ML15223A318

NRC000191- Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations, 79 Fed. Reg. 15144 (Mar. 18, 2014)

ML15223A318
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	03/18/2014
From:	NRC/OGC
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
SECY RAS
References
RAS 28156, ASLBP 07-858-03-LR-BD01, 50-247-LR, 50-286-LR
Download: ML15223A318 (14)

Text

15144 Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 52/Tuesday, March 18, 2014/Notices *evaluate the accuracy of the agencys estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the

methodology and assumptions used; *enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be

collected; and *minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who

are to respond, including through the

use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other

technological collection techniques or

other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions

of responses.

III. Current Actions:

The Department of Labor seeks the approval for the

extension of this currently approved

information collection in order to

ensure the accurate payment of benefits

to current and former Federal

employees with recurring work-related

injuries.

Type of Review:

Extension.

Agency: Office of Workers Compensation Programs.

Title: Notice of Recurrences OMB Number:

1240-0009.

Agency Number:

CA-2a.

Affected Public:

Individuals or households.

Total Respondents:

258.

Total Annual Responses:

258. Average Time per Response:

30 minutes. Estimated Total Burden Hours:

129. Frequency:

Annually.

Total Burden Cost (capital/startup):

$0. Total Burden Cost (operating/

maintenance):

$126. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of

Management and Budget approval of the

information collection request; they will

also become a matter of public record.

Dated: March 10, 2014.

Yoon Ferguson, Agency Clearance Officer, Office of Workers Compensation Programs, US Department of

Labor. [FR Doc. 2014-05981 Filed 3-17-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-CH-P NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Notice of Permit Applications Received Under the Antarctic Conservation Act

of 1978 (Pub. L.95-541)

AGENCY: National Science Foundation.

ACTION: Notice of Permit Applications Received Under the Antarctic

Conservation Act of 1978, Public Law 95-541.

SUMMARY

The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish a notice of permit applications received

to conduct activities regulated under the

Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978.

NSF has published regulations under

the Antarctic Conservation Act at Title

45 Part 670 of the Code of Federal

Regulations. This is the required notice

of permit applications received.

DATES: Interested parties are invited to submit written data, comments, or

views with respect to this permit

application by April 17, 2014. This

application may be inspected by

interested parties at the Permit Office, address below.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to Permit Office, Room 755, Division of Polar Programs, National

Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson

Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22230. FORFURTHERINFORMATIONCONTACT

Polly Penhale, ACA Permit Officer, at

the above address or ACApermits@

nsf.gov or (703) 292-7420. SUPPLEMENTARYINFORMATION

The National Science Foundation, as

directed by the Antarctic Conservation

Act of 1978 (Pub. L.95-541), as

amended by the Antarctic Science, Tourism and Conservation Act of 1996, has developed regulations for the

establishment of a permit system for

various activities in Antarctica and

designation of certain animals and

certain geographic areas a requiring

special protection. The regulations

establish such a permit system to

designate Antarctic Specially Protected

Areas. Application Details

1. Applicant:

Permit Application: 2014-030 Prof. Chi-Hing Christina Cheng Department of Animal Biology, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, IL Activity for Which Permit Is Requested ASPA, Import into USA: This permit would allow entry into ASPA 153

Eastern Dallmann Bay and ASPA 152

Western Bransfield Strait for the

purpose of collecting a small number of

icefish species via trawling and trapping

for a study on freezing avoidance and

evolutionary cold adaptation in

Antarctic fishes. Some whole, frozen

individuals as well as tissue samples

would be imported back into the U.S.A.

for physiological, biochemical, and

molecular studies. Port of Entry is Port

Hueneme, CA.

Location Antarctic Specially Protected Area No. 153, Eastern Dallmann Bay; and Antarctic Specially Protected Area No.

152, Western Bransfield Strait (Area

around Low Island).

Dates June 21, 2014 to October 21, 2014.

Nadene G. Kennedy, Polar Coordination Specialist, Division of Polar Programs.

[FR Doc. 2014-05881 Filed 3-17-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2014-0045]

Biweekly Notice; Applications and

Amendments to Facility Operating

Licenses and Combined Licenses

Involving No Significant Hazards

Considerations Background Pursuant to Section 189a. (2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) is publishing this

regular biweekly notice. The Act

requires the Commission to publish

notice of any amendments issued, or

proposed to be issued and grants the

Commission the authority to issue and

make immediately effective any

amendment to an operating license or

combined license, as applicable, upon a

determination by the Commission that

such amendment involves no significant

hazards consideration, notwithstanding

the pendency before the Commission of

a request for a hearing from any person.

This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or

proposed to be issued from March 5 to

March 18, 2014. The last biweekly

notice was published on March 4, 2014

(79 FR 12241).

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods (unless

this document describes a different

method for submitting comments on a

specific subject):

• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2014-0045. Address

questions about NRC dockets to Carol

Gallagher; telephone: 301-287-3422;

email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For technical questions, contact the

individual listed in the FORFURTHER INFORMATIONCONTACT section of this document.

• Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Chief, Rules, Announcements, and

Directives Branch (RADB), Office of

Administration, Mail Stop: 3WFN

44M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:34 Mar 17, 2014Jkt 232001PO 00000Frm 00050Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\18MRN1.SGM18MRN1 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES 15145 Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 52/Tuesday, March 18, 2014/Notices Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. For additional direction on accessing information and submitting comments, see Accessing Information and

Submitting Comments in the SUPPLEMENTARYINFORMATION section of this document. SUPPLEMENTARYINFORMATION

I. Accessing Information and Submitting Comments A. Accessing Information Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2014-0045 when contacting the NRC about

the availability of information regarding

this document. You may access

publicly-available information related to

this action by the following methods:

• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2014-0045.

• NRCs Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may access publicly

available documents online in the NRC

Library at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select ADAMS Public Documents and

then select Begin Web-based ADAMS

Search. For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRCs Public

Document Room (PDR) reference staff at

1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by

email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The ADAMS accession number for each

document referenced in this document (if that document is available in

ADAMS) is provided the first time that

a document is referenced.

• NRCs PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at

the NRCs PDR, Room O1-F21, One

White Flint North, 11555 Rockville

Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

B. Submitting Comments Please include Docket ID NRC-2014-0045 in the subject line of your

comment submission, in order to ensure

that the NRC is able to make your

comment submission available to the

public in this docket.

The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that

you do not want to be publicly

disclosed in your comment submission.

The NRC posts all comment

submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.

The NRC does not routinely edit

comment submissions to remove

identifying or contact information.

If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for

submission to the NRC, then you should

inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly

disclosed in their comment submission.

Your request should state that the NRC

does not routinely edit comment

submissions to remove such information

before making the comment

submissions available to the public or

entering the comment submissions into

ADAMS. Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating

Licenses and Combined Licenses, Proposed No Significant Hazards

Consideration Determination, and

Opportunity for a Hearing The Commission has made a proposed determination that the

following amendment requests involve

no significant hazards consideration.

Under the Commissions regulations in

§50.92 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), this means that operation of the facility in accordance

with the proposed amendment would

not (1) involve a significant increase in

the probability or consequences of an

accident previously evaluated; or (2)

create the possibility of a new or

different kind of accident from any

accident previously evaluated; or (3)

involve a significant reduction in a

margin of safety. The basis for this

proposed determination for each

amendment request is shown below.

The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed

determination. Any comments received

within 30 days after the date of

publication of this notice will be

considered in making any final

determination.

Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the

expiration of 60 days after the date of

publication of this notice. The

Commission may issue the license

amendment before expiration of the 60-

day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment

involves no significant hazards

consideration. In addition, the

Commission may issue the amendment

prior to the expiration of the 30-day

comment period should circumstances

change during the 30-day comment

period such that failure to act in a

timely way would result, for example in

derating or shutdown of the facility.

Should the Commission take action

prior to the expiration of either the

comment period or the notice period, it

will publish in the Federal Register a notice of issuance. Should the

Commission make a final No Significant

Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after

issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will occur very infrequently.

Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any person(s)

whose interest may be affected by this

action may file a request for a hearing

and a petition to intervene with respect

to issuance of the amendment to the

subject facility operating license or

combined license. Requests for a

hearing and a petition for leave to

intervene shall be filed in accordance

with the Commissions Agency Rules

of Practice and Procedure in 10 CFR

Part 2. Interested person(s) should

consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the NRCs PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room

O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first

floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. The

NRC regulations are accessible

electronically from the NRC Library on

the NRCs Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-

collections/cfr/.

If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed

by the above date, the Commission or a

presiding officer designated by the

Commission or by the Chief

Administrative Judge of the Atomic

Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will

rule on the request and/or petition; and

the Secretary or the Chief

Administrative Judge of the Atomic

Safety and Licensing Board will issue a

notice of a hearing or an appropriate

order. As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene shall set

forth with particularity the interest of

the petitioner in the proceeding, and

how that interest may be affected by the

results of the proceeding. The petition

should specifically explain the reasons

why intervention should be permitted

with particular reference to the

following general requirements: (1) the

name, address, and telephone number of

the requestor or petitioner; (2) the

nature of the requestors/petitioners

right under the Act to be made a party

to the proceeding; (3) the nature and

extent of the requestors/petitioners

property, financial, or other interest in

the proceeding; and (4) the possible

effect of any decision or order which

may be entered in the proceeding on the

requestors/petitioners interest. The

petition must also identify the specific contentions which the requestor/

petitioner seeks to have litigated at the

proceeding.

Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or

fact to be raised or controverted. In

addition, the requestor/petitioner shall

provide a brief explanation of the bases

for the contention and a concise

statement of the alleged facts or expert VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:34 Mar 17, 2014Jkt 232001PO 00000Frm 00051Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\18MRN1.SGM18MRN1 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES 15146 Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 52/Tuesday, March 18, 2014/Notices opinion which support the contention and on which the requestor/petitioner

intends to rely in proving the contention

at the hearing. The requestor/petitioner

must also provide references to those

specific sources and documents of

which the petitioner is aware and on

which the requestor/petitioner intends

to rely to establish those facts or expert

opinion. The petition must include

sufficient information to show that a

genuine dispute exists with the

applicant on a material issue of law or

fact. Contentions shall be limited to

matters within the scope of the

amendment under consideration. The

contention must be one which, if

proven, would entitle the requestor/

petitioner to relief. A requestor/

petitioner who fails to satisfy these

requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.

Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to

intervene, and have the opportunity to

participate fully in the conduct of the

hearing. If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final

determination on the issue of no

significant hazards consideration. The

final determination will serve to decide

when the hearing is held. If the final

determination is that the amendment

request involves no significant hazards

consideration, the Commission may

issue the amendment and make it

immediately effective, notwithstanding

the request for a hearing. Any hearing

held would take place after issuance of

the amendment. If the final

determination is that the amendment

request involves a significant hazards

consideration, then any hearing held

would take place before the issuance of

any amendment.

All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a

request for hearing, a petition for leave

to intervene, any motion or other

document filed in the proceeding prior

to the submission of a request for

hearing or petition to intervene, and

documents filed by interested

governmental entities participating

under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in

accordance with the NRCs E-Filing rule

(72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to

submit and serve all adjudicatory

documents over the internet, or in some

cases to mail copies on electronic

storage media. Participants may not

submit paper copies of their filings

unless they seek an exemption in

accordance with the procedures

described below.

To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10

days prior to the filing deadline, the

participant should contact the Office of

the Secretary by email at

hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by telephone at 301-415-1677, to request (1) a digital

identification (ID) certificate, which

allows the participant (or its counsel or representative) to digitally sign

documents and access the E-Submittal server for any proceeding in which it is

participating; and (2) advise the

Secretary that the participant will be

submitting a request or petition for

hearing (even in instances in which the

participant, or its counsel or

representative, already holds an NRC-

issued digital ID certificate). Based upon

this information, the Secretary will

establish an electronic docket for the

hearing in this proceeding if the

Secretary has not already established an

electronic docket.

Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the

NRCs public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/

apply-certificates.html.

System requirements for accessing the E-

Submittal server are detailed in the

NRCs Guidance for Electronic

Submission, which is available on the

agencys public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-

submittals.html. Participants may attempt to use other software not listed

on the Web site, but should note that the

NRCs E-Filing system does not support

unlisted software, and the NRC Meta

System Help Desk will not be able to

offer assistance in using unlisted

software.

If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC in

accordance with the E-Filing rule, the

participant must file the document

using the NRCs online, Web-based

submission form. In order to serve

documents through the Electronic

Information Exchange System, users

will be required to install a Web

browser plug-in from the NRCs Web

site. Further information on the Web-

based submission form, including the

installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on the NRCs public Web

site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html.

Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a docket has

been created, the participant can then

submit a request for hearing or petition

for leave to intervene. Submissions

should be in Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with the NRC

guidance available on the NRCs public

Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html.

A filing is considered complete at the time the documents are submitted through the

NRCs E-Filing system. To be timely, an

electronic filing must be submitted to

the E-Filing system no later than 11:59

p.m. Eastern Time on the due date.

Upon receipt of a transmission, the E-

Filing system time-stamps the document

and sends the submitter an email notice

confirming receipt of the document. The

E-Filing system also distributes an email

notice that provides access to the

document to the NRCs Office of the

General Counsel and any others who

have advised the Office of the Secretary

that they wish to participate in the

proceeding, so that the filer need not

serve the documents on those

participants separately. Therefore, applicants and other participants (or

their counsel or representative) must

apply for and receive a digital ID

certificate before a hearing request/

petition to intervene is filed so that they

can obtain access to the document via

the E-Filing system.

A person filing electronically using the agencys adjudicatory E-Filing

system may seek assistance by

contacting the NRC Meta System Help

Desk through the Contact Us link

located on the NRC Web site at http:// www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html , by email to MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov , or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-7640. The NRC

Meta System Help Desk is available

between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern

Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays.

Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting

documents electronically must file an

exemption request, in accordance with

10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper

filing requesting authorization to

continue to submit documents in paper

format. Such filings must be submitted

by: (1) First class mail addressed to the

Office of the Secretary of the

Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555-

0001, Attention: Rulemaking and

Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery

service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking

and Adjudications Staff. Participants

filing a document in this manner are

responsible for serving the document on

all other participants. Filing is

considered complete by first-class mail

as of the time of deposit in the mail, or

by courier, express mail, or expedited

delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the

service. A presiding officer, having VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:34 Mar 17, 2014Jkt 232001PO 00000Frm 00052Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\18MRN1.SGM18MRN1 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES 15147 Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 52/Tuesday, March 18, 2014/Notices granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant

or party to use E-Filing if the presiding

officer subsequently determines that the

reason for granting the exemption from

use of E-Filing no longer exists.

Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRCs

electronic hearing docket which is

available to the public at http://ehd1.

nrc.gov/ehd/;, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the Commission, or the

presiding officer. Participants are

requested not to include personal

privacy information, such as social

security numbers, home addresses, or

home phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC regulation or other law

requires submission of such

information. However, a request to

intervene will require including

information on local residence in order

to demonstrate a proximity assertion of

interest in the proceeding. With respect

to copyrighted works, except for limited

excerpts that serve the purpose of the

adjudicatory filings and would

constitute a Fair Use application, participants are requested not to include

copyrighted materials in their

submission.

Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 days from the

date of publication of this notice.

Requests for hearing, petitions for leave

to intervene, and motions for leave to

file new or amended contentions that

are filed after the 60-day deadline will

not be entertained absent a

determination by the presiding officer

that the filing demonstrates good cause

by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR

2.309(c)(1)(i)-(iii).

For further details with respect to this license amendment application, see the

application for amendment which is

available for public inspection at the

NRCs PDR, located at One White Flint

North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville

Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland

20852. Publicly available documents

created or received at the NRC are

accessible electronically through

ADAMS in the NRC Library at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do not have access to

ADAMS or who encounter problems in

accessing the documents located in

ADAMS, should contact the NRCs PDR

Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-

415-4737, or by email to pdr.resource@

nrc.gov. Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-247, Indian Point

Nuclear Generating, Unit 2, Westchester

County, New York Date of amendment request:

January 16, 2014.

Description of amendment request:

The proposed amendment would revise

Technical Specification (TS) 5.5.7, Steam Generator (SG) Program, to

exclude portions of the SG tube below

the top of the SG tubesheet from

periodic inspections and plugging by

implementing the H* alternate repair

criteria. In addition, TS 5.6.7, Steam

Generator Tube Inspection Report,

would also be revised to include

additional reporting requirements.

Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the

licensee has provided its analysis of the

issue of no significant hazards

consideration, which is presented

below: 1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or

consequences of an accident previously

evaluated?

Response: No.

The proposed change excludes the lower portion of steam generator tubes from inspection by implementing the alternate

repair criteria H* and does not have a

detrimental impact on the integrity of any

plant structure, system, or component that

initiates an analyzed event. The proposed

change has no significant effect upon

accident probabilities or consequences.

Of the applicable accidents previously evaluated, the limiting transients with

consideration to the proposed change to the

steam generator tube inspection and repair

criteria are the steam generator tube rupture (SGTR), the main steam line break (MSLB),

Locked Rotor and Control Rod Ejection.

At normal operating pressures, leakage from Primary Water Stress Corrosion

Cracking (PWSCC) below the proposed

limited inspection depth is limited by both

the tube-to-tubesheet crevice and the limited

crack opening permitted by the tubesheet

constraint. Consequently, negligible normal

operating leakage is expected from cracks

within the tubesheet region.

For the SGTR event, the required structural integrity margins of the steam generator tubes

and the tube-to-tubesheet joint over the H*

distance will be maintained. Tube rupture in

tubes with cracks within the tubesheet is

precluded by the constraint provided by the

tube-to-tubesheet joint. This constraint

results from the hydraulic expansion process, thermal expansion mismatch between the tube and tubesheet, and from the differential

pressure between the primary and secondary

side. The structural margins against burst, as

discussed in Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.121, Bases for Plugging Degraded PWR Steam

Generator Tubes, (Reference 11) and NEI

97-06, Steam Generator Program

Guidelines (Reference 3) are maintained for

both normal and postulated accident

conditions. Therefore, the proposed change

results in no significant increase in the

probability of the occurrence of a SGTR

accident.

The probability of a Steam Line Break, Locked Rotor, and Control Rod Ejection are

not affected by the potential failure of a SG tube, as the failure of a tube is not an initiator for any of these events. In the supporting

Westinghouse analyses, leakage is modeled

as flow through a porous medium via the use

of the Darcy equation. The leakage model is

used to develop a relationship between

allowable leakage and leakage at accident

conditions that is based on differential

pressure across the tubesheet and the

viscosity of the fluid. A leak rate ratio was

developed to relate the leakage at operating

conditions to leakage at accident conditions.

The fluid viscosity is based on fluid

temperature and it has been shown that for

the most limiting accident, the fluid

temperature does not exceed the normal

operating temperature. Therefore, the

viscosity ratio is assumed to be 1.0 and the

leak rate ratio is a function of the ratio of the

accident differential pressure and the normal

operating differential pressure.

