ML16057A551

NYS Exhibit 2 on Federal Register Dated March 17, 2015

ML16057A551
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	03/17/2015
From:	State of NY, Office of the Attorney General
To:	NRC/OCM
SECY RAS
Shared Package
ML16057A531	List: ML16057A532 ML16057A533 ML16057A534 ML16057A536 ML16057A538 ML16057A540 ML16057A543 ML16057A545 ML16057A546 ML16057A547 ML16057A548 ML16057A549 ML16057A551 ML16057A552 ML16057A553 ML16057A554 ML16057A555
References
RAS 50964, ASLBP 15-942-06-LA-BD01, 50-247-LA
Download: ML16057A551 (19)

Text

13902 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices under part 110. The NRC Form 7 Week of April 6, 2015Tentative disabilities where appropriate. If you application will be reviewed by the NRC There are no meetings scheduled for need a reasonable accommodation to and by the Executive Branch, and if the week of April 6, 2015. participate in these public meetings, or applicable statutory, regulatory, and need this meeting notice or the policy considerations are satisfied, the Week of April 13, 2015Tentative transcript or other information from the NRC will issue an export, import, Tuesday, April 14, 2015 public meetings in another format (e.g.

amendment or renewal license. braille, large print), please notify 9:30 a.m. Meeting with the Advisory Kimberly Meyer, NRC Disability III. Specific Requests for Comments Committee on the Medical Uses of Program Manager, at 301-287-0727, by Submit, by May 18, 2015, comments Isotopes (Public Meeting) (Contact: videophone at 240-428-3217, or by that address the following questions: Nima Ashkeboussi, 301-415-5775) email at Kimberly.Meyer-Chambers@

1. Is the proposed collection of This meeting will be webcast live at nrc.gov. Determinations on requests for information necessary for the NRC to the Web addresshttp://www.nrc.gov/. reasonable accommodation will be properly perform its functions? Does the Thursday, April 16, 2015 made on a case-by-case basis.

information have practical utility? * * * * *

2. Is the estimate of the burden of the 9:30 a.m. Meeting with the Organization of Agreement States and the Members of the public may request to information collection accurate? receive this information electronically.

3. Is there a way to enhance the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors (Public Meeting) If you would like to be added to the quality, utility, and clarity of the distribution, please contact the Nuclear (Contact: Nima Ashkeboussi, 301-information to be collected? Regulatory Commission, Office of the 415-5775)

4. How can the burden of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-information collection on respondents This meeting will be webcast live at the Web addresshttp://www.nrc.gov/. 415-1969), or email be minimized, including the use of Brenda.Akstulewicz@nrc.gov or automated collection techniques or Week of April 20, 2015Tentative Patricia.Jimenez@nrc.gov.

other forms of information technology? There are no meetings scheduled for Dated: March 13, 2015.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day the week of April 20, 2015. Glenn Ellmers, of March 2015.

• * * *

• Policy Coordinator, Office of the Secretary.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The schedule for Commission [FR Doc. 2015-06188 Filed 3-13-15; 4:15 pm]

Tremaine Donnell, meetings is subject to change on short BILLING CODE 7590-01--P NRC Clearance Officer, Office of Information notice. For more information or to verify Services. the status of meetings, contact Glenn

[FR Doc. 2015-06014 Filed 3-16-15; 8:45 am] Ellmers at 301-415-0442 or via email at NUCLEAR REGULATORY BILLING CODE 7590-01-P Glenn.Ellmers@nrc.gov. COMMISSION Additional Information [NRC-2015-0055]

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1. By a vote of 3-0 on March 9, 2015, Biweekly Notice; Applications and the Commission determined pursuant to Amendments to Facility Operating

[NRC-2015-0001] U.S.C. 552b(e) and 9.107(a) of the Licenses and Combined Licenses Commissions rules that an Affirmation Involving No Significant Hazards Sunshine Act Meeting Notice Session for Entergy Nuclear Operations, Considerations DATES: March 16, 23, 30, April 6, 13, 20, Inc. (Indian Point Nuclear Generating 2015. Units 2 and 3)Petitions for Review of AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory LBP-13-13 (Partial Initial Decision) and Commission.

PLACE:Commissioners Conference Related Decisions (Appeals of Board ACTION: Biweekly notice.

Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Decisions Related to Contentions NUS-Maryland. 8 CW-EC-3) be held with less than one

SUMMARY

Pursuant to section 189a. (2)

STATUS: Public and Closed. week notice to the public. The meeting of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as Week of March 16, 2015 was held on March 9, 2015. amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear

2. The Affirmation Session for Omaha Regulatory Commission (NRC) is There are no meetings scheduled for Public Power District (Fort Calhoun publishing this regular biweekly notice.

the week of March 16, 2015. Station, Unit 1), Petition to Intervene The Act requires the Commission to Week of March 23, 2015Tentative and Request for Adjudicatory Hearing publish notice of any amendments by Sierra Club (Apr. 23, 2014), issued, or proposed to be issued and Thursday, March 26, 2015 previously scheduled for March 5, 2015, grants the Commission the authority to 9:30 a.m. Briefing on Security Issues was held on March 9, 2015. issue and make immediately effective (ClosedEx. 1) 3. The meeting with the Advisory any amendment to an operating license 1:30 p.m. Briefing on Security Issues Committee on Reactor Safeguards, or combined license, as applicable, (ClosedEx. 1) scheduled for March 5, 2015, was upon a determination by the postponed. Commission that such amendment Friday, March 27, 2015 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

• * * *

• involves no significant hazards 9:30 a.m. Briefing on Threat The NRC Commission Meeting consideration, notwithstanding the Environment Assessment (Closed- Schedule can be found on the Internet pendency before the Commission of a Ex. 1) at: http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/ request for a hearing from any person.

public-meetings/schedule.html. This biweekly notice includes all Week of March 30, 2015Tentative notices of amendments issued, or There are no meetings scheduled for The NRC provides reasonable proposed to be issued from February 19, the week of March 30, 2015. accommodation to individuals with 2015 to March 4, 2015. The last VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM 17MRN1

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices 13903 biweekly notice was published on the NRCs PDR, Room O1-F21, One publication of this notice. The March 3, 2015. White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Commission may issue the license DATES: Comments must be filed by April Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. amendment before expiration of the 60-16, 2015. A request for a hearing must day period provided that its final B. Submitting Comments be filed by May 18, 2015. determination is that the amendment ADDRESSES: You may submit comments Please include Docket ID NRC-2015- involves no significant hazards by any of the following methods (unless 0055, facility name, unit number(s), consideration. In addition, the this document describes a different application date, and subject in your Commission may issue the amendment method for submitting comments on a comment submission. prior to the expiration of the 30-day The NRC cautions you not to include comment period should circumstances specific subject):

• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to identifying or contact information that change during the 30-day comment http://www.regulations.gov and search you do not want to be publicly period such that failure to act in a for Docket ID NRC-2015-0055. Address disclosed in your comment submission. timely way would result, for example in questions about NRC dockets to Carol The NRC posts all comment derating or shutdown of the facility.

Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-3463; submissions at http:// Should the Commission take action email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. www.regulations.gov as well as entering prior to the expiration of either the

• Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, the comment submissions into ADAMS. comment period or the notice period, it Office of Administration, Mail Stop: The NRC does not routinely edit will publish in the Federal Register a OWFN-12-H08, U.S. Nuclear comment submissions to remove notice of issuance. Should the Regulatory Commission, Washington, identifying or contact information. Commission make a final No Significant DC 20555-0001. If you are requesting or aggregating Hazards Consideration Determination, For additional direction on obtaining comments from other persons for any hearing will take place after information and submitting comments, submission to the NRC, then you should issuance. The Commission expects that see Obtaining Information and inform those persons not to include the need to take this action will occur Submitting Comments in the identifying or contact information that very infrequently.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing this document. and Petition for Leave To Intervene Your request should state that the NRC FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

does not routinely edit comment Within 60 days after the date of Beverly A. Clayton, Office of Nuclear submissions to remove such information publication of this notice, any person(s)

Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear before making the comment whose interest may be affected by this Regulatory Commission, Washington, submissions available to the public or action may file a request for a hearing DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-entering the comment submissions into and a petition to intervene with respect 3475, email: Beverly.Clayton@nrc.gov.

ADAMS. to issuance of the amendment to the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: subject facility operating license or II. Notice of Consideration of Issuance combined license. Requests for a I. Obtaining Information and of Amendments to Facility Operating Submitting Comments hearing and a petition for leave to Licenses and Combined Licenses and intervene shall be filed in accordance A. Obtaining Information Proposed No Significant Hazards with the Commissions Agency Rules Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015- Consideration Determination of Practice and Procedure in 10 CFR 0055 when contacting the NRC about The Commission has made a part 2. Interested person(s) should the availability of information for this proposed determination that the consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, action. You may obtain publicly- following amendment requests involve which is available at the NRCs PDR, available information related to this no significant hazards consideration. located at One White Flint North, Room action by any of the following methods: Under the Commissions regulations in O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first

• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to § 50.92 of title 10 of the Code of Federal floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. The http://www.regulations.gov and search Regulations (10 CFR), this means that NRCs regulations are accessible for Docket ID NRC-2015-0055. operation of the facility in accordance electronically from the NRC Library on

• NRCs Agencywide Documents with the proposed amendment would the NRCs Web site at http://

Access and Management System not (1) involve a significant increase in www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly- the probability or consequences of an collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing available documents online in the accident previously evaluated, or (2) or petition for leave to intervene is filed ADAMS Public Documents collection at create the possibility of a new or by the above date, the Commission or a http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ different kind of accident from any presiding officer designated by the adams.html. To begin the search, select accident previously evaluated; or (3) Commission or by the Chief ADAMS Public Documents and then involve a significant reduction in a Administrative Judge of the Atomic select Begin Web-based ADAMS margin of safety. The basis for this Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will Search. For problems with ADAMS, proposed determination for each rule on the request and/or petition; and please contact the NRCs Public amendment request is shown below. the Secretary or the Chief Document Room (PDR) reference staff at The Commission is seeking public Administrative Judge of the Atomic 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by comments on this proposed Safety and Licensing Board will issue a mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The determination. Any comments received notice of a hearing or an appropriate ADAMS accession number for each within 30 days after the date of order.

document referenced (if it is available in publication of this notice will be As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a ADAMS) is provided the first time that considered in making any final petition for leave to intervene shall set it is mentioned in the SUPPLEMENTARY determination. forth with particularity the interest of INFORMATION section. Normally, the Commission will not the petitioner in the proceeding, and

• NRCs PDR: You may examine and issue the amendment until the how that interest may be affected by the purchase copies of public documents at expiration of 60 days after the date of results of the proceeding. The petition VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM 17MRN1

13904 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices 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 NRCs E-Filing system does not support with particular reference to the consideration, then any hearing held unlisted software, and the NRC Meta following general requirements: (1) the would take place before the issuance of System Help Desk will not be able to name, address, and telephone number of any amendment unless the Commission offer assistance in using unlisted the requestor or petitioner; (2) the finds an imminent danger to the health software.

nature of the requestors/petitioners or safety of the public, in which case it If a participant is electronically right under the Act to be made a party will issue an appropriate order or rule submitting a document to the NRC in to the proceeding; (3) the nature and under 10 CFR part 2. accordance with the E-Filing rule, the extent of the requestors/petitioners participant must file the document B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing) using the NRCs online, Web-based property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible All documents filed in NRC submission form. In order to serve effect of any decision or order which adjudicatory proceedings, including a documents through the Electronic may be entered in the proceeding on the request for hearing, a petition for leave Information Exchange System, users requestors/petitioners interest. The to intervene, any motion or other will be required to install a Web petition must also identify the specific document filed in the proceeding prior browser plug-in from the NRCs Web contentions which the requestor/ to the submission of a request for site. Further information on the Web-petitioner seeks to have litigated at the hearing or petition to intervene, and based submission form, including the proceeding. documents filed by interested installation of the Web browser plug-in, Each contention must consist of a governmental entities participating is available on the NRCs public Web specific statement of the issue of law or under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-fact to be raised or controverted. In accordance with the NRCs E-Filing rule submittals.html.

addition, the requestor/petitioner shall (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007). The E- Once a participant has obtained a provide a brief explanation of the bases Filing process requires participants to digital ID certificate and a docket has for the contention and a concise submit and serve all adjudicatory been created, the participant can then statement of the alleged facts or expert documents over the internet, or in some submit a request for hearing or petition opinion which support the contention cases to mail copies on electronic for leave to intervene. Submissions and on which the requestor/petitioner storage media. Participants may not should be in Portable Document Format intends to rely in proving the contention submit paper copies of their filings (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance at the hearing. The requestor/petitioner unless they seek an exemption in available on the NRCs public Web site must also provide references to those accordance with the procedures at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-specific sources and documents of described below. submittals.html. A filing is considered which the petitioner is aware and on To comply with the procedural complete at the time the documents are which the requestor/petitioner intends requirements of E-Filing, at least ten 10 submitted through the NRCs E-Filing to rely to establish those facts or expert days prior to the filing deadline, the system. To be timely, an electronic opinion. The petition must include participant should contact the Office of filing must be submitted to the E-Filing sufficient information to show that a the Secretary by email at system no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern genuine dispute exists with the hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by telephone Time on the due date. Upon receipt of applicant on a material issue of law or at 301-415-1677, to request (1) a digital a transmission, the E-Filing system fact. Contentions shall be limited to identification (ID) certificate, which time-stamps the document and sends matters within the scope of the allows the participant (or its counsel or the submitter an email notice amendment under consideration. The representative) to digitally sign confirming receipt of the document. The contention must be one which, if documents and access the E-Submittal E-Filing system also distributes an email proven, would entitle the requestor/ server for any proceeding in which it is notice that provides access to the petitioner to relief. A requestor/ participating; and (2) advise the document to the NRCs Office of the petitioner who fails to satisfy these Secretary that the participant will be General Counsel and any others who requirements with respect to at least one submitting a request or petition for have advised the Office of the Secretary contention will not be permitted to hearing (even in instances in which the that they wish to participate in the participate as a party. participant, or its counsel or proceeding, so that the filer need not Those permitted to intervene become representative, already holds an NRC- serve the documents on those parties to the proceeding, subject to any issued digital ID certificate). Based upon participants separately. Therefore, limitations in the order granting leave to this information, the Secretary will applicants and other participants (or intervene, and have the opportunity to establish an electronic docket for the their counsel or representative) must participate fully in the conduct of the hearing in this proceeding if the apply for and receive a digital ID hearing. Secretary has not already established an certificate before a hearing request/

If a hearing is requested, the electronic docket. petition to intervene is filed so that they Commission will make a final Information about applying for a can obtain access to the document via determination on the issue of no digital ID certificate is available on the the E-Filing system.

significant hazards consideration. The NRCs public Web site at http:// A person filing electronically using final determination will serve to decide www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/ the NRCs adjudicatory E-Filing system when the hearing is held. If the final getting-started.html. System may seek assistance by contacting the mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES determination is that the amendment requirements for accessing the E- NRC Meta System Help Desk through request involves no significant hazards Submittal server are detailed in the the Contact Us link located on the consideration, the Commission may NRCs Guidance for Electronic NRCs public Web site at http://

issue the amendment and make it Submission, which is available on the www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-immediately effective, notwithstanding agencys public Web site at http:// submittals.html, by email to the request for a hearing. Any hearing www.nrc.gov/site-help/e- MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a toll-held would take place after issuance of submittals.html. Participants may free call at 1-866-672-7640. The NRC the amendment. If the final attempt to use other software not listed Meta System Help Desk is available VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM 17MRN1

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices 13905 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern are filed after the 60-day deadline will administrative in nature and have no direct Time, Monday through Friday, not be entertained absent a effect on any plant system, plant personnel excluding government holidays. determination by the presiding officer qualifications, or operation and maintenance Participants who believe that they of CR-3.

that the filing demonstrates good cause have a good cause for not submitting 3. Does the proposed amendment involve by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

documents electronically must file an 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(iii). Response: No.

exemption request, in accordance with For further details with respect to The proposed changes do not involve a 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper these license amendment applications, significant reduction in a margin of safety filing requesting authorization to see the application for amendment because the proposed changes do not involve continue to submit documents in paper which is available for public inspection changes to the initial conditions contributing format. Such filings must be submitted in ADAMS and at the NRCs PDR. For to accident severity or consequences, or by: (1) First class mail addressed to the additional direction on accessing reduce response or mitigation capabilities.

Office of the Secretary of the information related to this document, The proposed license transfers are Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory administrative in nature and have no direct see the Obtaining Information and Commission, Washington, DC 20555- effect on any plant system, plant personnel Submitting Comments section of this qualifications, or operation and maintenance 0001, Attention: Rulemaking and document. of CR-3.

Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery Duke Energy Florida, Inc. (DEF), et al., The NRC staff has reviewed the service to the Office of the Secretary, Docket No. 50-302, Crystal River, Unit licensees analysis and, based on this Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 3 Nuclear Generating Plant (CR-3), review, it appears that the three 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Citrus County, Florida standards of 50.92(c) are satisfied.

Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking Date of amendment request: Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to and Adjudications Staff. Participants November 7, 2014. A publicly-available determine that the amendment request filing a document in this manner are version is in ADAMS under Accession involves no significant hazards responsible for serving the document on No. ML14321A450. consideration.

all other participants. Filing is Description of amendment request: Attorney for licensee: Lara S. Nichols, considered complete by first-class mail The amendment would reflect the 550 South Tryon Street, Charlotte NC as of the time of deposit in the mail, or transfer of ownership, held by eight 28202.

by courier, express mail, or expedited minority co-owners, in CR-3 to DEF. NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A.

delivery service upon depositing the The transfer of ownership will take Broaddus.

document with the provider of the place pursuant to the Settlement, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.,

service. A presiding officer, having Release and Acquisition Agreement, Docket No. 50-247, Indian Point granted an exemption request from dated September 26, 2014, wherein DEF Nuclear Generating, Unit 2, Westchester using E-Filing, may require a participant will purchase the 6.52 percent County, New York or party to use E-Filing if the presiding combined ownership share in CR-3 officer subsequently determines that the held by these minority co-owners, Date of amendment request:

reason for granting the exemption from leaving DEF and Seminole Electric December 9, 2014. A publicly-available use of E-Filing no longer exists. Cooperative, Inc., as the remaining version is in ADAMS under Accession Documents submitted in adjudicatory licensees for CR-3. No. ML14353A015.

proceedings will appear in the NRCs Basis for proposed no significant Description of amendment request:

electronic hearing docket which is hazards consideration determination: The amendment would revise Technical available to the public at http:// As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the Specification 5.5.14, Containment ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded licensee has provided its analysis of the Leakage Rate Testing Program, to pursuant to an order of the Commission, issue of no significant hazards extend the frequency of the or the presiding officer. Participants are consideration, which is presented Containment Integrated Leak Rate Test requested not to include personal below: or Type A Test from once every 10 years privacy information, such as social to once every 15 years on a permanent

1. Does the proposed amendment involve security numbers, home addresses, or a significant increase in the probability or basis.

home phone numbers in their filings, consequences of an accident previously Basis for proposed no significant unless an NRC regulation or other law evaluated? hazards consideration determination:

requires submission of such Response: No. As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the information. However, a request to The proposed changes do not involve a licensee has provided its analysis of the intervene will require including significant increase in the probability of any issue of no significant hazards information on local residence in order accident previously evaluated because no consideration, which is presented to demonstrate a proximity assertion of accident initiators or assumptions are below:

affected. The proposed license transfers are interest in the proceeding. With respect administrative in nature and have no direct 1. Does the proposed amendment involve to copyrighted works, except for limited effect on any plant system, plant personnel a significant increase in the probability or excerpts that serve the purpose of the qualifications, or the operation and consequences of an accident previously adjudicatory filings and would maintenance of CR-3. evaluated?

constitute a Fair Use application, 2. Does the proposed change create the Response: No.

participants are requested not to include possibility of a new or different kind of The proposed amendment involves changes to the IP2 [Indian Point Unit No. 2]

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES copyrighted materials in their accident from any accident previously submission. evaluated? containment leakage rate testing program.

Petitions for leave to intervene must Response: No. The proposed amendment does not involve The proposed changes do not create the a physical change to the plant or a change in be filed no later than 60 days from the possibility of a new or different kind of the manner in which the plant is operated or date of publication of this notice. accident from any previously evaluated controlled. The primary containment Requests for hearing, petitions for leave because no new accident initiators or function is to provide an essentially leak to intervene, and motions for leave to assumptions are introduced by the proposed tight barrier against the uncontrolled release file new or amended contentions that changes. The proposed license transfers are of radioactivity to the environment for VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM 17MRN1

13906 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices postulated accidents. As such, the 2A, for the development of the IP2 Attachment 1, section 2.2, has identified containment itself and the testing performance-based leakage testing program, some variations or deviations from the requirements to periodically demonstrate the and establishes a 15-year interval for the TSTF-425. Additionally, the change integrity of the containment exist to ensure performance of the containment ILRT. This the plants ability to mitigate the amendment does not alter the manner in would add a new program, the consequences of an accident do not involve which safety limits, limiting safety system Surveillance Frequency Control any accident precursors or initiators. setpoints, or limiting conditions for operation Program, to TS section 5, Therefore, the probability of occurrence of are determined. The specific requirements Administrative Controls. The NRC staff an accident previously evaluated is not and conditions of the containment leakage issued a notice of opportunity for significantly increased by the proposed rate testing program, as defined in the TS comment in the Federal Register on amendment. [technical specifications], ensure that the December 5, 2008, 73 FR 74202, on The proposed amendment adopts the NRC degree of primary containment structural possible amendments to revise the plant accepted guidelines of NEI 94-01, Revision integrity and leak-tightness that is considered 2A, for development of the IP2 performance- specific TS, to Relocate Surveillance in the plants safety analysis is maintained.

based testing program for the Type A testing. The overall containment leakage rate limit Frequencies to Licensee Control Implementation of these guidelines continues specified by the TS is maintained, and the RITSTF Initiative 5b. The Notice to provide adequate assurance that during Type A containment leakage tests would be included a model safety evaluation and design basis accidents, the primary performed at the frequencies established in model No Significant Hazards containment and its components would limit accordance with the NRC-accepted Consideration (NSHC) determination, leakage rates to less than the values assumed guidelines of NEI 94-01, Revision 2A with no using the consolidated line-item in the plant safety analyses. The potential change to the 60 month frequencies of Type consequences of extending the ILRT improvement process. The NRC staff B, and Type C tests.

[integrated leak rate test] interval to 15 years subsequently issued a notice of Containment inspections performed in have been evaluated by analyzing the accordance with other plant programs serve availability of the models for referencing resulting changes in risk. The increase in risk to provide a high degree of assurance that the in license amendment applications in in terms of person-rem per year within 50 containment would not degrade in a manner the Federal Register on July 6, 2009 (74 miles resulting from design basis accidents that is not detectable by an ILRT. A risk FR 31996). The licensee affirmed the was estimated to be acceptably small and assessment using the current IP2 PSA applicability of the model NSHC determined to be within the guidelines [probabilistic safety assessment] model published in RG 1.174. Additionally, the determination in its application dated concluded that extending the ILRT test November 19, 2014, which is presented proposed change maintains defense-in-depth interval from ten years to 15 years results in by preserving a reasonable balance among below.

a very small change to the risk profile. Basis for proposed no significant prevention of core damage, prevention of Therefore, the proposed change does not containment failure, and consequence hazards consideration determination:

involve a significant reduction in a margin of mitigation. Entergy has determined that the As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the safety.

increase in conditional containment failure licensee has provided its analysis of the probability due to the proposed change The NRC staff has reviewed the issue of no significant hazards would be very small. Therefore, it is licensees analysis and, based on this consideration, which is presented concluded that the proposed amendment review, it appears that the three does not significantly increase the below:

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are consequences of an accident previously 1. Do the proposed changes involve a evaluated.

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff significant increase in the probability or Therefore, the proposed change does not proposes to determine that the consequences of an accident previously involve a significant increase in the amendment request involves no evaluated?

probability or consequences of an accident significant hazards consideration. Response: No.

previously evaluated. Attorney for licensee: Ms. Jeanne Cho, The proposed changes relocate the

2. Does the proposed amendment create Assistant General Counsel, Entergy specified frequencies for periodic the possibility of a new or different kind of Nuclear Operations, Inc., 440 Hamilton surveillance requirements to licensee control accident from any accident previously Avenue, White Plains, NY 10601. under a new Surveillance Frequency Control evaluated? NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin G. Program (SFCP). Surveillance frequencies are Response: No. not an initiator to any accident previously Beasley.

The proposed amendment adopts the NRC- evaluated. As a result, the probability of any accepted guidelines of NEI 94-01, Revision Exelon Generation Company, LLC, accident previously evaluated is not 2A, for the development of the IP2 Docket No. 50-410, Nine Mile Point significantly increased. The systems and performance-based leakage testing program, Nuclear Station, Unit 2 (NMP2), Oswego components required by the technical and establishes a 15-year interval for the specifications for which the surveillance performance of the containment ILRT. The County, New York frequencies are relocated are still required to containment and the testing requirements to Date of amendment request: be operable, meet the acceptance criteria for periodically demonstrate the integrity of the November 19, 2014. A publicly- the surveillance requirements, and be containment exist to ensure the plants available version is in ADAMS under capable of performing any mitigation ability to mitigate the consequences of an Accession No. ML14329A353. function assumed in the accident analysis.

accident do not involve any accident Description of amendment request: As a result, the consequences of any accident precursors or initiators. The proposed change previously evaluated are not significantly does not involve a physical change to the The proposed amendment would increased.

plant (i.e., no new or different type of modify the Nine Mile Point (NMP) Therefore, the proposed changes do not equipment will be installed) or a change to Nuclear Station, Unit 2 Technical involve a significant increase in the the manner in which the plant is operated or Specifications (TS) by relocating probability or consequences of an accident controlled. specific surveillance frequencies to a previously evaluated.

Therefore, the proposed change does not 2. Do the proposed changes create the mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES licensee-controlled program with the create the possibility of a new or different adoption of Technical Specification possibility of a new or different kind of kind of accident from any previously Task Force (TSTF)-425, Revision 3, accident from any accident previously evaluated. evaluated?

