
safety? probability or consequences of an accident ADAMS under Accession No.
Response: No. previously evaluated.
ML15132A722.
These changes affect the MNS Emergency Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant increase in the
Description of amendment request:
Plan and do not alter any of the requirements
probability or consequences of an accident The proposed change revises and adds
of the Operating License or the Technical
Specifications. The proposed changes do not previously evaluated. Surveillance Requirements to verify that
affect any of the assumptions used in the 2. Does the proposed change create the the system locations susceptible to gas
accident analysis, nor do they affect any possibility of a new or different kind of accumulation are sufficiently filled with
operability requirements for equipment accident from any accident previously water and to provide allowances that
important to plant safety. evaluated? permit performance of the verification.
Therefore, the proposed changes will not Response: No. The licensee stated that the proposed
result in a significant reduction in the margin The proposed change to the CSP amendment is consistent with Technical
of safety as defined in the bases for technical Implementation Schedule is administrative
in nature. This proposed change does not
Specification Task Force (TSTF)-523,
specifications covered in this license
alter accident analysis assumptions, add any Revision 2, ‘‘Generic Letter 2008–01,
amendment request.
initiators, or affect the function of plant Managing Gas Accumulation.’’
The NRC staff has reviewed the systems or the manner in which systems are Basis for proposed no significant
licensee’s analysis and, based on this operated, maintained, modified, tested, or hazards consideration determination:
review, it appears that the three inspected. The proposed change does not As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are require any plant modifications which affect licensee has provided its analysis of the
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff the performance capability of the structures, issue of no significant hazards
proposes to determine that the systems, and components relied upon to consideration, which is presented
amendment request involves no mitigate the consequences of postulated
below:
accidents and does not create the possibility
significant hazards consideration. 1. Does the proposed change involve a
of a new or different kind of accident from
Attorney for licensee: Lara S. Nichols, any accident previously evaluated. significant increase in the probability or
Associate General Counsel, Duke Energy Therefore, the proposed change does not consequences of an accident previously
Corporation, 526 South Church Street— create the possibility of a new or different evaluated?
EC07H, Charlotte, NC 28202. kind of accident from any accident Response: No.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. previously evaluated. The proposed change revises [and] adds
Pascarelli. 3. Does the proposed change involve a Surveillance Requirements (SRs) that require
significant reduction in a margin of safety? verification that the Emergency Core Cooling
Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket Nos. Response: No. System (ECCS), the Residual Heat Removal
50–313 and 50–368, Arkansas Nuclear Plant safety margins are established (RHR) System, and the Containment Spray
One, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Pope County, through limiting conditions for operation, (CS) System are not rendered inoperable due
Arkansas limiting safety system settings, and safety to accumulated gas and to provide
limits specified in the technical allowances which permit performance of the
Date of amendment request: May 20, specifications. The proposed change to the revised verification. Gas accumulation in the
2015. A publicly-available version is in CSP Implementation Schedule is subject systems is not an initiator of any
ADAMS under Accession No. administrative in nature. In addition, the accident previously evaluated. As a result,
ML15140A611. milestone date delay for full implementation the probability of any accident previously
Description of amendment request: of the CSP has no substantive impact because evaluated is not significantly increased. The
The amendments would revise the full other measures have been taken which proposed SRs ensure that the subject systems
implementation date (Milestone 8) of provide adequate protection during this continue to be capable to perform their
the Arkansas Nuclear One, Units 1 and period of time. Because there is no change to assumed safety function and are not rendered
established safety margins as a result of this inoperable due to gas accumulation. Thus,
2, Cyber Security Plan (CSP), and revise
change, the proposed change does not the consequences of any accident previously
the associated Physical Protection involve a significant reduction in a margin of evaluated are not significantly increased.
license conditions for each Renewed safety. Therefore, the proposed change does not
Facility Operating License. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the
Basis for proposed no significant involve a significant reduction in a margin of probability or consequences of an accident
hazards consideration determination: safety. previously evaluated.
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the The NRC staff has reviewed the 2. Does the proposed change create the
licensee has provided its analysis of the licensee’s analysis and, based on this possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

issue of no significant hazards review, it appears that the three
consideration, which is presented standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are evaluated?
Response: No.
below: satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff The proposed change revises [and] adds
1. Does the proposed change involve a proposes to determine that the SRs that require verification that the ECCS,
significant increase in the probability or amendment request involves no the RHR System, and the CS System are not
consequences of an accident previously significant hazards consideration. rendered inoperable due to accumulated gas
evaluated? Attorney for licensee: Joseph A. and to provide allowances which permit
Response: No. Aluise, Associate General Counsel— performance of the revised verification. The