The leakage factor of 1.75 for IP2 for a-postulated MSLB, has been calculated as

shown in the supporting Westinghouse

analysis. IP2 [Indian Point Unit 2] will apply

a factor of 1.75 to the normal operating

leakage associated with the tubesheet

expansion region in the Condition

Monitoring Assessment and Operational

Assessment. Through application of the

limited tubesheet inspection scope, the

administrative leakage limit of 75 gpd

[gallons per day] provides assurance that

excessive leakage (i.e., greater than accident

analysis assumptions) will not occur. No

leakage factor will be applied to the Locked

Rotor or Control Rod Ejection due to their

short duration, since the calculated leak rate

ratio is less than 1.0. Therefore, the proposed

change does not result in a significant

increase in the consequences of these

accidents.

For the Condition Monitoring Assessment, the component of leakage from the prior

cycle from below the H* distance will be

multiplied by a factor of 1.75 and added to

the total leakage from any other source and

compared to the allowable MSLB leakage

limit. For the Operational Assessment, the

difference in the leakage between the

allowable leakage and the accident induced

leakage from sources other than the tubesheet

expansion region will be divided by 1.75 and

compared to the observed operational

leakage. As noted above, an administrative

limit of 75 gpd has been established at IP2

to assure that the allowable accident induced

leakage is not exceeded.

Based on the above, the performance criteria of NEI 97-06 and Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.121 continue to be met and the

proposed change does not involve a

significant increase in the probability or

consequences of an accident previously

evaluated.

2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of

accident from any accident previously

evaluated?

Response: No.

The proposed change excludes the lower portion of steam generator tubes from

inspection by implementing the alternate

repair criteria (H*). The proposed change

does not introduce any new equipment, create new failure modes for existing VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:34 Mar 17, 2014Jkt 232001PO 00000Frm 00053Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\18MRN1.SGM18MRN1 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES 15148 Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 52/Tuesday, March 18, 2014/Notices equipment, or create any new limiting single failures resulting from tube degradation. The

proposed change does not affect the design

of the SGs or their method of operation. In

addition, the proposed change does not

impact any other plant system or component.

Plant operation will not be altered, and all

safety functions will continue to perform as

previously assumed in accident analyses.

Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different

kind of accident from any previously

evaluated.

3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

Response: No.

The proposed change defines the safety significant portion of the SG tubing that must

be inspected and repaired. WCAP-17828-P

identifies the inspection depth below which

any type of degradation is shown to have no

impact on the steam generator tube integrity

performance criteria in NEI 97-06. The

proposed change does not affect tube design

or operating environment. The proposed

change will continue to require monitoring of

the physical condition of the SG tubes but

will limit inspection within the tubesheet to

the portion of the tube from the top of the

tubesheet to a distance H* below the top of

the tubesheet.

The proposed change maintains the required structural margins of the SG tubes

for both normal and accident conditions. For

axially oriented cracking located within the

tubesheet, tube burst is precluded due to the

presence of the tubesheet. For

circumferentially oriented cracking, the

supporting Westinghouse analyses define a

length of degradation-free expanded tubing

that provides the necessary resistance to tube

pullout due to the pressure induced forces, with applicable safety factors applied.

Application of the limited hot and cold leg

tubesheet inspection criteria will preclude

unacceptable primary to secondary leakage

during all plant conditions. The MSLB leak

rate factor for IP2 is 1.75. Multiplying the IP2

administrative leak rate limit of 75 gpd/SG by

this factor shows that the primary-to-

secondary leak rate during a postulated SLB

is not exceeded.

Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in any margin

of safety.

Based on the above, Entergy concludes that the proposed amendment to the Indian Point

2 Technical Specifications presents no

significant hazards consideration under the

standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and

accordingly, a finding of no significant

hazards consideration is justified.

The NRC staff has reviewed the licensees analysis and, based on this

review, it appears that the three

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff

proposes to determine that the

amendment request involves no

significant hazards consideration.

Attorney for licensee:

Jeanne Cho, Assistant General Counsel, Entergy

Nuclear Operations, Inc., 440 Hamilton

Avenue, White Plains, NY 10601.

NRC Branch Chief:

Benjamin G.

Beasley. Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-255, Palisades Nuclear

Plant, Van Buren County, Michigan Date of amendment request:

June 25, 2013, supplemented by letter dated

August 7, 2013.

Description of amendment request:

The proposed amendment would revise

Palisades Nuclear Plant Site Emergency

Plan (SEP) to increase the staff

augmentation response times for certain

Emergency Response Organization

positions from 30 to 60 minutes. Entergy

Nuclear Organization has reviewed the

proposed changes against the standards in §50.47(b) and the requirements in 10

CFR Part 50, Appendix E.

Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the

licensee has provided its analysis of the

issue of no significant hazards

consideration, which is presented

below: 1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or

consequences of an accident previously

evaluated?

Response: No.

The proposed extension of staff augmentation times has no effect on normal

plant operation or on any accident initiator.

The change affects the response to

radiological emergencies under the Palisades

Nuclear Plant SEP. The ability of the

emergency response organization to respond

adequately to radiological emergencies has

been evaluated. Changes in the on-shift

organization, such as the addition of staff and

reassignment of key on-shift emergency

response functions, provide assurance of

emergency response without competing or conflicting duties. An analysis was also

performed on the effect of the proposed

change on the timeliness of performing major

tasks for the major functional areas of the

SEP. The analysis concluded that extension

of staff augmentation times would not

significantly affect the ability to perform the

required tasks.

Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the

probability or consequences of an accident

previously evaluated.

2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of

accident from any accident previously

evaluated?

Response: No.

The proposed change affects the required response times for supplementing onsite

personnel in response to a radiological

emergency. It has been evaluated and

determined not to significantly affect the

ability to perform that function. It has no

effect on the plant design or on the normal

operation of the plant and does not affect

how the plant is physically operated under

emergency conditions. The extension of staff

augmentation times in the SEP does not

affect the plant operating procedures which are performed by plant staff during all plant conditions.

Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different

kind of accident from any previously evaluated.

3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

Response: No.

The proposed change does not affect plant design or method of operation. Section

50.47(b) and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E

establish emergency planning standards and

requirements that require adequate staffing, satisfactory performance of key functional

areas and critical tasks, and timely

augmentation of the response capability.

Since the SEP was originally developed, there have been improvements in the

technology used to support the SEP functions

and in the capabilities of onsite personnel. A

functional analysis was performed on the

effect of the proposed change on the

timeliness of performing major tasks for the

functional areas of SEP. The analysis

concluded that an increase in staff

augmentation times would not significantly

affect the ability to perform the required SEP

tasks. Thus, the proposed change has been

determined not to adversely affect the ability

to meet the emergency planning standards as

described in 10 CFR 50.47(b) and

requirements in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E.

Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of

safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensees analysis and, based on this

review, it appears that the three

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff

proposes to determine that the

amendment request involves no

significant hazards consideration.

Attorney for licensee:

William Dennis, Assistant General Counsel, Entergy

Nuclear Operations, Inc., 440 Hamilton

Ave., White Plains, NY 10601.

NRC Branch Chief:

Robert D. Carlson.

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-255, Palisades Nuclear

Plant, Van Buren County, Michigan Date of amendment request:

December 11, 2013.

Description of amendment request:

The proposed amendment would

modify Palisades Nuclear Plant

technical specifications (TS)

requirements for unavailable barriers by

adding limiting condition for operation (LCO) 3.0.9. The changes are consistent

with the NRCs approved industry/

Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Standard Technical

Specification (STS) change TSTF-427, Allowance for Non-Technical

Specification Barrier Degradation on

Supported System OPERABILITY,

Revision 2.

Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:

The licensee has affirmed the VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:34 Mar 17, 2014Jkt 232001PO 00000Frm 00054Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\18MRN1.SGM18MRN1 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES 15149 Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 52/Tuesday, March 18, 2014/Notices applicability of the model proposed non-significant hazards consideration

published on October 2, 2006 (71 FR

58444), as part of the Consolidated Line

Item Improvement Process, Notice of

Availability of the Model Safety

Evaluation. The licensee has

concluded that the findings presented in

that evaluation are applicable to PNP

and is hereby referenced below:

Criterion 1The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant Increase in the

Probability or Consequences of an Accident

Previously Evaluated The proposed change allows a delay time for entering a supported system technical

specification (TS) when the inoperability is

due solely to an unavailable barrier if risk is

assessed and managed. The postulated

initiating events which may require a

functional barrier are limited to those with

low frequencies of occurrence, and the

overall TS system safety function would still

be available for the majority of anticipated

challenges. Therefore, the probability of an

accident previously evaluated is not

significantly increased, if at all. The

consequences of an accident while relying on the allowance provided by proposed LCO 3.0.9 are no different than the consequences

of an accident while relying on the TS required actions in effect without the allowance provided by proposed LCO 3.0.9.

Therefore, the consequences of an accident

previously evaluated are not significantly

affected by this change. The addition of a

requirement to assess and manage the risk

introduced by this change will further

minimize possible concerns.

Therefore, this change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or

consequences of an accident previously

evaluated.

Criterion 2The Proposed Change Does Not Create the Possibility of a New or Different

Kind of Accident from any Previously

Evaluated The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (no new or

different type of equipment will be installed).