3. Does the proposed amendment involve Relocate Surveillance Frequencies to Response: No.

a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Licensee ControlRisk Informed No new or different accidents result from Response: No. Technical Specification Task Force utilizing the proposed changes. The changes The proposed amendment adopts the NRC- (RITSTF) Initiative 5b. The licensees do not involve a physical alteration of the accepted guidelines of NEI 94-01, Revision application dated November 19, 2014, plant (i.e., no new or different type of VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM 17MRN1

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices 13907 equipment will be installed) or a change in increase the voltage limit for the diesel designed. The proposed change does not the methods governing normal plant generator (DG) full load rejection test change the single failure capabilities of the operation. In addition, the changes do not specified by technical specification (TS) electrical power system or create a potential impose any new or different requirements. for loss of power since the design operation Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.8.1.10. of the DGs is maintained.

The changes do not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis. The proposed changes Additionally, the proposed amendment Therefore, the proposed change does not are consistent with the safety analysis would add Note 3 to TS SR 3.8.1.10 for create the possibility of a new or different assumptions and current plant operating alignment with the Standard Technical kind of accident from any accident practice. Specifications documented in NUREG- previously evaluated.

Therefore, the proposed changes do not 1431, April 2012 (ADAMS Accession 3. Does the proposed change involve a create the possibility of a new or different No. ML12100A222). significant reduction in a margin of safety?

kind of accident from any accident Basis for proposed no significant Response: No.

previously evaluated. The margin of safety is established through hazards consideration determination: the design of the plant structures, systems,

3. Does the proposed amendment involve As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the a significant reduction in a margin of safety? and components, the parameters within licensee has provided its analysis of the which the plant is operated, and the Response: No.

The design, operation, testing methods, issue of no significant hazards setpoints for the actuation of equipment and acceptance criteria for systems, consideration, which is presented relied upon to respond to an event. The structures, and components (SSCs), specified below: proposed change does not modify the safety in applicable codes and standards (or limits or setpoints at which protective EGC [Exelon Generation Company] has actions are initiated. The proposed change alternatives approved for use by the NRC) evaluated the proposed change for increases the voltage limit for the DG full will continue to be met as described in the Braidwood Station and Byron Station, using load rejection test which results in new test plant licensing basis (including the final the criteria in 10 CFR 50.92, and has acceptance criterion that is more restrictive safety analysis report and bases to TS), since determined that the proposed change does than the existing acceptance criteria. The these are not affected by changes to the not involve a significant hazards proposed change ensures the availability and surveillance frequencies. Similarly, there is consideration. The following information is operability of safety-related DGs.

no impact to safety analysis acceptance provided to support a finding of no Therefore, the proposed change does not criteria as described in plant licensing basis. significant hazards consideration. involve a significant reduction in a margin of To evaluate a change in the relocated 1. Does the proposed change involve a safety.

surveillance frequency, Exelon will perform significant increase in the probability or Based on the above evaluation, EGC a probabilistic risk evaluation using the consequences of an accident previously concludes that the proposed amendment guidance contained in NRC approved NEI evaluated? presents no significant hazards consideration 04-10, Rev. 1 in accordance with the TS Response: No. under the standards set forth in 10 CFR SFCP. NEI 04-10, Rev. 1, methodology The DGs design function is to mitigate an 50.92, paragraph (c), and accordingly, a provides reasonable acceptance guidelines accident and there are no analyzed scenarios finding of no significant hazards and methods for evaluating the risk increase where the DGs are initiators of any consideration is justified.

of proposed changes to surveillance previously evaluated accident. Since DGs do frequencies consistent with Regulatory Guide not initiate accidents, this change does not The NRC staff has reviewed the 1.177. increase the probability of occurrence of a licensees analysis and, based on this Therefore, the proposed changes do not previously evaluated accident. The proposed review, it appears that the three involve a significant reduction in a margin of change to the testing approach of the DGs is standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are safety. consistent with the original design of the satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff DGs. The proposed change is in accordance proposes to determine that the The NRC staff has reviewed the with RG [Regulatory Guide] 1.9 Revision 3, licensees analysis and, based on this requested amendments involve no and this change to the testing approach does significant hazards consideration.

review, it appears that the three not impact the DGs ability to mitigate standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are Attorney for licensee: Bradley J.

accidents. The DGs will continue to operate satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff within the parameters and conditions Fewell, Associate General Counsel, proposes to determine that the assumed within the accident analysis. This Exelon Nuclear, 4300 Winfield Road, amendment request involves no change does not result in an increase in the Warrenville, IL 60555.

likelihood of malfunction of the DGs or their NRC Branch Chief: Travis L. Tate.

significant hazards consideration.

supported equipment. Since the DGs will Attorney for licensee: J. Bradley FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating continue to perform its required function, Fewell, Senior Vice President, there is no increase in the consequences of Company, Docket No. 50-440, Perry Regulatory Affairs, Nuclear, and General previously evaluated accidents. Nuclear Power Plant (PNPP), Unit 1, Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, Therefore, the proposed change does not Perry, Ohio LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, involve a significant increase in the Date of amendment request:

IL 60555. probability or consequences of an accident November 24, 2014. A publicly-NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin G. previously evaluated.

2. Does the proposed change create the available version is in ADAMS under Beasley. Accession No. ML14328A665.

possibility of a new or different kind of Exelon Generation Company LLC (), accident from any accident previously Description of amendment request:

Docket Nos. STN 50-456 and STN 50- evaluated? The proposed amendment is intended to 457, Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, Response: No. revise the battery capacity testing Will County, Illinois The proposed amendment does not change surveillance requirements in the the DGs operation or ability to perform its technical specifications to reflect test Docket Nos. STN 50-454 and STN 50- design function. The proposed change to TS requirements when the battery is near 455, Byron Station, Units 1 and 2, Ogle SR 3.8.1.10 at increased voltage will ensure mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES end of life.

County, Illinois the DGs ability to perform at rated power Basis for proposed no significant factor while meeting its requirements. The Date of amendment request: hazards consideration determination:

change to TS SR 3.8.1.10 does not result in December 18, 2014. A publicly-available DG operation that would create a new failure As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the version is in ADAMS under Accession mode of the DGs that could create a new licensee has provided its analysis of the No. ML14352A204. initiator of an accident. This is because the issue of no significant hazards Description of amendment request: DGs ability to perform its design function is consideration, which is presented The proposed amendment would maintained in the same manner as originally below:

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM 17MRN1

13908 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices

1. Does the proposed amendment involve standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are consequences of any accident previously a significant increase in the probability or satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff evaluated are not significantly increased.

consequences of an accident previously proposes to determine that the Therefore, the proposed change does not evaluated? involve a significant increase in the Response: No.

amendment request involves no probability or consequences of an accident The proposed amendment does not change significant hazards consideration. previously evaluated.

the design function of the Class 1 E Attorney for licensee: David W. 2. Does the proposed change create the divisional battery systems and does not Jenkins, Attorney, FirstEnergy possibility of a new or different kind of change the way the plant is maintained or Corporation, Mail Stop A-GO-15, 76 accident from any accident previously operated when performing battery South Main Street, Akron, OH 44308. evaluated?

surveillance testing. The proposed NRC Branch Chief: Travis L. Tate. Response: No.

amendment does not affect any accident No new or different accidents [would]

mitigating feature or increase the likelihood Florida Power and Light Company, et result from utilizing the proposed change.

of malfunction for plant structures, systems al., Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389, St. The changes [to the TSs] do not involve a and components. Lucie Plant, Units 1 and 2, St. Lucie physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new The proposed amendment does not affect County, Florida or different type of equipment will be the operability requirements of the Class 1 E installed) or a change in the methods divisional battery systems. Verification of Date of amendment request: August 7, governing normal plant operation. In operating the plant within prescribed limits 2014 (ADAMS Accession No. addition, the changes do not impose any new will continue to be performed, as currently ML14225A630). or different requirements. The changes do not required. Compliance with and continued Description of amendment request: alter assumptions made in [any] safety verification of the prescribed limits support analysis.

the capability of the Class 1 E divisional The amendment would revise the Technical Specifications to add a short Therefore, the proposed change does not battery systems to perform their required create the possibility of a new or different design functions during all plant operating, Allowed Outage Time to restore an kind of accident from any previously accident, and station blackout conditions, inoperable system for conditions under evaluated.

consistent with the plant safety analyses. which the existing specifications require 3. Does the proposed change involve a The proposed amendment will not change a plant shutdown. The proposed significant reduction in a margin of safety?

any of the analyses associated with the PNPP amendment is consistent with an NRC- Response: No.

Updated Safety Analysis Report Chapter 15 approved change identified as Technical The proposed change increases the time accidents because plant operation, plant Specifications Task Force (TSTF) the plant may operate without the ability to structures, systems, components, accident Traveler TSTF-426, Revision 5, Revise perform an assumed safety function. The initiators, and accident mitigation functions or Add Actions to Preclude Entry into analyses in [the NRC-approved topical remain unchanged.

LCO [Limiting Condition for Operation] report] WCAP-16125-NP-A, Justification Therefore, the proposed amendment does for Risk-Informed Modifications to Selected not involve a significant increase in the 3.0.3RITSTF [Risk-Informed TSTF] Technical Specifications for Conditions probability or consequences of an accident Initiatives 6b & 6c (see 78 FR 32476, Leading to Exigent Plant Shutdown, previously evaluated. May 30, 2013). The Allowed Outage Revision 2, August 2010, demonstrated that

2. Does the proposed amendment create Time would be added to specifications the possibility of a new or different kind of there is an acceptably small increase in risk accident from any accident previously governing the boron injection flow paths due to a limited period of continued evaluated? of the reactivity control systems, operation in these conditions and that this Response: No. pressurizer heaters, containment spray risk is balanced by avoiding the risks The proposed amendment does not change trains, shield building ventilation associated with a plant shutdown. As a the design function of the Class 1 E systems, and control room emergency result, the change to the margin of safety divisional battery systems, and does not provided by requiring a plant shutdown air cleanup systems. within one hour is not significant.

change the way the plant is operated or Basis for proposed no significant maintained. The proposed amendment does Therefore, the proposed change does not hazards consideration determination: involve a significant reduction in a margin of not create a credible failure mechanism, malfunction or accident initiator not already As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the safety.

considered in the design and licensing basis. licensee has provided its analysis of the The NRC staff has reviewed the Therefore, the proposed amendment does issue of no significant hazards licensees analysis and determines that not create the possibility of a new or different consideration, which is reproduced the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) kind of accident from any accident below:

previously evaluated. are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff

1. Does the proposed change involve a proposes to determine that the proposed

3. Does the proposed amendment involve significant increase in the probability or amendment involves no significant a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

consequences of an accident previously hazards consideration.

Response: No.

evaluated?

Safety margins are applied to design and Attorney for licensee: William S.

licensing basis functions and to the Response: No.

The proposed change provides a short Blair, Managing AttorneyNuclear, controlling values of parameters to account Florida Power & Light Company, 700 for various uncertainties and to avoid Allowed Outage Time to restore an inoperable system for conditions under Universe Blvd., MS LAW/JB, Juno exceeding regulatory or licensing limits. The proposed amendment does not involve a which the existing Technical Specifications Beach, FL 33408-0420.

physical change to the plant, does not change require a plant shutdown to begin within one NRC Branch Chief: Shana R. Helton.

methods of plant operation within prescribed hour in accordance with Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) 3.0.3. Entering into Florida Power and Light Company, et limits, or affect design and licensing basis al., Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389, St.

functions or controlling values of parameters Technical Specification Actions is not an initiator of any accident previously Lucie Plant, Units 1 and 2, St. Lucie mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES for plant systems, structures, and components. evaluated. As a result, the probability of an County, Florida Therefore, the proposed amendment does accident previously evaluated is not Date of amendment request:

not involve a significant reduction in a significantly increased. The consequences of any accident previously evaluated that may December 5, 2014 (ADAMS Accession margin of safety. No. ML14353A016).

occur during the proposed Allowed Outage The NRC staff has reviewed the Times are no different from the consequences Description of amendment request:

licensees analysis and, based on this of the same accident during the existing one- The proposed amendment will modify review, it appears that the three hour allowance. As a result, the the Technical Specification (TS)

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM 17MRN1

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices 13909 requirements related to Completion is assessed and managed in accordance with features. As such, testing of the DGs Times for Required Actions to provide the NRC[-]approved Risk Informed themselves is not associated with any the option to calculate longer, risk- Completion Time Program. The proposed potential accident-initiating mechanism.

change implements a risk-informed Therefore, there will be no significant informed Completion Times. The configuration management program to assure impact on any accident probabilities by the proposed amendment will also add a that adequate margins of safety are approval of the requested changes.

new program, the Risk Informed maintained. Application of these new The changes include an increase in the Completion Time Program, to TS specifications and the configuration time that a DG under test will be paralleled section 6.0, Administrative Controls. management program considers cumulative to the grid while the unit is in Modes 1 or The methodology for using the Risk effects of multiple systems or components 2. As such, the ability of the tested DG to Informed Completion Time Program is being out of service and does so more respond to a DBA [design-basis accident]

described in Nuclear Energy Institute effectively than the current TS. could be minimally adversely impacted by Therefore, the proposed change does not the proposed changes. However, the impacts topical report NEI 06-09, Risk-involve a significant reduction in a margin of are not considered significant based, in part, Informed Technical Specifications on the ability of the remaining DG to mitigate safety.

Initiative 4b, Risk-Managed Technical a DBA or provide safe shutdown. Experience Specifications (RMTS) Guidelines, The NRC staff has reviewed the shows that testing for these SRs typically Revision 0-A, which was approved by licensees analysis and determines that does not perturb the electrical distribution the NRC on May 17, 2007. The proposed the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) system. In addition, operating experience amendment is consistent with the NRC- are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff supports the conclusion that the proposed approved industry-proposed Technical proposes to determine that the proposed changes do not involve any significant amendment involves no significant increases in the likelihood of a safety-related Specification Task Force-505, Revision hazards consideration. bus blackout or damage to plant loads.

1, Provide Risk-Informed Extended Therefore, the proposed change does not Completion TimesRITSTF Initiative Attorney for licensee: William S. involve a significant increase in the 4b. Blair, Managing AttorneyNuclear, probability or consequences of an accident Basis for proposed no significant Florida Power & Light Company, 700 previously evaluated.

hazards consideration determination: Universe Blvd., MS LAW/JB, Juno 2. Does the proposed change create the As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the Beach, FL 33408-0420. possibility of a new or different kind of licensee has provided its analysis of the NRC Branch Chief: Shana R. Helton. accident from any accident previously issue of no significant hazards evaluated?

Indiana Michigan Power Company, Response: No.

consideration, which is reproduced Docket Nos. 50-315 and 50-316, Donald The capability to synchronize a DG to the below: C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, offsite source (via the associated plant bus)

1. Does the proposed change involve a Berrien County, Michigan and test the DG in such a configuration is a significant increase in the probability or design feature of the DGs, including the test consequences of an accident previously Date of amendment request: mode override in response to a safety evaluated? December 17, 2014. A publicly-available injection signal. Paralleling the DG for longer Response: No. version is in ADAMS under Accession periods of time during plant operation may The proposed change permits the No. ML14356A022. slightly increase the probability of incurring extension of Completion Times provided the Description of amendment request: an adverse effect from the offsite source, but associated risk is assessed and managed in The proposed amendment would amend this increase in probability is judged to be accordance with the NRC[-]approved Risk the Appendix A technical specifications still quite small and such a possibility is not Informed Completion Time Program. The to Facility Operating Licenses DPR-58 a new or previously unrecognized proposed change does not involve a consideration.

and DPR-74, to modify the notes to TS significant increase in the probability of an The proposed change does not introduce a accident previously evaluated because the 3.8.1, AC SourcesOperating, to new mode of plant operation and does not change involves no change to the plant or its allow surveillance testing of the onsite involve physical modification to the plant.

modes of operation. The proposed change standby emergency diesel generators The change does not introduce new accident does not increase the consequences of an (DGs) during modes in which it is initiators or impact assumptions made in the accident because the design-basis mitigation currently prohibited. Specifically, the safety analysis.

function of the affected systems is not license amendment request proposes Therefore, the proposed change does not changed and the consequences of an accident removing the mode restrictions for the create the possibility of a new or different

[occurring] during the extended Completion following Surveillance Requirements kind of accident from any previously Time are no different from those [occurring] evaluated.

(SRs): 3.8.1.10 (DG single largest load during the existing Completion Time. 3. Does the proposed change involve a

2. Does the proposed change create the rejection test), 3.8.1.11 (DG full load significant reduction in a margin of safety?

possibility of a new or different kind of rejection test), and 3.8.1.15 (DG Response: No.

accident from any accident previously endurance run). The proposed changes do not exceed or evaluated? Basis for proposed no significant alter a design basis or safety limit, so there Response: No. hazards consideration determination: is no significant reduction in the margin of The proposed change does not change the As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the safety. The margin of safety is related to the design, configuration, or method of operation licensee has provided its analysis of the confidence in the ability of the fission of the plant. The proposed change does not issue of no significant hazards product barriers to perform their design involve a physical alteration of the plant (no functions during and following an accident consideration, which is presented new or different kind of equipment will be situation. These barriers include the fuel installed).

below: cladding, the reactor coolant system, and the Therefore, the proposed change does not 1. Does the proposed change involve a containment system. The proposed changes mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES create the possibility of a new or different significant increase in the probability of do not directly affect these barriers, nor do kind of accident from any accident occurrence or consequences of an accident they involve any significantly adverse impact previously evaluated. previously evaluated? on the DGs which serve to support these

3. Does the proposed change involve a Response: No. barriers in the event of an accident significant reduction in a margin of safety? The design of plant equipment is not being concurrent with a LOOP [loss of offsight Response: No. modified by the proposed changes. In power]. The proposed changes to the testing The proposed change permits the addition, the DGs and their associated requirements for the plant DGs do not affect extension of Completion Times provided risk emergency loads are accident mitigating the OPERABILITY requirements for the DGs, VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM 17MRN1

13910 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices as verification of such OPERABILITY will Drywell PressureHigh function are Spray function. There is no new system continue to be performed as required (except currently contained in TRM sections component being installed, no new during different allowed modes). The T3.6.1, RHR Containment Spray, and construction, and no performance of a new changes have an insignificant impact on DG test or maintenance function. The proposed availability, as the DGs remain available to T3.3.2, ECCS and Reactor Core TS change does not create the possibility of perform their required function of providing Isolation Cooling Instrumentation, a new credible failure mechanism or emergency power to plant equipment that respectively. These TRM sections malfunction. The proposed change does not supports or constitutes the fission product established specific guidance and modify the design function or operation of barriers. Only one DG is to be tested at a criteria related to the applicability, any SSC. The proposed change does not time, so that the remaining DG will be operation, and testing for the RHR introduce new accident initiators. Primary available to safety shut down the plant if containment spray system. The TRM containment integrity is not adversely required. Consequently, performance of the impacted and radiological consequences requirements for the RHR containment fission product barriers will not be impacted from the accident analyzed in the USAR are by implementation of the proposed spray system would be removed once not increased. Containment parameters are amendment. the TS requirements are approved.

not increased beyond those previously In addition, the proposed changes involve Basis for proposed no significant evaluated and the potential for failure of the no changes to setpoints or limits established hazards consideration determination: containment is not increased. The proposed or assumed by the accident analysis. As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the change does not increase system or Therefore, the proposed change does not licensee has provided its analysis of the component pressures, temperatures, and involve a significant reduction in a margin of issue of no significant hazards flowrates for systems designed to prevent safety.

consideration, which is presented accidents or mitigate the consequences of an The NRC staff has reviewed the below: accident. Since these conditions do not licensees analysis and, based on this change, the likelihood of failure of an SSC is

1. Do the proposed changes involve a not increased.

review, it appears that the three significant increase in the probability or standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are Therefore, the proposed change does not consequences of an accident previously satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff create the possibility of a new or different evaluated?

kind of accident from any previously proposes to determine that the Response: No.

evaluated.

amendment requests involve no The proposed change to establish the RHR Containment Spray requirement in TS does 3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant hazards consideration. significant reduction in a margin of safety?

Attorney for licensee: Robert B. not introduce new equipment or new equipment operating modes, nor do the Response: No.

Haemer, Senior Nuclear Counsel, One The proposed change does not increase proposed changes alter existing system Cook Place, Bridgman, MI 49106. relationships. The proposed change does not system or component pressures, NRC Branch Chief: David L. Pelton. affect plant operation, design function, or any temperatures, and flowrates for systems analysis that verifies the capability of a designed to prevent accidents or mitigate the Nebraska Public Power District, Docket consequences of an accident. Containment structure, system, or component (SSC) to No. 50-298, Cooper Nuclear Station, parameters are not increased beyond those perform a design function. There are no Nemaha County, Nebraska changes or modifications to the RHR system. previously evaluated and the potential for Date of amendment request: January The RHR system will continue to function as failure of the containment is not increased.

15, 2015. A publicly-available version is designed in all modes of operation, including The proposed change to establish the RHR the Containment Spray function. There are Containment Spray requirement in TS is in ADAMS under Accession No. needed in order to reflect the current safety no significant changes to procedures or ML15021A127. function of Containment Spray related to the training related to the operation of the Description of amendment request: Containment Spray function. Primary small steam line break accident. The The proposed amendment would revise containment integrity is not adversely proposed change does not exceed or alter a the Technical Specifications (TSs) to impacted and radiological consequences design basis or a safety limit parameter that add a limiting condition for operation, from the accidents analyzed in the Updated is described in the USAR.

applicability, required actions, Safety Analysis Report (USAR) are not Therefore, the proposed change does not completion times, and surveillance increased. Containment parameters are not involve a significant reduction in a margin of requirements for the residual heat increased beyond those previously evaluated safety.

removal (RHR) containment spray and the potential for failure of the The NRC staff has reviewed the containment is not increased.

system consistent with the guidance in There is no adverse impact on systems licensees analysis and, based on this NUREG-1433, Revision 4, Standard designed to mitigate the consequences of review, it appears that the three Technical Specifications General accidents. The proposed change does not standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are Electric BWR [Boiling Water Reactor]/4 increase system or component pressures, satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff Plants, dated April 2012 (ADAMS temperatures, and flowrates for systems proposes to determine that the Accession No. ML12104A192). New TS designed to prevent accidents or mitigate the amendment request involves no section 3.6.1.9, Residual Heat Removal consequences of an accident. Since these significant hazards consideration.

(RHR) Containment Spray, would be conditions do not change, the likelihood of Attorney for licensee: Mr. John C.

failure of SSC is not increased.

added to reflect the reliance on McClure, Nebraska Public Power Therefore, the proposed change does not containment spray to maintain the involve a significant increase in the District, Post Office Box 499, Columbus, drywell within design temperature probability or consequences of an accident NE 68602-0499.

limits during a small steam line break. previously evaluated. Acting NRC Branch Chief: Eric R.

In addition, the Drywell Pressure 2. Do the proposed changes create the Oesterle.

High function that serves as an possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously Northern States Power Company mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES interlock permissive to allow RHR evaluated? Minnesota, Docket Nos. 50-282 and 50-containment spray mode alignment Response: No. 306, Prairie Island Nuclear Generating would be relocated from the Technical The proposed change to establish the RHR Plant, Units 1 and 2, Goodhue County, Requirements Manual (TRM) to TS Containment Spray requirement in TS does Minnesota 3.3.5.1, Emergency Core Cooling not alter the design function or operation of System (ECCS) Instrumentation. any SSC. The Containment system will Date of amendment request: February The requirements for the RHR continue to function as designed in all modes 20, 2013, as supplemented by letters containment spray function and of operation, including RHR Containment dated June 25, 2013; September 15, VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM 17MRN1

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices 13911 2014; and February 26, 2015. Publicly- 2. Does the proposed amendment create NRC Branch Chief: David L. Pelton.

available versions are in ADAMS under the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Accession Nos. ML13053A199, evaluated? Inc. (SNC), Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-ML13178A024, ML14258A089, and Response: No. 366, Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, ML15057A480, respectively. This license amendment request proposes Brief description of amendment Units 1 and 2, Appling County, GA to revise the Technical Specification for request: The proposed amendments ECCS operability requirements in Mode 4 by Date of amendment request: January would remove the technical removing the LCO Note which allows the 13, 2015. A publicly-available version is specification (TS) 3.5.3 ECCS RHR subsystem to be considered operable for in ADAMS under Accession No.

[Emergency Core Cooling System]- ECCS when aligned for shutdown cooling ML15014A411.

Shutdown, Limiting Condition for and revising the Applicability statement to Description of amendment request:

Operation (LCO) Note 1 to eliminate include all of Mode 4. These changes will The licensee proposes to adopt information to the plant operators that require one train of RHR to be aligned for Technical Specification Task Force ECCS operation throughout Mode 4. (TSTF) change number 523, revision 2, could cause non-conservative operation, The proposed Technical Specification and would revise the LCO Applicability changes involve changes to when system Generic Letter 2008-01, Managing Gas statement to apply to all of Mode 4. trains are operated, but they do not change Accumulation, for the Hatch Nuclear Basis for proposed no significant any system functions or maintenance Plant, Unit 1 and 2, technical hazards consideration determination: activities. The changes do not involve specifications (TS). The proposed As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the physical alteration of the plant, that is, no change would revise or add licensee provided its analysis of the new or different type of equipment will be Surveillance Requirements to verify that issue of no significant hazards installed. The changes do not alter the system locations susceptible to gas consideration, which the Commission assumptions made in the safety analyses but accumulation are sufficiently filled with previously issued in the Federal ensure that one train of ECCS is operable to water and to provide allowances which mitigate the consequences of a loss of coolant Register on August 20, 2013 (78 FR permit performance of the verification.

accident. These changes do not create new 51229). The licensee revised its analysis failure modes or mechanisms which are not Basis for proposed no significant of the issue of no significant hazards identifiable during testing and no new hazards consideration determination:

consideration, which is presented accident precursors are generated. As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the below, to consider expansion of the Therefore, the proposed Technical licensee has provided its analysis of the scope of the amendments by revising Specification changes do not create the issue of no significant hazards the LCO Applicability statement to possibility of a new or different kind of consideration, which is presented include all of Mode 4. accident from any previously evaluated. below:

3. Does the proposed amendment involve

1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? 1. Does the proposed change involve a a significant increase in the probability or Response: No. significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously This license amendment request proposes consequences of an accident previously evaluated? to revise the Technical Specification [TS] for evaluated?

Response: No. ECCS operability requirements in Mode 4 by Response: No.