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:39 Jun 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23JNN1.SGM 23JNN1

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 120 / Tuesday, June 23, 2015 / Notices 35983

proposed change does not involve a physical System]—Operating.’’ This LCO increase in the probability or consequences
alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or requires that two ECCS trains be of an accident previously evaluated.
different type of equipment will be installed) OPERABLE in Modes 1, 2, or 3. An 2. Does the proposed change create the
or a change in the methods governing normal possibility of a new or different accident
ECCS train consists of a centrifugal from any accident previously evaluated?
plant operation. In addition, the proposed
change does not impose any new or different charging system, a safety injection (SI) Response: No.
requirements that could initiate an accident. system, and a residual heat removal Replacement of the 1A RHR pump motor
The proposed change does not alter (RHR) system. Condition 3.5.2.A for the extended Completion Time period
assumptions made in the safety analysis and requires that, if one of the required does not introduce any new or unanalyzed
is consistent with the safety analysis trains is inoperable, and that 100 modes of operation. The replacement of the
assumptions. percent of the ECCS flow equivalent to pump motor does not involve any
Therefore, the proposed change does not unanalyzed modifications to the design or
a single OPERABLE ECCS train is
create the possibility of a new or different operational limits of the RHR system.
available, then the inoperable train must Therefore, no new failure modes or accident
kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated. be restored to OPERABLE status in 72 precursors are created due to the motor
3. Does the proposed change involve a hours. Otherwise, the reactor must be replacement during the extended Completion
significant reduction in a margin of safety? taken to Mode 3 in 6 hours and to Mode Time.
Response: No. 4 in 12 hours. For the reasons noted above, the proposed
The proposed change revises [and] adds The proposed amendment revises the change will not create the possibility of a
SRs that require verification that the ECCS, Completion Time (CT) for Condition new or different accident from any
the RHR System, and the CS System are not previously evaluated.
3.5.2.A from 72 hours to 7 days to allow
rendered inoperable due to accumulated gas 3. Does the proposed change involve a
for replacement of the train 1A RHR significant reduction in a margin of safety?
and to provide allowances which permit
performance of the revised verification. The
pump motor. This change will be Response: No.
proposed change adds new requirements to applicable only one time on VEGP prior The margin of safety is related to the ability
manage gas accumulation in order to ensure to the Cycle 19 shutdown. of the fission product barriers to perform
the subject systems are capable of performing Basis for proposed no significant their design functions during and following
their assumed safety functions. The proposed hazards consideration determination: an accident situation. These barriers include
SRs are more comprehensive than the current As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the the fuel cladding, the reactor coolant system,
SRs and will ensure that the assumptions of and the containment. The performance of
licensee has provided its analysis of the
the safety analysis are protected. The these fission product barriers will not be
issue of no significant hazards significantly affected by the proposed
proposed change does not adversely affect consideration, which is presented
any current plant safety margins or the change. The risk implications of this
reliability of the equipment assumed in the
below: amendment request were evaluated and
safety analysis. 1. Does the proposed change involve a found to be acceptable.
Therefore, there are no changes being made significant increase in the probability or During the extended Completion Time for
to any safety analysis assumptions, safety consequences of an accident previously the 1A RHR pump, the ECCS will remain
limits or limiting safety system settings that evaluated? capable of providing adequate flow to the
would adversely affect plant safety as a result Response: No. reactor vessel to mitigate the consequences of
of the proposed change. The emergency core cooling systems a design basis event such as LOCA. Also,
Therefore, the proposed change does not (ECCS), including the Residual Heat Removal compensatory actions will be put in place to
involve a significant reduction in a margin of system, are designed for the mitigation of minimize the probability of an initiating
safety. design basis accidents or transients, such as event during the extended CT period as well
a Loss of Coolant Accident (LOCA). as to minimize the chances of a loss of one
The NRC staff has reviewed the They are not designed, nor do they serve, of the remaining ECCSs. A risk informed
licensee’s analysis and, based on this for the prevention of those events. analysis has also been performed which
review, it appears that the three Consequently, the proposed amendment does shows that the incremental plant risk has
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are not increase the probability of a previously increased by an acceptable amount.
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff evaluated accident occurring. For the reasons noted above, there is no
Should an accident occur during the significant reduction in a margin of safety.
proposes to determine that the
period of time that the RHR pump is out of The NRC staff has reviewed the
amendment request involves no
service, the remaining ECCS components
significant hazards consideration. would serve to provide the minimum amount
licensee’s analysis and, based on this
Attorney for licensee: Leigh D. Perry, of flow assumed in the accident analyses. review, it appears that the three
SVP & General Counsel of Operations Even assuming failure of a charging pump or standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
and Nuclear, Southern Nuclear an SI system on either of the trains, sufficient satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
Operating Company, 40 Iverness Center ECCS flow would still be provided to the proposes to determine that the
Parkway, Birmingham, AL 35201. reactor vessel to mitigate the consequences of amendment request involves no
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. the event. Furthermore, a risk informed significant hazards consideration.
Pascarelli. analysis performed in support of this Attorney for licensee: Jennifer M.
amendment request demonstrates that the
consequences of an accident are not
Buettner, Associate General Counsel,
Southern Nuclear Operating Company,
significantly increased. As such, the Southern Nuclear Operating Company,
Inc., Docket No. 50–424, Vogtle Electric
proposed change does not involve a 40 Inverness Center Parkway,
Generating Plant, Unit 1 (VEGP), Burke
significant increase in the probability or Birmingham, AL 35201.
County, Georgia NRC Branch Chief: Robert J.
consequences of a previously evaluated
Date of amendment request: June 4, accident. Pascarelli.
2015. A publicly-available version is in Also, appropriate compensatory measures
Southern Nuclear Operating Company,
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