Allowing delay times for entering supported

system TS when inoperability is due solely

to an unavailable barrier, if risk is assessed

and managed, will not introduce new failure

modes or effects and will not, in the absence

of other unrelated failures, lead to an

accident whose consequences exceed the

consequences of accidents previously

evaluated. The addition of a requirement to

assess and manage the risk introduced by this

change will further minimize possible

concerns.

Thus, this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of

accident from an accident previously

evaluated.

Criterion 3The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant Reduction in the Margin

of Safety.

The proposed change allows a delay time for entering a supported system TS when the

inoperability is due solely to an unavailable

barrier, if risk is assessed and managed. The postulated initiating events which may require a functional barrier are limited to

those with low frequencies of occurrence, and the overall TS system safety function

would still be available for the majority of anticipated challenges. The risk impact of the

proposed TS changes was assessed following

the three-tiered approach recommended in

RG 1.177. A bounding risk assessment was

performed to justify the proposed TS

changes. This application of LCO 3.0.9 is

predicated upon the licensees performance

of a risk assessment and the management of

plant risk. The net change to the margin of

safety is insignificant as indicated by the

anticipated low levels of associated risk (ICCDP and ICLERP) as shown in Table 1 of

Section 3.1.1 in the Safety Evaluation.

Therefore, this change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

The NRC staff has reviewed the licensees analysis and, based on this

review, it appears that the three

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff

proposes to determine that the

amendment request involves no

significant hazards consideration.

Attorney for licensee:

William Dennis, Assistant General Counsel, Entergy

Nuclear Operations, Inc., 440 Hamilton

Ave., White Plains, NY 10601.

NRC Branch Chief:

Robert D. Carlson.

Omaha Public Power District, Docket No. 50-285, Fort Calhoun Station, Unit

1, Washington County, Nebraska Date of amendment request:

August 16, 2013.

Description of amendment request:

The proposed amendment would revise

the design basis method in the Fort

Calhoun Station Updated Safety

Analysis Report for controlling the raw

water intake cell level during periods of

elevated river levels.

Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the

licensee has provided its analysis of the

issue of no significant hazards

consideration, which is presented

below: 1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or

consequences of an accident previously

evaluated?

Response: No.

The proposed modification engineering change (EC) 55394, Raw Water [RW] Pump Operation and Safety Classification of

Components during a Flood, installed intake cell flood water inlet valves at Fort Calhoun

Station (FCS). The modification would

employ the trash rack blowdown portion of

the circulating water system to allow river

water to flow into four of those pipes and

then through four newly installed safety class

valves for control of cell level (RW pump

suction level) using river level as the driving

force. This modification EC 55394 enhances

the flood protection provided to the RW

pumps for an external flooding event thus assuring the availability of the ultimate heat sink and core cooling. As such, the proposed

change does not increase the consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

In addition, implementing this strategy eliminates the need for the exterior sluice

gates to be safety class and allows for

continuous control of the intake cell level

during a design basis flood event. The

proposed Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR) changes for implementing

modification EC 55394 allow for maintaining

RW pump operation during a flooding event

at FCS. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the

probability or consequences of an accident

previously evaluated.

2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of

accident from any accident previously

evaluated?

Response: No.

The proposed modification EC 55394 to provide control of the intake cell level by

operation of the manual valves and the

associated USAR changes do not alter the

safety limits or safety analysis assumptions

associated with the operation of the plant.

Hence, the proposed changes do not

introduce any new accident initiators, nor do

they reduce or adversely affect the

capabilities of any plant structure or system

in the performance of their safety function.

The proposed amendment revises the USAR

to include the necessary information to

support the implementation of the

modification allowing for maintaining RW

pump operation during an abnormal

operating procedure AOP-01 flooding event

at FCS. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different

kind of accident from any previously

evaluated.

3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

Response: No.

The proposed modification, which provides control of the intake cell level by

operation of the manual valves, and the

associated USAR changes do not alter the

safety limits or safety analysis assumptions

associated with the operation of the plant.

The proposed modification and associated

USAR revisions ensure there is adequate

protection to the RW pumps from an external

flood hazard thus assuring adequate

protection during a flood. Providing RW

pump intake cell level control during

flooding conditions allows for adjustment of

flow and control of the intake cell level

throughout the duration of the flood since the

new valves are located inside the intake

structure; thereby ensuring the RW pumps

remain operable during a flood condition and

will not adversely impact any margin of

safety. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of

safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensees analysis and, based on this

review, it appears that the three

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:34 Mar 17, 2014Jkt 232001PO 00000Frm 00055Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\18MRN1.SGM18MRN1 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES 15150 Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 52/Tuesday, March 18, 2014/Notices satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the

amendment request involves no

significant hazards consideration.

Attorney for licensee:

David A. Repka, Esq., Winston & Strawn, 1700 K Street

NW., Washington, DC 20006-3817.

NRC Branch Chief:

Michael T.

Markley. Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. Docket Nos.52-025 and 52-026, Vogtle Electric Generating

Plant, Units 3 and 4, Burke County, Georgia Date of amendment request:

November 21, 2013.

Description of amendment request:

The proposed change would amend

Combined License Nos. NPF-91 and

NPF-92 for the Vogtle Electric

Generating Plant (VEGP) Units 3 and 4

by departing from the approved AP1000

Design Control Document (DCD) Tier 2

information as incorporated into the

Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) to allow use of a new

methodology to determine the effective

thermal conductivity resulting from

oxidation of the inorganic zinc (IOZ)

used in the containment vessel coating

system. Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the

licensee has provided its analysis of the

issue of no significant hazards

consideration, which is presented

below: 1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or

consequences of an accident previously

evaluated?

Response: No.

Implementation of a methodology which specifies an effective thermal conductivity

and oxidation progression for the inorganic

zinc coating of the containment vessel is

used to eliminate non-mechanistic modeling

of inorganic zinc thermal conductivity in the

containment integrity analyses to show that

the value for inorganic zinc thermal

conductivity used in the containment

integrity analyses is conservative, but is not

used to change any of the parameters used in

those analyses. There is no change to any

accident initiator or condition of the

containment that would affect the probability

of any accident. The containment peak

pressure analysis as reported in the UFSAR

is not affected; therefore, the previously

reported consequences are not affected.

Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve an increase in the probability or

consequences of an accident previously

evaluated.

2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of

accident from any accident previously

evaluated?

Response: No.

The proposed amendment to implement a methodology which specifies an effective thermal conductivity and oxidation progression and effects for the inorganic zinc

coating of the containment vessel is used to

eliminate non-mechanistic modeling of

inorganic zinc thermal conductivity in the containment integrity analyses to show that

the value for inorganic zinc thermal

conductivity used in the containment

integrity analyses is conservative, but is not

used to change any of the parameters used in

the containment peak pressure analysis. The

change in methodology does not change the

condition of containment; therefore, no new

accident initiator is created. The containment

peak pressure analysis as currently evaluated

is not affected, and the consequences

previously reported are not changed. The

new methodology does not change the

containment; therefore, no new fault or

sequence of events that could lead to containment failure or release of radioactive material is created.

Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different

kind of accident.

3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

Response: No.

The proposed implementation of a methodology which specifies an effective

thermal conductivity and oxidation

progression and effects for the inorganic zinc

coating of the containment vessel is used to

eliminate non-mechanistic modeling of

inorganic zinc thermal conductivity in the

containment integrity analyses to show that

the value for inorganic zinc thermal

conductivity used in the containment

integrity analyses is conservative, but is not

used to change any of the parameters used in

the containment peak pressure analysis. The

change in methodology does not change the

condition of the containment and the

integrity of the containment vessel is not

affected. The containment peak pressure

analysis as currently evaluated is not

affected, and the consequences previously

reported are not changed. No safety analysis

or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is

changed by the proposed change, thus no

margin of safety is reduced.

Therefore, the proposed amendment does not reduce the margin of safety.

The NRC staff has reviewed the licensees analysis and, based on this

review, it appears that the three

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff

proposes to determine that the

amendment request involves no

significant hazards consideration.

Attorney for licensee:

M. Stanford Blanton, Balch & Bingham LLP, 1710

Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL

35203-2015.

NRC Branch Chief:

Lawrence J.

Burkhart.

Union Electric Company, Docket No.

50-483, Callaway Plant, Unit 1, Callaway County, Missouri Date of amendment request:

December 6, 2013.

Description of amendment request:

The amendment would add a new pipe crack exclusion allowance to Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) Standard

Plant Section 3.6.2.1.2.4, ASME

[American Society of Mechanical

Engineers] Section III and Non-Nuclear Piping-Moderate-Energy, and FSAR

Standard Plant Table 3.6-2, Design Comparison to Regulatory Positions of

Regulatory Guide 1.46, Revision 0, dated May 1973, titled Protection

Against Pipe Whip Inside Containment, in particular regard to

the high-density polyethylene (HDPE)

piping installed in ASME Class 3 line

segments of the essential service water (ESW) system. New Reference 25 would

be added to FSAR Standard Plant

Section 3.6.3 to cite the NRC-approved

version of the HDPE requirements

covered by Relief Request I3R-10.

Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the

licensee has provided its analysis of the

issue of no significant hazards

consideration, which is presented

below: 1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or

consequences of an accident previously

evaluated?

Response: No.

There are no new design changes associated with the proposed amendment.

All design, material, and construction

standards that were applicable prior to this

amendment request, including those

standards in place following the NRC

approval of using the HDPE piping, will

continue to be applicable.

The proposed change will not increase the likelihood of accident initiators or precursors

or adversely alter the design assumptions, conditions, and configuration of the facility

or the manner in which the plant is operated

and maintained with respect to such

initiators or precursors.