This license amendment request proposes removing the LCO Note which allows the The proposed change revises or adds to revise the Technical Specification for Surveillance Requirement(s) (SRs) that RHR subsystem to be considered operable for ECCS operability requirements in Mode 4 by require verification that the Emergency Core ECCS when aligned for shutdown cooling removing the LCO Note which allows the Cooling System (ECCS), the Residual Heat and revising the Applicability statement to RHR [residual heat removal] subsystem to be Removal (RHR) System, the RHR Shutdown include all of Mode 4. These changes will considered operable for ECCS when aligned Cooling (SDC) System, the Containment for shutdown cooling and revising the require one train of RHR to be aligned for ECCS operation throughout Mode 4. Spray (CS) System, and the Reactor Core Applicability statement to include all of Isolation Cooling (RCIC) System are not Mode 4. These changes will require one train This license amendment proposes Technical Specification changes which rendered inoperable due to accumulated gas of RHR to be aligned for ECCS operation and to provide allowances which permit throughout Mode 4. assure that the ECCSShutdown TS LCO requirements are met if a Mode 4 LOCA were performance of the revised verification. Gas The proposed changes do not affect the to occur. With these changes, other TS accumulation in the subject systems is not an ECCS and RHR subsystem design, the requirements for shutdown cooling in Mode initiator of any accident previously interfaces between the RHR subsystem and 4 will continue to be met. Based on review evaluated. As a result, the probability of any other plant systems operating functions, or of plant operating experience, there is no accident previously evaluated is not the reliability of the RHR subsystem. The discernable change in cooldown rates when significantly increased. The proposed SRs proposed changes do not change or impact the initiators and assumptions of the utilizing a single train of RHR for shutdown ensure that the subject systems continue to analyzed accidents. Therefore, the ECCS and cooling. Thus, no margin of safety is reduced be capable to perform their assumed safety RHR subsystems will be capable of as part of this change. function and are not rendered inoperable due performing their accident mitigation Therefore, the proposed Technical to gas accumulation. Thus, the consequences functions, and the proposed TS changes do Specification changes do not involve a of any accident previously evaluated are not not involve an increase in the probability of significant reduction in a margin of safety. significantly increased.

an accident. Therefore, the proposed change does not The proposed TS changes will require that The NRC staff has reviewed the involve a significant increase in the one train of RHR is aligned for ECCS licensees analysis and, based on this probability or consequences of an accident operation during Mode 4 which assures that review, it appears that the three previously evaluated.

one train of ECCS is operable to mitigate the standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES consequences of a loss of coolant accident. satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff Thus the proposed TS changes do not proposes to determine that the accident from any accident previously involve a significant increase in the amendment requests involve no evaluated?

consequences of an accident. Response: No.

significant hazards consideration. The proposed change revises or adds SRs Therefore, the proposed Technical Specification changes do not involve a Attorney for licensee: Peter M. Glass, that require verification that the ECCS, the significant increase in the probability or Assistant General Counsel, Xcel Energy RHR, the RHR SDC System, the CS System, consequences of an accident previously Services, Inc., 414 Nicollet Mall, and the RCIC System are not rendered evaluated. Minneapolis, MN 55401. inoperable due to accumulated gas and to VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM 17MRN1

13912 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices provide allowances which permit in ADAMS under Accession No. kind of accident from any accident performance of the revised verification. The ML15028A537. previously evaluated.

proposed change does not involve a physical 3. Does the proposed amendment involve alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or Description of amendment request: a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

different type of equipment will be installed) The proposed change, if approved, Response: No.

or a change in the methods governing normal would revise, in part, the description The proposed changes to remove WCAP-plant operation. In addition, the proposed and scope of human factors engineering 15847 from the UFSAR and amend the OSA change does not impose any new or different (HFE) operational sequence analysis task do not adversely affect any safety-related requirements that could initiate an accident. (OSA) task and delete a reference to equipment, design code compliance, design The proposed change does not alter document WCAP-15847, which are function, design analysis, safety analysis assumptions made in the safety analysis and both identified as Tier 2* information in input or result, or design/safety margin is consistent with the safety analysis because NQA-1 requirements are maintained assumptions. the Updated Final Safety Analysis in other Westinghouse procedures and Therefore, the proposed change does not Report (UFSAR). testing of the ADS valves is still performed.

create the possibility of a new or different Basis for proposed no significant No safety analysis or design basis acceptance kind of accident from any accident hazards consideration determination: limit/criterion is challenged or exceeded by previously evaluated. As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the the proposed changes, thus no margin of

3. Does the proposed change involve a licensee has provided its analysis of the safety is reduced.

significant reduction in a margin of safety? Therefore, the proposed amendment does Response: No.

issue of no significant hazards not involve a significant reduction in a The proposed change revises or adds SRs consideration, which is presented margin of safety.

that require verification that the ECCS, the below:

The NRC staff has reviewed the RHR, RHR SDC System, the CS System, and 1. Does the proposed amendment involve the RCIC System are not rendered inoperable licensees analysis and, based on this a significant increase in the probability or review, it appears that the three due to accumulated gas and to provide consequences of an accident previously allowances which permit performance of the evaluated?

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are revised verification. The proposed change Response: No. satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff adds new requirements to manage gas The proposed deletion of WCAP-15847 proposes to determine that the accumulation in order to ensure the subject removes obsolete and superseded procedures amendment request involves no systems are capable of performing their from the licensing basis. The amendment of significant hazards consideration.

assumed safety functions. The proposed SRs the operational sequence analysis (OSA) task Attorney for licensee: Ms. Kathryn M.

are more comprehensive than the current SRs alters the automatic depressurization system Sutton, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLC, and will ensure that the assumptions of the (ADS) testing from Mode 1 to Mode 5. The safety analysis are protected. The proposed 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, proposed changes to the procedures do not Washington, DC 20004-2514.

change does not adversely affect any current involve any accident initiating component/

plant safety margins or the reliability of the NRC Branch Chief: Lawrence J.

system failure or event, and the change to the equipment assumed in the safety analysis. Burkhart.

ADS testing mode helps prevent accidents Therefore, there are no changes being made that would occur if the tests were performed to any safety analysis assumptions, safety Southern Nuclear Operating Company, in Mode 1. Thus, the probabilities of the Inc., Docket Nos.52-025 and 52-026, limits or limiting safety system settings that accidents previously evaluated are not would adversely affect plant safety as a result Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 affected. The affected procedures and of the proposed change. and 4, Burke County, Georgia requirements do not adversely affect or Therefore, the proposed change does not interact with safety-related equipment or a Date of amendment request: January involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

radioactive material barrier, and this activity 30, 2015. A publicly-available version is does not involve the containment of in ADAMS under Accession No.

Based on the above, SNC concludes that radioactive material. Thus, the proposed ML15030A505.

the proposed change presents no significant changes would not affect any safety-related Description of amendment request:

hazards consideration under the standards accident mitigating function. The radioactive The proposed change would amend set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and, material source terms and release paths used accordingly, a finding of no significant in the safety analyses are unchanged, thus Combined License Nos. NPF-91 and hazards consideration is justified. NPF-92 for the Vogtle Electric the radiological releases in the Updated Final The NRC staff has reviewed the Safety Analysis Report accident analyses are Generating Plant (VEGP) Units 3 and 4.

licensees analysis and, based on this not affected. The requested amendment proposes review, it appears that the three Therefore, the proposed amendment does changes to Tier 2* information standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are not involve a significant increase in the contained within the Human Factors satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff probability or consequences of an accident Engineering Design Verification, Task previously evaluated. Support Verification and Integrated proposes to determine that the

2. Does the proposed amendment create System Validation (ISV) plans. These amendment request involves no the possibility of a new or different kind of significant hazards consideration. accident from any accident previously documents are incorporated by Attorney for licensee: Jennifer M. evaluated? reference into the VEGP Units 3 and 4 Buettner, Associate General Counsel, Response: No. Updated Final Safety Analysis Report, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Removing WCAP-15847 from the UFSAR and will additionally require changes to 40 Inverness Center Parkway, and amending the OSA task regarding ADS be made to affected Tier 2 information.

Birmingham, AL 35201. valve testing does not adversely affect the Basis for proposed no significant NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. design or operation of safety-related hazards consideration determination:

Pascarelli. equipment or equipment whose failure could As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the initiate an accident other than what is mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES licensee has provided its analysis of the South Carolina Electric and Gas already described in the licensing basis. issue of no significant hazards Company, Docket Nos.: 52-027 and 52- These changes do not adversely affect safety-related equipment or fission product barriers.

consideration, which is presented 028, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, below:

Units 2 and 3, Fairfield County, South No safety analysis or design basis acceptance Carolina limit/criterion is challenged or exceeded by 1. Does the proposed amendment involve the requested change. a significant increase in the probability or Date of amendment request: January Therefore, the proposed amendment does consequences of an accident previously 27, 2015. A publicly-available version is not create the possibility of a new or different evaluated?

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM 17MRN1

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices 13913 Response: No. standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are consequences of an accident previously The proposed amendment includes satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff evaluated?

changes to Integrated System Validation proposes to determine that the Response: No.

(ISV) activities, which are performed on the amendment request involves no The proposed change permits the AP1000 plant simulator to validate the extension of Completion Times provided risk adequacy of the AP1000 human system significant hazards consideration.

is assessed and managed within the Risk interface design and confirm that it meets Attorney for licensee: Mr. M. Stanford Informed Completion Time Program. The human factors engineering principles. The Blanton, Balch & Bingham LLP, 1710 proposed change does not involve a proposed changes involve administrative Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL significant increase in the probability of an details related to performance of the ISV, and 35203-2015. accident previously evaluated because the no plant hardware or equipment is affected NRC Branch Chief: Lawrence J. changes involve no change to the plant or its whose failure could initiate an accident, or Burkhart. modes of operation. This proposed change that interfaces with a component that could does not increase the consequences of an initiate an accident, or that contains Southern Nuclear Operating Company, accident because the design-basis mitigation radioactive material. Therefore, these Inc., Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-425, function of the affected systems is not changes have no effect on any accident Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 changed and the consequences of an accident initiator in the Updated Final Safety Analysis and 2, Burke County, Georgia during the extended Completion Time are no Report (UFSAR), nor do they affect the Date of amendment request: different from those during the existing radioactive material releases in the UFSAR Completion Time.

September 13, 2012, as supplemented accident analysis. Therefore, the proposed change does not Therefore, the proposed amendment does August 2, 2013, July 3, July 17, involve a significant increase in the not involve an increase in the probability or November 11, and December 12, 2014.

probability or consequences of an accident consequences of an accident previously Publicly-available versions are in previously evaluated.

evaluated. ADAMS under Accession Nos. 2. Does the proposed change create the

2. Does the proposed amendment create ML12258A055, ML13217A072, possibility of a new or different kind of the possibility of a new or different kind of ML14189A554, ML14198A574, accident from any accident previously accident from any accident previously ML14315A051 and ML14346A643, evaluated?

evaluated? respectively. Response: No.

Response: No. Description of amendment request: The proposed change does not change the The proposed amendment includes The proposed amendment would design, configuration, or method of operation changes to ISV activities, which are of the plant. The proposed change does not modify certain Technical Specification performed on the AP1000 plant simulator to involve a physical alteration of the plant (no validate the adequacy of the AP1000 human (TS) requirements related to Completion Times for Required Actions to provide new or different kind of equipment will be system interface design and confirm that it installed).

meets human factors engineering principles. the option to calculate a longer, risk-Therefore, the proposed changes do not The proposed changes involve administrative informed Completion Time. The create the possibility of a new or different details related to performance of the ISV, and allowance will be described in a new kind of accident from any accident no plant hardware or equipment is affected program, Risk Informed Completion previously evaluated.

whose failure could initiate an accident, or Time Program (RICT), to be approved 3. Does the proposed change involve a that interfaces with a component that could by NRC and to be added to Chapter 5, significant reduction in a margin of safety[?]

initiate an accident, or that contains Administrative Controls, of the Response: No.

radioactive material. Although the ISV may Technical Specifications. The The proposed change permits the identify a need to initiate changes to add, methodology for using the RICT extension of Completion Times provided risk modify, or remove plant structures, systems, Program is described in an industry is assessed and managed within the Risk or components, these changes will not be document NEI 06-09, Risk-Informed Informed Completion Time Program. The made directly as part of the ISV.

Technical Specifications Initiative 4b, proposed change implements a risk-informed Therefore, the proposed amendment does configuration management program to assure not create the possibility of a new or different Risk-Managed Technical Specifications that adequate margins of safety are kind of accident from any accident (RMTS) Guidelines, which was maintained. Application of these new previously evaluated. approved by the Nuclear Regulatory specifications and the configuration

3. Does the proposed amendment involve Commission (NRC) on May 17, 2007. management program considers cumulative a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Adherence to NEI 06-09 is required by effects of multiple systems or components Response: No.

the proposed RICT Program. The being out of service and does so more The proposed amendment includes changes to ISV activities, which are proposed amendment is also consistent effectively than the current TS.

performed on the AP1000 plant simulator to with the methodologies presented in an Therefore, the proposed change does not validate the adequacy of the AP1000 human industry initiative identified as TSTF- involve a significant reduction in a margin of system interface design and confirm that it 505, Revision 1, Provide Risk-Informed safety.

meets human factors engineering principles. Extended Completion TimesRITSTF The NRC staff has reviewed the The proposed changes involve administrative Initiative 4b. Although the proposed details related to performance of the ISV, and licensees analysis and, based on this amendment is consistent with TSTF- review, it appears that the three do not affect any safety-related equipment, 505, the licensee is not proposing design code compliance, design function, standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are adoption of TSTF-505 with this satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff design analysis, safety analysis input or result, or design/safety margin. No safety proposed amendment; the proposed proposes to determine that the analysis or design basis acceptance limit/ amendment is a site-specific action. requested amendment involve no criterion is challenged or exceeded by the Basis for proposed no significant significant hazards consideration.

hazards consideration determination:

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES proposed changes, thus no margin of safety is reduced. As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the Attorney for licensee: Jennifer M.

Therefore, the proposed amendment does licensee has provided its analysis of the Buettner, Associate General Counsel, not involve a significant reduction in a issue of no significant hazards Southern Nuclear Operating Company, margin of safety. consideration, which is presented 40 Inverness Center Parkway, The NRC staff has reviewed the below: Birmingham, AL 35242.

licensees analysis and, based on this 1. Does the proposed change involve a NRC Branch Chief: Robert J.

review, it appears that the three significant increase in the probability or Pascarelli.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM 17MRN1

13914 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), Requirements for Monitoring the part 50, Appendix J, Option B, LLRT). The Docket Nos. 50-327 and 50-328, Effectiveness of Maintenance at Nuclear current test interval of 10 years, based on Sequoyah Nuclear Plant (SQN), Units 1 Power Plants), are performed in order to past performance, would be extended to 15 identify indications of containment years from the last Type A test (performed and 2, Hamilton County, Tennessee degradation that could affect that leak October 27, 2007 for SQN, Unit 1 and Date of amendment request: tightness. Types B and C testing required by December 30, 2006 for SQN, Unit 2). The December 2, 2014. A publicly-available TSs will identify any containment opening proposed extension to Type A and Type C version is in ADAMS under Accession such as valves that would otherwise be test intervals does not create the possibility No. ML14339A539. detected by the Type A tests. These factors of a new or different type of accident because Description of amendment request: show that a Type A test interval extension there are no physical changes being made to will not represent a significant increase in the plant and there are no changes to the The amendments would revise the consequences of an accident. operation of the plant that could introduce a Technical Specification (TS) 6.8.4.h, The proposed amendment involves new failure mode creating an accident or Containment Leakage Rate Testing changes to the SQN, Units 1 and 2, 10 CFR affecting the mitigation of an accident.

Program, by adopting Nuclear Energy 50 Appendix J Testing Program Plan. The Therefore, the proposed changes do not Institute (NEI) 94-01, Revision 3-A, proposed amendment does not involve a create the possibility of a new or different Industry Guideline for Implementing physical change to the plant or a change in kind of accident from any accident Performance-Based Option of 10 CFR the manner in which the units are operated previously evaluated.

part 50, Appendix J, as the or controlled. The primary containment 3. Does the proposed amendment involve function is to provide an essentially leak a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

implementation document for the tight barrier against the uncontrolled release Response: No.

performance-based Option B of 10 CFR of radioactivity to the environment for The proposed revision to TS 6.8.4.h part 50, Appendix J. The proposed postulated accidents. As such, the changes the testing period to a permanent 15-changes would permanently extend the containment itself and the testing year interval for Type A testing (10 CFR part Type A containment integrated leak rate requirements to periodically demonstrate the 50, Appendix J, Option B, ILRT) and a 75-testing (ILRT) interval from 10 years to integrity of the containment exist to ensure month interval for Type C testing (10 CFR 15 years, and the Type C local leakage the plants ability to mitigate the part 50, Appendix J, Option B, LLRT). The rate testing (LLRT) intervals from 60 consequences of an accident, and do not current test interval of 10 years, based on months to 75 months. involve any accident precursors or initiators. past performance, would be extended to 15 Basis for proposed no significant Therefore, the probability of occurrence of years from the last Type A test (performed an accident previously evaluated is not October 27, 2007 for SQN, Unit 1 and hazards consideration determination: significantly increased by the proposed December 30, 2006 for SQN, Unit 2). The As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the amendment. proposed extension to Type A testing will licensee has provided its analysis of the The proposed amendment adopts the NRC- not significantly reduce the margin of safety.

issue of no significant hazards accepted guidelines of NEI 94-01, Revision NUREG-1493, Performance-Based consideration, which is presented 3-A, for development of the SQN, Units 1 Containment System Leakage Testing below. and 2, performance-based leakage testing Requirements [sic] [Performance-Based program. Implementation of these guidelines Containment Leak-Test Program],

1. Does the proposed amendment involve continues to provide adequate assurance that September 1995, generic study of the effects a significant increase in the probability or during design basis accidents, the primary of extending containment leakage testing, consequence of an accident previously containment and its components will limit found that a 20-year extension to Type A evaluated?

Response: No. leakage rates to less than the values assumed leakage testing resulted in an imperceptible The proposed revision to TS 6.8.4.h in the plant safety analyses. The potential increase in risk to the public. NUREG-1493 changes the testing period to a permanent 15- consequences of extending the ILRT interval found that, generically, the design year interval for Type A testing (10 CFR part from 10 years to 15 years have been containment leakage rate contributes about 50, Appendix J, Option B, ILRT) and a 75- evaluated by analyzing the resulting changes 0.1% to the individual risk and that the month interval for Type C testing (10 CFR in risk. The increase in risk in terms of decrease in Type A testing frequency would part 50, Appendix J, Option B, LLRT). The person-rem per year resulting from design have a minimal effect on this risk since 95%

current type A test interval of 10 years would basis accidents was estimated to be very of the potential leakage paths are detected by be extended to 15 years from the last Type small, and the increase in the LERF [large Type C testing. Regular inspections required A test. The proposed extension to Type A early release frequency] resulting from the by the ASME Code section Xl (subsections testing does not involve a significant increase proposed change was determined to be IWE and IWL) and maintenance rule in the consequences of an accident because within the guidelines published in NRC RG monitoring (10 CFR 50.65, Requirements for research documented in NUREG-1493, [Regulatory Guide] 1.174. Additionally, the Monitoring the Effectiveness of Maintenance Performance-Based Containment System proposed change maintains defense-in-depth at Nuclear Power Plants) will further reduce Leakage Testing Requirements [sic] by preserving a reasonable balance among the risk of a containment leakage path going

[Performance-Based Containment Leak-Test prevention of core damage, prevention of undetected.

Program], September 1995, has found that, containment failure, and consequence The proposed amendment adopts the NRC-generically, very few potential containment mitigation. TVA has determined that the accepted guidelines of NEI 94-01, Revision leakage paths are not identified by Type B increase in CCFP [conditional containment 3-A, for development of the SQN, Units 1 and C tests. NUREG-1493 concluded that failure probability] due to the proposed and 2, performance-based leakage testing reducing the Type A testing frequency to one change would be very small. program, and establishes a 15-year interval per twenty years was found to lead to an Based on the above discussions, the for the performance of the primary imperceptible increase in risk. A high degree proposed changes do not involve an increase containment ILRT and a 75-month interval of assurance is provided through testing and in the probability or consequences of an for Type C testing. The amendment does not inspection that the containment will not accident previously evaluated. alter the manner in which safety limits, degrade in a manner detectable only by Type 2. Does the proposed amendment create limiting safety system setpoints, or limiting A testing. The last Type A test (performed the possibility of a new or different kind of conditions for operation are determined. The mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES October 27, 2007 for SQN, Unit 1 and accident from any accident previously specific requirements and conditions of the December 30, 2006 for SQN, Unit 2) shows evaluated? 10 CFR part 50, Appendix J Testing Program leakage to be below acceptance criteria, Response: No. Plan, as defined in the TS, ensure that the indicating a very leak tight containment. The proposed revision to TS 6.8.4.h degree of primary containment structural Inspections required by the ASME [American changes the testing period to a permanent 15- integrity and leak-tightness that is considered Society of Mechanical Engineers] Code year interval for Type A testing (10 CFR part in the plant safety analyses is maintained.

section Xl (subsections IWE and IWL) and 50, Appendix J, Option B, ILRT) and a 75- The overall containment leakage rate limit Maintenance Rule monitoring (10 CFR 50.65, month interval for Type C testing (10 CFR specified by the TS is maintained, and the VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM 17MRN1

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices 13915 Type A, B, and C containment leakage tests acceptance criteria for the Surveillance ML14007A496, ML14139A424, and will continue to be performed at the Requirement 3.1.4.2 for Control Rod G- ML15044A047, respectively.

frequencies established in accordance with 3. During the last two performances of Brief description of amendment the NRC-accepted guidelines of NEI 94-01, request: The licensee is requesting that Revision 3-A.

this Surveillance on September 18, Containment inspections performed in 2014, and December 11, 2014, Control the Commission grant it preemption accordance with other plant programs serve Rod G-3 misalignment occurred with authority consistent with the to provide a high degree of assurance that the Shutdown Bank B group movement as Commissions authority under section containment will not degrade in a manner displayed by Individual Rod Position 161A of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, that is detectable only by an ILRT. This Indication and Plant Instrument as amended, to authorize the security ensures that evidence of containment Computer System. The proposed change personnel of designated classes of structural degradation is identified in a licensees to possess, use, and access is to defer subsequent testing of the timely manner. Furthermore, a risk covered weapons for the physical assessment using the current SQN, Units 1 Control Rod G-3 until repaired during and 2, PRA model concluded that extending the next refuel outage (March 2016) or security of SONGS, Units 2 and 3, and the ILRT test interval from 10 years to 15 forced outage long enough to repair the the Independent Spent Fuel Storage years results in a very small change to the Control Rod. Installation, notwithstanding Federal, SQN, Units 1 and 2, risk profile. Date of publication of individual State, or local laws prohibiting such Accordingly, the proposed changes do not notice in Federal Register: March 2, possession or use. If the amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of 2015 (80 FR 11236). request is granted, the licenses would be safety. Expiration date of individual notice: modified to reflect the Commissions The NRC staff has reviewed the April 1, 2015 (public comments); May 1, granting of section 161A preemption licensees analysis and, based on this 2015 (hearing requests). authority.

review, it appears that the three Date of publication of individual Pacific Gas and Electric Company, notice in Federal Register: February standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323 for satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 18, 2015 (80 FR 8701).

Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant Expiration date of individual notice:

proposes to determine that the (DCPP), Units 1 and 2, Docket No. 72-amendment request involves no March 20, 2015 (public comments);

26 for Diablo Canyon Independent April 20, 2015 (hearing requests).

significant hazards consideration. Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI),

Attorney for licensee: General IV. Notice of Issuance of Amendments San Luis Obispo County, California Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, to Facility Operating Licenses and 400 West Summit Hill Drive, 6A West Date of amendment request: Combined Licenses and Final Tower, Knoxville, TN 37902. September 24, 2013, as supplemented Determination of No Significant NRC Branch Chief: Shana R. Helton. by letters dated December 18, 2013 Hazards Consideration and (security-related), and May 15, 2014. Opportunity for a Hearing (Exigent III. Previously Published Notices of Publicly-available versions of the letters Consideration of Issuance of Public Announcement or Emergency dated September 24, 2013, and May 15, Circumstances)

Amendments to Facility Operating 2014, are in ADAMS under Accession Licenses and Combined Licenses, Nos. ML13268A398 and ML14135A379, During the period since publication of Proposed No Significant Hazards respectively. the last biweekly notice, the Consideration Determination, and Brief description of amendment Commission has issued the following Opportunity for a Hearing request: The proposed amendments amendments. The Commission has The following notices were previously would modify the licenses to reflect a determined for each of these published as separate individual grant of section 161A of the Atomic amendments that the application for the notices. The notice content was the Energy Act, to authorize the licensee the amendment complies with the same as above. They were published as authority to possess and use certain standards and requirements of the individual notices either because time firearms, ammunition, and other devices Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended did not allow the Commission to wait such as large-capacity ammunition (the Act), and the Commissions rules for this biweekly notice or because the feeding devices, to implement the NRC- and regulations. The Commission has action involved exigent circumstances. approved security plan for DCPP, Unit made appropriate findings as required They are repeated here because the Nos. 1 and 2, and the Diablo Canyon by the Act and the Commissions rules biweekly notice lists all amendments ISFSI. and regulations in 10 CFR chapter I, issued or proposed to be issued Date of publication of individual which are set forth in the license involving no significant hazards notice in Federal Register: February amendment.

consideration. 18, 2015 (80 FR 8706). Because of exigent or emergency For details, see the individual notice Expiration date of individual notice: circumstances associated with the date in the Federal Register on the day and March 20, 2015 (public comments); the amendment was needed, there was page cited. This notice does not extend April 19, 2015 (hearing requests). not time for the Commission to publish, the notice period of the original notice. for public comment before issuance, its Southern California Edison Company, et usual notice of consideration of Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., al., Docket Nos. 50-361, 50-362, and issuance of amendment, proposed no Docket No. 50-247, Indian Point 72-41, San Onofre Nuclear Generating significant hazards consideration Nuclear Generating Unit 2, Westchester Station, Units 2 and 3, and Independent determination, and opportunity for a County, New York Spent Fuel Storage Installation, San mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES hearing.