ADAMS under Accession No. will be implemented during the time of the
ML15155B593. extended Completion Time for the RHR Inc., Docket Nos. 50–424 and 50–425,
Description of amendment request: pumps. These actions are intended to Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1
decrease the chances of an initiating event and 2 (VEGP), Burke County, Georgia
The licensee proposes to modify the occurring during the time of the extended CT
VEGP Technical Specifications to and also to minimize the chances of losing Date of amendment request: May 6,
provide a one-time change to Limiting any ECCS components. 2015. A publicly-available version is in
Condition for Operation (LCO) 3.5.2, For the above reasons, the proposed ADAMS under Accession No.
‘‘ECCS [Emergency Core Cooling changes will not result in a significant ML15128A239.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:39 Jun 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23JNN1.SGM 23JNN1

35984 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 120 / Tuesday, June 23, 2015 / Notices

Description of amendment request: be installed) or a change in the methods Response: No.
The licensee proposes to modify the governing normal plant operation. In The proposed change revises or adds
VEGP Technical Specifications to addition, the change does not impose any Surveillance Requirements (SRs) that require
new requirements. The change does not alter verification that the Emergency Core Cooling
incorporate risk-informed requirements assumptions made in the safety analysis. System (ECCS), the Residual Heat Removal
for selected Required Action end states. Therefore, the proposed change does not (RHR) System, and the Containment Spray
Specifically, the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different (CS) System are not rendered inoperable due
would permit a Required Action end kind of accident from any accident to accumulated gas and to provide
state of Mode 4 rather than an end state previously evaluated. allowances which permit performance of the
of Mode 5. The licensee states that the 3. Does the proposed change involve a revised verification. Gas accumulation in the
proposed changes are consistent with significant reduction in a margin of safety? subject systems is not an initiator of any
Response: No. accident previously evaluated. As a result,
Technical Specification Task Force The proposed change modifies the end
(TSTF) Technical Change Traveler 432– the probability of any accident previously
state (e.g., mode or other specified condition) evaluated is not significantly increased. The
A, Revision 1. which the Required Actions specify must be
Basis for proposed no significant proposed SRs ensure that the subject systems
entered if compliance with the LCO is not
hazards consideration determination: continue to be capable to perform their
restored. In some cases, other Conditions and
assumed safety function and are not rendered
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the Required Actions are revised to implement
inoperable due to gas accumulation. Thus,
licensee has provided its analysis of the the proposed change. Remaining within the
Applicability of the LCO is acceptable the consequences of any accident previously
issue of no significant hazards evaluated are not significantly increased.
because WCAP–16294–NP–A demonstrates
consideration, which is presented that the plant risk in MODE 4 is similar to Therefore, the proposed change does not
below: or lower than MODE 5. As a result, no margin involve a significant increase in the
1. Does the proposed change involve a of safety is significantly affected. probability or consequences of an accident
significant increase in the probability or Therefore, the proposed changes do not previously evaluated.
consequences of an accident previously involve a significant reduction in a margin of 2. Does the proposed change create the
evaluated? safety. possibility of a new or different kind of
Response: No. accident from any accident previously
The NRC staff has reviewed the evaluated?
The proposed change modifies the end
state (e.g., mode or other specified condition) licensee’s analysis and, based on this Response: No.
which the Required Actions specify must be review, it appears that the three The proposed change revises or adds SRs
entered if compliance with the Limiting standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are that require verification that the ECCS, the
Conditions for Operation (LCO) is not satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff RHR System, and the CS System are not
restored. The requested Technical proposes to determine that the rendered inoperable due to accumulated gas
Specifications (TS) permit an end state of amendment request involves no and to provide allowances which permit