The proposed changes do not affect the way in which safety-related systems perform

their functions.

All accident analysis acceptance criteria will continue to be met with the proposed

changes. The proposed changes will not

affect the source term, containment isolation, or radiological release assumptions used in

evaluating the radiological consequences of

an accident previously evaluated. The

proposed changes will not alter any

assumptions or change any mitigation actions

in the radiological consequence evaluations

in the FSAR.

The applicable radiological dose acceptance criteria will continue to be met.

Since the proposed change is based on a calculation that demonstrates that a moderate

energy crack in the ESW HDPE piping is

unlikely, there are no impacts on the plants

existing hazard analyses.

The proposed change does not physically alter safety-related systems or affect the way

in which safety-related systems perform their

functions per the intended plant design. VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:34 Mar 17, 2014Jkt 232001PO 00000Frm 00056Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\18MRN1.SGM18MRN1 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES 15151 Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 52/Tuesday, March 18, 2014/Notices As such, the proposed change will not alter or prevent the capability of structures, systems, and components (SSCs) to perform

their intended functions for mitigating the

consequences of an accident and meeting

applicable acceptance limits.

Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the

probability or consequences of an accident

previously evaluated.

2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of

accident from any accident previously

evaluated?

Response: No.

With respect to any new or different kind of accident, there are no new design changes

being proposed nor are there any changes in

the method by which any safety-related plant

SSC performs its specified safety function.

The proposed change will not affect the

normal method of plant operation. No new

transient precursors will be introduced as a

result of this amendment.

The HDPE piping design change was previously approved by the NRC under Relief

Request I3R-10. The proposed change in this

amendment request does not create the

possibility of a new type of accident, rather

the proposed change seeks to eliminate the

need to postulate an existing type of hazard

event (moderate energy piping leakage crack)

for the subject HDPE piping which has been

shown to experience such low stresses that

such a crack, and the potential flooding for

that hazard event, need not be postulated.

The change does not have a detrimental impact on the manner in which plant

equipment operates or responds to an

actuation signal.

The proposed change does not, therefore, create the possibility of a new or different

accident from any accident previously

evaluated.

3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

Response: No.

There will be no effect on those plant systems necessary to assure the

accomplishment of protection functions

associated with reactor operation or the

reactor coolant system. The design factor (DF) of 0.50 discussed in ULNRC-05553

dated October 9, 2008 has not changed. This

DF was approved by the NRC in Relief

Request 13R-10 (Reference 6.2 to this

Evaluation). There will be no impact on the

overpower limit, departure from nucleate

boiling ratio (DNBR) limits, heat flux hot

channel factor (FQ), nuclear enthalpy rise hot

channel factor (F D H), loss of coolant accident peak cladding temperature (LOCA PCT), peak

local power density, or any other limit and

associated margin of safety. Required

shutdown margins in the COLR [core

operating limits report] will not be changed.

The proposed change does not eliminate any

surveillances or alter the frequency of

surveillances required by the Technical

Specifications.

As such, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of

safety as defined in any regulatory requirement or guidance document.

The NRC staff has reviewed the licensees analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff

proposes to determine that the

amendment request involves no

significant hazards consideration.

Attorney for licensee:

John ONeill, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman

LLP, 2300 N Street NW., Washington, DC 20037.

NRC Branch Chief:

Michael T.

Markley. Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation, Docket No. 50-482, Wolf

Creek Generating Station, Coffey

County, Kansas Date of amendment request:

November 21, 2013.

Description of amendment request:

The amendment would revise the

approved Fire Protection Program as

described in the Updated Safety Analysis Report, based on the reactor

coolant system thermal hydraulic

response evaluation of a postulated

control room fire, performed for changes

to the alternative shutdown

methodology.

Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the

licensee has provided its analysis of the

issue of no significant hazards

consideration, which is presented

below: 1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or

consequences of an accident previously

evaluated?

Response: No.

The design function of structures, systems and components (SSCs) are not impacted by

the proposed deviations from [10 CFR Part

50] Appendix R, Sections III.L.1 and III.L.2, and Calculation XX-E-013. The proposed

changes to the approved fire protection

program are based on the RCS [reactor

coolant system] thermal-hydraulic response (Evaluation SA-08-006) for a postulated

control room fire performed for changes to

the alternative shutdown methodology

outlined in letter SLNRC 84-0109, Fire

Protection Review. Drawing E-1F9915, Design Basis Document for OFN RP-017, Control Room Evacuation, Revision 5, Evaluation SA-08-006, RETRAN-3D Post-

Fire Safe Shutdown (PFSSD) Consequence

Evaluation for a Postulated Control Room

Fire, Revision 3, and Calculation WCNOC-

CP-003, VIPRE-01 MDNBR Analyses of

Control Room Fire Scenarios, Revision 0

demonstrate the adequacy of the revised

alternative shutdown procedure, OFN RF-

017. The proposed changes do not alter or

prevent the ability of SSCs from performing

their intended function to mitigate the

consequences of an initiating event within

the assumed acceptance limits.

Therefore, the probability of any accident previously evaluated is not increased.

Equipment required to mitigate an accident

remains capable of performing the assumed

function.

2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of

accident from any accident previously

evaluated?

Response: No.

The proposed changes will not alter the requirement or function for systems required

during accident conditions. The design

function of structures, systems and

components are not impacted by the

proposed change. Evaluation SA-08-006 and

Calculation WCNOC-CP-003 determined

natural circulation is maintained and

adequate core cooling is maintained. The

fission product boundary integrity is not

affected and safe shutdown capability is

maintained.

Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different

kind of accident from any accident

previously evaluated.

3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

Response: No.

There will be no effect on the manner in which safety limits or limiting safety system

settings are determined nor will there be any

effect on those plant systems necessary to

assure the accomplishment of protection

functions. The revised alternative shutdown

methodology provides the ability to achieve

and maintain safe shutdown in the event of

a fire. Evaluation SA-08-006 and Calculation

WCNOC-CP-003 determined natural

circulation is maintained and adequate core

cooling is maintained.

Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of

safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensees analysis and, based on this

review, it appears that the three

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff

proposes to determine that the

amendment request involves no

significant hazards consideration.

Attorney for licensee:

Jay Silberg, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, 2300 N Street NW., Washington, DC

20037. NRC Branch Chief:

Michael T.

Markley. Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation, Docket No. 50-482, Wolf

Creek Generating Station, Coffey

County, Kansas Date of amendment request:

December 17, 2013.

Description of amendment request:

The amendment would revise Technical

Specification Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.7.10.1 and SR 3.7.13.1 to reduce

the required run time for periodic

operation of the control room

pressurization system filter trains and

emergency exhaust system filter trains, with heaters on, from 10 hours0.417 days <br />0.0595 weeks <br />0.0137 months <br /> to 15

minutes. The proposed amendment is

consistent with plant-specific options

provided in the NRCs model safety

evaluation of Technical Specifications VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:34 Mar 17, 2014Jkt 232001PO 00000Frm 00057Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\18MRN1.SGM18MRN1 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES 15152 Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 52/Tuesday, March 18, 2014/Notices Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-522-A, Revision 0, Revise Ventilation

System Surveillance Requirements to

Operate for 10 hours0.417 days <br />0.0595 weeks <br />0.0137 months <br /> per Month.

Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the

licensee has provided its analysis of the

issue of no significant hazards

consideration, which is presented

below: 1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or

consequences of an accident previously

evaluated?

Response: No.

The proposed change replaces existing Surveillance Requirements to operate the

Control Room Emergency Ventilation System (CREVS) and the Emergency Exhaust System (EES) for a continuous 10 hour1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br /> period with

applicable heaters operating every 31 days, with requirements to operate these systems

for 15 continuous minutes with applicable

heaters operating every 31 days.

These systems are not accident initiators (i.e., their malfunction cannot initiate an

accident or transient) and therefore, these

changes do not involve a significant increase

in the probability of an accident. The

proposed system and filter testing changes

are consistent with current regulatory

guidance for these systems and will continue

to assure that these systems perform their

design function which may include

mitigating accidents. Therefore, the change

does not involve a significant increase in the

consequences of an accident.

Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not involve a significant increase in the

probability or consequences of an accident

previously evaluated.

2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of

accident from any accident previously

evaluated?

Response: No.

The change proposed for these ventilation systems does not change any system

operations or maintenance activities. Testing

requirements will be revised and will

continue to demonstrate that the Limiting

Conditions for Operation are met and the

system components are capable of

performing their intended safety functions.

The change does not create new failure

modes or mechanisms and no new accident

precursors are generated.

Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not create the possibility of a new or

different kind of accident from any accident

previously evaluated.

3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

Response: No.

The design basis for the ventilation system heaters in the EES and in the pressurization

trains of the CREVS includes the capability

to heat the incoming air, reducing the relative

humidity (and thereby increasing adsorber

efficiency). The heater testing change

proposed will continue to demonstrate that

the heaters are capable of heating the air and

will thus perform their design function. The proposed change is consistent with regulatory guidance.

Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not involve a significant reduction in a

margin of safety.

The NRC staff has reviewed the licensees analysis and, based on this

review, it appears that the three

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff

proposes to determine that the

amendment request involves no

significant hazards consideration.

Attorney for licensee:

Jay Silberg, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, 2300 N Street NW., Washington, DC

20037. NRC Branch Chief:

Michael T.

Markley. Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and

Combined Licenses During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, the

Commission has issued the following

amendments. The Commission has

determined for each of these

amendments that the application

complies with the standards and

requirements of the Atomic Energy Act

of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the

Commissions rules and regulations.