Date of amendment request: February Diego County, California For exigent circumstances, the 12, 2015. A publicly-available version is Date of amendment request: August Commission has either issued a Federal in ADAMS under Accession No. 28, 2013, as supplemented by letters Register notice providing opportunity ML15044A471. dated December 31, 2013, May 15, 2014, for public comment or has used local Brief description of amendment and February 10, 2015. Publicly- media to provide notice to the public in request: The proposed amendment available versions are in ADAMS under the area surrounding a licensees facility would allow a revision to the Accession Nos. ML13242A277, of the licensees application and of the VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM 17MRN1

13916 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices Commissions proposed determination Facility Operating License or Combined the proceeding; and (4) the possible of no significant hazards consideration. License, as applicable, and (3) the effect of any decision or order which The Commission has provided a Commissions related letter, Safety may be entered in the proceeding on the reasonable opportunity for the public to Evaluation and/or Environmental requestors/petitioners interest. The comment, using its best efforts to make Assessment, as indicated. All of these petition must also identify the specific available to the public means of items can be accessed as described in contentions which the requestor/

communication for the public to the Obtaining Information and petitioner seeks to have litigated at the respond quickly, and in the case of Submitting Comments section of this proceeding.

telephone comments, the comments document. Each contention must consist of a have been recorded or transcribed as specific statement of the issue of law or A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing fact to be raised or controverted. In appropriate and the licensee has been and Petition for Leave To Intervene addition, the requestor/petitioner shall informed of the public comments.

In circumstances where failure to act The Commission is also offering an provide a brief explanation of the bases in a timely way would have resulted, for opportunity for a hearing with respect to for the contention and a concise example, in derating or shutdown of a the issuance of the amendment. Within statement of the alleged facts or expert nuclear power plant or in prevention of 60 days after the date of publication of opinion which support the contention either resumption of operation or of this notice, any person(s) whose interest and on which the petitioner intends to increase in power output up to the may be affected by this action may file rely in proving the contention at the plants licensed power level, the a request for a hearing and a petition to hearing. The petitioner must also Commission may not have had an intervene with respect to issuance of the provide references to those specific opportunity to provide for public amendment to the subject facility sources and documents of which the comment on its no significant hazards operating license or combined license. petitioner is aware and on which the consideration determination. In such Requests for a hearing and a petition for petitioner intends to rely to establish case, the license amendment has been leave to intervene shall be filed in those facts or expert opinion. The issued without opportunity for accordance with the Commissions petition must include sufficient comment. If there has been some time Agency Rules of Practice and information to show that a genuine for public comment but less than 30 Procedure in 10 CFR part 2. Interested dispute exists with the applicant on a days, the Commission may provide an person(s) should consult a current copy material issue of law or fact.

opportunity for public comment. If of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at Contentions shall be limited to matters comments have been requested, it is so the NRCs PDR, located at One White within the scope of the amendment stated. In either event, the State has Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555 under consideration. The contention been consulted by telephone whenever Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, must be one which, if proven, would possible. Maryland 20852, and electronically on entitle the petitioner to relief. A Under its regulations, the Commission the Internet at the NRCs Web site, requestor/petitioner who fails to satisfy may issue and make an amendment http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc- these requirements with respect to at immediately effective, notwithstanding collections/cfr/. If there are problems in least one contention will not be the pendency before it of a request for accessing the document, contact the permitted to participate as a party.

a hearing from any person, in advance PDRs Reference staff at 1-800-397- Those permitted to intervene become of the holding and completion of any 4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to parties to the proceeding, subject to any required hearing, where it has pdr.resource@nrc.gov. If a request for a limitations in the order granting leave to determined that no significant hazards hearing or petition for leave to intervene intervene, and have the opportunity to consideration is involved. is filed by the above date, the participate fully in the conduct of the The Commission has applied the Commission or a presiding officer hearing. Since the Commission has standards of 10 CFR 50.92 and has made designated by the Commission or by the made a final determination that the a final determination that the Chief Administrative Judge of the amendment involves no significant amendment involves no significant Atomic Safety and Licensing Board hazards consideration, if a hearing is hazards consideration. The basis for this Panel, will rule on the request and/or requested, it will not stay the determination is contained in the petition; and the Secretary or the Chief effectiveness of the amendment. Any documents related to this action. Administrative Judge of the Atomic hearing held would take place while the Accordingly, the amendments have Safety and Licensing Board will issue a amendment is in effect.

been issued and made effective as notice of a hearing or an appropriate order. B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing) indicated.

Unless otherwise indicated, the As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a All documents filed in NRC Commission has determined that these petition for leave to intervene shall set adjudicatory proceedings, including a amendments satisfy the criteria for forth with particularity the interest of request for hearing, a petition for leave categorical exclusion in accordance the petitioner in the proceeding, and to intervene, any motion or other with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant how that interest may be affected by the document filed in the proceeding prior to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental results of the proceeding. The petition to the submission of a request for impact statement or environmental should specifically explain the reasons hearing or petition to intervene, and assessment need be prepared for these why intervention should be permitted documents filed by interested amendments. If the Commission has with particular reference to the governmental entities participating mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES prepared an environmental assessment following general requirements: (1) the under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in under the special circumstances name, address, and telephone number of accordance with the NRCs E-Filing rule provision in 10 CFR 51.12(b) and has the requestor or petitioner; (2) the (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007). The E-made a determination based on that nature of the requestors/petitioners Filing process requires participants to assessment, it is so indicated. right under the Act to be made a party submit and serve all adjudicatory For further details with respect to the to the proceeding; (3) the nature and documents over the internet, or in some action see (1) the application for extent of the requestors/petitioners cases to mail copies on electronic amendment, (2) the amendment to property, financial, or other interest in storage media. Participants may not VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM 17MRN1

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices 13917 submit paper copies of their filings (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance by courier, express mail, or expedited unless they seek an exemption in available on the NRCs public Web site delivery service upon depositing the accordance with the procedures at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e- document with the provider of the described below. submittals.html. A filing is considered service. A presiding officer, having To comply with the procedural complete at the time the documents are granted an exemption request from requirements of E-Filing, at least ten 10 submitted through the NRCs E-Filing using E-Filing, may require a participant days prior to the filing deadline, the system. To be timely, an electronic or party to use E-Filing if the presiding participant should contact the Office of filing must be submitted to the E-Filing officer subsequently determines that the the Secretary by email at system no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern reason for granting the exemption from hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by telephone Time on the due date. Upon receipt of use of E-Filing no longer exists.

at 301-415-1677, to request (1) a digital a transmission, the E-Filing system Documents submitted in adjudicatory identification (ID) certificate, which time-stamps the document and sends proceedings will appear in the NRCs allows the participant (or its counsel or the submitter an email notice electronic hearing docket which is representative) to digitally sign confirming receipt of the document. The available to the public at http://

documents and access the E-Submittal E-Filing system also distributes an email ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded server for any proceeding in which it is notice that provides access to the pursuant to an order of the Commission, participating; and (2) advise the document to the NRCs Office of the or the presiding officer. Participants are Secretary that the participant will be General Counsel and any others who requested not to include personal submitting a request or petition for have advised the Office of the Secretary privacy information, such as social hearing (even in instances in which the that they wish to participate in the security numbers, home addresses, or participant, or its counsel or proceeding, so that the filer need not home phone numbers in their filings, representative, already holds an NRC- serve the documents on those unless an NRC regulation or other law issued digital ID certificate). Based upon participants separately. Therefore, requires submission of such this information, the Secretary will applicants and other participants (or information. However, a request to establish an electronic docket for the their counsel or representative) must intervene will require including hearing in this proceeding if the apply for and receive a digital ID information on local residence in order Secretary has not already established an certificate before a hearing request/ to demonstrate a proximity assertion of electronic docket. petition to intervene is filed so that they interest in the proceeding. With respect Information about applying for a can obtain access to the document via to copyrighted works, except for limited digital ID certificate is available on the the E-Filing system. excerpts that serve the purpose of the NRCs public Web site at http:// A person filing electronically using adjudicatory filings and would www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/ the NRCs adjudicatory E-Filing system constitute a Fair Use application, getting-started.html. System may seek assistance by contacting the participants are requested not to include requirements for accessing the E- NRC Meta System Help Desk through copyrighted materials in their Submittal server are detailed in the the Contact Us link located on the submission.

NRCs Guidance for Electronic NRCs public Web site at http://

Submission, which is available on the www.nrc.gov/site-help/e- Exelon Generation Company, LLC, agencys public Web site at http:// submittals.html, by email to Docket No. 50-353, Limerick Generating www.nrc.gov/site-help/e- MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a toll- Station, Unit 2, Montgomery County, submittals.html. Participants may free call at 1-866-672-7640. The NRC Pennsylvania attempt to use other software not listed Meta System Help Desk is available Date of amendment request: February on the Web site, but should note that the between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern NRCs E-Filing system does not support 12, 2015.

Time, Monday through Friday, unlisted software, and the NRC Meta Description of amendment request:

excluding government holidays.

System Help Desk will not be able to Participants who believe that they The amendment extends the offer assistance in using unlisted have a good cause for not submitting implementation period for Amendment software. documents electronically must file an No. 174, Leak Detection System If a participant is electronically exemption request, in accordance with Setpoint and Allowable Value submitting a document to the NRC in 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper Changes, which was issued on accordance with the E-Filing rule, the filing requesting authorization to December 29, 2014. Amendment No.

participant must file the document continue to submit documents in paper 174 was effective as of the date of using the NRCs online, Web-based format. Such filings must be submitted issuance (i.e., on December 29, 2014) submission form. In order to serve by: (1) first class mail addressed to the and was required to be implemented documents through the Electronic Office of the Secretary of the within 60 days (i.e., by February 27, Information Exchange System, users Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 2015). Amendment No. 177 extends the will be required to install a Web Commission, Washington, DC 20555- implementation period for Amendment browser plug-in from the NRCs Web 0001, Attention: Rulemaking and No. 174 from 60 days to prior to startup site. Further information on the Web- Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, from the spring 2015 refueling outage.

based submission form, including the express mail, or expedited delivery Date of issuance: February 25, 2015.

installation of the Web browser plug-in, service to the Office of the Secretary, Effective date: As of its date of is available on the NRCs public Web Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, issuance and shall be implemented prior to startup from the Spring 2015 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e- 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, submittals.html. Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking Unit 2 Refueling Outage.

Once a participant has obtained a and Adjudications Staff. Participants Amendment No.: 177. A publicly-digital ID certificate and a docket has filing a document in this manner are available version is in ADAMS under been created, the participant can then responsible for serving the document on Accession No. ML15049A084; submit a request for hearing or petition all other participants. Filing is documents related to this amendment for leave to intervene. Submissions considered complete by first-class mail are listed in the Safety Evaluation should be in Portable Document Format as of the time of deposit in the mail, or enclosed with the amendment.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00096 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM 17MRN1

13918 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices Renewed Facility Operating License Effective date: As of the date of with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant Nos. NPF-85: Amendment revised the issuance and shall be implemented to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental Renewed Facility Operating License to during the refueling outages in fall of impact statement or environmental extend the implementation date of 2016 for Unit 1, in spring of 2015 for assessment need be prepared for these Amendment No. 174, issued on Unit 2, and in spring of 2016 for Unit amendments. If the Commission has December 29, 2014, to prior to startup 3. prepared an environmental assessment from the Spring 2015 Unit 2 Refueling Amendment Nos.: 288, 313, and 272, under the special circumstances Outage. which are available in ADAMS under provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has Public comments requested as to Accession No. ML15051A337. made a determination based on that proposed no significant hazards Documents related to these amendments assessment, it is so indicated.

consideration (NSHC): Yes. Public are listed in the SE enclosed with the For further details with respect to the notice of the proposed amendment was amendments. action see (1) the applications for published in The Pottstown Mercury, Renewed Facility Operating License amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) located in in Pottstown, Pennsylvania, Nos. DPR-33, DPR-52, and DPR-68: the Commissions related letter, Safety on February 15, and February 16, 2015. Amendments revised the TSs. Evaluation and/or Environmental The notice provided an opportunity to Public comments requested as to Assessment as indicated. All of these submit comments on the Commissions proposed no significant hazards items can be accessed as described in proposed NSHC determination. consideration (NSHC): The public the Obtaining Information and Comments were received. notice was published in The Submitting Comments section of this The Commissions related evaluation Huntsville Times, located in document.

of the amendment, finding of exigent Huntsville, Alabama, on February 18 and 20, 2015. The notice provided an Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.,

circumstances, state consultation, Docket No. 50-255, Palisades Nuclear public comments, and final NSHC opportunity to submit comments on the Commissions proposed NSHC Plant, Van Buren County, Michigan determination are contained in a safety evaluation dated February 25, 2015. determination. No comments have been Date of application for amendment:

received. December 12, 2012, as supplemented by Attorney for licensee: J. Bradley The Commissions related evaluation letters dated February 21, September 30, Fewell, Esquire, Vice President and of the amendment, finding of exigent October 24, and December 2, 2013; Deputy General Counsel, Exelon circumstances, state consultation, and April 2, May 7, June 17, August 14, Generation Company, LLC, 200 Exelon final NSHC determination are contained November 4, and December 18, 2014.

Way, Kennett Square, PA 19348. Brief description of amendment: The in a safety evaluation dated February 26, NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. amendment authorizes the transition of 2015.

Broaddus. Attorney for licensee: General the Palisades Nuclear Plant fire Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, protection program to a risk-informed, Nos. 50-259, 50-260, and 50-296, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, ET 11A, performance-based program based on Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN), Knoxville, TN 37902. National Fire Protection Association Units 1, 2, and 3, Respectively, NRC Branch Chief: Shana R. Helton. (NFPA) 805, in accordance with 10 CFR Limestone County, Alabama V. Notice of Issuance of Amendments to 50.48(c). NFPA 805 allows the use of Facility Operating Licenses and performance-based methods such as fire Date of amendment request: February Combined Licenses modeling and risk-informed methods 12, 2015.

such as fire probabilistic risk assessment Brief description of amendment During the period since publication of to demonstrate compliance with the request: The amendments revised the last biweekly notice, the nuclear safety performance criteria.

Technical Specification (TS) 5.6.5, Commission has issued the following Date of issuance: February 27, 2015.

Core Operating Limits Report (COLR), amendments. The Commission has Effective date: As of its date of to add the date of a previously issued determined for each of these issuance and shall be implemented by NRC safety evaluation (SE) that stated it amendments that the application six months from the date of issuance.

was acceptable for the licensee to use complies with the standards and Amendment No.: 254. A publicly-new analytical methods supporting the requirements of the Atomic Energy Act available version is in ADAMS under use of ATRIUM 10XM (10XM) fuel. In of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Accession No. ML15007A191; its letter dated February 12, 2015, the Commissions rules and regulations. documents related to this amendment licensee stated BFN, Unit 2, is entering The Commission has made appropriate are listed in the Safety Evaluation an outage on March 14, 2015, and is findings as required by the Act and the enclosed with the amendment.

scheduled to commence loading 10XM Commissions rules and regulations in Renewed Facility Operating License fuel on March 17, 2015. Because the TSs 10 CFR chapter I, which are set forth in No. DPR-20: Amendment revised the do not reference the aforementioned the license amendment. Renewed Facility Operating License and NRC evaluation, the licensee would not A notice of consideration of issuance Technical Specifications.

be able to issue a COLR for the Unit 2 of amendment to facility operating Date of initial notice in Federal transition cycle unless the notation to license or combined license, as Register: February 27, 2014 (79 FR the latest NRC SE is added. Therefore, applicable, proposed no significant 11148). The supplements dated April 2, the licensee requested that NRC process hazards consideration determination, May 7, June 17, August 14, November 4, mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES the license amendment request under and opportunity for a hearing in and December 18, 2014, provided exigent circumstances in accordance connection with these actions, was additional information that clarified the with 10 CFR 50.91(a)(6). The NRC staff published in the Federal Register as application, did not expand the scope of determined that the provisions of 10 indicated. the application as originally noticed, CFR 50.91(a)(6) were applicable for Unless otherwise indicated, the and did not change the staffs original processing the licensees request under Commission has determined that these proposed no significant hazards exigent circumstances. amendments satisfy the criteria for consideration determination as Date of issuance: February 26, 2015. categorical exclusion in accordance published in the Federal Register.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM 17MRN1

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices 13919 The Commissions related evaluation Electric Station, Unit 3 to improve Amendment Nos.: 220 and 170. A of the amendment is contained in a clarity, correct administrative and publicly-available version is in ADAMS Safety Evaluation dated February 27, typographical errors, or establish under Accession No. ML14343A918; 2015. consistency with NUREG-1432, documents related to these amendments No significant hazards consideration Standard Technical Specifications are listed in the Safety Evaluation (SE) comments received: No. Combustion Engineering Plants, enclosed with the amendments.

Revision 4.0. Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-313, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1, Date of issuance: February 23, 2015. 67 and NPF-16: Amendments revised Pope County, Arkansas Effective date: As of the date of the Renewed Facility Operating issuance and shall be implemented 90 Licenses and TSs.

Date of amendment request: March days from the date of issuance. Date of initial notice in Federal 26, 2013, as supplemented by letters Amendment No.: 242. A publicly- Register: May 27, 2014 (79 FR 30187).

dated November 14, 2013, and August available version is in ADAMS under The supplements dated May 29 and July 18, October 22, and December 5, 2014. Accession No. ML15005A126; 25, 2014, provided additional Brief description of amendment: The documents related to this amendment information that clarified the amendment revised the Technical are listed in the Safety Evaluation application, did not expand the scope of Specification (TS) requirements for end enclosed with the amendment. the application as originally noticed, states associated with the Facility Operating License No. NPF- and did not change the staffs original implementation of the NRC-approved 38: The amendment revised the Facility proposed no significant hazards Topical Report BAW-2441-A, Revision Operating License and Technical consideration determination as 2, Risk-Informed Justification for LCO Specifications. published in the Federal Register.

End-State Changes, as well as Required Date of initial notice in Federal The Commissions related evaluation Actions revised by a specific Note in TS Register: August 5, 2014 (79 FR 45475). of the amendments is contained in a SE Task Force (TSTF) change traveler The supplements dated October 1, 2014, dated February 27, 2015.

TSTF-431, Revision 3, Change in and December 17, 2014, provided No significant hazards consideration Technical Specifications End States additional information that clarified the comments received: No.

(BAW-2441). application, did not expand the scope of Date of issuance: March 3, 2015. Luminant Generation Company LLC, the application as originally noticed, Effective date: As of the date of Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446, and did not change the staffs original issuance and shall be implemented Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant, proposed no significant hazards within 90 days from the date of Units 1 and 2, Somervell County, Texas consideration determination as issuance. Date of amendment request: July 1, published in the Federal Register.

Amendment No.: 253. A publicly- 2014.

available version is in ADAMS under The Commissions related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Brief description of amendment: The Accession No. ML15023A147; Safety Evaluation dated February 23, amendments revised Technical documents related to this amendment 2015. Specification 3.8.1, AC [Alternating are listed in the Safety Evaluation No significant hazards consideration Current] SourcesOperating, to extend enclosed with the amendment.

comments received: No. on a one-time basis the Completion Renewed Facility Operating License Time (CT) of Required Action A.3, No. DPR-51: Amendment revised the Florida Power and Light Company, et Restore required offsite circuit to TSs/license. al., Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389, St.

Date of initial notice in Federal OPERABLE status, from 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> to 14 Lucie Plant, Units 1 and 2, St. Lucie days. The CT extension from 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> Register: July 23, 2013 (78 FR 44170). County, Florida The supplemental letters dated to 14 days will be used while November 14, 2013, and August 19, Date of amendment request: February completing the plant modification to October 22, and December 5, 2014, 26, 2014, as supplemented by letters install alternate startup transformer provided additional information that dated May 29 and July 25, 2014. XST1A and will expire on March 31, clarified the application, did not expand Brief description of amendment: The 2017.

the scope of the application as originally amendments revised the Technical Date of issuance: February 24, 2015.

noticed, and did not change the staffs Specifications (TSs), modifying Effective date: As of the date of original proposed no significant hazards requirements for mode change issuance and shall be implemented consideration determination as limitations in Limiting Condition for within [licensee requested number] days published in the Federal Register. Operation 3.0.4 and Surveillance from the date of issuance.

The Commissions related evaluation Requirement (SR) 4.0.4 to adopt the Amendment Nos.: Unit 1164; Unit of the amendment is contained in a provisions of Industry/TS Task Force 2164. A publicly-available version is Safety Evaluation dated March 3, 2015. (TSTF)-359, Rev. 9, Increase in ADAMS under Accession No.

No significant hazards consideration Flexibility in MODE Restraints. The ML15008A133; documents related to comments received: No. language of SR 4.0.1 is revised to these amendments are listed in the conform to the language of NUREG- Safety Evaluation enclosed with the Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50- 1432, Standard Technical amendments.

382, Waterford Steam Electric Station, Specifications for Combustion Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-Unit 3, St. Charles Parish, Louisiana 87 and NPF-89: The amendments mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Engineering Plants, to resolve language Date of amendment request: incongruences and ensure conservative revised the Facility Operating Licenses December 9, 2013, as supplemented by implementation of the TSTF-359, Rev. and Technical Specifications.

letters dated October 1, 2014, and 9, changes. Date of initial notice in Federal December 17, 2014. Date of issuance: February 27, 2015. Register: October 28, 2014 (79 FR Brief description of amendment: The Effective date: As of the date of 64226).

amendment revised the Technical issuance and shall be implemented The Commissions related evaluation Specifications for the Waterford Steam within 60 days of issuance. of the amendments is contained in a VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00098 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM 17MRN1

13920 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices Safety Evaluation dated February 24, Amendment Nos.: Unit 1204; Unit contain the OMB control number of the 2015. 2192. A publicly-available version is ICR. For proper consideration of your No significant hazards consideration in ADAMS under Accession No. comments, it is best if the RRB and comments received: No. ML15049A129; documents related to OIRA receive them within 30 days of Omaha Public Power District, Docket these amendments are listed in the the publication date.

No. 50-285, Fort Calhoun Station, Unit Safety Evaluation enclosed with the Title and Purpose of information 1, Washington County, Nebraska amendments. collection: Evidence for Application of Facility Operating License Nos. NPF- Overall Minimum; OMB 3220-0083.

Date of amendment request: April 30, 76 and NPF-80: The amendments Under Section 3(f)(3) of the Railroad 2014, as supplemented by letter dated revised the Facility Operating Licenses Retirement Act (RRA), the total monthly January 27, 2015. and Technical Specifications. benefits payable to a railroad employee Brief description of amendment: The Date of initial notice in Federal and his/her family are guaranteed to be amendment revised Technical Register: December 2, 2014 (79 FR no less than the amount which would Specification section 3.2, Table 3-5, for 71455). The supplemental letter dated be payable if the employees railroad Fort Calhoun Station, Unit No. 1, to add December 18, 2014, provided additional service had been covered by the Social a new surveillance requirement to verify information that clarified the Security Act. This is referred to as the the correct position of the valves application, did not expand the scope of Social Security Overall Minimum required to restrict flow in the high the application as originally noticed, Guarantee, which is prescribed in 20 pressure safety injection system. and did not change the staffs original CFR 229. To administer this provision, Date of issuance: February 20, 2015. proposed no significant hazards Effective date: As of the date of the Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) consideration determination as requires information about a retired issuance and shall be implemented published in the Federal Register.

within 120 days from the date of employees spouse and child(ren) who The Commissions related evaluation would not be eligible for benefits under issuance. of the amendments is contained in a Amendment No.: 280. A publicly- the RRA but would be eligible for Safety Evaluation dated February 27, benefits under the Social Security Act if available version is in ADAMS under 2015.

Accession No. ML15015A413; the employees railroad service had No significant hazards consideration been covered by that Act. The RRB documents related to this amendment comments received: No.

are listed in the Safety Evaluation obtains the required information by the enclosed with the amendment. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day use of Forms G-319, Statement Renewed Facility Operating License of March 2015. Regarding Family and Earnings for No. DPR-40: The amendment revised For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Special Guaranty Computation, and G-the license and Technical Michele G. Evans, 320, Student Questionnaire for Special Specifications. Director, Division of Operating Reactor Guaranty Computation. One response is Date of initial notice in Federal Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor required of each respondent.

Register: August 19, 2014 (79 FR Regulation. Completion is required to obtain or 49108). The supplemental letter dated [FR Doc. 2015-05994 Filed 3-16-15; 8:45 am] retain benefits.

January 27, 2015, provided additional BILLING CODE 7590-01-P Previous Requests for Comments: The information that clarified the RRB has already published the initial application, did not expand the scope of 60-day notice (80 FR 1679 on January the application as originally noticed, RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD 13, 2015) required by 44 U.S.C.

and did not change the staffs original 3506(c)(2). That request elicited no proposed no significant hazards Agency Forms Submitted for OMB comments.

consideration determination as Review, Request for Comments Information Collection Request (ICR) published in the Federal Register.

The Commissions related evaluation

SUMMARY

In accordance with the

Title:

Statement Regarding of the amendment is contained in a Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 Contributions and Support of Children.

safety evaluation dated February 20, U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Railroad

Title:

Evidence for Application of 2015. Retirement Board (RRB) is forwarding Overall Minimum.

No significant hazards consideration an Information Collection Request (ICR)

OMB Control Number: 3220-0083.

comments received: No. to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Office of Forms submitted: G-319 and G-320.

STP Nuclear Operating Company, Management and Budget (OMB). Our Type of request: Extension without Docket Nos. 50-498 and 50-499, South ICR describes the information we seek change of a currently approved Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, Matagorda to collect from the public. Review and collection.

County, Texas approval by OIRA ensures that we Affected public: Individuals or Date of amendment request: August impose appropriate paperwork burdens. Households.