Mode 4 rather than an end state of Mode 5 significant hazards consideration. performance of the revised verification. The
contained in the current TS. In some cases, Attorney for licensee: Jennifer M. proposed change does not involve a physical
other Conditions and Required Actions are alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or
Buettner, Associate General Counsel,
revised to implement the proposed change. different type of equipment will be installed)
Required Actions are not an initiator of any Southern Nuclear Operating Company,
or a change in the methods governing normal
accident previously evaluated. Therefore, the 40 Inverness Center Parkway,
plant operation. In addition, the proposed
proposed change does not affect the Birmingham, AL 35201. change does not impose any new or different
probability of any accident previously NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. requirements that could initiate an accident.
evaluated. The affected systems continue to Pascarelli. The proposed change does not alter
be required to be operable by the TS and the assumptions made in the safety analysis and
Completion Times specified in the TS to Southern Nuclear Operating Company,
Inc., Docket Nos. 50–424 and 50–425, is consistent with the safety analysis
restore equipment to operable status or take assumptions.
other remedial Actions remain unchanged. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP),
Therefore, the proposed change does not
WCAP–16294–NP–A, Rev. 1, ‘‘Risk- Units 1 and 2, Burke County, Georgia create the possibility of a new or different
Informed Evaluation of Changes to
Date of amendment request: May 12, kind of accident from any accident
[Technical Specification] Required Action
2015. A publicly-available version is in previously evaluated.
Endstates for Westinghouse NSSS PWRs
ADAMS under Accession No. 3. Does the proposed change involve a
[nuclear steam supply system pressurized-
ML15132A662. significant reduction in a margin of safety?
water reactors],’’ demonstrates that the
Description of amendment request: Response: No.
proposed change does not significantly
increase the consequences of any accident The licensee proposes to adopt The proposed change revises or adds SRs
that require verification that the ECCS, the
previously evaluated. [WCAP–16294–NP–A, Technical Specification Task Force
Rev. 1 is publicly available in ADAMS at RHR System, and the CS System are not
(TSTF) traveler TSTF–523, Revision 2, rendered inoperable due to accumulated gas
Accession No. ML103430249.] ‘‘Generic Letter 2008–01, Managing Gas
Therefore, the proposed change does not and to provide allowances which permit
Accumulation’’ (ADAMS Accession No. performance of the revised verification. The
involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
ML13053A075), which is an approved proposed change adds new requirements to
previously evaluated. change to the standard technical manage gas accumulation in order to ensure
2. Does the proposed change create the specifications, into the VEGP, Units 1 the subject systems are capable of performing
possibility of a new or different kind of and 2 technical specifications. their assumed safety functions. The proposed
accident from any accident previously Basis for proposed no significant SRs are more comprehensive than the current
evaluated? hazards consideration determination: SRs and will ensure that the assumptions of
Response: No. As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the the safety analysis are protected. The
The proposed change modifies the end proposed change does not adversely affect
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

licensee has provided its analysis of the
state (e.g., mode or other specified condition) any current plant safety margins or the
issue of no significant hazards
which the Required Actions specify must be reliability of the equipment assumed in the
consideration, which is presented safety analysis.
entered if compliance with the LCO is not
restored. In some cases, other Conditions and below: Therefore, there are no changes being made
Required Actions are revised to implement 1. Does the proposed change involve a to any safety analysis assumptions, safety
the proposed change. The change does not significant increase in the probability or limits or limiting safety system settings that
involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., consequences of an accident previously would adversely affect plant safety as a result
no new or different type of equipment will evaluated? of the proposed change.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:39 Jun 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23JNN1.SGM 23JNN1

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 120 / Tuesday, June 23, 2015 / Notices 35985

Therefore, the proposed change does not consequences of an accident previously The NRC staff has reviewed the
involve a significant reduction in a margin of evaluated? licensee’s analysis and, based on this
safety. Response: No. review, it appears that the standards of
The proposed change revises the Steam
The NRC staff has reviewed the Generator (SG) Program to modify the
10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore,
licensee’s analysis and, based on this frequency of verification of SG tube integrity the NRC staff proposes to determine that
review, it appears that the three and SG tube sample selection. A steam the request for amendments involves no
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are generator tube rupture (SGTR) event is one of significant hazards consideration.
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff the design basis accidents that are analyzed Attorney for licensee: Steve Frantz,
proposes to determine that the as part of a plant’s licensing basis. The Esq., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, 1111
amendment request involves no proposed SG tube inspection frequency and Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington,
sample selection criteria will continue to DC 20004.
significant hazards consideration. ensure that the SG tubes are inspected such
Attorney for licensee: Jennifer M. NRC Branch Chief: Michael T.
that the probability of [an] SGTR is not
Buettner, Associate General Counsel, increased. The consequences of [an] SGTR Markley.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, are bounded by the conservative assumptions Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket
40 Inverness Center Parkway, in the design basis accident analysis. The Nos. 50–259, 50–260, and 50–296,
Birmingham, AL 35201. proposed change will not cause the
consequences of [an] SGTR to exceed those
Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2,
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. and 3, Limestone County, Alabama
assumptions. The proposed change to
Pascarelli. reporting requirements and clarifications of Date of amendment request: March 9,
STP Nuclear Operating Company, the existing requirements have no [effect] on 2015. A publicly-available version is in
Docket Nos. 50–498 and 50–499, South the probability or consequences of SGTR. ADAMS under Accession No.
Therefore, it is concluded that this change
Texas Project, Units 1 and 2 (STP), does not involve a significant increase in the ML15068A407.
Matagorda County, Texas probability or consequences of an accident Description of amendment request:
Date of amendment request: April 23, previously evaluated. The amendment would revise the
2015. A publicly-available version is in 2. Does the proposed change create the Technical Specifications (TSs)
ADAMS under Accession No.
possibility of a new or different kind of definition of ‘‘Shutdown Margin’’ (SDM)
accident from any accident previously to require calculation of the SDM at a
ML15121A818. evaluated?
Description of amendment request: reactor moderator temperature of 68
Response: No. degrees Fahrenheit (°F) or a higher
The amendment would modify the STP The proposed changes to the Steam
Technical Specification (TS) Generator Program will not introduce any temperature that represents the most
requirements regarding steam generator adverse changes to the plant design basis or reactive state throughout the operating
tube inspections and reporting based on postulated accidents resulting from potential cycle. This change is needed to address
Technical Specification Task Force tube degradation. The proposed change does new boiling water reactor (BWR) fuel
not affect the design of the SGs or their designs, which may be more reactive at
(TSTF)–510–A, Revision 2, ‘‘Revision to
Steam Generator Program Inspection
method of operation. In addition, the shutdown temperatures above 68 °F.
proposed change does not impact any other This proposed change is in accordance
Frequencies and Tube Sample plant system or component.
Selection.’’ The proposed change revises with the industry Technical
Therefore, the proposed change does not
the TS Limiting Condition for Operation create the possibility of a new or different Specifications Task Force (TSTF)
3.4.5, ‘‘Steam Generator Tube Integrity’’; type of accident from any accident initiative identified as Change Traveler
Surveillance Requirement 4.4.5.2; previously evaluated. TSTF–535, Revision 0, ‘‘Revise
Administrative Controls Specification 3. Does the proposed change involve a Shutdown Margin Definition to Address
6.8.3.o, ‘‘Steam Generator Program’’;
significant reduction in a margin of safety? Advanced Fuel Designs.’’ The
Response: No. availability of this TS improvement was
and TS 6.9.1.7, Steam Generator Tube The SG tubes in pressurized water reactors
Inspection Report. The proposed announced in the Federal Register
are an integral part of the reactor coolant
changes address implementation of published on February 26, 2013 (78 FR
pressure boundary and, as such, are relied
inspection periods and other upon to maintain the primary system’s 13100), as part of NRC’s Consolidated
administrative changes. pressure and inventory. As part of the reactor Line Item Improvement Process.
coolant pressure boundary, the SG tubes are Basis for proposed no significant
The NRC staff issued a Notice of
unique in that they are also relied upon as hazards consideration determination:
Availability of models for plant-specific
a heat transfer surface between the primary As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
adoption of TSTF–510, Revision 2, in and secondary systems such that residual licensee has provided its analysis of the
the Federal Register on October 27, heat can be removed from the primary issue of no significant hazards
2011 (76 FR 66763), as part of the system. In addition, the SG tubes also isolate consideration, which is presented
Consolidated Line Item Improvement the radioactive fission products in the
below:
Process (CLIIP). The notice referenced a primary coolant from the secondary system.
model safety evaluation and model no In summary, the safety function of [an] SG is 1. Does the proposed change involve a
significant hazards consideration maintained by ensuring the integrity of its significant increase in the probability or
tubes. consequences of an accident previously
determination published in the Federal
Steam generator tube integrity is a function evaluated?
Register on August 2, 2002 (67 FR of the design, environment, and the physical Response: No.
50475). condition of the tube. The proposed change The proposed change revises the definition
Basis for proposed no significant does not affect tube design or operating of SDM. SDM is not an initiator to any
hazards consideration determination: environment. The proposed change will accident previously evaluated. Accordingly,
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the continue to require monitoring of the the proposed change to the definition of SDM
licensee has provided its analysis of the physical condition of the SG tubes such that has no effect on the probability of any
issue of no significant hazards there will not be a reduction in the margin accident previously evaluated. SDM is an
consideration, which is presented of safety compared to the current assumption in the analysis of some
requirements. previously evaluated accidents and
below: Therefore, it is concluded that the inadequate SDM could lead to an increase in
1. Does the proposed change involve a proposed change does not involve a consequences for those accidents. However,
significant increase in the probability or significant reduction in a margin of safety. the proposed change revises the SDM

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:39 Jun 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23JNN1.SGM 23JNN1

35986 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 120 / Tuesday, June 23, 2015 / Notices

definition to ensure that the correct SDM is water and to provide allowances, which margins or the reliability of the equipment
determined for all fuel types at all times permit performance of the verification. assumed in the safety analysis. Therefore,
during the fuel cycle. As a result, the Basis for proposed no significant there are no changes being made to any safety
proposed change does not adversely affect hazards consideration determination: analysis assumptions, safety limits, or
the consequences of any accident previously limiting safety system settings that would
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
evaluated. adversely affect plant safety as a result of the
Therefore, the proposed change does not licensee has provided its analysis of the proposed change.
involve a significant increase in the issue of no significant hazards Therefore, the proposed change does not
probability or consequences of an accident consideration, which is presented involve a significant reduction in a margin of
previously evaluated. below: safety.
2. Does the proposed change create the 1. Does the proposed change involve a
possibility of a new or different kind of The NRC staff has reviewed the
significant increase in the probability or licensee’s analysis and, based on this
accident from any accident previously consequences of an accident previously
evaluated? review, it appears that the three
evaluated?
Response: No. Response: No. standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
The proposed change revises the definition The proposed change adds a Surveillance satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
of SDM. The change does not involve a Requirement (SR) that requires verification proposes to determine that the
physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new that the SI System is not rendered inoperable amendment request involves no
or different type of equipment will be due to accumulated gas and to provide significant hazards consideration.
installed) or a change in the methods allowances which permit performance of the Attorney for licensee: Lillian M.
governing normal plant operations. The revised verification. Gas accumulation in the
change does not alter assumptions made in
Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion
SI System is not an initiator of any accident
the safety analysis regarding SDM. Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar
previously evaluated. As a result, the
Therefore, the proposed change does not probability of any accident previously St., RS–2, Richmond, VA 23219.
create the possibility of a new or different evaluated is not significantly increased. The NRC Branch Chief: Robert J.
kind of accident from any accident proposed SR ensures that the SI System Pascarelli.
previously evaluated. continues to be capable of performing its
2. Does the proposed change involve a assumed safety function and is not rendered
III. Previously Published Notice of
significant reduction in a margin of safety? inoperable due to gas accumulation. Thus, Consideration of Issuance of
Response: No. the consequences of any accident previously Amendments to Facility Operating
The proposed change revises the definition evaluated are not significantly increased. Licenses and Combined Licenses,
of SDM. The change does not alter the Therefore, the proposed change does not Proposed No Significant Hazards
manner in which safety limits, limiting safety involve a significant increase in the Consideration Determination, and
system settings or limiting conditions for probability or consequences of an accident Opportunity for a Hearing
operation are determined. The proposed previously evaluated.
change ensures that the SDM assumed in 2. Does the proposed change create the The following notice was previously
determining safety limits, limiting safety possibility of a new or different kind of published as a separate individual
system settings, or limiting conditions for accident from any accident previously notice. The notice content was the same
operation is correct for all BWR fuel types at evaluated? as above. It was published as an
all times during the fuel cycle. Response: No. individual notice either because time
Therefore, the proposed change does not The proposed change adds [an] SR that
did not allow the Commission to wait
involve a significant reduction in margin of requires verification that the SI System is not
safety. rendered inoperable due to accumulated gas for this biweekly notice or because the
and to provide allowances which permit action involved exigent circumstances.
The NRC staff has reviewed the performance of the revised verification. The It is repeated here because the biweekly
licensee’s analysis and, based on this proposed change does not involve a physical notice lists all amendments issued or
review, it appears that the three alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or proposed to be issued involving no
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are different type of equipment will be installed) significant hazards consideration.
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff or a change in the methods governing normal For details, see the individual notice
proposes to determine that the plant operation. In addition, the proposed in the Federal Register on the day and
amendment request involves no change does not impose any new or different
requirements that could initiate an accident. page cited. This notice does not extend
significant hazards consideration. The proposed change does not alter the notice period of the original notice.
Attorney for licensee: General assumptions made in the safety analysis and
Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No.
is consistent with the safety analysis
400 West Summit Hill Drive, 6A West assumptions.
50–390, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 1,
Tower, Knoxville, TN 37902. Therefore, the proposed change does not Rhea County, Tennessee
NRC Branch Chief: Shana R. Helton. create the possibility of a new or different Date of amendment request: April 1,
kind of accident from any accident 2015, as supplemented by letter dated
Virginia Electric and Power Company, previously evaluated. May 7, 2015. Publicly-available versions
Docket Nos. 50–280 and 50–281, Surry 3. Does the proposed change involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety? are in ADAMS under Accession Nos.
Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Surry
Response: No. ML15096A151 and ML15127A511,
County, Virginia
The proposed change adds [an] SR that respectively.
Date of amendment request: January requires verification that the SI System is not Brief description of amendment
14, 2015. A publicly-available version is rendered inoperable due to accumulated gas request: The amendment would revise
in ADAMS under Accession No. and to provide allowances which permit the approved Cyber Security Plan and
performance of the revised verification. The
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

ML15021A130. license condition and clarify the
Description of amendment request: proposed change adds a new requirement to demarcation point between digital
manage gas accumulation to ensure the SI
The amendments would add a components under NRC jurisdiction and
System is capable of performing its assumed
Technical Specification (TS) safety functions. The proposed SR is those under the jurisdiction of the
Surveillance Requirement (SR) [TS comprehensive and will ensure that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
4.11.C.5.d] to verify the Safety Injection assumptions of the safety analysis are Date of publication of individual
(SI) System locations susceptible to gas protected. The proposed change does not notice in Federal Register: June 1,
accumulation are sufficiently filled with adversely affect any current plant safety 2015 (80 FR 31076).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:39 Jun 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23JNN1.SGM 23JNN1

Document Created: 2018-02-22 11:15:08
Document Modified: 2018-02-22 11:15:08

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 23, 2015. A request for a hearing must be filed by August 24, 2015.
Contact		Janet Burkhardt, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1384, email: [email protected]
FR Citation		80 FR 35978