The Commission has made appropriate

findings as required by the Act and the

Commissions rules and regulations in

10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in

the license amendment.

A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility operating

license or combined license, as

applicable, proposed no significant

hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a hearing in

connection with these actions, was

published in the Federal Register as indicated.

Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that these

amendments satisfy the criteria for

categorical exclusion in accordance

with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant

to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental

impact statement or environmental

assessment need be prepared for these

amendments. If the Commission has

prepared an environmental assessment

under the special circumstances

provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has

made a determination based on that

assessment, it is so indicated.

For further details with respect to the action see (1) the applications for

amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3)

the Commissions related letter, Safety

Evaluation and/or Environmental

Assessment as indicated. All of these

items are available for public inspection

at the NRCs Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852.

Publicly available documents created or

received at the NRC are accessible

electronically through the Agencywide

Documents Access and Management

System (ADAMS) in the NRC Library at

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/

adams.html.

If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in

accessing the documents located in

ADAMS, contact the PDRs Reference

staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737

or by email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov.

Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Docket No. 50-423, Millstone Power

Station, Unit 3, New London County, Connecticut Date of amendment request:

October 4, 2012, as supplemented by letters

dated January 4, April 17, and October

30, 2013.

Description of amendment request:

The proposed amendment would

modify Technical Specifications by

relocating specific surveillance

frequencies to a licensee controlled

program with the adoption of Technical

Specification Task Force (TSTF)-425, Revision 3, Relocate Surveillance

Frequencies to Licensee Control[Risk-

Informed Technical Specification Task

Force (RITSTF)] Initiative 5b.

Additionally, the change would add a

new program, the Surveillance

Frequency Control Program (SFCP), to

Technical Specification Section 6, Administrative Controls.

Date of issuance:

February 25, 2014.

Effective date:

As of the date of issuance, and shall be implemented

within 90 days.

Amendment No.:

258. Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-49:

Amendment revised the License and Technical Specifications.

Date of initial notice in Federal Register:

December 11, 2012 (77 FR 73687). The supplemental letters dated January 4, 2013, April 17, 2013, and

October 30, 2013, provided additional

information that clarified the

application, did not expand the scope of

the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staffs original

proposed no significant hazards

consideration determination.

The Commissions related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a

Safety Evaluation dated February 25, 2014. No significant hazards consideration comments received:

No. Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370, McGuire

Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:34 Mar 17, 2014Jkt 232001PO 00000Frm 00058Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\18MRN1.SGM18MRN1 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES 15153 Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 52/Tuesday, March 18, 2014/Notices Date of application for amendments:

April 16, 2013.

Brief description of amendments:

The amendments remove superseded

temporary Technical Specification (TS)

requirements for McGuire Nuclear

Station (MNS), Units 1 and 2, in

accordance with a licensee commitment

described in a May 28, 2010, license

amendment request.

Date of issuance:

February 28, 2014.

Effective date:

This license amendment is effective as of its date of

issuance and shall be implemented

within 60 days of issuance.

Amendment Nos.:

272 and 252.

Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-9 and NPF-17:

Amendments revised the licenses and technical

specifications.

Date of initial notice in Federal Register:

June 25, 2013 (78 FR 38081).

The Commissions related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a

Safety Evaluation dated February 28, 2014. No significant hazards consideration comments received:

No. Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287, Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 and

3, Oconee County, South Carolina Date of application for amendments:

February 22, 2013, as supplemented on

September 10, October 25, November

29, and December 16, 2013.

Brief description of amendments:

The amendments revise Technical

Specification (TS) 3.4.3, to replace its

current reactor coolant system pressure-

temperature (P-T) limits with new P-T

limits applicable to 54 effective full

power years. In addition, the

amendments change the operational

requirements for unit heatup and

cooldown in TS Tables 3.4.3-1 and

3.4.3-2. Date of Issuance:

February 27, 2014.

Effective date:

As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented

within 60 days from the date of

issuance.

Amendment Nos.:

384, 386, and 385.

Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-38, DPR-47, and DPR-55:

Amendments revised the license and

the TSs. Date of initial notice in Federal Register:

April 16, 2013, 78 FR 22568.

The supplemental letters dated September 10, October 25, November

29, and December 16, 2013, provided

additional information that clarified the

application, did not expand the scope of

the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staffs original

proposed no significant hazards

consideration determination as

published in the Federal Register. The Commissions related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a

Safety Evaluation dated February 27, 2014. No significant hazards consideration comments received:

No. Duke Energy Progress Inc., Docket Nos. 50-325 and 50-324, Brunswick

Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, Brunswick County, North Carolina.

Date of application for amendments:

June 19, 2012, as supplemented by

letters dated January 21, May 14, and August 29, 2013, and January 22, 2014.

Brief description of amendments:

The amendments revised the Technical Specification (TS) to extend the

Completion Time (CT) of TS 3.8.1

Required Action D.4 for an inoperable

diesel generator. A commensurate

change is also made to extend the

maximum CT of TS 3.8.1 Required

Actions C.3 and D.4. The licensee will

to add a supplemental AC power source (i.e., a supplemental diesel generator)

with the capability to power any

emergency bus within 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> from a

Station Blackout event, and with the

capacity to bring the affected unit to

cold shutdown.

Date of issuance:

February 24, 2014.

Effective date:

As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented

prior to startup from the 2014 Unit 1

refueling outage.

Amendment Nos.:

264 and 292.

Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-62 AND DPR-71:

Amendments revised the License and TSs.

Date of initial notice in Federal Register:

October 16, 2013 (77 FR 63346). The supplements dated January 21, May 14, and August 29, 2013, and

January 22, 2014, provided additional

information that clarified the

application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staffs original

proposed no significant hazards

consideration determination as

published in the Federal Register. The Commissions related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a

Safety Evaluation dated February 24, 2014. No significant hazards consideration comments received:

None. Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-247, Indian Point

Nuclear Generating, Unit 2, Westchester

County, New York Date of application for amendment:

February 6, 2013, as supplemented by

letters dated July 9, 2013, October 3, 2013, and February 24, 2014.

Brief description of amendment:

The amendment changes the Technical

Specifications by revising the reactor heatup and cooldown curves (also referred to as pressure-temperature (P-

T) limits) and low temperature

overpressure protection (LTOP)

requirements to cover a lifetime burnup

of 48 Effective Full Power Years (EFPY),

which is an increase from the current

value of 29.2 EFPY.

Date of issuance:

March 5, 2014.

Effective date:

As of the date of issuance, and shall be implemented

within 30 days.

Amendment No.:

274. Facility Operating License No. DPR-26: The amendment revised the License and the Technical Specifications.

Date of initial notice in Federal Register:

April 2, 2013 (78 FR 19750).

The supplemental letters dated July 9, 2013, October 3, 2013, and February 24, 2014, provided additional information

that clarified the application, did not

expand the scope of the application as

originally noticed, and did not change

the NRC staffs original proposed no

significant hazards consideration

determination as published in the

Federal Register. The Commissions related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a

Safety Evaluation dated March 5, 2014.

No significant hazards consideration comments received:

No. Florida Power and Light Company, Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251, Turkey

Point Nuclear Generating, Units 3 and

4, Miami-Dade County, Florida Date of application for amendment:

March 22, 2013.

Brief description of amendment:

The amendments revised the Technical

Specifications (TSs) to allow the use of

Optimized ZIRLO TM as an approved fuel rod cladding.

Date of issuance:

February 20, 2014.

Effective date:

As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented

within 60 days of issuance.

Amendment No.:

259 and 254.

Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-31 and DPR-41:

Amendments revised the licenses and the TSs.

Date of initial notice in Federal Register:

August 20, 2013 (78 FR 51219). The Commissions related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a

Safety Evaluation dated February 20, 2014. No significant hazards consideration comments received:

No. Luminant Generation Company LLC, Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446, Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2 (CPNPP), Somervell

County, Texas Date of amendment request:

August 29, 2013, as supplemented by letter

dated February 19, 2014. VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:34 Mar 17, 2014Jkt 232001PO 00000Frm 00059Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\18MRN1.SGM18MRN1 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES 15154 Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 52/Tuesday, March 18, 2014/Notices Description of amendment request:

The amendments revised Technical

Specification (TS) 3.4.17, Steam

Generator (SG) Tube Integrity, TS 5.5.9, Unit 1 Model D76 and Unit 2

Model D5 Steam Generator (SG)

Program, and TS 5.6.9, Unit 1 Model

D76 and Unit 2 Model D5 Steam

Generator Tube Inspection Report. The

changes address implementation issues

associated with inspection periods, and

address other administrative changes

and clarifications. The amendment is

consistent with NRC-approved

Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) change traveler TSTF-510, Revision 2, Revision to Steam

Generator Program Inspection

Frequencies and Tube Sample

Selection, as part of the consolidated

line item improvement process.

The amendments also incorporated minor non-technical variations from the

TS changes proposed in TSTF-510, Revision 2. The TSs for CPNPP, Units 1

and 2 utilize different numbering and

titles than the Standard Technical

Specifications on which TSTF-510, Revision 2, is based, since the steam

generators for CPNPP, Units 1 and 2, are

of different models. These differences

are administrative in nature and do not

affect the applicability of TSTF-510, Revision 2, to the TSs for CPNPP, Units

1 and 2. Date of issuance:

February 27, 2014.

Effective date:

As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented

within 90 days from the date of

issuance.

Amendment No.:

Unit 1161; Unit 2161. Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-87 and NPF-89:

The amendments revised the Facility Operating Licenses

and Technical Specifications.

Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 1, 2013 (78 FR 60324). The February 19, 2014, supplement did not expand the scope of the

application as originally noticed, and

did not change the NRC staffs initial

proposed finding of no significant

hazards consideration.

The Commissions related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a

Safety Evaluation dated February 27, 2014. No significant hazards consideration comments received:

No. NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC, Docket No. 50-443, Seabrook Station, Unit. 1, Rockingham County, New

Hampshire Date of amendment request:

June 25, 2013. Description of amendment request:

The amendment revised the Seabrook Technical Specifications (TS).

Specifically, the amendment revised the

TS to allow the use of Optimized

ZIRLO TM as an approved fuel rod cladding material.

Date of issuance:

March 5, 2014.

Effective date:

As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented

within 60 days.

Amendment No.:

139. Facility Operating License No. NPF-86: The amendment revised the License and TS. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 20, 2013 (78 FR 51228). The Commissions related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a

Safety Evaluation dated March 5, 2014.

No significant hazards consideration comments received:

No. Northern States Power Company Minnesota (NSPM), Docket No. 50-263, Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, Wright County, Minnesota Date of application for amendment:

April 19, 2013.

Brief description of amendment:

The amendment allows NSPM to adopt the

NRCs approved Technical

Specifications Task Force (TSTF)

Standard Technical Specifications

Change Traveler TSTF-535, Revision 0, Revise Shutdown Margin Definition to

Address Advanced Fuel Designs, dated

August 8, 2011. The amendment

modifies the Technical Specification

definition of shutdown margin (SDM)

to require calculation of the SDM at a

reactor moderator temperature of 68

°F or higher, representing the most reactive

state throughout the operating cycle.

This change addresses newer boiling-

water reactor fuel designs which may be

more reactive at shutdown temperatures

above 68°F. Date of issuance:

February 28, 2014.

Effective date:

This license amendment is effective as of the date of

issuance and shall be implemented

within 90 days from the date of

issuance.

Amendment No.:

179. Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-22:

The amendment revises the Renewed Facility Operating License

and Technical Specifications.

Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 3, 2013 (78 FR 54285). The Commissions related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a

Safety Evaluation dated February 28, 2014. No significant hazards consideration comments received:

No. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323, Diablo

Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, San Luis Obispo County, California Date of amendment request:

June 6, 2013. Description of amendment request:

The amendments revised Technical

Specification (TS) 3.7.10, Control

Room Ventilation System (CRVS), and

TS 5.6.5, Core Operating Limits Report (COLR), to incorporate editorial

changes. Specifically, the proposed

amendments delete footnote (1) from the

TS 3.7.10 Condition A Completion

Time, and revise inconsistent wording

in TS 5.6.5a.4, TS 5.6.5a.5, and TS 5.6.5a.9.

Date of issuance:

February 27, 2014.

Effective date:

As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented

within 60 days from the date of

issuance.

Amendment Nos.:

Unit 1217; Unit 2219. Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-80 and DPR-82:

The amendments revised the Facility Operating Licenses

and Technical Specifications.

Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 6, 2013 (78 FR 47791).

The Commissions related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a

Safety Evaluation dated February 27, 2014. No significant hazards consideration comments received:

No. PPL Susquehanna, LLC, Docket Nos.

50-387 and 50-388, Susquehanna

Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania Date of application for amendments:

June 6, 2013, as supplemented by letter dated December 4, 2013.

Brief description of amendments:

The amendments change the Technical

Specifications (TSs) for Susquehanna

Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2.

Specifically, these amendments change

TS 3.3.6.1, Primary Containment

Isolation Instrumentation, to add a

footnote to Function 6.c. in TS Table

3.3.6.1-1, allowing only one Trip

System to be operable in MODES 4 and

5 for the Manual Initiation Function for

Shutdown Cooling System isolation.

Date of issuance:

February 26, 2014.

Effective date:

As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented

within 30 days.

Amendment Nos.:

259 and 240.

Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-14 and NPF-22:

The amendments revised the license and the

TS. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 10, 2013 (78 FR 74184). The supplemental letter dated December 4, 2013, provided additional

information that clarified the VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:34 Mar 17, 2014Jkt 232001PO 00000Frm 00060Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\18MRN1.SGM18MRN1 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES 15155 Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 52/Tuesday, March 18, 2014/Notices application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staffs original

proposed no significant hazards

consideration determination as

published in the Federal Register. The Commissions related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a

Safety Evaluation dated February 26, 2014. No significant hazards consideration comments received:

No. South Carolina Electric and Gas Company, South Carolina Public

Service Authority, Docket No. 50-395, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit, Fairfield County, South Carolina Date of application for amendment:

April 2, 2013 as supplemented by letter

dated May 16, 2013.

Brief description of amendment:

This amendment revises the Technical

Specifications requirements regarding

steam generator tube inspections and

reporting as described in TSTF-510, Revision 2, Revision to Steam

Generator Program Inspection

Frequencies and Tube Sample

Selection.

Date of issuance:

February 28, 2014.

Effective date:

This license amendment is effective as of the date of

its issuance.

Amendment No.:

196. Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-12:

Amendment revises the License. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 25, 2013 (78 FR 38083).

The Commissions related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a

Safety Evaluation dated February 28, 2014. No significant hazards consideration comments received:

No. Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and

Combined Licenses and Final

Determination of No Significant

Hazards Consideration and

Opportunity for a Hearing (Exigent

Public Announcement or Emergency

Circumstances)

During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, the

Commission has issued the following

amendments. The Commission has

determined for each of these

amendments that the application for the

amendment complies with the

standards and requirements of the

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commissions rules

and regulations. The Commission has

made appropriate findings as required

by the Act and the Commissions rules

and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.

Because of exigent or emergency circumstances associated with the date

the amendment was needed, there was

not time for the Commission to publish, for public comment before issuance, its

usual notice of consideration of

issuance of amendment, proposed no

significant hazards consideration

determination, and opportunity for a

hearing. For exigent circumstances, the Commission has either issued a Federal Register notice providing opportunity for public comment or has used local

media to provide notice to the public in

the area surrounding a licensees facility

of the licensees application and of the

Commissions proposed determination

of no significant hazards consideration.

The Commission has provided a

reasonable opportunity for the public to

comment, using its best efforts to make

available to the public means of

communication for the public to

respond quickly, and in the case of

telephone comments, the comments

have been recorded or transcribed as

appropriate and the licensee has been

informed of the public comments.

In circumstances where failure to act in a timely way would have resulted, for

example, in derating or shutdown of a

nuclear power plant or in prevention of

either resumption of operation or of

increase in power output up to the

plants licensed power level, the

Commission may not have had an

opportunity to provide for public

comment on its no significant hazards

consideration determination. In such

case, the license amendment has been

issued without opportunity for comment. If there has been some time

for public comment but less than 30

days, the Commission may provide an opportunity for public comment. If comments have been requested, it is so stated. In either event, the State has been consulted by telephone whenever

possible.

Under its regulations, the Commission may issue and make an amendment

immediately effective, notwithstanding

the pendency before it of a request for

a hearing from any person, in advance

of the holding and completion of any

required hearing, where it has

determined that no significant hazards

consideration is involved.

The Commission has applied the standards of 10 CFR 50.92 and has made

a final determination that the

amendment involves no significant

hazards consideration. The basis for this

determination is contained in the

documents related to this action.

Accordingly, the amendments have been issued and made effective as indicated.

Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that these

amendments satisfy the criteria for

categorical exclusion in accordance

with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant

to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental

impact statement or environmental

assessment need be prepared for these

amendments. If the Commission has

prepared an environmental assessment

under the special circumstances

provision in 10 CFR 51.12(b) and has

made a determination based on that

assessment, it is so indicated.

For further details with respect to the action see (1) the application for

amendment, (2) the amendment to

Facility Operating License or Combined

License, as applicable, and (3) the

Commissions related letter, Safety

Evaluation and/or Environmental

Assessment, as indicated. All of these

items are available for public inspection

at the NRCs Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852.

Publicly available documents created or

received at the NRC are accessible

electronically through the Agencywide

Documents Access and Management

System (ADAMS) in the NRC Library at

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/

adams.html.

If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in

accessing the documents located in

ADAMS, contact the PDRs Reference

staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737

or by email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov.

The Commission is also offering an opportunity for a hearing with respect to

the issuance of the amendment. Within

60 days after the date of publication of

this notice, any person(s) whose interest

may be affected by this action may file

a request for a hearing and a petition to

intervene with respect to issuance of the

amendment to the subject facility

operating license or combined license.

Requests for a hearing and a petition for

leave to intervene shall be filed in

accordance with the Commissions

Agency Rules of Practice and

Procedure in 10 CFR Part 2. Interested

person(s) should consult a current copy

of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at

the NRCs PDR, located at One White

Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852, and electronically on

the Internet at the NRCs Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-

collections/cfr/.

If there are problems in accessing the document, contact the

PDRs Reference staff at 1-800-397-

4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to

pdr.resource@nrc.gov.