14, 2014, as supplemented by letter The RRB invites comments on the Abstract: Under Section 3(f)(3) of the dated December 18, 2014. proposed collection of information to Railroad Retirement Act, the total Brief description of amendments: The determine (1) the practical utility of the monthly benefits payable to a railroad amendments revised Administrative collection; (2) the accuracy of the employee and his/her family are Controls Technical Specification (TS) estimated burden of the collection; (3) guaranteed to be no less than the mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 6.9.1.6, Core Operating Limits Report ways to enhance the quality, utility, and amount which would be payable if the (COLR), with respect to the analytical clarity of the information that is the employees railroad service had been methods used to determine the core subject of collection; and (4) ways to covered by the Social Security Act.

operating limits. minimize the burden of collections on Changes proposed: The RRB proposes Date of issuance: February 27, 2015. respondents, including the use of non-burden impacting editorial changes Effective date: As of the date of automated collection techniques or to Forms G-319 and G-320.

issuance and shall be implemented other forms of information technology. The burden estimate for the ICR is as within 90 days of issuance. Comments to the RRB or OIRA must follows:

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00099 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM 17MRN1

13902 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices under part 110. The NRC Form 7 Week of April 6, 2015Tentative disabilities where appropriate. If you application will be reviewed by the NRC There are no meetings scheduled for need a reasonable accommodation to and by the Executive Branch, and if the week of April 6, 2015. participate in these public meetings, or applicable statutory, regulatory, and need this meeting notice or the policy considerations are satisfied, the Week of April 13, 2015Tentative transcript or other information from the NRC will issue an export, import, Tuesday, April 14, 2015 public meetings in another format (e.g.

amendment or renewal license. braille, large print), please notify 9:30 a.m. Meeting with the Advisory Kimberly Meyer, NRC Disability III. Specific Requests for Comments Committee on the Medical Uses of Program Manager, at 301-287-0727, by Submit, by May 18, 2015, comments Isotopes (Public Meeting) (Contact: videophone at 240-428-3217, or by that address the following questions: Nima Ashkeboussi, 301-415-5775) email at Kimberly.Meyer-Chambers@

1. Is the proposed collection of This meeting will be webcast live at nrc.gov. Determinations on requests for information necessary for the NRC to the Web addresshttp://www.nrc.gov/. reasonable accommodation will be properly perform its functions? Does the Thursday, April 16, 2015 made on a case-by-case basis.

information have practical utility? * * * * *

2. Is the estimate of the burden of the 9:30 a.m. Meeting with the Organization of Agreement States and the Members of the public may request to information collection accurate? receive this information electronically.

3. Is there a way to enhance the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors (Public Meeting) If you would like to be added to the quality, utility, and clarity of the distribution, please contact the Nuclear (Contact: Nima Ashkeboussi, 301-information to be collected? Regulatory Commission, Office of the 415-5775)

4. How can the burden of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-information collection on respondents This meeting will be webcast live at the Web addresshttp://www.nrc.gov/. 415-1969), or email be minimized, including the use of Brenda.Akstulewicz@nrc.gov or automated collection techniques or Week of April 20, 2015Tentative Patricia.Jimenez@nrc.gov.

other forms of information technology? There are no meetings scheduled for Dated: March 13, 2015.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day the week of April 20, 2015. Glenn Ellmers, of March 2015.

• * * *

• Policy Coordinator, Office of the Secretary.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The schedule for Commission [FR Doc. 2015-06188 Filed 3-13-15; 4:15 pm]

Tremaine Donnell, meetings is subject to change on short BILLING CODE 7590-01--P NRC Clearance Officer, Office of Information notice. For more information or to verify Services. the status of meetings, contact Glenn

[FR Doc. 2015-06014 Filed 3-16-15; 8:45 am] Ellmers at 301-415-0442 or via email at NUCLEAR REGULATORY BILLING CODE 7590-01-P Glenn.Ellmers@nrc.gov. COMMISSION Additional Information [NRC-2015-0055]

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1. By a vote of 3-0 on March 9, 2015, Biweekly Notice; Applications and the Commission determined pursuant to Amendments to Facility Operating

[NRC-2015-0001] U.S.C. 552b(e) and 9.107(a) of the Licenses and Combined Licenses Commissions rules that an Affirmation Involving No Significant Hazards Sunshine Act Meeting Notice Session for Entergy Nuclear Operations, Considerations DATES: March 16, 23, 30, April 6, 13, 20, Inc. (Indian Point Nuclear Generating 2015. Units 2 and 3)Petitions for Review of AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory LBP-13-13 (Partial Initial Decision) and Commission.

PLACE:Commissioners Conference Related Decisions (Appeals of Board ACTION: Biweekly notice.

Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Decisions Related to Contentions NUS-Maryland. 8 CW-EC-3) be held with less than one

SUMMARY

Pursuant to section 189a. (2)

STATUS: Public and Closed. week notice to the public. The meeting of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as Week of March 16, 2015 was held on March 9, 2015. amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear

2. The Affirmation Session for Omaha Regulatory Commission (NRC) is There are no meetings scheduled for Public Power District (Fort Calhoun publishing this regular biweekly notice.

the week of March 16, 2015. Station, Unit 1), Petition to Intervene The Act requires the Commission to Week of March 23, 2015Tentative and Request for Adjudicatory Hearing publish notice of any amendments by Sierra Club (Apr. 23, 2014), issued, or proposed to be issued and Thursday, March 26, 2015 previously scheduled for March 5, 2015, grants the Commission the authority to 9:30 a.m. Briefing on Security Issues was held on March 9, 2015. issue and make immediately effective (ClosedEx. 1) 3. The meeting with the Advisory any amendment to an operating license 1:30 p.m. Briefing on Security Issues Committee on Reactor Safeguards, or combined license, as applicable, (ClosedEx. 1) scheduled for March 5, 2015, was upon a determination by the postponed. Commission that such amendment Friday, March 27, 2015 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

• * * *

• involves no significant hazards 9:30 a.m. Briefing on Threat The NRC Commission Meeting consideration, notwithstanding the Environment Assessment (Closed- Schedule can be found on the Internet pendency before the Commission of a Ex. 1) at: http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/ request for a hearing from any person.

public-meetings/schedule.html. This biweekly notice includes all Week of March 30, 2015Tentative notices of amendments issued, or There are no meetings scheduled for The NRC provides reasonable proposed to be issued from February 19, the week of March 30, 2015. accommodation to individuals with 2015 to March 4, 2015. The last VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM 17MRN1

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices 13903 biweekly notice was published on the NRCs PDR, Room O1-F21, One publication of this notice. The March 3, 2015. White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Commission may issue the license DATES: Comments must be filed by April Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. amendment before expiration of the 60-16, 2015. A request for a hearing must day period provided that its final B. Submitting Comments be filed by May 18, 2015. determination is that the amendment ADDRESSES: You may submit comments Please include Docket ID NRC-2015- involves no significant hazards by any of the following methods (unless 0055, facility name, unit number(s), consideration. In addition, the this document describes a different application date, and subject in your Commission may issue the amendment method for submitting comments on a comment submission. prior to the expiration of the 30-day The NRC cautions you not to include comment period should circumstances specific subject):

• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to identifying or contact information that change during the 30-day comment http://www.regulations.gov and search you do not want to be publicly period such that failure to act in a for Docket ID NRC-2015-0055. Address disclosed in your comment submission. timely way would result, for example in questions about NRC dockets to Carol The NRC posts all comment derating or shutdown of the facility.

Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-3463; submissions at http:// Should the Commission take action email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. www.regulations.gov as well as entering prior to the expiration of either the

• Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, the comment submissions into ADAMS. comment period or the notice period, it Office of Administration, Mail Stop: The NRC does not routinely edit will publish in the Federal Register a OWFN-12-H08, U.S. Nuclear comment submissions to remove notice of issuance. Should the Regulatory Commission, Washington, identifying or contact information. Commission make a final No Significant DC 20555-0001. If you are requesting or aggregating Hazards Consideration Determination, For additional direction on obtaining comments from other persons for any hearing will take place after information and submitting comments, submission to the NRC, then you should issuance. The Commission expects that see Obtaining Information and inform those persons not to include the need to take this action will occur Submitting Comments in the identifying or contact information that very infrequently.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing this document. and Petition for Leave To Intervene Your request should state that the NRC FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

does not routinely edit comment Within 60 days after the date of Beverly A. Clayton, Office of Nuclear submissions to remove such information publication of this notice, any person(s)

Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear before making the comment whose interest may be affected by this Regulatory Commission, Washington, submissions available to the public or action may file a request for a hearing DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-entering the comment submissions into and a petition to intervene with respect 3475, email: Beverly.Clayton@nrc.gov.

ADAMS. to issuance of the amendment to the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: subject facility operating license or II. Notice of Consideration of Issuance combined license. Requests for a I. Obtaining Information and of Amendments to Facility Operating Submitting Comments hearing and a petition for leave to Licenses and Combined Licenses and intervene shall be filed in accordance A. Obtaining Information Proposed No Significant Hazards with the Commissions Agency Rules Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015- Consideration Determination of Practice and Procedure in 10 CFR 0055 when contacting the NRC about The Commission has made a part 2. Interested person(s) should the availability of information for this proposed determination that the consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, action. You may obtain publicly- following amendment requests involve which is available at the NRCs PDR, available information related to this no significant hazards consideration. located at One White Flint North, Room action by any of the following methods: Under the Commissions regulations in O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first

• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to § 50.92 of title 10 of the Code of Federal floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. The http://www.regulations.gov and search Regulations (10 CFR), this means that NRCs regulations are accessible for Docket ID NRC-2015-0055. operation of the facility in accordance electronically from the NRC Library on

• NRCs Agencywide Documents with the proposed amendment would the NRCs Web site at http://

Access and Management System not (1) involve a significant increase in www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly- the probability or consequences of an collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing available documents online in the accident previously evaluated, or (2) or petition for leave to intervene is filed ADAMS Public Documents collection at create the possibility of a new or by the above date, the Commission or a http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ different kind of accident from any presiding officer designated by the adams.html. To begin the search, select accident previously evaluated; or (3) Commission or by the Chief ADAMS Public Documents and then involve a significant reduction in a Administrative Judge of the Atomic select Begin Web-based ADAMS margin of safety. The basis for this Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will Search. For problems with ADAMS, proposed determination for each rule on the request and/or petition; and please contact the NRCs Public amendment request is shown below. the Secretary or the Chief Document Room (PDR) reference staff at The Commission is seeking public Administrative Judge of the Atomic 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by comments on this proposed Safety and Licensing Board will issue a mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The determination. Any comments received notice of a hearing or an appropriate ADAMS accession number for each within 30 days after the date of order.

document referenced (if it is available in publication of this notice will be As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a ADAMS) is provided the first time that considered in making any final petition for leave to intervene shall set it is mentioned in the SUPPLEMENTARY determination. forth with particularity the interest of INFORMATION section. Normally, the Commission will not the petitioner in the proceeding, and

• NRCs PDR: You may examine and issue the amendment until the how that interest may be affected by the purchase copies of public documents at expiration of 60 days after the date of results of the proceeding. The petition VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM 17MRN1

13904 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices 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 NRCs E-Filing system does not support with particular reference to the consideration, then any hearing held unlisted software, and the NRC Meta following general requirements: (1) the would take place before the issuance of System Help Desk will not be able to name, address, and telephone number of any amendment unless the Commission offer assistance in using unlisted the requestor or petitioner; (2) the finds an imminent danger to the health software.

nature of the requestors/petitioners or safety of the public, in which case it If a participant is electronically right under the Act to be made a party will issue an appropriate order or rule submitting a document to the NRC in to the proceeding; (3) the nature and under 10 CFR part 2. accordance with the E-Filing rule, the extent of the requestors/petitioners participant must file the document B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing) using the NRCs online, Web-based property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible All documents filed in NRC submission form. In order to serve effect of any decision or order which adjudicatory proceedings, including a documents through the Electronic may be entered in the proceeding on the request for hearing, a petition for leave Information Exchange System, users requestors/petitioners interest. The to intervene, any motion or other will be required to install a Web petition must also identify the specific document filed in the proceeding prior browser plug-in from the NRCs Web contentions which the requestor/ to the submission of a request for site. Further information on the Web-petitioner seeks to have litigated at the hearing or petition to intervene, and based submission form, including the proceeding. documents filed by interested installation of the Web browser plug-in, Each contention must consist of a governmental entities participating is available on the NRCs public Web specific statement of the issue of law or under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-fact to be raised or controverted. In accordance with the NRCs E-Filing rule submittals.html.

addition, the requestor/petitioner shall (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007). The E- Once a participant has obtained a provide a brief explanation of the bases Filing process requires participants to digital ID certificate and a docket has for the contention and a concise submit and serve all adjudicatory been created, the participant can then statement of the alleged facts or expert documents over the internet, or in some submit a request for hearing or petition opinion which support the contention cases to mail copies on electronic for leave to intervene. Submissions and on which the requestor/petitioner storage media. Participants may not should be in Portable Document Format intends to rely in proving the contention submit paper copies of their filings (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance at the hearing. The requestor/petitioner unless they seek an exemption in available on the NRCs public Web site must also provide references to those accordance with the procedures at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-specific sources and documents of described below. submittals.html. A filing is considered which the petitioner is aware and on To comply with the procedural complete at the time the documents are which the requestor/petitioner intends requirements of E-Filing, at least ten 10 submitted through the NRCs E-Filing to rely to establish those facts or expert days prior to the filing deadline, the system. To be timely, an electronic opinion. The petition must include participant should contact the Office of filing must be submitted to the E-Filing sufficient information to show that a the Secretary by email at system no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern genuine dispute exists with the hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by telephone Time on the due date. Upon receipt of applicant on a material issue of law or at 301-415-1677, to request (1) a digital a transmission, the E-Filing system fact. Contentions shall be limited to identification (ID) certificate, which time-stamps the document and sends matters within the scope of the allows the participant (or its counsel or the submitter an email notice amendment under consideration. The representative) to digitally sign confirming receipt of the document. The contention must be one which, if documents and access the E-Submittal E-Filing system also distributes an email proven, would entitle the requestor/ server for any proceeding in which it is notice that provides access to the petitioner to relief. A requestor/ participating; and (2) advise the document to the NRCs Office of the petitioner who fails to satisfy these Secretary that the participant will be General Counsel and any others who requirements with respect to at least one submitting a request or petition for have advised the Office of the Secretary contention will not be permitted to hearing (even in instances in which the that they wish to participate in the participate as a party. participant, or its counsel or proceeding, so that the filer need not Those permitted to intervene become representative, already holds an NRC- serve the documents on those parties to the proceeding, subject to any issued digital ID certificate). Based upon participants separately. Therefore, limitations in the order granting leave to this information, the Secretary will applicants and other participants (or intervene, and have the opportunity to establish an electronic docket for the their counsel or representative) must participate fully in the conduct of the hearing in this proceeding if the apply for and receive a digital ID hearing. Secretary has not already established an certificate before a hearing request/

If a hearing is requested, the electronic docket. petition to intervene is filed so that they Commission will make a final Information about applying for a can obtain access to the document via determination on the issue of no digital ID certificate is available on the the E-Filing system.

significant hazards consideration. The NRCs public Web site at http:// A person filing electronically using final determination will serve to decide www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/ the NRCs adjudicatory E-Filing system when the hearing is held. If the final getting-started.html. System may seek assistance by contacting the mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES determination is that the amendment requirements for accessing the E- NRC Meta System Help Desk through request involves no significant hazards Submittal server are detailed in the the Contact Us link located on the consideration, the Commission may NRCs Guidance for Electronic NRCs public Web site at http://

issue the amendment and make it Submission, which is available on the www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-immediately effective, notwithstanding agencys public Web site at http:// submittals.html, by email to the request for a hearing. Any hearing www.nrc.gov/site-help/e- MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a toll-held would take place after issuance of submittals.html. Participants may free call at 1-866-672-7640. The NRC the amendment. If the final attempt to use other software not listed Meta System Help Desk is available VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM 17MRN1

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices 13905 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern are filed after the 60-day deadline will administrative in nature and have no direct Time, Monday through Friday, not be entertained absent a effect on any plant system, plant personnel excluding government holidays. determination by the presiding officer qualifications, or operation and maintenance Participants who believe that they of CR-3.

that the filing demonstrates good cause have a good cause for not submitting 3. Does the proposed amendment involve by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

documents electronically must file an 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(iii). Response: No.

exemption request, in accordance with For further details with respect to The proposed changes do not involve a 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper these license amendment applications, significant reduction in a margin of safety filing requesting authorization to see the application for amendment because the proposed changes do not involve continue to submit documents in paper which is available for public inspection changes to the initial conditions contributing format. Such filings must be submitted in ADAMS and at the NRCs PDR. For to accident severity or consequences, or by: (1) First class mail addressed to the additional direction on accessing reduce response or mitigation capabilities.

Office of the Secretary of the information related to this document, The proposed license transfers are Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory administrative in nature and have no direct see the Obtaining Information and Commission, Washington, DC 20555- effect on any plant system, plant personnel Submitting Comments section of this qualifications, or operation and maintenance 0001, Attention: Rulemaking and document. of CR-3.

Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery Duke Energy Florida, Inc. (DEF), et al., The NRC staff has reviewed the service to the Office of the Secretary, Docket No. 50-302, Crystal River, Unit licensees analysis and, based on this Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 3 Nuclear Generating Plant (CR-3), review, it appears that the three 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Citrus County, Florida standards of 50.92(c) are satisfied.

Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking Date of amendment request: Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to and Adjudications Staff. Participants November 7, 2014. A publicly-available determine that the amendment request filing a document in this manner are version is in ADAMS under Accession involves no significant hazards responsible for serving the document on No. ML14321A450. consideration.

all other participants. Filing is Description of amendment request: Attorney for licensee: Lara S. Nichols, considered complete by first-class mail The amendment would reflect the 550 South Tryon Street, Charlotte NC as of the time of deposit in the mail, or transfer of ownership, held by eight 28202.

by courier, express mail, or expedited minority co-owners, in CR-3 to DEF. NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A.

delivery service upon depositing the The transfer of ownership will take Broaddus.

document with the provider of the place pursuant to the Settlement, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.,

service. A presiding officer, having Release and Acquisition Agreement, Docket No. 50-247, Indian Point granted an exemption request from dated September 26, 2014, wherein DEF Nuclear Generating, Unit 2, Westchester using E-Filing, may require a participant will purchase the 6.52 percent County, New York or party to use E-Filing if the presiding combined ownership share in CR-3 officer subsequently determines that the held by these minority co-owners, Date of amendment request:

reason for granting the exemption from leaving DEF and Seminole Electric December 9, 2014. A publicly-available use of E-Filing no longer exists. Cooperative, Inc., as the remaining version is in ADAMS under Accession Documents submitted in adjudicatory licensees for CR-3. No. ML14353A015.

proceedings will appear in the NRCs Basis for proposed no significant Description of amendment request:

electronic hearing docket which is hazards consideration determination: The amendment would revise Technical available to the public at http:// As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the Specification 5.5.14, Containment ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded licensee has provided its analysis of the Leakage Rate Testing Program, to pursuant to an order of the Commission, issue of no significant hazards extend the frequency of the or the presiding officer. Participants are consideration, which is presented Containment Integrated Leak Rate Test requested not to include personal below: or Type A Test from once every 10 years privacy information, such as social to once every 15 years on a permanent

1. Does the proposed amendment involve security numbers, home addresses, or a significant increase in the probability or basis.

home phone numbers in their filings, consequences of an accident previously Basis for proposed no significant unless an NRC regulation or other law evaluated? hazards consideration determination:

requires submission of such Response: No. As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the information. However, a request to The proposed changes do not involve a licensee has provided its analysis of the intervene will require including significant increase in the probability of any issue of no significant hazards information on local residence in order accident previously evaluated because no consideration, which is presented to demonstrate a proximity assertion of accident initiators or assumptions are below:

affected. The proposed license transfers are interest in the proceeding. With respect administrative in nature and have no direct 1. Does the proposed amendment involve to copyrighted works, except for limited effect on any plant system, plant personnel a significant increase in the probability or excerpts that serve the purpose of the qualifications, or the operation and consequences of an accident previously adjudicatory filings and would maintenance of CR-3. evaluated?

constitute a Fair Use application, 2. Does the proposed change create the Response: No.

participants are requested not to include possibility of a new or different kind of The proposed amendment involves changes to the IP2 [Indian Point Unit No. 2]

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES copyrighted materials in their accident from any accident previously submission. evaluated? containment leakage rate testing program.

Petitions for leave to intervene must Response: No. The proposed amendment does not involve The proposed changes do not create the a physical change to the plant or a change in be filed no later than 60 days from the possibility of a new or different kind of the manner in which the plant is operated or date of publication of this notice. accident from any previously evaluated controlled. The primary containment Requests for hearing, petitions for leave because no new accident initiators or function is to provide an essentially leak to intervene, and motions for leave to assumptions are introduced by the proposed tight barrier against the uncontrolled release file new or amended contentions that changes. The proposed license transfers are of radioactivity to the environment for VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM 17MRN1

13906 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices postulated accidents. As such, the 2A, for the development of the IP2 Attachment 1, section 2.2, has identified containment itself and the testing performance-based leakage testing program, some variations or deviations from the requirements to periodically demonstrate the and establishes a 15-year interval for the TSTF-425. Additionally, the change integrity of the containment exist to ensure performance of the containment ILRT. This the plants ability to mitigate the amendment does not alter the manner in would add a new program, the consequences of an accident do not involve which safety limits, limiting safety system Surveillance Frequency Control any accident precursors or initiators. setpoints, or limiting conditions for operation Program, to TS section 5, Therefore, the probability of occurrence of are determined. The specific requirements Administrative Controls. The NRC staff an accident previously evaluated is not and conditions of the containment leakage issued a notice of opportunity for significantly increased by the proposed rate testing program, as defined in the TS comment in the Federal Register on amendment. [technical specifications], ensure that the December 5, 2008, 73 FR 74202, on The proposed amendment adopts the NRC degree of primary containment structural possible amendments to revise the plant accepted guidelines of NEI 94-01, Revision integrity and leak-tightness that is considered 2A, for development of the IP2 performance- specific TS, to Relocate Surveillance in the plants safety analysis is maintained.

based testing program for the Type A testing. The overall containment leakage rate limit Frequencies to Licensee Control Implementation of these guidelines continues specified by the TS is maintained, and the RITSTF Initiative 5b. The Notice to provide adequate assurance that during Type A containment leakage tests would be included a model safety evaluation and design basis accidents, the primary performed at the frequencies established in model No Significant Hazards containment and its components would limit accordance with the NRC-accepted Consideration (NSHC) determination, leakage rates to less than the values assumed guidelines of NEI 94-01, Revision 2A with no using the consolidated line-item in the plant safety analyses. The potential change to the 60 month frequencies of Type consequences of extending the ILRT improvement process. The NRC staff B, and Type C tests.

[integrated leak rate test] interval to 15 years subsequently issued a notice of Containment inspections performed in have been evaluated by analyzing the accordance with other plant programs serve availability of the models for referencing resulting changes in risk. The increase in risk to provide a high degree of assurance that the in license amendment applications in in terms of person-rem per year within 50 containment would not degrade in a manner the Federal Register on July 6, 2009 (74 miles resulting from design basis accidents that is not detectable by an ILRT. A risk FR 31996). The licensee affirmed the was estimated to be acceptably small and assessment using the current IP2 PSA applicability of the model NSHC determined to be within the guidelines [probabilistic safety assessment] model published in RG 1.174. Additionally, the determination in its application dated concluded that extending the ILRT test November 19, 2014, which is presented proposed change maintains defense-in-depth interval from ten years to 15 years results in by preserving a reasonable balance among below.

a very small change to the risk profile. Basis for proposed no significant prevention of core damage, prevention of Therefore, the proposed change does not containment failure, and consequence hazards consideration determination:

involve a significant reduction in a margin of mitigation. Entergy has determined that the As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the safety.

increase in conditional containment failure licensee has provided its analysis of the probability due to the proposed change The NRC staff has reviewed the issue of no significant hazards would be very small. Therefore, it is licensees analysis and, based on this consideration, which is presented concluded that the proposed amendment review, it appears that the three does not significantly increase the below:

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are consequences of an accident previously 1. Do the proposed changes involve a evaluated.

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff significant increase in the probability or Therefore, the proposed change does not proposes to determine that the consequences of an accident previously involve a significant increase in the amendment request involves no evaluated?

probability or consequences of an accident significant hazards consideration. Response: No.

previously evaluated. Attorney for licensee: Ms. Jeanne Cho, The proposed changes relocate the

2. Does the proposed amendment create Assistant General Counsel, Entergy specified frequencies for periodic the possibility of a new or different kind of Nuclear Operations, Inc., 440 Hamilton surveillance requirements to licensee control accident from any accident previously Avenue, White Plains, NY 10601. under a new Surveillance Frequency Control evaluated? NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin G. Program (SFCP). Surveillance frequencies are Response: No. not an initiator to any accident previously Beasley.

The proposed amendment adopts the NRC- evaluated. As a result, the probability of any accepted guidelines of NEI 94-01, Revision Exelon Generation Company, LLC, accident previously evaluated is not 2A, for the development of the IP2 Docket No. 50-410, Nine Mile Point significantly increased. The systems and performance-based leakage testing program, Nuclear Station, Unit 2 (NMP2), Oswego components required by the technical and establishes a 15-year interval for the specifications for which the surveillance performance of the containment ILRT. The County, New York frequencies are relocated are still required to containment and the testing requirements to Date of amendment request: be operable, meet the acceptance criteria for periodically demonstrate the integrity of the November 19, 2014. A publicly- the surveillance requirements, and be containment exist to ensure the plants available version is in ADAMS under capable of performing any mitigation ability to mitigate the consequences of an Accession No. ML14329A353. function assumed in the accident analysis.

accident do not involve any accident Description of amendment request: As a result, the consequences of any accident precursors or initiators. The proposed change previously evaluated are not significantly does not involve a physical change to the The proposed amendment would increased.

plant (i.e., no new or different type of modify the Nine Mile Point (NMP) Therefore, the proposed changes do not equipment will be installed) or a change to Nuclear Station, Unit 2 Technical involve a significant increase in the the manner in which the plant is operated or Specifications (TS) by relocating probability or consequences of an accident controlled. specific surveillance frequencies to a previously evaluated.

Therefore, the proposed change does not 2. Do the proposed changes create the mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES licensee-controlled program with the create the possibility of a new or different adoption of Technical Specification possibility of a new or different kind of kind of accident from any previously Task Force (TSTF)-425, Revision 3, accident from any accident previously evaluated. evaluated?

3. Does the proposed amendment involve Relocate Surveillance Frequencies to Response: No.

a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Licensee ControlRisk Informed No new or different accidents result from Response: No. Technical Specification Task Force utilizing the proposed changes. The changes The proposed amendment adopts the NRC- (RITSTF) Initiative 5b. The licensees do not involve a physical alteration of the accepted guidelines of NEI 94-01, Revision application dated November 19, 2014, plant (i.e., no new or different type of VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM 17MRN1

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices 13907 equipment will be installed) or a change in increase the voltage limit for the diesel designed. The proposed change does not the methods governing normal plant generator (DG) full load rejection test change the single failure capabilities of the operation. In addition, the changes do not specified by technical specification (TS) electrical power system or create a potential impose any new or different requirements. for loss of power since the design operation Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.8.1.10. of the DGs is maintained.

The changes do not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis. The proposed changes Additionally, the proposed amendment Therefore, the proposed change does not are consistent with the safety analysis would add Note 3 to TS SR 3.8.1.10 for create the possibility of a new or different assumptions and current plant operating alignment with the Standard Technical kind of accident from any accident practice. Specifications documented in NUREG- previously evaluated.

Therefore, the proposed changes do not 1431, April 2012 (ADAMS Accession 3. Does the proposed change involve a create the possibility of a new or different No. ML12100A222). significant reduction in a margin of safety?

kind of accident from any accident Basis for proposed no significant Response: No.

previously evaluated. The margin of safety is established through hazards consideration determination: the design of the plant structures, systems,

3. Does the proposed amendment involve As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the a significant reduction in a margin of safety? and components, the parameters within licensee has provided its analysis of the which the plant is operated, and the Response: No.

The design, operation, testing methods, issue of no significant hazards setpoints for the actuation of equipment and acceptance criteria for systems, consideration, which is presented relied upon to respond to an event. The structures, and components (SSCs), specified below: proposed change does not modify the safety in applicable codes and standards (or limits or setpoints at which protective EGC [Exelon Generation Company] has actions are initiated. The proposed change alternatives approved for use by the NRC) evaluated the proposed change for increases the voltage limit for the DG full will continue to be met as described in the Braidwood Station and Byron Station, using load rejection test which results in new test plant licensing basis (including the final the criteria in 10 CFR 50.92, and has acceptance criterion that is more restrictive safety analysis report and bases to TS), since determined that the proposed change does than the existing acceptance criteria. The these are not affected by changes to the not involve a significant hazards proposed change ensures the availability and surveillance frequencies. Similarly, there is consideration. The following information is operability of safety-related DGs.

no impact to safety analysis acceptance provided to support a finding of no Therefore, the proposed change does not criteria as described in plant licensing basis. significant hazards consideration. involve a significant reduction in a margin of To evaluate a change in the relocated 1. Does the proposed change involve a safety.

surveillance frequency, Exelon will perform significant increase in the probability or Based on the above evaluation, EGC a probabilistic risk evaluation using the consequences of an accident previously concludes that the proposed amendment guidance contained in NRC approved NEI evaluated? presents no significant hazards consideration 04-10, Rev. 1 in accordance with the TS Response: No. under the standards set forth in 10 CFR SFCP. NEI 04-10, Rev. 1, methodology The DGs design function is to mitigate an 50.92, paragraph (c), and accordingly, a provides reasonable acceptance guidelines accident and there are no analyzed scenarios finding of no significant hazards and methods for evaluating the risk increase where the DGs are initiators of any consideration is justified.

of proposed changes to surveillance previously evaluated accident. Since DGs do frequencies consistent with Regulatory Guide not initiate accidents, this change does not The NRC staff has reviewed the 1.177. increase the probability of occurrence of a licensees analysis and, based on this Therefore, the proposed changes do not previously evaluated accident. The proposed review, it appears that the three involve a significant reduction in a margin of change to the testing approach of the DGs is standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are safety. consistent with the original design of the satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff DGs. The proposed change is in accordance proposes to determine that the The NRC staff has reviewed the with RG [Regulatory Guide] 1.9 Revision 3, licensees analysis and, based on this requested amendments involve no and this change to the testing approach does significant hazards consideration.

review, it appears that the three not impact the DGs ability to mitigate standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are Attorney for licensee: Bradley J.

accidents. The DGs will continue to operate satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff within the parameters and conditions Fewell, Associate General Counsel, proposes to determine that the assumed within the accident analysis. This Exelon Nuclear, 4300 Winfield Road, amendment request involves no change does not result in an increase in the Warrenville, IL 60555.

likelihood of malfunction of the DGs or their NRC Branch Chief: Travis L. Tate.

significant hazards consideration.

supported equipment. Since the DGs will Attorney for licensee: J. Bradley FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating continue to perform its required function, Fewell, Senior Vice President, there is no increase in the consequences of Company, Docket No. 50-440, Perry Regulatory Affairs, Nuclear, and General previously evaluated accidents. Nuclear Power Plant (PNPP), Unit 1, Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, Therefore, the proposed change does not Perry, Ohio LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, involve a significant increase in the Date of amendment request:

IL 60555. probability or consequences of an accident November 24, 2014. A publicly-NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin G. previously evaluated.

2. Does the proposed change create the available version is in ADAMS under Beasley. Accession No. ML14328A665.

possibility of a new or different kind of Exelon Generation Company LLC (), accident from any accident previously Description of amendment request:

Docket Nos. STN 50-456 and STN 50- evaluated? The proposed amendment is intended to 457, Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, Response: No. revise the battery capacity testing Will County, Illinois The proposed amendment does not change surveillance requirements in the the DGs operation or ability to perform its technical specifications to reflect test Docket Nos. STN 50-454 and STN 50- design function. The proposed change to TS requirements when the battery is near 455, Byron Station, Units 1 and 2, Ogle SR 3.8.1.10 at increased voltage will ensure mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES end of life.

County, Illinois the DGs ability to perform at rated power Basis for proposed no significant factor while meeting its requirements. The Date of amendment request: hazards consideration determination:

change to TS SR 3.8.1.10 does not result in December 18, 2014. A publicly-available DG operation that would create a new failure As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the version is in ADAMS under Accession mode of the DGs that could create a new licensee has provided its analysis of the No. ML14352A204. initiator of an accident. This is because the issue of no significant hazards Description of amendment request: DGs ability to perform its design function is consideration, which is presented The proposed amendment would maintained in the same manner as originally below:

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM 17MRN1

13908 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices

1. Does the proposed amendment involve standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are consequences of any accident previously a significant increase in the probability or satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff evaluated are not significantly increased.

consequences of an accident previously proposes to determine that the Therefore, the proposed change does not evaluated? involve a significant increase in the Response: No.

amendment request involves no probability or consequences of an accident The proposed amendment does not change significant hazards consideration. previously evaluated.

the design function of the Class 1 E Attorney for licensee: David W. 2. Does the proposed change create the divisional battery systems and does not Jenkins, Attorney, FirstEnergy possibility of a new or different kind of change the way the plant is maintained or Corporation, Mail Stop A-GO-15, 76 accident from any accident previously operated when performing battery South Main Street, Akron, OH 44308. evaluated?

surveillance testing. The proposed NRC Branch Chief: Travis L. Tate. Response: No.

amendment does not affect any accident No new or different accidents [would]

mitigating feature or increase the likelihood Florida Power and Light Company, et result from utilizing the proposed change.

of malfunction for plant structures, systems al., Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389, St. The changes [to the TSs] do not involve a and components. Lucie Plant, Units 1 and 2, St. Lucie physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new The proposed amendment does not affect County, Florida or different type of equipment will be the operability requirements of the Class 1 E installed) or a change in the methods divisional battery systems. Verification of Date of amendment request: August 7, governing normal plant operation. In operating the plant within prescribed limits 2014 (ADAMS Accession No. addition, the changes do not impose any new will continue to be performed, as currently ML14225A630). or different requirements. The changes do not required. Compliance with and continued Description of amendment request: alter assumptions made in [any] safety verification of the prescribed limits support analysis.

the capability of the Class 1 E divisional The amendment would revise the Technical Specifications to add a short Therefore, the proposed change does not battery systems to perform their required create the possibility of a new or different design functions during all plant operating, Allowed Outage Time to restore an kind of accident from any previously accident, and station blackout conditions, inoperable system for conditions under evaluated.

consistent with the plant safety analyses. which the existing specifications require 3. Does the proposed change involve a The proposed amendment will not change a plant shutdown. The proposed significant reduction in a margin of safety?

any of the analyses associated with the PNPP amendment is consistent with an NRC- Response: No.

Updated Safety Analysis Report Chapter 15 approved change identified as Technical The proposed change increases the time accidents because plant operation, plant Specifications Task Force (TSTF) the plant may operate without the ability to structures, systems, components, accident Traveler TSTF-426, Revision 5, Revise perform an assumed safety function. The initiators, and accident mitigation functions or Add Actions to Preclude Entry into analyses in [the NRC-approved topical remain unchanged.

LCO [Limiting Condition for Operation] report] WCAP-16125-NP-A, Justification Therefore, the proposed amendment does for Risk-Informed Modifications to Selected not involve a significant increase in the 3.0.3RITSTF [Risk-Informed TSTF] Technical Specifications for Conditions probability or consequences of an accident Initiatives 6b & 6c (see 78 FR 32476, Leading to Exigent Plant Shutdown, previously evaluated. May 30, 2013). The Allowed Outage Revision 2, August 2010, demonstrated that

2. Does the proposed amendment create Time would be added to specifications the possibility of a new or different kind of there is an acceptably small increase in risk accident from any accident previously governing the boron injection flow paths due to a limited period of continued evaluated? of the reactivity control systems, operation in these conditions and that this Response: No. pressurizer heaters, containment spray risk is balanced by avoiding the risks The proposed amendment does not change trains, shield building ventilation associated with a plant shutdown. As a the design function of the Class 1 E systems, and control room emergency result, the change to the margin of safety divisional battery systems, and does not provided by requiring a plant shutdown air cleanup systems. within one hour is not significant.

change the way the plant is operated or Basis for proposed no significant maintained. The proposed amendment does Therefore, the proposed change does not hazards consideration determination: involve a significant reduction in a margin of not create a credible failure mechanism, malfunction or accident initiator not already As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the safety.

considered in the design and licensing basis. licensee has provided its analysis of the The NRC staff has reviewed the Therefore, the proposed amendment does issue of no significant hazards licensees analysis and determines that not create the possibility of a new or different consideration, which is reproduced the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) kind of accident from any accident below:

previously evaluated. are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff

1. Does the proposed change involve a proposes to determine that the proposed

3. Does the proposed amendment involve significant increase in the probability or amendment involves no significant a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

consequences of an accident previously hazards consideration.

Response: No.

evaluated?

Safety margins are applied to design and Attorney for licensee: William S.

licensing basis functions and to the Response: No.

The proposed change provides a short Blair, Managing AttorneyNuclear, controlling values of parameters to account Florida Power & Light Company, 700 for various uncertainties and to avoid Allowed Outage Time to restore an inoperable system for conditions under Universe Blvd., MS LAW/JB, Juno exceeding regulatory or licensing limits. The proposed amendment does not involve a which the existing Technical Specifications Beach, FL 33408-0420.

physical change to the plant, does not change require a plant shutdown to begin within one NRC Branch Chief: Shana R. Helton.

methods of plant operation within prescribed hour in accordance with Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) 3.0.3. Entering into Florida Power and Light Company, et limits, or affect design and licensing basis al., Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389, St.

functions or controlling values of parameters Technical Specification Actions is not an initiator of any accident previously Lucie Plant, Units 1 and 2, St. Lucie mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES for plant systems, structures, and components. evaluated. As a result, the probability of an County, Florida Therefore, the proposed amendment does accident previously evaluated is not Date of amendment request:

not involve a significant reduction in a significantly increased. The consequences of any accident previously evaluated that may December 5, 2014 (ADAMS Accession margin of safety. No. ML14353A016).

occur during the proposed Allowed Outage The NRC staff has reviewed the Times are no different from the consequences Description of amendment request:

licensees analysis and, based on this of the same accident during the existing one- The proposed amendment will modify review, it appears that the three hour allowance. As a result, the the Technical Specification (TS)

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM 17MRN1

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices 13909 requirements related to Completion is assessed and managed in accordance with features. As such, testing of the DGs Times for Required Actions to provide the NRC[-]approved Risk Informed themselves is not associated with any the option to calculate longer, risk- Completion Time Program. The proposed potential accident-initiating mechanism.

change implements a risk-informed Therefore, there will be no significant informed Completion Times. The configuration management program to assure impact on any accident probabilities by the proposed amendment will also add a that adequate margins of safety are approval of the requested changes.

new program, the Risk Informed maintained. Application of these new The changes include an increase in the Completion Time Program, to TS specifications and the configuration time that a DG under test will be paralleled section 6.0, Administrative Controls. management program considers cumulative to the grid while the unit is in Modes 1 or The methodology for using the Risk effects of multiple systems or components 2. As such, the ability of the tested DG to Informed Completion Time Program is being out of service and does so more respond to a DBA [design-basis accident]

described in Nuclear Energy Institute effectively than the current TS. could be minimally adversely impacted by Therefore, the proposed change does not the proposed changes. However, the impacts topical report NEI 06-09, Risk-involve a significant reduction in a margin of are not considered significant based, in part, Informed Technical Specifications on the ability of the remaining DG to mitigate safety.

Initiative 4b, Risk-Managed Technical a DBA or provide safe shutdown. Experience Specifications (RMTS) Guidelines, The NRC staff has reviewed the shows that testing for these SRs typically Revision 0-A, which was approved by licensees analysis and determines that does not perturb the electrical distribution the NRC on May 17, 2007. The proposed the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) system. In addition, operating experience amendment is consistent with the NRC- are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff supports the conclusion that the proposed approved industry-proposed Technical proposes to determine that the proposed changes do not involve any significant amendment involves no significant increases in the likelihood of a safety-related Specification Task Force-505, Revision hazards consideration. bus blackout or damage to plant loads.

1, Provide Risk-Informed Extended Therefore, the proposed change does not Completion TimesRITSTF Initiative Attorney for licensee: William S. involve a significant increase in the 4b. Blair, Managing AttorneyNuclear, probability or consequences of an accident Basis for proposed no significant Florida Power & Light Company, 700 previously evaluated.

hazards consideration determination: Universe Blvd., MS LAW/JB, Juno 2. Does the proposed change create the As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the Beach, FL 33408-0420. possibility of a new or different kind of licensee has provided its analysis of the NRC Branch Chief: Shana R. Helton. accident from any accident previously issue of no significant hazards evaluated?

Indiana Michigan Power Company, Response: No.

consideration, which is reproduced Docket Nos. 50-315 and 50-316, Donald The capability to synchronize a DG to the below: C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, offsite source (via the associated plant bus)

1. Does the proposed change involve a Berrien County, Michigan and test the DG in such a configuration is a significant increase in the probability or design feature of the DGs, including the test consequences of an accident previously Date of amendment request: mode override in response to a safety evaluated? December 17, 2014. A publicly-available injection signal. Paralleling the DG for longer Response: No. version is in ADAMS under Accession periods of time during plant operation may The proposed change permits the No. ML14356A022. slightly increase the probability of incurring extension of Completion Times provided the Description of amendment request: an adverse effect from the offsite source, but associated risk is assessed and managed in The proposed amendment would amend this increase in probability is judged to be accordance with the NRC[-]approved Risk the Appendix A technical specifications still quite small and such a possibility is not Informed Completion Time Program. The to Facility Operating Licenses DPR-58 a new or previously unrecognized proposed change does not involve a consideration.

and DPR-74, to modify the notes to TS significant increase in the probability of an The proposed change does not introduce a accident previously evaluated because the 3.8.1, AC SourcesOperating, to new mode of plant operation and does not change involves no change to the plant or its allow surveillance testing of the onsite involve physical modification to the plant.

modes of operation. The proposed change standby emergency diesel generators The change does not introduce new accident does not increase the consequences of an (DGs) during modes in which it is initiators or impact assumptions made in the accident because the design-basis mitigation currently prohibited. Specifically, the safety analysis.

function of the affected systems is not license amendment request proposes Therefore, the proposed change does not changed and the consequences of an accident removing the mode restrictions for the create the possibility of a new or different

[occurring] during the extended Completion following Surveillance Requirements kind of accident from any previously Time are no different from those [occurring] evaluated.

(SRs): 3.8.1.10 (DG single largest load during the existing Completion Time. 3. Does the proposed change involve a

2. Does the proposed change create the rejection test), 3.8.1.11 (DG full load significant reduction in a margin of safety?

possibility of a new or different kind of rejection test), and 3.8.1.15 (DG Response: No.

accident from any accident previously endurance run). The proposed changes do not exceed or evaluated? Basis for proposed no significant alter a design basis or safety limit, so there Response: No. hazards consideration determination: is no significant reduction in the margin of The proposed change does not change the As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the safety. The margin of safety is related to the design, configuration, or method of operation licensee has provided its analysis of the confidence in the ability of the fission of the plant. The proposed change does not issue of no significant hazards product barriers to perform their design involve a physical alteration of the plant (no functions during and following an accident consideration, which is presented new or different kind of equipment will be situation. These barriers include the fuel installed).

below: cladding, the reactor coolant system, and the Therefore, the proposed change does not 1. Does the proposed change involve a containment system. The proposed changes mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES create the possibility of a new or different significant increase in the probability of do not directly affect these barriers, nor do kind of accident from any accident occurrence or consequences of an accident they involve any significantly adverse impact previously evaluated. previously evaluated? on the DGs which serve to support these

3. Does the proposed change involve a Response: No. barriers in the event of an accident significant reduction in a margin of safety? The design of plant equipment is not being concurrent with a LOOP [loss of offsight Response: No. modified by the proposed changes. In power]. The proposed changes to the testing The proposed change permits the addition, the DGs and their associated requirements for the plant DGs do not affect extension of Completion Times provided risk emergency loads are accident mitigating the OPERABILITY requirements for the DGs, VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM 17MRN1

13910 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices as verification of such OPERABILITY will Drywell PressureHigh function are Spray function. There is no new system continue to be performed as required (except currently contained in TRM sections component being installed, no new during different allowed modes). The T3.6.1, RHR Containment Spray, and construction, and no performance of a new changes have an insignificant impact on DG test or maintenance function. The proposed availability, as the DGs remain available to T3.3.2, ECCS and Reactor Core TS change does not create the possibility of perform their required function of providing Isolation Cooling Instrumentation, a new credible failure mechanism or emergency power to plant equipment that respectively. These TRM sections malfunction. The proposed change does not supports or constitutes the fission product established specific guidance and modify the design function or operation of barriers. Only one DG is to be tested at a criteria related to the applicability, any SSC. The proposed change does not time, so that the remaining DG will be operation, and testing for the RHR introduce new accident initiators. Primary available to safety shut down the plant if containment spray system. The TRM containment integrity is not adversely required. Consequently, performance of the impacted and radiological consequences requirements for the RHR containment fission product barriers will not be impacted from the accident analyzed in the USAR are by implementation of the proposed spray system would be removed once not increased. Containment parameters are amendment. the TS requirements are approved.

not increased beyond those previously In addition, the proposed changes involve Basis for proposed no significant evaluated and the potential for failure of the no changes to setpoints or limits established hazards consideration determination: containment is not increased. The proposed or assumed by the accident analysis. As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the change does not increase system or Therefore, the proposed change does not licensee has provided its analysis of the component pressures, temperatures, and involve a significant reduction in a margin of issue of no significant hazards flowrates for systems designed to prevent safety.

consideration, which is presented accidents or mitigate the consequences of an The NRC staff has reviewed the below: accident. Since these conditions do not licensees analysis and, based on this change, the likelihood of failure of an SSC is

1. Do the proposed changes involve a not increased.

review, it appears that the three significant increase in the probability or standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are Therefore, the proposed change does not consequences of an accident previously satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff create the possibility of a new or different evaluated?

kind of accident from any previously proposes to determine that the Response: No.

evaluated.

amendment requests involve no The proposed change to establish the RHR Containment Spray requirement in TS does 3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant hazards consideration. significant reduction in a margin of safety?

Attorney for licensee: Robert B. not introduce new equipment or new equipment operating modes, nor do the Response: No.

Haemer, Senior Nuclear Counsel, One The proposed change does not increase proposed changes alter existing system Cook Place, Bridgman, MI 49106. relationships. The proposed change does not system or component pressures, NRC Branch Chief: David L. Pelton. affect plant operation, design function, or any temperatures, and flowrates for systems analysis that verifies the capability of a designed to prevent accidents or mitigate the Nebraska Public Power District, Docket consequences of an accident. Containment structure, system, or component (SSC) to No. 50-298, Cooper Nuclear Station, parameters are not increased beyond those perform a design function. There are no Nemaha County, Nebraska changes or modifications to the RHR system. previously evaluated and the potential for Date of amendment request: January The RHR system will continue to function as failure of the containment is not increased.

15, 2015. A publicly-available version is designed in all modes of operation, including The proposed change to establish the RHR the Containment Spray function. There are Containment Spray requirement in TS is in ADAMS under Accession No. needed in order to reflect the current safety no significant changes to procedures or ML15021A127. function of Containment Spray related to the training related to the operation of the Description of amendment request: Containment Spray function. Primary small steam line break accident. The The proposed amendment would revise containment integrity is not adversely proposed change does not exceed or alter a the Technical Specifications (TSs) to impacted and radiological consequences design basis or a safety limit parameter that add a limiting condition for operation, from the accidents analyzed in the Updated is described in the USAR.

applicability, required actions, Safety Analysis Report (USAR) are not Therefore, the proposed change does not completion times, and surveillance increased. Containment parameters are not involve a significant reduction in a margin of requirements for the residual heat increased beyond those previously evaluated safety.

removal (RHR) containment spray and the potential for failure of the The NRC staff has reviewed the containment is not increased.

system consistent with the guidance in There is no adverse impact on systems licensees analysis and, based on this NUREG-1433, Revision 4, Standard designed to mitigate the consequences of review, it appears that the three Technical Specifications General accidents. The proposed change does not standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are Electric BWR [Boiling Water Reactor]/4 increase system or component pressures, satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff Plants, dated April 2012 (ADAMS temperatures, and flowrates for systems proposes to determine that the Accession No. ML12104A192). New TS designed to prevent accidents or mitigate the amendment request involves no section 3.6.1.9, Residual Heat Removal consequences of an accident. Since these significant hazards consideration.

(RHR) Containment Spray, would be conditions do not change, the likelihood of Attorney for licensee: Mr. John C.

failure of SSC is not increased.

added to reflect the reliance on McClure, Nebraska Public Power Therefore, the proposed change does not containment spray to maintain the involve a significant increase in the District, Post Office Box 499, Columbus, drywell within design temperature probability or consequences of an accident NE 68602-0499.

limits during a small steam line break. previously evaluated. Acting NRC Branch Chief: Eric R.

In addition, the Drywell Pressure 2. Do the proposed changes create the Oesterle.

High function that serves as an possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously Northern States Power Company mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES interlock permissive to allow RHR evaluated? Minnesota, Docket Nos. 50-282 and 50-containment spray mode alignment Response: No. 306, Prairie Island Nuclear Generating would be relocated from the Technical The proposed change to establish the RHR Plant, Units 1 and 2, Goodhue County, Requirements Manual (TRM) to TS Containment Spray requirement in TS does Minnesota 3.3.5.1, Emergency Core Cooling not alter the design function or operation of System (ECCS) Instrumentation. any SSC. The Containment system will Date of amendment request: February The requirements for the RHR continue to function as designed in all modes 20, 2013, as supplemented by letters containment spray function and of operation, including RHR Containment dated June 25, 2013; September 15, VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM 17MRN1

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices 13911 2014; and February 26, 2015. Publicly- 2. Does the proposed amendment create NRC Branch Chief: David L. Pelton.

available versions are in ADAMS under the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Accession Nos. ML13053A199, evaluated? Inc. (SNC), Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-ML13178A024, ML14258A089, and Response: No. 366, Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, ML15057A480, respectively. This license amendment request proposes Brief description of amendment Units 1 and 2, Appling County, GA to revise the Technical Specification for request: The proposed amendments ECCS operability requirements in Mode 4 by Date of amendment request: January would remove the technical removing the LCO Note which allows the 13, 2015. A publicly-available version is specification (TS) 3.5.3 ECCS RHR subsystem to be considered operable for in ADAMS under Accession No.

[Emergency Core Cooling System]- ECCS when aligned for shutdown cooling ML15014A411.

Shutdown, Limiting Condition for and revising the Applicability statement to Description of amendment request:

Operation (LCO) Note 1 to eliminate include all of Mode 4. These changes will The licensee proposes to adopt information to the plant operators that require one train of RHR to be aligned for Technical Specification Task Force ECCS operation throughout Mode 4. (TSTF) change number 523, revision 2, could cause non-conservative operation, The proposed Technical Specification and would revise the LCO Applicability changes involve changes to when system Generic Letter 2008-01, Managing Gas statement to apply to all of Mode 4. trains are operated, but they do not change Accumulation, for the Hatch Nuclear Basis for proposed no significant any system functions or maintenance Plant, Unit 1 and 2, technical hazards consideration determination: activities. The changes do not involve specifications (TS). The proposed As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the physical alteration of the plant, that is, no change would revise or add licensee provided its analysis of the new or different type of equipment will be Surveillance Requirements to verify that issue of no significant hazards installed. The changes do not alter the system locations susceptible to gas consideration, which the Commission assumptions made in the safety analyses but accumulation are sufficiently filled with previously issued in the Federal ensure that one train of ECCS is operable to water and to provide allowances which mitigate the consequences of a loss of coolant Register on August 20, 2013 (78 FR permit performance of the verification.

accident. These changes do not create new 51229). The licensee revised its analysis failure modes or mechanisms which are not Basis for proposed no significant of the issue of no significant hazards identifiable during testing and no new hazards consideration determination:

consideration, which is presented accident precursors are generated. As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the below, to consider expansion of the Therefore, the proposed Technical licensee has provided its analysis of the scope of the amendments by revising Specification changes do not create the issue of no significant hazards the LCO Applicability statement to possibility of a new or different kind of consideration, which is presented include all of Mode 4. accident from any previously evaluated. below:

3. Does the proposed amendment involve

1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? 1. Does the proposed change involve a a significant increase in the probability or Response: No. significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously This license amendment request proposes consequences of an accident previously evaluated? to revise the Technical Specification [TS] for evaluated?

Response: No. ECCS operability requirements in Mode 4 by Response: No.

This license amendment request proposes removing the LCO Note which allows the The proposed change revises or adds to revise the Technical Specification for Surveillance Requirement(s) (SRs) that RHR subsystem to be considered operable for ECCS operability requirements in Mode 4 by require verification that the Emergency Core ECCS when aligned for shutdown cooling removing the LCO Note which allows the Cooling System (ECCS), the Residual Heat and revising the Applicability statement to RHR [residual heat removal] subsystem to be Removal (RHR) System, the RHR Shutdown include all of Mode 4. These changes will considered operable for ECCS when aligned Cooling (SDC) System, the Containment for shutdown cooling and revising the require one train of RHR to be aligned for ECCS operation throughout Mode 4. Spray (CS) System, and the Reactor Core Applicability statement to include all of Isolation Cooling (RCIC) System are not Mode 4. These changes will require one train This license amendment proposes Technical Specification changes which rendered inoperable due to accumulated gas of RHR to be aligned for ECCS operation and to provide allowances which permit throughout Mode 4. assure that the ECCSShutdown TS LCO requirements are met if a Mode 4 LOCA were performance of the revised verification. Gas The proposed changes do not affect the to occur. With these changes, other TS accumulation in the subject systems is not an ECCS and RHR subsystem design, the requirements for shutdown cooling in Mode initiator of any accident previously interfaces between the RHR subsystem and 4 will continue to be met. Based on review evaluated. As a result, the probability of any other plant systems operating functions, or of plant operating experience, there is no accident previously evaluated is not the reliability of the RHR subsystem. The discernable change in cooldown rates when significantly increased. The proposed SRs proposed changes do not change or impact the initiators and assumptions of the utilizing a single train of RHR for shutdown ensure that the subject systems continue to analyzed accidents. Therefore, the ECCS and cooling. Thus, no margin of safety is reduced be capable to perform their assumed safety RHR subsystems will be capable of as part of this change. function and are not rendered inoperable due performing their accident mitigation Therefore, the proposed Technical to gas accumulation. Thus, the consequences functions, and the proposed TS changes do Specification changes do not involve a of any accident previously evaluated are not not involve an increase in the probability of significant reduction in a margin of safety. significantly increased.

an accident. Therefore, the proposed change does not The proposed TS changes will require that The NRC staff has reviewed the involve a significant increase in the one train of RHR is aligned for ECCS licensees analysis and, based on this probability or consequences of an accident operation during Mode 4 which assures that review, it appears that the three previously evaluated.

one train of ECCS is operable to mitigate the standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES consequences of a loss of coolant accident. satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff Thus the proposed TS changes do not proposes to determine that the accident from any accident previously involve a significant increase in the amendment requests involve no evaluated?

consequences of an accident. Response: No.

significant hazards consideration. The proposed change revises or adds SRs Therefore, the proposed Technical Specification changes do not involve a Attorney for licensee: Peter M. Glass, that require verification that the ECCS, the significant increase in the probability or Assistant General Counsel, Xcel Energy RHR, the RHR SDC System, the CS System, consequences of an accident previously Services, Inc., 414 Nicollet Mall, and the RCIC System are not rendered evaluated. Minneapolis, MN 55401. inoperable due to accumulated gas and to VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM 17MRN1

13912 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices provide allowances which permit in ADAMS under Accession No. kind of accident from any accident performance of the revised verification. The ML15028A537. previously evaluated.

proposed change does not involve a physical 3. Does the proposed amendment involve alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or Description of amendment request: a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

different type of equipment will be installed) The proposed change, if approved, Response: No.

or a change in the methods governing normal would revise, in part, the description The proposed changes to remove WCAP-plant operation. In addition, the proposed and scope of human factors engineering 15847 from the UFSAR and amend the OSA change does not impose any new or different (HFE) operational sequence analysis task do not adversely affect any safety-related requirements that could initiate an accident. (OSA) task and delete a reference to equipment, design code compliance, design The proposed change does not alter document WCAP-15847, which are function, design analysis, safety analysis assumptions made in the safety analysis and both identified as Tier 2* information in input or result, or design/safety margin is consistent with the safety analysis because NQA-1 requirements are maintained assumptions. the Updated Final Safety Analysis in other Westinghouse procedures and Therefore, the proposed change does not Report (UFSAR). testing of the ADS valves is still performed.

create the possibility of a new or different Basis for proposed no significant No safety analysis or design basis acceptance kind of accident from any accident hazards consideration determination: limit/criterion is challenged or exceeded by previously evaluated. As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the the proposed changes, thus no margin of

3. Does the proposed change involve a licensee has provided its analysis of the safety is reduced.

significant reduction in a margin of safety? Therefore, the proposed amendment does Response: No.

issue of no significant hazards not involve a significant reduction in a The proposed change revises or adds SRs consideration, which is presented margin of safety.

that require verification that the ECCS, the below:

The NRC staff has reviewed the RHR, RHR SDC System, the CS System, and 1. Does the proposed amendment involve the RCIC System are not rendered inoperable licensees analysis and, based on this a significant increase in the probability or review, it appears that the three due to accumulated gas and to provide consequences of an accident previously allowances which permit performance of the evaluated?

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are revised verification. The proposed change Response: No. satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff adds new requirements to manage gas The proposed deletion of WCAP-15847 proposes to determine that the accumulation in order to ensure the subject removes obsolete and superseded procedures amendment request involves no systems are capable of performing their from the licensing basis. The amendment of significant hazards consideration.

assumed safety functions. The proposed SRs the operational sequence analysis (OSA) task Attorney for licensee: Ms. Kathryn M.

are more comprehensive than the current SRs alters the automatic depressurization system Sutton, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLC, and will ensure that the assumptions of the (ADS) testing from Mode 1 to Mode 5. The safety analysis are protected. The proposed 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, proposed changes to the procedures do not Washington, DC 20004-2514.

change does not adversely affect any current involve any accident initiating component/

plant safety margins or the reliability of the NRC Branch Chief: Lawrence J.

system failure or event, and the change to the equipment assumed in the safety analysis. Burkhart.

ADS testing mode helps prevent accidents Therefore, there are no changes being made that would occur if the tests were performed to any safety analysis assumptions, safety Southern Nuclear Operating Company, in Mode 1. Thus, the probabilities of the Inc., Docket Nos.52-025 and 52-026, limits or limiting safety system settings that accidents previously evaluated are not would adversely affect plant safety as a result Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 affected. The affected procedures and of the proposed change. and 4, Burke County, Georgia requirements do not adversely affect or Therefore, the proposed change does not interact with safety-related equipment or a Date of amendment request: January involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

radioactive material barrier, and this activity 30, 2015. A publicly-available version is does not involve the containment of in ADAMS under Accession No.

Based on the above, SNC concludes that radioactive material. Thus, the proposed ML15030A505.

the proposed change presents no significant changes would not affect any safety-related Description of amendment request:

hazards consideration under the standards accident mitigating function. The radioactive The proposed change would amend set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and, material source terms and release paths used accordingly, a finding of no significant in the safety analyses are unchanged, thus Combined License Nos. NPF-91 and hazards consideration is justified. NPF-92 for the Vogtle Electric the radiological releases in the Updated Final The NRC staff has reviewed the Safety Analysis Report accident analyses are Generating Plant (VEGP) Units 3 and 4.

licensees analysis and, based on this not affected. The requested amendment proposes review, it appears that the three Therefore, the proposed amendment does changes to Tier 2* information standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are not involve a significant increase in the contained within the Human Factors satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff probability or consequences of an accident Engineering Design Verification, Task previously evaluated. Support Verification and Integrated proposes to determine that the

2. Does the proposed amendment create System Validation (ISV) plans. These amendment request involves no the possibility of a new or different kind of significant hazards consideration. accident from any accident previously documents are incorporated by Attorney for licensee: Jennifer M. evaluated? reference into the VEGP Units 3 and 4 Buettner, Associate General Counsel, Response: No. Updated Final Safety Analysis Report, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Removing WCAP-15847 from the UFSAR and will additionally require changes to 40 Inverness Center Parkway, and amending the OSA task regarding ADS be made to affected Tier 2 information.

Birmingham, AL 35201. valve testing does not adversely affect the Basis for proposed no significant NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. design or operation of safety-related hazards consideration determination:

Pascarelli. equipment or equipment whose failure could As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the initiate an accident other than what is mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES licensee has provided its analysis of the South Carolina Electric and Gas already described in the licensing basis. issue of no significant hazards Company, Docket Nos.: 52-027 and 52- These changes do not adversely affect safety-related equipment or fission product barriers.

consideration, which is presented 028, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, below:

Units 2 and 3, Fairfield County, South No safety analysis or design basis acceptance Carolina limit/criterion is challenged or exceeded by 1. Does the proposed amendment involve the requested change. a significant increase in the probability or Date of amendment request: January Therefore, the proposed amendment does consequences of an accident previously 27, 2015. A publicly-available version is not create the possibility of a new or different evaluated?

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM 17MRN1

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices 13913 Response: No. standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are consequences of an accident previously The proposed amendment includes satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff evaluated?

changes to Integrated System Validation proposes to determine that the Response: No.

(ISV) activities, which are performed on the amendment request involves no The proposed change permits the AP1000 plant simulator to validate the extension of Completion Times provided risk adequacy of the AP1000 human system significant hazards consideration.

is assessed and managed within the Risk interface design and confirm that it meets Attorney for licensee: Mr. M. Stanford Informed Completion Time Program. The human factors engineering principles. The Blanton, Balch & Bingham LLP, 1710 proposed change does not involve a proposed changes involve administrative Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL significant increase in the probability of an details related to performance of the ISV, and 35203-2015. accident previously evaluated because the no plant hardware or equipment is affected NRC Branch Chief: Lawrence J. changes involve no change to the plant or its whose failure could initiate an accident, or Burkhart. modes of operation. This proposed change that interfaces with a component that could does not increase the consequences of an initiate an accident, or that contains Southern Nuclear Operating Company, accident because the design-basis mitigation radioactive material. Therefore, these Inc., Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-425, function of the affected systems is not changes have no effect on any accident Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 changed and the consequences of an accident initiator in the Updated Final Safety Analysis and 2, Burke County, Georgia during the extended Completion Time are no Report (UFSAR), nor do they affect the Date of amendment request: different from those during the existing radioactive material releases in the UFSAR Completion Time.

September 13, 2012, as supplemented accident analysis. Therefore, the proposed change does not Therefore, the proposed amendment does August 2, 2013, July 3, July 17, involve a significant increase in the not involve an increase in the probability or November 11, and December 12, 2014.

probability or consequences of an accident consequences of an accident previously Publicly-available versions are in previously evaluated.

evaluated. ADAMS under Accession Nos. 2. Does the proposed change create the

2. Does the proposed amendment create ML12258A055, ML13217A072, possibility of a new or different kind of the possibility of a new or different kind of ML14189A554, ML14198A574, accident from any accident previously accident from any accident previously ML14315A051 and ML14346A643, evaluated?

evaluated? respectively. Response: No.

Response: No. Description of amendment request: The proposed change does not change the The proposed amendment includes The proposed amendment would design, configuration, or method of operation changes to ISV activities, which are of the plant. The proposed change does not modify certain Technical Specification performed on the AP1000 plant simulator to involve a physical alteration of the plant (no validate the adequacy of the AP1000 human (TS) requirements related to Completion Times for Required Actions to provide new or different kind of equipment will be system interface design and confirm that it installed).

meets human factors engineering principles. the option to calculate a longer, risk-Therefore, the proposed changes do not The proposed changes involve administrative informed Completion Time. The create the possibility of a new or different details related to performance of the ISV, and allowance will be described in a new kind of accident from any accident no plant hardware or equipment is affected program, Risk Informed Completion previously evaluated.

whose failure could initiate an accident, or Time Program (RICT), to be approved 3. Does the proposed change involve a that interfaces with a component that could by NRC and to be added to Chapter 5, significant reduction in a margin of safety[?]

initiate an accident, or that contains Administrative Controls, of the Response: No.

radioactive material. Although the ISV may Technical Specifications. The The proposed change permits the identify a need to initiate changes to add, methodology for using the RICT extension of Completion Times provided risk modify, or remove plant structures, systems, Program is described in an industry is assessed and managed within the Risk or components, these changes will not be document NEI 06-09, Risk-Informed Informed Completion Time Program. The made directly as part of the ISV.

Technical Specifications Initiative 4b, proposed change implements a risk-informed Therefore, the proposed amendment does configuration management program to assure not create the possibility of a new or different Risk-Managed Technical Specifications that adequate margins of safety are kind of accident from any accident (RMTS) Guidelines, which was maintained. Application of these new previously evaluated. approved by the Nuclear Regulatory specifications and the configuration

3. Does the proposed amendment involve Commission (NRC) on May 17, 2007. management program considers cumulative a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Adherence to NEI 06-09 is required by effects of multiple systems or components Response: No.

the proposed RICT Program. The being out of service and does so more The proposed amendment includes changes to ISV activities, which are proposed amendment is also consistent effectively than the current TS.

performed on the AP1000 plant simulator to with the methodologies presented in an Therefore, the proposed change does not validate the adequacy of the AP1000 human industry initiative identified as TSTF- involve a significant reduction in a margin of system interface design and confirm that it 505, Revision 1, Provide Risk-Informed safety.

meets human factors engineering principles. Extended Completion TimesRITSTF The NRC staff has reviewed the The proposed changes involve administrative Initiative 4b. Although the proposed details related to performance of the ISV, and licensees analysis and, based on this amendment is consistent with TSTF- review, it appears that the three do not affect any safety-related equipment, 505, the licensee is not proposing design code compliance, design function, standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are adoption of TSTF-505 with this satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff design analysis, safety analysis input or result, or design/safety margin. No safety proposed amendment; the proposed proposes to determine that the analysis or design basis acceptance limit/ amendment is a site-specific action. requested amendment involve no criterion is challenged or exceeded by the Basis for proposed no significant significant hazards consideration.

hazards consideration determination:

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES proposed changes, thus no margin of safety is reduced. As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the Attorney for licensee: Jennifer M.

Therefore, the proposed amendment does licensee has provided its analysis of the Buettner, Associate General Counsel, not involve a significant reduction in a issue of no significant hazards Southern Nuclear Operating Company, margin of safety. consideration, which is presented 40 Inverness Center Parkway, The NRC staff has reviewed the below: Birmingham, AL 35242.

licensees analysis and, based on this 1. Does the proposed change involve a NRC Branch Chief: Robert J.

review, it appears that the three significant increase in the probability or Pascarelli.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM 17MRN1

13914 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), Requirements for Monitoring the part 50, Appendix J, Option B, LLRT). The Docket Nos. 50-327 and 50-328, Effectiveness of Maintenance at Nuclear current test interval of 10 years, based on Sequoyah Nuclear Plant (SQN), Units 1 Power Plants), are performed in order to past performance, would be extended to 15 identify indications of containment years from the last Type A test (performed and 2, Hamilton County, Tennessee degradation that could affect that leak October 27, 2007 for SQN, Unit 1 and Date of amendment request: tightness. Types B and C testing required by December 30, 2006 for SQN, Unit 2). The December 2, 2014. A publicly-available TSs will identify any containment opening proposed extension to Type A and Type C version is in ADAMS under Accession such as valves that would otherwise be test intervals does not create the possibility No. ML14339A539. detected by the Type A tests. These factors of a new or different type of accident because Description of amendment request: show that a Type A test interval extension there are no physical changes being made to will not represent a significant increase in the plant and there are no changes to the The amendments would revise the consequences of an accident. operation of the plant that could introduce a Technical Specification (TS) 6.8.4.h, The proposed amendment involves new failure mode creating an accident or Containment Leakage Rate Testing changes to the SQN, Units 1 and 2, 10 CFR affecting the mitigation of an accident.

Program, by adopting Nuclear Energy 50 Appendix J Testing Program Plan. The Therefore, the proposed changes do not Institute (NEI) 94-01, Revision 3-A, proposed amendment does not involve a create the possibility of a new or different Industry Guideline for Implementing physical change to the plant or a change in kind of accident from any accident Performance-Based Option of 10 CFR the manner in which the units are operated previously evaluated.

part 50, Appendix J, as the or controlled. The primary containment 3. Does the proposed amendment involve function is to provide an essentially leak a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

implementation document for the tight barrier against the uncontrolled release Response: No.

performance-based Option B of 10 CFR of radioactivity to the environment for The proposed revision to TS 6.8.4.h part 50, Appendix J. The proposed postulated accidents. As such, the changes the testing period to a permanent 15-changes would permanently extend the containment itself and the testing year interval for Type A testing (10 CFR part Type A containment integrated leak rate requirements to periodically demonstrate the 50, Appendix J, Option B, ILRT) and a 75-testing (ILRT) interval from 10 years to integrity of the containment exist to ensure month interval for Type C testing (10 CFR 15 years, and the Type C local leakage the plants ability to mitigate the part 50, Appendix J, Option B, LLRT). The rate testing (LLRT) intervals from 60 consequences of an accident, and do not current test interval of 10 years, based on months to 75 months. involve any accident precursors or initiators. past performance, would be extended to 15 Basis for proposed no significant Therefore, the probability of occurrence of years from the last Type A test (performed an accident previously evaluated is not October 27, 2007 for SQN, Unit 1 and hazards consideration determination: significantly increased by the proposed December 30, 2006 for SQN, Unit 2). The As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the amendment. proposed extension to Type A testing will licensee has provided its analysis of the The proposed amendment adopts the NRC- not significantly reduce the margin of safety.

issue of no significant hazards accepted guidelines of NEI 94-01, Revision NUREG-1493, Performance-Based consideration, which is presented 3-A, for development of the SQN, Units 1 Containment System Leakage Testing below. and 2, performance-based leakage testing Requirements [sic] [Performance-Based program. Implementation of these guidelines Containment Leak-Test Program],

1. Does the proposed amendment involve continues to provide adequate assurance that September 1995, generic study of the effects a significant increase in the probability or during design basis accidents, the primary of extending containment leakage testing, consequence of an accident previously containment and its components will limit found that a 20-year extension to Type A evaluated?

Response: No. leakage rates to less than the values assumed leakage testing resulted in an imperceptible The proposed revision to TS 6.8.4.h in the plant safety analyses. The potential increase in risk to the public. NUREG-1493 changes the testing period to a permanent 15- consequences of extending the ILRT interval found that, generically, the design year interval for Type A testing (10 CFR part from 10 years to 15 years have been containment leakage rate contributes about 50, Appendix J, Option B, ILRT) and a 75- evaluated by analyzing the resulting changes 0.1% to the individual risk and that the month interval for Type C testing (10 CFR in risk. The increase in risk in terms of decrease in Type A testing frequency would part 50, Appendix J, Option B, LLRT). The person-rem per year resulting from design have a minimal effect on this risk since 95%

current type A test interval of 10 years would basis accidents was estimated to be very of the potential leakage paths are detected by be extended to 15 years from the last Type small, and the increase in the LERF [large Type C testing. Regular inspections required A test. The proposed extension to Type A early release frequency] resulting from the by the ASME Code section Xl (subsections testing does not involve a significant increase proposed change was determined to be IWE and IWL) and maintenance rule in the consequences of an accident because within the guidelines published in NRC RG monitoring (10 CFR 50.65, Requirements for research documented in NUREG-1493, [Regulatory Guide] 1.174. Additionally, the Monitoring the Effectiveness of Maintenance Performance-Based Containment System proposed change maintains defense-in-depth at Nuclear Power Plants) will further reduce Leakage Testing Requirements [sic] by preserving a reasonable balance among the risk of a containment leakage path going

[Performance-Based Containment Leak-Test prevention of core damage, prevention of undetected.

Program], September 1995, has found that, containment failure, and consequence The proposed amendment adopts the NRC-generically, very few potential containment mitigation. TVA has determined that the accepted guidelines of NEI 94-01, Revision leakage paths are not identified by Type B increase in CCFP [conditional containment 3-A, for development of the SQN, Units 1 and C tests. NUREG-1493 concluded that failure probability] due to the proposed and 2, performance-based leakage testing reducing the Type A testing frequency to one change would be very small. program, and establishes a 15-year interval per twenty years was found to lead to an Based on the above discussions, the for the performance of the primary imperceptible increase in risk. A high degree proposed changes do not involve an increase containment ILRT and a 75-month interval of assurance is provided through testing and in the probability or consequences of an for Type C testing. The amendment does not inspection that the containment will not accident previously evaluated. alter the manner in which safety limits, degrade in a manner detectable only by Type 2. Does the proposed amendment create limiting safety system setpoints, or limiting A testing. The last Type A test (performed the possibility of a new or different kind of conditions for operation are determined. The mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES October 27, 2007 for SQN, Unit 1 and accident from any accident previously specific requirements and conditions of the December 30, 2006 for SQN, Unit 2) shows evaluated? 10 CFR part 50, Appendix J Testing Program leakage to be below acceptance criteria, Response: No. Plan, as defined in the TS, ensure that the indicating a very leak tight containment. The proposed revision to TS 6.8.4.h degree of primary containment structural Inspections required by the ASME [American changes the testing period to a permanent 15- integrity and leak-tightness that is considered Society of Mechanical Engineers] Code year interval for Type A testing (10 CFR part in the plant safety analyses is maintained.

section Xl (subsections IWE and IWL) and 50, Appendix J, Option B, ILRT) and a 75- The overall containment leakage rate limit Maintenance Rule monitoring (10 CFR 50.65, month interval for Type C testing (10 CFR specified by the TS is maintained, and the VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM 17MRN1

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices 13915 Type A, B, and C containment leakage tests acceptance criteria for the Surveillance ML14007A496, ML14139A424, and will continue to be performed at the Requirement 3.1.4.2 for Control Rod G- ML15044A047, respectively.

frequencies established in accordance with 3. During the last two performances of Brief description of amendment the NRC-accepted guidelines of NEI 94-01, request: The licensee is requesting that Revision 3-A.

this Surveillance on September 18, Containment inspections performed in 2014, and December 11, 2014, Control the Commission grant it preemption accordance with other plant programs serve Rod G-3 misalignment occurred with authority consistent with the to provide a high degree of assurance that the Shutdown Bank B group movement as Commissions authority under section containment will not degrade in a manner displayed by Individual Rod Position 161A of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, that is detectable only by an ILRT. This Indication and Plant Instrument as amended, to authorize the security ensures that evidence of containment Computer System. The proposed change personnel of designated classes of structural degradation is identified in a licensees to possess, use, and access is to defer subsequent testing of the timely manner. Furthermore, a risk covered weapons for the physical assessment using the current SQN, Units 1 Control Rod G-3 until repaired during and 2, PRA model concluded that extending the next refuel outage (March 2016) or security of SONGS, Units 2 and 3, and the ILRT test interval from 10 years to 15 forced outage long enough to repair the the Independent Spent Fuel Storage years results in a very small change to the Control Rod. Installation, notwithstanding Federal, SQN, Units 1 and 2, risk profile. Date of publication of individual State, or local laws prohibiting such Accordingly, the proposed changes do not notice in Federal Register: March 2, possession or use. If the amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of 2015 (80 FR 11236). request is granted, the licenses would be safety. Expiration date of individual notice: modified to reflect the Commissions The NRC staff has reviewed the April 1, 2015 (public comments); May 1, granting of section 161A preemption licensees analysis and, based on this 2015 (hearing requests). authority.

review, it appears that the three Date of publication of individual Pacific Gas and Electric Company, notice in Federal Register: February standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323 for satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 18, 2015 (80 FR 8701).

Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant Expiration date of individual notice:

proposes to determine that the (DCPP), Units 1 and 2, Docket No. 72-amendment request involves no March 20, 2015 (public comments);

26 for Diablo Canyon Independent April 20, 2015 (hearing requests).

significant hazards consideration. Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI),

Attorney for licensee: General IV. Notice of Issuance of Amendments San Luis Obispo County, California Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, to Facility Operating Licenses and 400 West Summit Hill Drive, 6A West Date of amendment request: Combined Licenses and Final Tower, Knoxville, TN 37902. September 24, 2013, as supplemented Determination of No Significant NRC Branch Chief: Shana R. Helton. by letters dated December 18, 2013 Hazards Consideration and (security-related), and May 15, 2014. Opportunity for a Hearing (Exigent III. Previously Published Notices of Publicly-available versions of the letters Consideration of Issuance of Public Announcement or Emergency dated September 24, 2013, and May 15, Circumstances)

Amendments to Facility Operating 2014, are in ADAMS under Accession Licenses and Combined Licenses, Nos. ML13268A398 and ML14135A379, During the period since publication of Proposed No Significant Hazards respectively. the last biweekly notice, the Consideration Determination, and Brief description of amendment Commission has issued the following Opportunity for a Hearing request: The proposed amendments amendments. The Commission has The following notices were previously would modify the licenses to reflect a determined for each of these published as separate individual grant of section 161A of the Atomic amendments that the application for the notices. The notice content was the Energy Act, to authorize the licensee the amendment complies with the same as above. They were published as authority to possess and use certain standards and requirements of the individual notices either because time firearms, ammunition, and other devices Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended did not allow the Commission to wait such as large-capacity ammunition (the Act), and the Commissions rules for this biweekly notice or because the feeding devices, to implement the NRC- and regulations. The Commission has action involved exigent circumstances. approved security plan for DCPP, Unit made appropriate findings as required They are repeated here because the Nos. 1 and 2, and the Diablo Canyon by the Act and the Commissions rules biweekly notice lists all amendments ISFSI. and regulations in 10 CFR chapter I, issued or proposed to be issued Date of publication of individual which are set forth in the license involving no significant hazards notice in Federal Register: February amendment.

consideration. 18, 2015 (80 FR 8706). Because of exigent or emergency For details, see the individual notice Expiration date of individual notice: circumstances associated with the date in the Federal Register on the day and March 20, 2015 (public comments); the amendment was needed, there was page cited. This notice does not extend April 19, 2015 (hearing requests). not time for the Commission to publish, the notice period of the original notice. for public comment before issuance, its Southern California Edison Company, et usual notice of consideration of Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., al., Docket Nos. 50-361, 50-362, and issuance of amendment, proposed no Docket No. 50-247, Indian Point 72-41, San Onofre Nuclear Generating significant hazards consideration Nuclear Generating Unit 2, Westchester Station, Units 2 and 3, and Independent determination, and opportunity for a County, New York Spent Fuel Storage Installation, San mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES hearing.

Date of amendment request: February Diego County, California For exigent circumstances, the 12, 2015. A publicly-available version is Date of amendment request: August Commission has either issued a Federal in ADAMS under Accession No. 28, 2013, as supplemented by letters Register notice providing opportunity ML15044A471. dated December 31, 2013, May 15, 2014, for public comment or has used local Brief description of amendment and February 10, 2015. Publicly- media to provide notice to the public in request: The proposed amendment available versions are in ADAMS under the area surrounding a licensees facility would allow a revision to the Accession Nos. ML13242A277, of the licensees application and of the VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM 17MRN1

13916 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices Commissions proposed determination Facility Operating License or Combined the proceeding; and (4) the possible of no significant hazards consideration. License, as applicable, and (3) the effect of any decision or order which The Commission has provided a Commissions related letter, Safety may be entered in the proceeding on the reasonable opportunity for the public to Evaluation and/or Environmental requestors/petitioners interest. The comment, using its best efforts to make Assessment, as indicated. All of these petition must also identify the specific available to the public means of items can be accessed as described in contentions which the requestor/

communication for the public to the Obtaining Information and petitioner seeks to have litigated at the respond quickly, and in the case of Submitting Comments section of this proceeding.

telephone comments, the comments document. Each contention must consist of a have been recorded or transcribed as specific statement of the issue of law or A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing fact to be raised or controverted. In appropriate and the licensee has been and Petition for Leave To Intervene addition, the requestor/petitioner shall informed of the public comments.

In circumstances where failure to act The Commission is also offering an provide a brief explanation of the bases in a timely way would have resulted, for opportunity for a hearing with respect to for the contention and a concise example, in derating or shutdown of a the issuance of the amendment. Within statement of the alleged facts or expert nuclear power plant or in prevention of 60 days after the date of publication of opinion which support the contention either resumption of operation or of this notice, any person(s) whose interest and on which the petitioner intends to increase in power output up to the may be affected by this action may file rely in proving the contention at the plants licensed power level, the a request for a hearing and a petition to hearing. The petitioner must also Commission may not have had an intervene with respect to issuance of the provide references to those specific opportunity to provide for public amendment to the subject facility sources and documents of which the comment on its no significant hazards operating license or combined license. petitioner is aware and on which the consideration determination. In such Requests for a hearing and a petition for petitioner intends to rely to establish case, the license amendment has been leave to intervene shall be filed in those facts or expert opinion. The issued without opportunity for accordance with the Commissions petition must include sufficient comment. If there has been some time Agency Rules of Practice and information to show that a genuine for public comment but less than 30 Procedure in 10 CFR part 2. Interested dispute exists with the applicant on a days, the Commission may provide an person(s) should consult a current copy material issue of law or fact.

opportunity for public comment. If of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at Contentions shall be limited to matters comments have been requested, it is so the NRCs PDR, located at One White within the scope of the amendment stated. In either event, the State has Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555 under consideration. The contention been consulted by telephone whenever Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, must be one which, if proven, would possible. Maryland 20852, and electronically on entitle the petitioner to relief. A Under its regulations, the Commission the Internet at the NRCs Web site, requestor/petitioner who fails to satisfy may issue and make an amendment http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc- these requirements with respect to at immediately effective, notwithstanding collections/cfr/. If there are problems in least one contention will not be the pendency before it of a request for accessing the document, contact the permitted to participate as a party.

a hearing from any person, in advance PDRs Reference staff at 1-800-397- Those permitted to intervene become of the holding and completion of any 4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to parties to the proceeding, subject to any required hearing, where it has pdr.resource@nrc.gov. If a request for a limitations in the order granting leave to determined that no significant hazards hearing or petition for leave to intervene intervene, and have the opportunity to consideration is involved. is filed by the above date, the participate fully in the conduct of the The Commission has applied the Commission or a presiding officer hearing. Since the Commission has standards of 10 CFR 50.92 and has made designated by the Commission or by the made a final determination that the a final determination that the Chief Administrative Judge of the amendment involves no significant amendment involves no significant Atomic Safety and Licensing Board hazards consideration, if a hearing is hazards consideration. The basis for this Panel, will rule on the request and/or requested, it will not stay the determination is contained in the petition; and the Secretary or the Chief effectiveness of the amendment. Any documents related to this action. Administrative Judge of the Atomic hearing held would take place while the Accordingly, the amendments have Safety and Licensing Board will issue a amendment is in effect.

been issued and made effective as notice of a hearing or an appropriate order. B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing) indicated.

Unless otherwise indicated, the As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a All documents filed in NRC Commission has determined that these petition for leave to intervene shall set adjudicatory proceedings, including a amendments satisfy the criteria for forth with particularity the interest of request for hearing, a petition for leave categorical exclusion in accordance the petitioner in the proceeding, and to intervene, any motion or other with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant how that interest may be affected by the document filed in the proceeding prior to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental results of the proceeding. The petition to the submission of a request for impact statement or environmental should specifically explain the reasons hearing or petition to intervene, and assessment need be prepared for these why intervention should be permitted documents filed by interested amendments. If the Commission has with particular reference to the governmental entities participating mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES prepared an environmental assessment following general requirements: (1) the under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in under the special circumstances name, address, and telephone number of accordance with the NRCs E-Filing rule provision in 10 CFR 51.12(b) and has the requestor or petitioner; (2) the (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007). The E-made a determination based on that nature of the requestors/petitioners Filing process requires participants to assessment, it is so indicated. right under the Act to be made a party submit and serve all adjudicatory For further details with respect to the to the proceeding; (3) the nature and documents over the internet, or in some action see (1) the application for extent of the requestors/petitioners cases to mail copies on electronic amendment, (2) the amendment to property, financial, or other interest in storage media. Participants may not VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM 17MRN1

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices 13917 submit paper copies of their filings (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance by courier, express mail, or expedited unless they seek an exemption in available on the NRCs public Web site delivery service upon depositing the accordance with the procedures at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e- document with the provider of the described below. submittals.html. A filing is considered service. A presiding officer, having To comply with the procedural complete at the time the documents are granted an exemption request from requirements of E-Filing, at least ten 10 submitted through the NRCs E-Filing using E-Filing, may require a participant days prior to the filing deadline, the system. To be timely, an electronic or party to use E-Filing if the presiding participant should contact the Office of filing must be submitted to the E-Filing officer subsequently determines that the the Secretary by email at system no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern reason for granting the exemption from hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by telephone Time on the due date. Upon receipt of use of E-Filing no longer exists.

at 301-415-1677, to request (1) a digital a transmission, the E-Filing system Documents submitted in adjudicatory identification (ID) certificate, which time-stamps the document and sends proceedings will appear in the NRCs allows the participant (or its counsel or the submitter an email notice electronic hearing docket which is representative) to digitally sign confirming receipt of the document. The available to the public at http://

documents and access the E-Submittal E-Filing system also distributes an email ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded server for any proceeding in which it is notice that provides access to the pursuant to an order of the Commission, participating; and (2) advise the document to the NRCs Office of the or the presiding officer. Participants are Secretary that the participant will be General Counsel and any others who requested not to include personal submitting a request or petition for have advised the Office of the Secretary privacy information, such as social hearing (even in instances in which the that they wish to participate in the security numbers, home addresses, or participant, or its counsel or proceeding, so that the filer need not home phone numbers in their filings, representative, already holds an NRC- serve the documents on those unless an NRC regulation or other law issued digital ID certificate). Based upon participants separately. Therefore, requires submission of such this information, the Secretary will applicants and other participants (or information. However, a request to establish an electronic docket for the their counsel or representative) must intervene will require including hearing in this proceeding if the apply for and receive a digital ID information on local residence in order Secretary has not already established an certificate before a hearing request/ to demonstrate a proximity assertion of electronic docket. petition to intervene is filed so that they interest in the proceeding. With respect Information about applying for a can obtain access to the document via to copyrighted works, except for limited digital ID certificate is available on the the E-Filing system. excerpts that serve the purpose of the NRCs public Web site at http:// A person filing electronically using adjudicatory filings and would www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/ the NRCs adjudicatory E-Filing system constitute a Fair Use application, getting-started.html. System may seek assistance by contacting the participants are requested not to include requirements for accessing the E- NRC Meta System Help Desk through copyrighted materials in their Submittal server are detailed in the the Contact Us link located on the submission.

NRCs Guidance for Electronic NRCs public Web site at http://

Submission, which is available on the www.nrc.gov/site-help/e- Exelon Generation Company, LLC, agencys public Web site at http:// submittals.html, by email to Docket No. 50-353, Limerick Generating www.nrc.gov/site-help/e- MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a toll- Station, Unit 2, Montgomery County, submittals.html. Participants may free call at 1-866-672-7640. The NRC Pennsylvania attempt to use other software not listed Meta System Help Desk is available Date of amendment request: February on the Web site, but should note that the between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern NRCs E-Filing system does not support 12, 2015.

Time, Monday through Friday, unlisted software, and the NRC Meta Description of amendment request:

excluding government holidays.

System Help Desk will not be able to Participants who believe that they The amendment extends the offer assistance in using unlisted have a good cause for not submitting implementation period for Amendment software. documents electronically must file an No. 174, Leak Detection System If a participant is electronically exemption request, in accordance with Setpoint and Allowable Value submitting a document to the NRC in 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper Changes, which was issued on accordance with the E-Filing rule, the filing requesting authorization to December 29, 2014. Amendment No.

participant must file the document continue to submit documents in paper 174 was effective as of the date of using the NRCs online, Web-based format. Such filings must be submitted issuance (i.e., on December 29, 2014) submission form. In order to serve by: (1) first class mail addressed to the and was required to be implemented documents through the Electronic Office of the Secretary of the within 60 days (i.e., by February 27, Information Exchange System, users Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 2015). Amendment No. 177 extends the will be required to install a Web Commission, Washington, DC 20555- implementation period for Amendment browser plug-in from the NRCs Web 0001, Attention: Rulemaking and No. 174 from 60 days to prior to startup site. Further information on the Web- Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, from the spring 2015 refueling outage.

based submission form, including the express mail, or expedited delivery Date of issuance: February 25, 2015.

installation of the Web browser plug-in, service to the Office of the Secretary, Effective date: As of its date of is available on the NRCs public Web Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, issuance and shall be implemented prior to startup from the Spring 2015 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e- 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, submittals.html. Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking Unit 2 Refueling Outage.

Once a participant has obtained a and Adjudications Staff. Participants Amendment No.: 177. A publicly-digital ID certificate and a docket has filing a document in this manner are available version is in ADAMS under been created, the participant can then responsible for serving the document on Accession No. ML15049A084; submit a request for hearing or petition all other participants. Filing is documents related to this amendment for leave to intervene. Submissions considered complete by first-class mail are listed in the Safety Evaluation should be in Portable Document Format as of the time of deposit in the mail, or enclosed with the amendment.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00096 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM 17MRN1

13918 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices Renewed Facility Operating License Effective date: As of the date of with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant Nos. NPF-85: Amendment revised the issuance and shall be implemented to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental Renewed Facility Operating License to during the refueling outages in fall of impact statement or environmental extend the implementation date of 2016 for Unit 1, in spring of 2015 for assessment need be prepared for these Amendment No. 174, issued on Unit 2, and in spring of 2016 for Unit amendments. If the Commission has December 29, 2014, to prior to startup 3. prepared an environmental assessment from the Spring 2015 Unit 2 Refueling Amendment Nos.: 288, 313, and 272, under the special circumstances Outage. which are available in ADAMS under provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has Public comments requested as to Accession No. ML15051A337. made a determination based on that proposed no significant hazards Documents related to these amendments assessment, it is so indicated.

consideration (NSHC): Yes. Public are listed in the SE enclosed with the For further details with respect to the notice of the proposed amendment was amendments. action see (1) the applications for published in The Pottstown Mercury, Renewed Facility Operating License amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) located in in Pottstown, Pennsylvania, Nos. DPR-33, DPR-52, and DPR-68: the Commissions related letter, Safety on February 15, and February 16, 2015. Amendments revised the TSs. Evaluation and/or Environmental The notice provided an opportunity to Public comments requested as to Assessment as indicated. All of these submit comments on the Commissions proposed no significant hazards items can be accessed as described in proposed NSHC determination. consideration (NSHC): The public the Obtaining Information and Comments were received. notice was published in The Submitting Comments section of this The Commissions related evaluation Huntsville Times, located in document.

of the amendment, finding of exigent Huntsville, Alabama, on February 18 and 20, 2015. The notice provided an Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.,

circumstances, state consultation, Docket No. 50-255, Palisades Nuclear public comments, and final NSHC opportunity to submit comments on the Commissions proposed NSHC Plant, Van Buren County, Michigan determination are contained in a safety evaluation dated February 25, 2015. determination. No comments have been Date of application for amendment:

received. December 12, 2012, as supplemented by Attorney for licensee: J. Bradley The Commissions related evaluation letters dated February 21, September 30, Fewell, Esquire, Vice President and of the amendment, finding of exigent October 24, and December 2, 2013; Deputy General Counsel, Exelon circumstances, state consultation, and April 2, May 7, June 17, August 14, Generation Company, LLC, 200 Exelon final NSHC determination are contained November 4, and December 18, 2014.

Way, Kennett Square, PA 19348. Brief description of amendment: The in a safety evaluation dated February 26, NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. amendment authorizes the transition of 2015.

Broaddus. Attorney for licensee: General the Palisades Nuclear Plant fire Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, protection program to a risk-informed, Nos. 50-259, 50-260, and 50-296, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, ET 11A, performance-based program based on Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN), Knoxville, TN 37902. National Fire Protection Association Units 1, 2, and 3, Respectively, NRC Branch Chief: Shana R. Helton. (NFPA) 805, in accordance with 10 CFR Limestone County, Alabama V. Notice of Issuance of Amendments to 50.48(c). NFPA 805 allows the use of Facility Operating Licenses and performance-based methods such as fire Date of amendment request: February Combined Licenses modeling and risk-informed methods 12, 2015.

such as fire probabilistic risk assessment Brief description of amendment During the period since publication of to demonstrate compliance with the request: The amendments revised the last biweekly notice, the nuclear safety performance criteria.

Technical Specification (TS) 5.6.5, Commission has issued the following Date of issuance: February 27, 2015.

Core Operating Limits Report (COLR), amendments. The Commission has Effective date: As of its date of to add the date of a previously issued determined for each of these issuance and shall be implemented by NRC safety evaluation (SE) that stated it amendments that the application six months from the date of issuance.

was acceptable for the licensee to use complies with the standards and Amendment No.: 254. A publicly-new analytical methods supporting the requirements of the Atomic Energy Act available version is in ADAMS under use of ATRIUM 10XM (10XM) fuel. In of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Accession No. ML15007A191; its letter dated February 12, 2015, the Commissions rules and regulations. documents related to this amendment licensee stated BFN, Unit 2, is entering The Commission has made appropriate are listed in the Safety Evaluation an outage on March 14, 2015, and is findings as required by the Act and the enclosed with the amendment.

scheduled to commence loading 10XM Commissions rules and regulations in Renewed Facility Operating License fuel on March 17, 2015. Because the TSs 10 CFR chapter I, which are set forth in No. DPR-20: Amendment revised the do not reference the aforementioned the license amendment. Renewed Facility Operating License and NRC evaluation, the licensee would not A notice of consideration of issuance Technical Specifications.

be able to issue a COLR for the Unit 2 of amendment to facility operating Date of initial notice in Federal transition cycle unless the notation to license or combined license, as Register: February 27, 2014 (79 FR the latest NRC SE is added. Therefore, applicable, proposed no significant 11148). The supplements dated April 2, the licensee requested that NRC process hazards consideration determination, May 7, June 17, August 14, November 4, mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES the license amendment request under and opportunity for a hearing in and December 18, 2014, provided exigent circumstances in accordance connection with these actions, was additional information that clarified the with 10 CFR 50.91(a)(6). The NRC staff published in the Federal Register as application, did not expand the scope of determined that the provisions of 10 indicated. the application as originally noticed, CFR 50.91(a)(6) were applicable for Unless otherwise indicated, the and did not change the staffs original processing the licensees request under Commission has determined that these proposed no significant hazards exigent circumstances. amendments satisfy the criteria for consideration determination as Date of issuance: February 26, 2015. categorical exclusion in accordance published in the Federal Register.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM 17MRN1

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices 13919 The Commissions related evaluation Electric Station, Unit 3 to improve Amendment Nos.: 220 and 170. A of the amendment is contained in a clarity, correct administrative and publicly-available version is in ADAMS Safety Evaluation dated February 27, typographical errors, or establish under Accession No. ML14343A918; 2015. consistency with NUREG-1432, documents related to these amendments No significant hazards consideration Standard Technical Specifications are listed in the Safety Evaluation (SE) comments received: No. Combustion Engineering Plants, enclosed with the amendments.

Revision 4.0. Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-313, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1, Date of issuance: February 23, 2015. 67 and NPF-16: Amendments revised Pope County, Arkansas Effective date: As of the date of the Renewed Facility Operating issuance and shall be implemented 90 Licenses and TSs.

Date of amendment request: March days from the date of issuance. Date of initial notice in Federal 26, 2013, as supplemented by letters Amendment No.: 242. A publicly- Register: May 27, 2014 (79 FR 30187).

dated November 14, 2013, and August available version is in ADAMS under The supplements dated May 29 and July 18, October 22, and December 5, 2014. Accession No. ML15005A126; 25, 2014, provided additional Brief description of amendment: The documents related to this amendment information that clarified the amendment revised the Technical are listed in the Safety Evaluation application, did not expand the scope of Specification (TS) requirements for end enclosed with the amendment. the application as originally noticed, states associated with the Facility Operating License No. NPF- and did not change the staffs original implementation of the NRC-approved 38: The amendment revised the Facility proposed no significant hazards Topical Report BAW-2441-A, Revision Operating License and Technical consideration determination as 2, Risk-Informed Justification for LCO Specifications. published in the Federal Register.

End-State Changes, as well as Required Date of initial notice in Federal The Commissions related evaluation Actions revised by a specific Note in TS Register: August 5, 2014 (79 FR 45475). of the amendments is contained in a SE Task Force (TSTF) change traveler The supplements dated October 1, 2014, dated February 27, 2015.

TSTF-431, Revision 3, Change in and December 17, 2014, provided No significant hazards consideration Technical Specifications End States additional information that clarified the comments received: No.

(BAW-2441). application, did not expand the scope of Date of issuance: March 3, 2015. Luminant Generation Company LLC, the application as originally noticed, Effective date: As of the date of Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446, and did not change the staffs original issuance and shall be implemented Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant, proposed no significant hazards within 90 days from the date of Units 1 and 2, Somervell County, Texas consideration determination as issuance. Date of amendment request: July 1, published in the Federal Register.

Amendment No.: 253. A publicly- 2014.

available version is in ADAMS under The Commissions related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Brief description of amendment: The Accession No. ML15023A147; Safety Evaluation dated February 23, amendments revised Technical documents related to this amendment 2015. Specification 3.8.1, AC [Alternating are listed in the Safety Evaluation No significant hazards consideration Current] SourcesOperating, to extend enclosed with the amendment.

comments received: No. on a one-time basis the Completion Renewed Facility Operating License Time (CT) of Required Action A.3, No. DPR-51: Amendment revised the Florida Power and Light Company, et Restore required offsite circuit to TSs/license. al., Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389, St.

Date of initial notice in Federal OPERABLE status, from 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> to 14 Lucie Plant, Units 1 and 2, St. Lucie days. The CT extension from 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> Register: July 23, 2013 (78 FR 44170). County, Florida The supplemental letters dated to 14 days will be used while November 14, 2013, and August 19, Date of amendment request: February completing the plant modification to October 22, and December 5, 2014, 26, 2014, as supplemented by letters install alternate startup transformer provided additional information that dated May 29 and July 25, 2014. XST1A and will expire on March 31, clarified the application, did not expand Brief description of amendment: The 2017.

the scope of the application as originally amendments revised the Technical Date of issuance: February 24, 2015.

noticed, and did not change the staffs Specifications (TSs), modifying Effective date: As of the date of original proposed no significant hazards requirements for mode change issuance and shall be implemented consideration determination as limitations in Limiting Condition for within [licensee requested number] days published in the Federal Register. Operation 3.0.4 and Surveillance from the date of issuance.

The Commissions related evaluation Requirement (SR) 4.0.4 to adopt the Amendment Nos.: Unit 1164; Unit of the amendment is contained in a provisions of Industry/TS Task Force 2164. A publicly-available version is Safety Evaluation dated March 3, 2015. (TSTF)-359, Rev. 9, Increase in ADAMS under Accession No.

No significant hazards consideration Flexibility in MODE Restraints. The ML15008A133; documents related to comments received: No. language of SR 4.0.1 is revised to these amendments are listed in the conform to the language of NUREG- Safety Evaluation enclosed with the Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50- 1432, Standard Technical amendments.

382, Waterford Steam Electric Station, Specifications for Combustion Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-Unit 3, St. Charles Parish, Louisiana 87 and NPF-89: The amendments mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Engineering Plants, to resolve language Date of amendment request: incongruences and ensure conservative revised the Facility Operating Licenses December 9, 2013, as supplemented by implementation of the TSTF-359, Rev. and Technical Specifications.

letters dated October 1, 2014, and 9, changes. Date of initial notice in Federal December 17, 2014. Date of issuance: February 27, 2015. Register: October 28, 2014 (79 FR Brief description of amendment: The Effective date: As of the date of 64226).

amendment revised the Technical issuance and shall be implemented The Commissions related evaluation Specifications for the Waterford Steam within 60 days of issuance. of the amendments is contained in a VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00098 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM 17MRN1

13920 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices Safety Evaluation dated February 24, Amendment Nos.: Unit 1204; Unit contain the OMB control number of the 2015. 2192. A publicly-available version is ICR. For proper consideration of your No significant hazards consideration in ADAMS under Accession No. comments, it is best if the RRB and comments received: No. ML15049A129; documents related to OIRA receive them within 30 days of Omaha Public Power District, Docket these amendments are listed in the the publication date.

No. 50-285, Fort Calhoun Station, Unit Safety Evaluation enclosed with the Title and Purpose of information 1, Washington County, Nebraska amendments. collection: Evidence for Application of Facility Operating License Nos. NPF- Overall Minimum; OMB 3220-0083.

Date of amendment request: April 30, 76 and NPF-80: The amendments Under Section 3(f)(3) of the Railroad 2014, as supplemented by letter dated revised the Facility Operating Licenses Retirement Act (RRA), the total monthly January 27, 2015. and Technical Specifications. benefits payable to a railroad employee Brief description of amendment: The Date of initial notice in Federal and his/her family are guaranteed to be amendment revised Technical Register: December 2, 2014 (79 FR no less than the amount which would Specification section 3.2, Table 3-5, for 71455). The supplemental letter dated be payable if the employees railroad Fort Calhoun Station, Unit No. 1, to add December 18, 2014, provided additional service had been covered by the Social a new surveillance requirement to verify information that clarified the Security Act. This is referred to as the the correct position of the valves application, did not expand the scope of Social Security Overall Minimum required to restrict flow in the high the application as originally noticed, Guarantee, which is prescribed in 20 pressure safety injection system. and did not change the staffs original CFR 229. To administer this provision, Date of issuance: February 20, 2015. proposed no significant hazards Effective date: As of the date of the Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) consideration determination as requires information about a retired issuance and shall be implemented published in the Federal Register.

within 120 days from the date of employees spouse and child(ren) who The Commissions related evaluation would not be eligible for benefits under issuance. of the amendments is contained in a Amendment No.: 280. A publicly- the RRA but would be eligible for Safety Evaluation dated February 27, benefits under the Social Security Act if available version is in ADAMS under 2015.

Accession No. ML15015A413; the employees railroad service had No significant hazards consideration been covered by that Act. The RRB documents related to this amendment comments received: No.

are listed in the Safety Evaluation obtains the required information by the enclosed with the amendment. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day use of Forms G-319, Statement Renewed Facility Operating License of March 2015. Regarding Family and Earnings for No. DPR-40: The amendment revised For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Special Guaranty Computation, and G-the license and Technical Michele G. Evans, 320, Student Questionnaire for Special Specifications. Director, Division of Operating Reactor Guaranty Computation. One response is Date of initial notice in Federal Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor required of each respondent.

Register: August 19, 2014 (79 FR Regulation. Completion is required to obtain or 49108). The supplemental letter dated [FR Doc. 2015-05994 Filed 3-16-15; 8:45 am] retain benefits.

January 27, 2015, provided additional BILLING CODE 7590-01-P Previous Requests for Comments: The information that clarified the RRB has already published the initial application, did not expand the scope of 60-day notice (80 FR 1679 on January the application as originally noticed, RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD 13, 2015) required by 44 U.S.C.

and did not change the staffs original 3506(c)(2). That request elicited no proposed no significant hazards Agency Forms Submitted for OMB comments.

consideration determination as Review, Request for Comments Information Collection Request (ICR) published in the Federal Register.

The Commissions related evaluation

SUMMARY

In accordance with the

Title:

Statement Regarding of the amendment is contained in a Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 Contributions and Support of Children.

safety evaluation dated February 20, U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Railroad

Title:

Evidence for Application of 2015. Retirement Board (RRB) is forwarding Overall Minimum.

No significant hazards consideration an Information Collection Request (ICR)

OMB Control Number: 3220-0083.

comments received: No. to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Office of Forms submitted: G-319 and G-320.

STP Nuclear Operating Company, Management and Budget (OMB). Our Type of request: Extension without Docket Nos. 50-498 and 50-499, South ICR describes the information we seek change of a currently approved Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, Matagorda to collect from the public. Review and collection.

County, Texas approval by OIRA ensures that we Affected public: Individuals or Date of amendment request: August impose appropriate paperwork burdens. Households.

14, 2014, as supplemented by letter The RRB invites comments on the Abstract: Under Section 3(f)(3) of the dated December 18, 2014. proposed collection of information to Railroad Retirement Act, the total Brief description of amendments: The determine (1) the practical utility of the monthly benefits payable to a railroad amendments revised Administrative collection; (2) the accuracy of the employee and his/her family are Controls Technical Specification (TS) estimated burden of the collection; (3) guaranteed to be no less than the mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 6.9.1.6, Core Operating Limits Report ways to enhance the quality, utility, and amount which would be payable if the (COLR), with respect to the analytical clarity of the information that is the employees railroad service had been methods used to determine the core subject of collection; and (4) ways to covered by the Social Security Act.

operating limits. minimize the burden of collections on Changes proposed: The RRB proposes Date of issuance: February 27, 2015. respondents, including the use of non-burden impacting editorial changes Effective date: As of the date of automated collection techniques or to Forms G-319 and G-320.

issuance and shall be implemented other forms of information technology. The burden estimate for the ICR is as within 90 days of issuance. Comments to the RRB or OIRA must follows:

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00099 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM 17MRN1