If a request for a VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:34 Mar 17, 2014Jkt 232001PO 00000Frm 00061Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\18MRN1.SGM18MRN1 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES 15156 Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 52/Tuesday, March 18, 2014/Notices hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed by the above date, the

Commission or a presiding officer

designated by the Commission or by the

Chief Administrative Judge of the

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

Panel, will rule on the request and/or

petition; and the Secretary or the Chief

Administrative Judge of the Atomic

Safety and Licensing Board will issue a

notice of a hearing or an appropriate

order. As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene shall set

forth with particularity the interest of

the petitioner in the proceeding, and

how that interest may be affected by the

results of the proceeding. The petition

should specifically explain the reasons

why intervention should be permitted

with particular reference to the

following general requirements: (1) The

name, address, and telephone number of

the requestor or petitioner; (2) the

nature of the requestors/petitioners

right under the Act to be made a party

to the proceeding; (3) the nature and

extent of the requestors/petitioners

property, financial, or other interest in

the proceeding; and (4) the possible

effect of any decision or order which

may be entered in the proceeding on the

requestors/petitioners interest. The

petition must also identify the specific

contentions which the requestor/

petitioner seeks to have litigated at the

proceeding.

Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or

fact to be raised or controverted. In

addition, the requestor/petitioner shall

provide a brief explanation of the bases

for the contention and a concise

statement of the alleged facts or expert

opinion which support the contention

and on which the petitioner intends to

rely in proving the contention at the

hearing. The petitioner must also

provide references to those specific

sources and documents of which the

petitioner is aware and on which the

petitioner intends to rely to establish

those facts or expert opinion. The

petition must include sufficient

information to show that a genuine

dispute exists with the applicant on a

material issue of law or fact.

Contentions shall be limited to matters

within the scope of the amendment under consideration. The contention

must be one which, if proven, would

entitle the petitioner to relief. A

requestor/petitioner who fails to satisfy

these requirements with respect to at

least one contention will not be

permitted to participate as a party.

Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any

limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the

hearing. Since the Commission has

made a final determination that the

amendment involves no significant

hazards consideration, if a hearing is

requested, it will not stay the

effectiveness of the amendment. Any

hearing held would take place while the

amendment is in effect.

All documents filed in the NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or other

document filed in the proceeding prior

to the submission of a request for

hearing or petition to intervene, and

documents filed by interested

governmental entities participating

under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in

accordance with the NRCs E-Filing rule

(72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007). The E-

Filing process requires participants to

submit and serve all adjudicatory

documents over the internet, or in some

cases to mail copies on electronic

storage media. Participants may not

submit paper copies of their filings

unless they seek an exemption in

accordance with the procedures

described below.

To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10

days prior to the filing deadline, the

participant should contact the Office of

the Secretary by email at

hearing.docket@nrc.gov , or by telephone at 301-415-1677, to request (1) a digital

identification (ID) certificate, which

allows the participant (or its counsel or

representative) to digitally sign

documents and access the E-Submittal

server for any proceeding in which it is

participating; and (2) advise the

Secretary that the participant will be

submitting a request or petition for

hearing (even in instances in which the

participant, or its counsel or

representative, already holds an NRC-

issued digital ID certificate). Based upon

this information, the Secretary will

establish an electronic docket for the

hearing in this proceeding if the

Secretary has not already established an

electronic docket.

Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on NRCs public Web site at http:// www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/

apply-certificates.html.

System requirements for accessing the E-Submittal server are detailed in NRCs

Guidance for Electronic Submission,

which is available on the agencys

public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/

site-help/e-submittals.html.

Participants may attempt to use other software not

listed on the Web site, but should note

that the NRCs E-Filing system does not support unlisted software, and the NRC Meta System Help Desk will not be able

to offer assistance in using unlisted

software.

If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC in

accordance with the E-Filing rule, the

participant must file the document

using the NRCs online, Web-based

submission form. In order to serve

documents through the Electronic

Information Exchange System, users

will be required to install a Web

browser plug-in from the NRCs Web

site. Further information on the Web-

based submission form, including the

installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on the NRCs public Web

site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html.

Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a docket has

been created, the participant can then

submit a request for hearing or petition

for leave to intervene. Submissions

should be in Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with the NRCs

guidance available on the NRCs public

Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the time the

documents are submitted through the

NRCs E-Filing system. To be timely, an

electronic filing must be submitted to

the E-Filing system no later than 11:59

p.m. Eastern Time on the due date.

Upon receipt of a transmission, the E-

Filing system time-stamps the document

and sends the submitter an email notice

confirming receipt of the document. The

E-Filing system also distributes an email

notice that provides access to the

document to the NRCs Office of the

General Counsel and any others who

have advised the Office of the Secretary

that they wish to participate in the

proceeding, so that the filer need not

serve the documents on those

participants separately. Therefore, applicants and other participants (or

their counsel or representative) must

apply for and receive a digital ID

certificate before a hearing request/

petition to intervene is filed so that they

can obtain access to the document via

the E-Filing system.

A person filing electronically using the agencys adjudicatory E-Filing

system may seek assistance by

contacting the NRC Meta System Help

Desk through the Contact Us link

located on the NRC Web site at http:// www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html , by email to MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov , or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-7640. The NRC

Meta System Help Desk is available

between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:34 Mar 17, 2014Jkt 232001PO 00000Frm 00062Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\18MRN1.SGM18MRN1 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES 15157 Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 52/Tuesday, March 18, 2014/Notices Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays.

Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting

documents electronically must file an

exemption request, in accordance with

10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper

filing requesting authorization to

continue to submit documents in paper

format. Such filings must be submitted

by: (1) First class mail addressed to the

Office of the Secretary of the

Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555-

0001, Attention: Rulemaking and

Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery

service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention:

Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff.

Participants filing a document in this

manner are responsible for serving the

document on all other participants.

Filing is considered complete by first-

class mail as of the time of deposit in

the mail, or by courier, express mail, or

expedited delivery service upon

depositing the document with the

provider of the service. A presiding

officer, having granted an exemption

request from using E-Filing, may require

a participant or party to use E-Filing if

the presiding officer subsequently

determines that the reason for granting

the exemption from use of E-Filing no

longer exists.

Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRCs

electronic hearing docket which is

available to the public at http://ehd1.

nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the Commission, or the

presiding officer. Participants are

requested not to include personal

privacy information, such as social

security numbers, home addresses, or

home phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC regulation or other law

requires submission of such information. However, a request to

intervene will require including

information on local residence in order

to demonstrate a proximity assertion of

interest in the proceeding. With respect

to copyrighted works, except for limited

excerpts that serve the purpose of the

adjudicatory filings and would

constitute a Fair Use application, participants are requested not to include

copyrighted materials in their

submission.

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, et al., Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414, Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York County, South Carolina Date of amendment request:

February 17, 2014.

Description of amendment request:

The amendments revise Technical

Specification (TS) Table 3.3.4-1, Remote Shutdown System

Instrumentation and Controls as a result

of an inoperable instrumentation

function on Unit 2. Table 3.3.4-1

specifies requirements for Function 3.b.,

Decay Heat Removal via Steam

Generators (SGs)Reactor Coolant

System (RCS) Cold Leg Temperature

Loop A and B as 1 per loop. Loop A of this function is presently inoperable

on Unit 2 due to a failed resistance temperature detector (RTD). Loop B of

this function is operable with a reliable

maintenance history. The failed RTD on

Loop A cannot be replaced in the

present operating mode of Unit 2 (Mode

1). Therefore, Duke Energy requested

the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) approval to allow

Unit 2 to remain in Mode 1 until such time that the failed RTD can be

replaced. The replacement would occur

in the next refueling outage or the next

outage that would facilitate

replacement, whichever occurs first.

Date of issuance:

February 27, 2014.

Effective date:

As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented

within 30 days from the date of

issuance.

Amendment Nos.:

272 and 268.

Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-35 and NPF-52:

Amendments revised the licenses and the technical

specifications.

Public comments requested as to proposed no significant hazards

consideration (NSHC):

Yes. The NRC staff noticed the February 17, 2014, application in the Rock Hill, SC local

newspaper, The Herald on Friday, February 21, 2014, and Saturday, February 22, 2014. The notice provided an opportunity to submit comments on the Commissions proposed NSHC determination. No comments have been received.

The Commissions related evaluation of the amendment, finding of exigent

circumstances, state consultation, and

final NSHC determination are contained

in a safety evaluation dated February 27, 2014. Attorney for licensee:

Lara S. Nichols, Associate General Counsel, Duke Energy

Corporation, 526 South Church Street

EC07H, Charlotte, NC 28202.

NRC Branch Chief:

Robert J.

Pascarelli.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 10th day of March 2014.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Michele G. Evans, Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 2014-05645 Filed 3-17-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 5200027; NRC-2008-0441]

Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and

Acceptance Criteria; Virgil C. Summer

Unit 2 Combined License AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Determination of inspections, tests, analyses, and acceptance criteria (ITAAC).

SUMMARY

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff has determined

that the inspections, tests, and analyses

have been successfully completed, and

that the specified acceptance criteria are

met for ITAAC 3.3.00.09, for the Virgil

C. Summer Nuclear Station Unit 2.

ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2008-0441 when contacting the

NRC about the availability of

information regarding this document.

You may access publicly-available

information related to this document

using any of the following methods:

• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2008-0441. Address

questions about NRC dockets to Carol

Gallagher; telephone: 301-287-3422;

email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov.

For technical questions, contact the

individuals listed in the FORFURTHER INFORMATIONCONTACT section of this document.

• NRCs Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may access publicly

available documents online in the NRC

Library at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.

To begin the search, select ADAMS Public Documents and

then select Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.

For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRCs Public

Document Room (PDR) reference staff at

1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by

email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov.

The ADAMS accession number for each

document referenced in this document (if that document is available in

ADAMS) is provided the first time that

a document is referenced.

• NRCs PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at

the NRCs PDR, Room O1-F21, One VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:34 Mar 17, 2014Jkt 232001PO 00000Frm 00063Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\18MRN1.SGM18MRN1 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES