ML15138A275

NRR E-mail Capture - NRC Notification of State of Florida Regarding St. Lucie License Amendment - Technical Specifications Surveillance Frequencies

ML15138A275
Person / Time
Site:	Saint Lucie
Issue date:	04/28/2015
From:	Audrey Klett Plant Licensing Branch II
To:	Becker C State of FL, Dept of Health, Bureau of Radiation Control
References
Download: ML15138A275 (23)

Text

NRR-PMDAPEm Resource From: Klett, Audrey Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2015 2:37 PM To: Becker, Cindy L (Cindy.Becker@flhealth.gov)

Cc: Saba, Farideh

Subject:

NRC Notification of State of Florida Regarding St. Lucie License Amendment - Technical Specifications Surveillance Frequencies Attachments: 2015-04298 second notice.pdf Good Afternoon Ms. Becker, The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is about to issue license amendments for the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2. In accordance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 50.91(b), I am notifying you of the proposed issuance of these amendments.

Please reply if the State of Florida has comments on the following licensing action submitted to the NRC by Florida Power & Light Company, et al. (the licensee): Application for Technical Specification Change Regarding Risk-Informed Justifications for the Relocation of Specific Surveillance Frequency Requirements to a Licensee Controlled Program, dated February 20, 2014 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML14070A087), as supplemented (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML14349A333, ML15029A497, and ML15042A122). There is an additional supplement dated April 18, 2015, which is not yet available in ADAMS. I will email you the ADAMS Accession number when it becomes available.

Attached is the associated proposed no significant hazards consideration for this amendment request that was published in the Federal Register on March 3, 2015 (80 FR 11477, see attached).

Your response is requested by May 8, 2015. If you have any questions, please call me at (301) 415-0489.

Thank you, Audrey Klett Project Manager U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 301-415-0489 1

Hearing Identifier: NRR_PMDA Email Number: 2080 Mail Envelope Properties (Audrey.Klett@nrc.gov20150428143600)

Subject:

NRC Notification of State of Florida Regarding St. Lucie License Amendment -

Technical Specifications Surveillance Frequencies Sent Date: 4/28/2015 2:36:36 PM Received Date: 4/28/2015 2:36:00 PM From: Klett, Audrey Created By: Audrey.Klett@nrc.gov Recipients:

"Saba, Farideh" <Farideh.Saba@nrc.gov>

Tracking Status: None "Becker, Cindy L (Cindy.Becker@flhealth.gov)" <Cindy.Becker@flhealth.gov>

Tracking Status: None Post Office:

Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 1459 4/28/2015 2:36:00 PM 2015-04298 second notice.pdf 324180 Options Priority: Standard Return Notification: No Reply Requested: No Sensitivity: Normal Expiration Date:

Recipients Received:

11472 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Notices www.regulations.gov as well as entering access to clear and consistent patient NUCLEAR REGULATORY the comment submissions into ADAMS. information about I-131 treatment COMMISSION The NRC does not routinely edit processes and procedures; (2)

[NRC-2015-0041]

comment submissions to remove information the responders believe identifying or contact information. represent best practices used in making Biweekly Notice; Applications and If you are requesting or aggregating informed decisions on releasing I-131 Amendments to Facility Operating comments from other persons for patients and stand alone or Licenses and Combined Licenses submission to the NRC, then you should supplemental voluntary patient/licensee Involving No Significant Hazards inform those persons not to include guidance acknowledgment forms, if Considerations identifying or contact information that available; (3) an existing set of they do not want to be publicly AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory guidelines that the responder developed Commission.

disclosed in their comment submission.

or received that provides instructions to Your request should state that the NRC ACTION: Biweekly notice.

released patients; and (4) an existing does not routinely edit comment guidance brochure that the responder

SUMMARY

Pursuant to Section 189a. (2) submissions to remove such information believes would be acceptable for of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as before making the comment submissions available to the public or nationwide distribution. The responses amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear entering the comment submissions into will form the basis for patient release Regulatory Commission (NRC) is ADAMS. guidance products developed in publishing this regular biweekly notice.

response to the NRCs April 28, 2014, The Act requires the Commission to II. Background Staff RequirementsCOMAMM publish notice of any amendments In accordance with the Paperwork 0001/COMWDM-14-0001 issued, or proposed to be issued and Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Background and Proposed Direction to grants the Commission the authority to Chapter 35), the NRC is requesting NRC Staff to Verify Assumptions Made issue and make immediately effective public comment on its intention to Concerning Patient Release Guidance. any amendment to an operating license request the OMBs approval for the The Commission, based on information or combined license, as applicable, information collection summarized from patients and patient advocacy upon a determination by the below. groups, questioned the availability of Commission that such amendment

1. The title of the information involves no significant hazards clear, consistent, patient friendly and collection: NRC Request for Information consideration, notwithstanding the timely patient release information and Concerning Patient Release Practices. pendency before the Commission of a directed the staff to work with a wide request for a hearing from any person.

2. OMB approval number: OMB variety of stakeholders when developing control number has not yet been This biweekly notice includes all new guidance products. This notices of amendments issued, or assigned to this proposed information information collection effort was collection. proposed to be issued from February 5, developed to gain input from as many 2015 to February 18, 2015. The last

3. Type of submission: New.

stakeholders as possible. The NRC biweekly notice was published on

4. The form number, if applicable: N/

A. solicitation in the Federal Register is to February 17, 2015.

5. How often the collection is required obtain existing information from a DATES: Comments must be filed by April or requested: Once. variety of stakeholders. 2, 2015. A request for a hearing must be

6. Who will be required or asked to III. Specific Requests for Comments filed by May 4, 2015.

respond: Medical professional ADDRESSES: You may submit comments organizations, physicians, patients, The NRC is seeking comments that by any of the following methods (unless patient advocacy groups, NRC and address the following questions: this document describes a different Agreement State medical use licensees, 1. Is the proposed collection of method for submitting comments on a Agreement States, and other interested information necessary for the NRC to specific subject):

individuals who use, receive, license or

• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to properly perform its functions? Does the http://www.regulations.gov and search have interest in the use of I-131 sodium information have practical utility? for Docket ID NRC-2015-0041. Address iodine (hereafter referred to as I-131) for the treatment of thyroid conditions. 2. Is the estimate of the burden of the questions about NRC dockets to Carol

7. The estimated number of annual information collection accurate? Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-3463; responses: A one-time collection 3. Is there a way to enhance the email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov.

estimated to have 1,180 responses (620 quality, utility, and clarity of the

• Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, medical community + 560 patients). information to be collected? Office of Administration, Mail Stop:

8. The estimated number of annual OWFN-12-H08, U.S. Nuclear respondents: 1,180 respondents (620 4. How can the burden of the Regulatory Commission, Washington, medical community + 560 patients). information collection on respondents DC 20555-0001.

9. The estimated number of hours be minimized, including the use of For additional direction on obtaining needed annually to comply with the automated collection techniques or information and submitting comments, information collection requirement or other forms of information technology? see Obtaining Information and request: 457.5 hours0.208 days <br />0.0298 weeks <br />0.00685 months <br /> (255 medical Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 25th day Submitting Comments in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES community + 202.5 patients). of February, 2015.

10. Abstract: The NRC is requesting a this document.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

one-time information collection that FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

will be solicited in a Federal Register Tremaine Donnell, Shirley Rohrer, Office of Nuclear notice (FRN). The FRN will have NRC Clearance Officer, Office of Information Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear specific I-131 patient release questions Services. Regulatory Commission, Washington DC associated with: (1) Existing Web sites [FR Doc. 2015-04318 Filed 3-2-15; 8:45 am] 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-5411, that the responders believe provide BILLING CODE 7590-01-P email: Shirley.Rohrer@nrc.gov.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Mar 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\03MRN1.SGM 03MRN1

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Notices 11473 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: II. Notice of Consideration of Issuance subject facility operating license or of Amendments to Facility Operating combined license. Requests for a I. Obtaining Information and Licenses and Combined Licenses and hearing and a petition for leave to Submitting Comments Proposed No Significant Hazards intervene shall be filed in accordance A. Obtaining Information Consideration Determination with the Commissions Agency Rules Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015- The Commission has made a of Practice and Procedure in 10 CFR 0041 when contacting the NRC about proposed determination that the part 2. Interested person(s) should following amendment requests involve consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, the availability of information for this which is available at the NRCs PDR, action. You may obtain publicly- no significant hazards consideration.

located at One White Flint North, Room available information related to this Under the Commissions regulations in O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first action by any of the following methods: § 50.92 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. The

• Federal rulemaking Web site: Go to Regulations (10 CFR), this means that NRCs regulations are accessible http://www.regulations.gov and search operation of the facility in accordance electronically from the NRC Library on for Docket ID NRC-2015-0041. with the proposed amendment would the NRCs Web site at http://

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

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

• NRCs PDR: You may examine and expiration of 60 days after the date of results of the proceeding. The petition purchase copies of public documents at publication of this notice. The should specifically explain the reasons the NRCs PDR, Room O1-F21, One Commission may issue the license why intervention should be permitted White Flint North, 11555 Rockville amendment before expiration of the 60- with particular reference to the Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. day period provided that its final following general requirements: (1) The determination is that the amendment name, address, and telephone number of B. Submitting Comments involves no significant hazards the requestor or petitioner; (2) the Please include Docket ID NRC-2015- consideration. In addition, the nature of the requestors/petitioners 0041, facility name, unit number(s), Commission may issue the amendment right under the Act to be made a party application date, and subject in your prior to the expiration of the 30-day to the proceeding; (3) the nature and comment submission. comment period should circumstances extent of the requestors/petitioners The NRC cautions you not to include change during the 30-day comment property, financial, or other interest in identifying or contact information that period such that failure to act in a the proceeding; and (4) the possible you do not want to be publicly timely way would result, for example in effect of any decision or order which disclosed in your comment submission. derating or shutdown of the facility. may be entered in the proceeding on the The NRC will post all comment Should the Commission take action requestors/petitioners interest. The submissions at http:// prior to the expiration of either the petition must also identify the specific www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment period or the notice period, it contentions which the requestor/

comment submissions into ADAMS. will publish in the Federal Register a petitioner seeks to have litigated at the The NRC does not routinely edit notice of issuance. Should the proceeding.

comment submissions to remove Commission make a final No Significant Each contention must consist of a identifying or contact information. Hazards Consideration Determination, specific statement of the issue of law or If you are requesting or aggregating any hearing will take place after fact to be raised or controverted. In comments from other persons for issuance. The Commission expects that addition, the requestor/petitioner shall submission to the NRC, then you should the need to take this action will occur provide a brief explanation of the bases inform those persons not to include very infrequently. for the contention and a concise identifying or contact information that statement of the alleged facts or expert A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES they do not want to be publicly opinion which support the contention disclosed in their comment submission. and Petition for Leave To Intervene and on which the requestor/petitioner Your request should state that the NRC Within 60 days after the date of intends to rely in proving the contention does not routinely edit comment publication of this notice, any person(s) at the hearing. The requestor/petitioner submissions to remove such information whose interest may be affected by this must also provide references to those before making the comment action may file a request for a hearing specific sources and documents of submissions available to the public or and a petition to intervene with respect which the petitioner is aware and on entering the comment into ADAMS. to issuance of the amendment to the which the requestor/petitioner intends VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Mar 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\03MRN1.SGM 03MRN1

11474 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Notices to rely to establish those facts or expert days prior to the filing deadline, the system. To be timely, an electronic opinion. The petition must include participant should contact the Office of filing must be submitted to the E-Filing sufficient information to show that a the Secretary by email at system no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern genuine dispute exists with the hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by telephone Time on the due date. Upon receipt of applicant on a material issue of law or at 301-415-1677, to request (1) a digital a transmission, the E-Filing system fact. Contentions shall be limited to identification (ID) certificate, which time-stamps the document and sends matters within the scope of the allows the participant (or its counsel or the submitter an email notice amendment under consideration. The representative) to digitally sign confirming receipt of the document. The contention must be one which, if documents and access the E-Submittal E-Filing system also distributes an email proven, would entitle the requestor/ server for any proceeding in which it is notice that provides access to the petitioner to relief. A requestor/ participating; and (2) advise the document to the NRCs Office of the petitioner who fails to satisfy these Secretary that the participant will be General Counsel and any others who requirements with respect to at least one submitting a request or petition for have advised the Office of the Secretary contention will not be permitted to hearing (even in instances in which the that they wish to participate in the participate as a party. participant, or its counsel or proceeding, so that the filer need not Those permitted to intervene become representative, already holds an NRC- serve the documents on those parties to the proceeding, subject to any issued digital ID certificate). Based upon participants separately. Therefore, limitations in the order granting leave to this information, the Secretary will applicants and other participants (or intervene, and have the opportunity to establish an electronic docket for the their counsel or representative) must participate fully in the conduct of the hearing in this proceeding if the apply for and receive a digital ID hearing. Secretary has not already established an certificate before a hearing request/

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

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

issue the amendment and make it Submission, which is available on the www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-immediately effective, notwithstanding agencys public Web site at http:// submittals.html, by email to the request for a hearing. Any hearing www.nrc.gov/site-help/e- MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a toll-held would take place after issuance of submittals.html. Participants may free call at 1-866-672-7640. The NRC the amendment. If the final attempt to use other software not listed Meta System Help Desk is available determination is that the amendment on the Web site, but should note that the between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern request involves a significant hazards NRCs E-Filing system does not support Time, Monday through Friday, consideration, then any hearing held unlisted software, and the NRC Meta excluding government holidays.

would take place before the issuance of System Help Desk will not be able to Participants who believe that they any amendment unless the Commission offer assistance in using unlisted have a good cause for not submitting finds an imminent danger to the health software. documents electronically must file an or safety of the public, in which case it If a participant is electronically exemption request, in accordance with will issue an appropriate order or rule submitting a document to the NRC in 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper under 10 CFR part 2. accordance with the E-Filing rule, the filing requesting authorization to participant must file the document continue to submit documents in paper B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing) using the NRCs online, Web-based format. Such filings must be submitted All documents filed in NRC submission form. In order to serve by: (1) First class mail addressed to the adjudicatory proceedings, including a documents through the Electronic Office of the Secretary of the request for hearing, a petition for leave Information Exchange System, users Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory to intervene, any motion or other will be required to install a Web Commission, Washington, DC 20555-document filed in the proceeding prior browser plug-in from the NRCs Web 0001, Attention: Rulemaking and to the submission of a request for site. Further information on the Web- Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, hearing or petition to intervene, and based submission form, including the express mail, or expedited delivery documents filed by interested installation of the Web browser plug-in, service to the Office of the Secretary, governmental entities participating is available on the NRCs public Web Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e- 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, accordance with the NRCs E-Filing rule submittals.html. Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007). The E- Once a participant has obtained a and Adjudications Staff. Participants Filing process requires participants to digital ID certificate and a docket has filing a document in this manner are submit and serve all adjudicatory been created, the participant can then responsible for serving the document on documents over the internet, or in some submit a request for hearing or petition all other participants. Filing is mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES cases to mail copies on electronic for leave to intervene. Submissions considered complete by first-class mail storage media. Participants may not should be in Portable Document Format as of the time of deposit in the mail, or submit paper copies of their filings (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance by courier, express mail, or expedited unless they seek an exemption in available on the NRCs public Web site delivery service upon depositing the accordance with the procedures at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e- document with the provider of the described below. submittals.html. A filing is considered service. A presiding officer, having To comply with the procedural complete at the time the documents are granted an exemption request from requirements of E-Filing, at least ten 10 submitted through the NRCs E-Filing using E-Filing, may require a participant VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Mar 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\03MRN1.SGM 03MRN1

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Notices 11475 or party to use E-Filing if the presiding As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the operation has been previously evaluated in officer subsequently determines that the licensee has provided its analysis of the the ANO-2 accident analysis. Furthermore, reason for granting the exemption from issue of no significant hazards SDM has been shown to remain within limits use of E-Filing no longer exists. should an event occur at any time during the consideration, which is presented Documents submitted in adjudicatory remainder of operating Cycle 24 such that below: CEA 18 fails to insert into the core upon proceedings will appear in the NRCs 1. Does the proposed change involve a receipt of a reactor trip signal.

electronic hearing docket which is significant increase in the probability or Therefore, this change does not create the available to the public at http:// consequences of an accident previously possibility of a new or different kind of ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded evaluated? accident from an accident previously pursuant to an order of the Commission, Response: No. evaluated.

or the presiding officer. Participants are One function of the CEAs is to provide a 3. Does the proposed change involve a requested not to include personal means of rapid negative reactivity addition significant reduction in a margin of safety?

privacy information, such as social into the core. This occurs upon receipt of a Response: No.

security numbers, home addresses, or signal from the Reactor Protection System. SR 4.1.3.1.2 is intended to verify CEAs are This function will continue to be free to move (i.e., not mechanically bound).

home phone numbers in their filings, accomplished with the approval of the The physical and electrical design of the unless an NRC regulation or other law proposed change. Typically, once per 92 days CEAs, and past operating experience, requires submission of such each CEA is moved at least five inches to provides high confidence that CEAs remain information. However, a request to ensure the CEA is free to move. CEA 18 trippable whether or not exercised during intervene will require including remains trippable (free to move) as illustrated each SR interval. Eliminating further information on local residence in order by the last performance of SR 4.1.3.1.2 in exercising of CEA 18 for the remainder of to demonstrate a proximity assertion of January 2015. However, due to abnormally Cycle 24 operation does not directly relate to interest in the proceeding. With respect high coil voltage and current measured on the potential for CEA binding to occur. No the CEA 18 Upper Gripper Coil (UGC), future mechanical binding has been previously to copyrighted works, except for limited exercising of the CEA could result in the CEA experienced at ANO-2. CEA 18 is contained excerpts that serve the purpose of the inadvertently inserting into the core, if the within a Shutdown CEA Group and is not adjudicatory filings and would UGC were to fail during the exercise test. The used for reactivity control during power constitute a Fair Use application, mis-operation of a CEA, which includes a maneuvers (the CEA must remain fully participants are requested not to include CEA drop event, is an abnormal occurrence withdrawn at all times when the reactor is copyrighted materials in their and has been previously evaluated as part of critical). In addition, Entergy has concluded submission. the ANO-2 accident analysis. Inadvertent that required SDM will be maintained should Petitions for leave to intervene must CEA insertion will result in a reactivity CEA 18 fail to insert following a reactor trip be filed no later than 60 days from the transient and power reduction, and could at any point during the remainder of Cycle date of publication of this notice. lead to a reactor shutdown if the CEA is 24 operation.

deemed to be unrecoverable. The proposed Therefore, this change does not involve a Requests for hearing, petitions for leave change would minimize the potential for significant reduction in a margin of safety.

to intervene, and motions for leave to inadvertent insertion of CEA 18 into the core file new or amended contentions that by maintaining the CEA in place using the The NRC staff has reviewed the are filed after the 60-day deadline will Lower Gripper Coil (LGC), which is operating licensees analysis and, based on this not be entertained absent a normally. The proposed change will not review, it appears that the three determination by the presiding officer affect the CEAs ability to insert fully into the standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are that the filing demonstrates good cause core upon receipt of a reactor trip signal. satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR No modifications are proposed to the proposes to determine that the 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(iii). Reactor Protection System or associated amendment request involves no For further details with respect to Control Element Drive Mechanism Control significant hazards consideration.

System logic with regard to the ability of CEA these license amendment applications, 18 to remain available for immediate Attorney for licensee: Joseph A.

see the application for amendment insertion. The accident mitigation features of Aluise, Associate General Counsel which is available for public inspection the plant are not affected by the proposed Nuclear, Entergy Services, Inc., 639 in ADAMS and at the NRCs PDR. For amendment. Because CEA 18 remains Loyola Avenue, New Orleans, Louisiana additional direction on accessing trippable, no additional reactivity 70113.

information related to this document, considerations need to be taken into NRC Acting Branch Chief: Eric R.

see the Obtaining Information and consideration. Nevertheless, Entergy has Oesterle.

Submitting Comments section of this evaluated the reactivity consequences associated with failure of CEA 18 to insert Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-document. 382, Waterford Steam Electric Station, upon a reactor trip in accordance with TS Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50- requirements for Shutdown Margin (SDM) Unit 3, St. Charles Parish, Louisiana 368, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit No. 2 and has determined that SDM requirements Date of amendment request: October (ANO-2), Pope County, Arkansas would be met should such an event occur at any time during the remainder of Cycle 24 1, 2014, as supplemented by letter dated Date of amendment request: February operation. February 2, 2015. Publicly-available 6, 2015. A publicly-available version is Therefore, this change does not involve a versions are in ADAMS under in ADAMS under Accession No. significant increase in the probability or Accession Nos. ML14275A374 and ML15041A068. consequences of an accident previously ML15033A482.

Description of amendment request: evaluated. Description of amendment request:

The amendment would revise a Note to 2. Does the proposed change create the The amendment would relocate possibility of a new or different kind of mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Technical Specification (TS) Technical Specifications 3.9.6, Refuel Surveillance Requirement (SR) 4.1.3.1.2 accident from any accident previously Machine, and 3.9.7, Crane Travel, to evaluated?

to exclude Control Element Assembly Response: No.

the Technical Requirements Manual.

(CEA) 18 from being exercised per the CEA 18 remains trippable. The proposed Basis for proposed no significant SR for the remainder of Cycle 24 due to change will not introduce any new design hazards consideration determination:

a degrading upper gripper coil. changes or systems that can prevent the CEA As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the Basis for proposed no significant from [performing] its specified safety licensee has provided its analysis of the hazards consideration determination: function. As discussed previously, CEA mis- issue of no significant hazards VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Mar 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\03MRN1.SGM 03MRN1

11476 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Notices consideration, which is presented the Technical Specifications. This is a The proposed TS 3.9.6 (Refuel below: requirement as outlined in [10 CFR Machine) and TS 3.9.7 (Crane Travel)

1. Does the proposed change involve 50.36]. relocation to the Waterford 3 TRM is a significant increase in the probability [10 CFR 50.36(b)] states the technical administrative in nature because all or consequences of an accident specifications will be derived from the requirements will be relocated. Any previously evaluated? analyses and evaluation included in the changes after being relocated to the Response: No. safety analysis report. Waterford 3 TRM will require that the This proposed change relocates [10 CFR 50.36(c)(2)(i)] states that [10 CFR 50.59] process be entered Technical Specifications (TS) 3.9.6 []the limiting conditions for operation ensuring the public health and safety is (Refuel Machine) and TS 3.9.7 (Crane are the lowest functional capability or maintained. By using the [10 CFR 50.59]

Travel) to the Waterford 3 Technical performance levels of equipment process for future changes, the Requirements Manual (TRM). This is required for safe operation of the regulatory requirements ensure that no consistent with the requirements of [10 facility[. . . .] [10 CFR 50.36(c)(2)(ii)] significant reduction in the margin of CFR 50.36(c)(2)(ii)] and aligns with provides the four criteria in which any safety occurs.

NUREG-1432 (Combustion Engineering one met requires a limiting condition for In addition, the TS 3.9.6 and TS 3.9.7 Standard Technical Specifications). operation. The proposed change requirements do not prevent the design The applicable TS 3.9.6 and TS 3.9.7 basis accident conditions from demonstrated that the [10 CFR design basis accident is the Fuel occurring and do not limit the severity 50.36(c)(2)(ii)] criteria were not met and Handling Accident (FHA) described in of the accident. Thus, TS 3.9.6 and TS the relocation to the TRM is allowable.

the Updated Final Safety Analysis 3.9.7 relocation will not adversely By not meeting the [10 CFR Report (UFSAR) Section 15.7.3.4. The impact the accident analyses and will 50.36(c)(2)(ii)] criteria for inclusion into limiting FHA results in all the fuel pins not cause a significant reduction in the the TS means that TS 3.9.6 and TS 3.9.7 in the dropped and impacted fuel margin of safety.

do not impact the accident analyses assemblies failing (472 pins or 236 per previously evaluated and would not The NRC staff has reviewed the assembly). The analysis assumes that a create the possibility of a new or licensees analysis and, based on this fuel assembly is dropped as an initial different kind of accident. review, it appears that the three condition and no equipment or Specifically, TS 3.9.6 and TS 3.9.7 standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are intervention can prevent the initiating equipment are not instrumentation used satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff condition. The proposed change was to detect, and indicate in the control proposes to determine that the evaluated against [10 CFR room, a significant abnormal amendment request involves no 50.36(c)(2)(ii)] criteria and shows no degradation of the reactor coolant significant hazards consideration.

impact to the lowest functional pressure boundary (Criterion 1). TS Attorney for licensee: Joseph A.

capability or performance levels of 3.9.6 and TS 3.9.7 do not contain a Aluise, Associate General Council equipment required for safe operation of process variable, design feature, or Nuclear, Entergy Services, Inc., 639 the facility because the TS 3.9.6 and TS operating restriction that is an initial Loyola Avenue, New Orleans, Louisiana 3.9.7 requirements do not prevent the condition of a Design Basis Accident or 70113.

accident conditions from occurring and Transient analysis that either assumes NRC Branch Chief: Meena K. Khanna.

do not limit the severity of the accident.

the failure of or presents a challenge to Since, the dropped fuel assembly and Exelon Generation Company, LLC the integrity of a fission product barrier the impacted fuel assembly are both (EGC), Docket No. 50-410, Nine Mile (Criterion 2). TS 3.9.6 and TS 3.9.7 does already failed in the design basis Point Nuclear Station, Unit 2 (NMP2),

not contain a structure, system, or accident scenario, this change could not Oswego County, New York component that is part of the primary result in a significant increase in the success path and which functions or Date of amendment request:

accident consequences. The TS 3.9.6 actuates to mitigate a Design Basis November 17, 2014. A publicly and TS 3.9.7 equipment are not required Accident or Transient that either available version is in ADAMS under to respond, mitigate, or terminate any assumes the failure of or presents a Accession No. ML14321A744.

design basis accident, thus this change challenge to the integrity of a fission Description of amendment request:

will not adversely impact the likelihood product barrier (Criterion 3). Lastly, TS The proposed amendment would revise or probability of a design basis accident.

The TS 3.9.6 and TS 3.9.7 3.9.6 and TS 3.9.7 do not contain a the NMP2 Technical Specification (TS) requirements do not prevent the structure, system, or component which Allowable Value for the Main Steam accident conditions from occurring and operating experience or probabilistic Line Tunnel Lead Enclosure do not limit the severity of the accident. safety assessment has shown to be Temperature-High instrumentation from Therefore the TS 3.9.6 and TS 3.9.7 significant to public health and safety an ambient temperature dependent relocation to the TRM would not cause (Criterion 4). (variable setpoint) to ambient a significant increase in the accident TS 3.9.6 and 3.9.7 are not required to temperature independent (constant probability or accident consequences. meet the lowest functional capability or Allowable Value). The changes would

2. Does the proposed change create performance levels of equipment delete Surveillance Requirement (SR) the possibility of a new or different kind required for safe operation of the 3.3.6.1.2 and revise the Allowable Value of accident from any accident facility. for Function 1.g on Table 3.3.6.1-1, previously evaluated? Therefore, the accident analyses are Primary Containment Isolation not impacted and the possibility of a mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Response: No. Instrumentation.

This proposed change relocates TS new or different kind of accident from Basis for proposed no significant 3.9.6 (Refuel Machine) and TS 3.9.7 any accident previously evaluated has hazards consideration determination:

(Crane Travel) to the Waterford 3 TRM. not changed. As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the In general, Technical Specifications are 3. Does the proposed change involve licensee has provided its analysis of the based upon the accident analyses. The a significant reduction in a margin of issue of no significant hazards accident analyses assumptions and safety? consideration, which is presented initial conditions must be protected by Response: No. below:

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Mar 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\03MRN1.SGM 03MRN1

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Notices 11477

1. Does the proposed amendment safety because the changes eliminate the Risk-Informed Technical involve a significant increase in the temperature setpoint dependency on Specifications Initiative 5b, Risk-probability or consequences of an lead enclosure temperature while Informed Method for Control of accident previously evaluated? maintaining the existing upper AV Surveillance Frequencies (ADAMS Response: No. [Allowable Value] = 175.6 °F, that was Accession No. ML071360456). The The proposed changes do not involve previously evaluated and approved. licensee stated that the NEI 04-10 a significant increase in the probability There is no adverse impact on the methodology provides reasonable or consequences of an accident existing equipment capability as well as acceptance guidelines and methods for previously evaluated because the associated structures. The increase in evaluating the risk increase of proposed performance of any equipment credited the steam leak rate and associated crack changes to surveillance frequencies, in the radiological consequences of an size continues to be well below the leak consistent with Regulatory Guide 1.177, accident is not affected by the change in rate associated with critical crack size An Approach for Plant-Specific, Risk-the leak detection capability. that leads to pipe break. The proposed Informed Decisionmaking: Technical The Main Steam Line Tunnel Lead changes continue to provide the same Specifications (ADAMS Accession No.

Enclosure TemperatureHigh is level of protection against a main steam ML003740176). The licensee stated that provided to detect a steam leak in the line break as the existing setpoint the changes are consistent with NRC-lead enclosure and provides diversity to values. approved Technical Specification Task the high flow instrumentation. This Therefore, the proposed changes do Force (TSTF) Improved Standard function provides a mitigating action for not involve a significant reduction in a Technical Specifications Change a steam leak in the Main Steam Line margin of safety. Traveler TSTF-425, Relocate Tunnel Lead Enclosure, which could Surveillance Frequencies to Licensee lead to a pipe break. This function does The NRC staff has reviewed the licensees analysis and, based on this ControlRITSTF [Risk-Informed not affect any accident precursors, and Technical Specifications Task Force]

the proposed changes do not affect the review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are Initiative 5b, Revision 3 (ADAMS leak detection capability. Additionally, Accession No. ML090850642). The the proposed changes do not degrade satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the Federal Register notice published on the performance of or increase the July 6, 2009 (74 FR 31996), announced challenges to any safety systems amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. the availability of TSTF-425, Revision assumed to function in the accident 3. In the supplement dated January 28, analysis. Attorney for licensee: J. Bradley Fewell, Senior Vice President, 2015, the licensee requested (1)

Therefore, the proposed changes do additional surveillance frequencies be not involve a significant increase in the Regulatory Affairs, Nuclear, and General Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, relocated to the licensee-controlled probability or consequences of an program, (2) editorial changes, (3) accident previously evaluated. LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555. administrative deviations from TSTF-

2. Does the proposed amendment 425, and (4) other changes resulting create the possibility of a new or NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin G.

Beasley. from differences between the St. Lucie different kind of accident from any Plant TSs and the TSs on which TSTF-accident previously evaluated? Florida Power and Light Company, et al. 425 was based.

Response: No. (FPL), Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389, Basis for proposed no significant The proposed changes do not create St. Lucie Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, St. hazards consideration determination:

the possibility of a new or different kind Lucie County, Florida As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the of accident from any accident licensee provided its analysis of the previously evaluated because the Date of amendment request: February 20, 2014, as supplemented by letters issue of no significant hazards proposed changes do not add or remove consideration, which is presented equipment and do not physically alter dated December 11, 2014, January 13 and January 28, 2015. Publicly-available below:

the isolation instrumentation. In addition, the Main Steam Line Tunnel in ADAMS under Accession Nos. 1. Does the proposed change involve a Lead Enclosure LDS [Leak Detection ML14070A087, ML14349A333, significant increase in the probability or ML15029A497 and ML15042A122. consequences of an accident previously System] is not utilized in a different evaluated?

manner. The proposed changes do not Description of amendment request:

Response: No.

introduce any new accident initiators The NRC staff has previously made a The proposed change relocates the and new failure modes, nor do they proposed determination that the specified frequencies for periodic reduce or adversely affect the amendment request dated February 20, surveillance requirements to licensee control capabilities of any plant structure, 2014, involves no significant hazards under a new Surveillance Frequency Control system, or component to perform their consideration (see 79 FR 42550, July 22, Program. Surveillance frequencies are not an 2014). Subsequently, by letter dated initiator to any accident previously safety function. The Main Steam Line evaluated. As a result, the probability of any Tunnel Lead Enclosure LDS will January 28, 2015, the licensee provided accident previously evaluated is not continue to be operated in the same additional information that expanded significantly increased. The systems and manner. the scope of the amendment request as components required by the technical Therefore, the proposed changes do originally noticed. Accordingly, this specifications for which the surveillance not create the possibility of a new or notice supersedes the previous notice in frequencies are relocated are still required to mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES different kind of accident from any its entirety. be operable, meet the acceptance criteria for accident previously evaluated. The amendment would revise the the surveillance requirements, and be Technical Specifications (TSs) by capable of performing any mitigation

3. Does the proposed amendment relocating specific surveillance function assumed in the accident analysis.

involve a significant reduction in a As a result, the consequences of any accident margin of safety? frequency requirements to a licensee- previously evaluated are not significantly Response: No. controlled program with increased.

The proposed changes do not involve implementation of Nuclear Energy Therefore, the proposed change does not a significant reduction in a margin of Institute (NEI) 04-10 (Revision 1), involve a significant increase in the VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Mar 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\03MRN1.SGM 03MRN1

11478 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Notices probability or consequences of any accident Description of amendment request: limiting single failures will be previously evaluated. The amendment would revise Technical introduced as a result of the proposed

2. Does the proposed amendment create Specification (TS) 3/4.5.2, ECCS change. There will be no adverse effect the possibility of a new or different kind of [Emergency Core Cooling System] or challenges imposed on any SSC as a accident from any previously evaluated?

Response: No. SubsystemsTavg [average temperature] result of the proposed change.

No new or different accidents result from Greater Than or Equal to 350 °F [degrees Therefore, the proposed changes do utilizing the proposed change. The changes Fahrenheit], to correct non- not create the possibility of a new or do not involve a physical alteration of the conservative TS requirements. The different kind of accident from any plant (i.e., no new or different type of licensee also requested editorial changes previously evaluated.

equipment will be installed) or a change in to the TS. 3. Does the proposed change involve the methods governing normal plant Basis for proposed no significant a significant reduction in the margin of operation. In addition, the changes do not hazards consideration determination: safety?

impose any new or different requirements. As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the No. Margin of safety is related to The changes do not alter assumptions made confidence in the ability of the fission in the safety analysis assumptions and licensee provided its analysis of the current plant operating practice. issue of no significant hazards product barriers to perform their Therefore, the proposed changes do not consideration, which is presented as accident mitigation functions. The create the possibility of a new or different follows: proposed TS changes involve TS 3.5.2 kind of accident from any accident 1. Does the proposed change involve Action a, new TS 3.5.2 Action h, and previously evaluated. a significant increase in the probability the provision in SR 4.5.2.a to address

3. Does the proposed change involve a or consequences of an accident non-conservative TS requirements.

significant reduction in the margin of safety? previously evaluated? Editorial changes are also proposed for Response: No. No. The proposed TS changes involve consistency and clarity. The proposed The design, operation, testing methods, TS 3.5.2 Action a, new TS 3.5.2 Action changes provide better assurance that and acceptance criteria for systems, h, and the provision in SR structures, and components (SSCs), specified the ECCS systems, subsystems, and in applicable codes and standards (or

[Surveillance Requirement] 4.5.2.a to components are properly aligned to alternatives approved for use by the NRC) address non-conservative TS support safe reactor operation consistent will continue to be met as described in the requirements. Editorial changes are also with the licensing basis requirements.

plant licensing basis (including the final proposed for consistency and clarity. The proposed changes do not physically safety analysis report and bases to TS), since These changes do not affect any alter any SSC. There will be no effect on these are not affected by changes to the precursors to any accident previously those SSCs necessary to assure the surveillance frequencies. Similarly, there is evaluated and subsequently, will not accomplishment of specified functions.

no impact to safety analysis acceptance impact the probability or consequences There will be no impact on the criteria as described in the plant licensing of an accident previously evaluated.

basis. To evaluate a change in the relocated overpower limit, departure from Furthermore, these changes do not nucleate boiling ratio (DNBR) limits, surveillance frequency, FPL will perform a probabilistic risk evaluation using the adversely affect mitigation equipment or loss of cooling accident peak cladding guidance contained in NRC-approved NEI strategies. temperature (LOCA PCT), or any other 04-10, Revision 1 in accordance with the TS Therefore, the proposed changes do margin of safety. The applicable Surveillance Frequency Control Program. NEI not involve a significant increase in the radiological dose consequence 04-10, Revision 1, methodology provides probability or consequences of an acceptance criteria will continue to be reasonable acceptance guidelines and accident previously evaluated. met. Therefore, the proposed changes do methods for evaluating the risk increase of 2. Does the proposed change create not involve a significant reduction in a proposed changes to surveillance frequencies the possibility of a new or different kind consistent with Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.177. margin of safety.

of accident from any previously The NRC staff has reviewed the Therefore, the proposed changes do evaluated? licensees analysis and, based on this not involve a significant reduction in a No. The proposed TS changes involve review, it appears that the three margin of safety. TS 3.5.2 Action a, new TS 3.5.2 Action standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are The NRC staff has reviewed the h, and the provision in SR 4.5.2.a to satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff licensees analysis and, based on this address non-conservative TS proposes to determine that the review, it appears that the three requirements. Editorial changes are also amendment request involves no standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are proposed for consistency and clarity. significant hazards consideration.

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff The proposed changes provide better Attorney for licensee: William S.

proposes to determine that the assurance that the ECCS systems, Blair, Managing AttorneyNuclear, amendment request involves no subsystems, and components are Florida Power & Light Company, P.O.

significant hazards consideration. properly aligned to support safe reactor Box 14000, Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420.

Attorney for licensee: William S. operation consistent with the licensing NRC Branch Chief: Shana R. Helton.

Blair, Managing AttorneyNuclear, basis requirements. The proposed changes do not introduce new modes of Indiana Michigan Power Company Florida Power & Light Company, 700 plant operation and do not involve (I&M), Docket Nos. 50-315 and 50-316, Universe Boulevard, MS LAW/JB, Juno physical modifications to the plant (no Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 Beach, FL 33408-0420.

NRC Branch Chief: Shana R. Helton. new or different type of equipment will and 2, Berrien County, Michigan be installed). There are no changes in Date of amendment request: February Florida Power and Light Company, mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES the method by which any safety related 6, 2015. A publicly-available version is Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251, Turkey plant structure, system, or component in ADAMS under Accession No.

Point Nuclear Generating, Unit Nos. 3 (SSC) performs its specified safety ML15041A069.

and 4, Miami-Dade County, Florida function. As such, the plant conditions Description of amendment request:

Date of amendment request: for which the design basis accident The proposed amendments would November 13, 2014. A publicly- analyses were performed remain valid. modify the technical specifications available version is in ADAMS under No new accident scenarios, transient requirements for unavailable barriers by Accession No. ML14337A013. precursors, failure mechanisms, or adding limiting condition for operation VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Mar 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\03MRN1.SGM 03MRN1

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Notices 11479 (LCO) 3.0.8. The changes are consistent lead to an accident whose consequences Frequency Control Program (SFCP), with with the NRC approved Technical exceed the consequences of accidents implementation of Nuclear Energy Institute Specification Task Force (TSTF) previously evaluated. The addition of a (NEI) 04-10, Risk-Informed Technical Specifications Initiative 5b, Risk-Informed Standard Technical Specification requirement to assess and manage the Method for Control of Surveillance change TSTF-427, Allowance for Non- risk introduced by this change will Frequencies (ADAMS Accession No.

Technical Specification Barrier further minimize possible concerns. ML071360456). The changes are consistent Degradation on Supported System Thus, this change does not create the with NRC-approved TS Task Force (TSTF)

OPERABILITY, Revision 2. possibility of a new or different kind of Standard TS change TSTF-425, Relocate Basis for proposed no significant accident from an accident previously Surveillance Frequencies to Licensee hazards consideration determination: evaluated. Control-Risk Informed Technical As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the Specifications Task Force (RITSTF) Initiative licensee has affirmed the applicability Criterion 3The Proposed Change Does 5b, Revision 3 (ADAMS Accession No.

of the model proposed no significant Not Involve a Significant Reduction in ML090850642). The Federal Register notice a Margin of Safety published on July 6, 2009 (74 FR 31996),

hazards consideration published on announced the availability of this TSTF October 3, 2006 (71 FR 58444), Notice The proposed change allows a delay improvement, and included a model no of Availability of the Model Safety time for entering a supported system TS significant hazards consideration and safety Evaluation. The findings presented in when the inoperability is due solely to evaluation.

that evaluation are presented below: an unavailable barrier, if risk is assessed Basis for proposed no significant hazards and managed. The postulated initiating consideration determination: An analysis of Criterion 1The Proposed Change Does the no significant hazards consideration was Not Involve a Significant Increase in the events which may require a functional barrier are limited to those with low presented in the TSTF-425. The licensee has Probability or Consequences of an affirmed its applicability of the model no Accident Previously Evaluated frequencies of occurrence, and the significant hazards consideration, which is overall TS system safety function would presented below:

The proposed change allows a delay still be available for the majority of time for entering a supported system 1. Does the proposed change involve anticipated challenges. The risk impact a significant increase in the probability technical specification (TS) when the of the proposed TS changes was inoperability is due solely to an or consequences of any accident assessed following the three-tiered previously evaluated?

unavailable barrier if risk is assessed approach recommended in RG and managed. The postulated initiating Response: No.

[Regulatory Guide] 1.177. A bounding The proposed change relocates the events which may require a functional risk assessment was performed to justify specified frequencies for periodic barrier are limited to those with low the proposed TS changes. This surveillance requirements to licensee control frequencies of occurrence, and the application of LCO 3.0.8 is predicated under a new Surveillance Frequency Control overall TS system safety function would upon the licensees performance of a Program. Surveillance frequencies are not an still be available for the majority of risk assessment and the management of initiator to any accident previously anticipated challenges. Therefore, the plant risk. The net change to the margin evaluated. As a result, the probability of any probability of an accident previously accident previously evaluated is not of safety is insignificant as indicated by significantly increased. The systems and evaluated is not significantly increased, the anticipated low levels of associated if at all. The consequences of an components required by the technical risk (ICCDP [incremental conditional specifications for which the surveillance accident while relying on the allowance core damage probability] and ICLERP frequencies are relocated are still required to provided by proposed LCO 3.0.8 are no [incremental large early release be operable, meet the acceptance criteria for different than the consequences of an probability]) as shown in Table 1 of the surveillance requirements, and be accident while relying on the TS Section 3.1.1 in the Safety Evaluation. capable of performing any mitigation required actions in effect without the Therefore, this change does not involve function assumed in the accident analysis.

allowance provided by proposed LCO As a result, the consequences of any accident a significant reduction in a margin of previously evaluated are not significantly 3.0.8. Therefore, the consequences of an safety.

accident previously evaluated are not increased.

The NRC staff has reviewed the analysis Therefore, the proposed change does not significantly affected by this change. involve a significant increase in the and, based on this review, it appears that the The addition of a requirement to assess probability or consequences of an accident three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are and manage the risk introduced by this satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to previously evaluated.

change will further minimize possible determine that the amendment requests 2. Does the proposed change create the concerns. Therefore, this change does involve no significant hazards consideration. possibility of a new or different kind of not involve a significant increase in the Attorney for licensee: Robert B. Haemer, accident from any accident previously probability or consequences of an Senior Nuclear Counsel, One Cook Place, evaluated?

accident previously evaluated. Bridgman, Michigan 49106. Response: No.

NRC Branch Chief: David L. Pelton. No new or different accidents result from Criterion 2The Proposed Change Does PPL Susquehanna, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-387 utilizing the proposed change. The changes Not Create the Possibility of a New or do not involve a physical alteration of the and 50-388, Susquehanna Steam Electric Different Kind of Accident From any plant (i.e., no new or different type of Station, Units 1 and 2, Luzerne County, Previously Evaluated equipment will be installed) or a change in Pennsylvania the methods governing normal plant The proposed change does not Date of amendment requests: October 27, operation. In addition, the changes do not involve a physical alteration of the plant 2014. A publicly-available version is impose any new or different requirements.

available in ADAMS under Accession No. The changes do not alter assumptions made mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES (no new or different type of equipment will be installed). Allowing delay times ML14317A052. in the safety analysis. The proposed changes Description of amendment requests: The are consistent with the safety analysis for entering supported system TS when proposed amendments will modify the assumptions and current plant operating inoperability is due solely to an Susquehanna technical specifications (TS). practice.

unavailable barrier, if risk is assessed Specifically, the proposed amendments will Therefore, the proposed changes do not and managed, will not introduce new modify the TS by relocating specific create the possibility of a new or different failure modes or effects and will not, in surveillance frequencies to a licensee- kind of accident from any accident the absence of other unrelated failures, controlled program, the Surveillance previously evaluated.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Mar 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\03MRN1.SGM 03MRN1

11480 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Notices

3. Does the proposed change involve a 1: TSTF-2-A, Revision 1, Relocate the 10 The proposed change revises the significant reduction in the margin of safety? Year Sediment Cleaning of the Fuel Oil Surveillance Frequency for monitoring Response: No. Storage Tank to Licensee Control for TS [reactor coolant system] RCS temperature to The design, operation, testing methods, pages 3.8.3-3 and 3.8.3-4 ensure the minimum temperature for and acceptance criteria for systems, 1. Does the proposed amendment involve criticality is met. The Frequency is changed structures, and components (SSCs), specified a significant increase in the probability or from a 30 minute Frequency when certain in applicable codes and standards (or consequences of an accident previously conditions are met to a periodic Frequency alternatives approved for use by the NRC) evaluated? that it is controlled in accordance with the will continue to be met as described in the Response: No. Surveillance Frequency Control Program.

plant licensing basis (including the final The proposed change removes the The initial Frequency for this Surveillance Surveillance Requirement for performing will be 12 hours0.5 days <br />0.0714 weeks <br />0.0164 months <br />. This will ensure that Tavg safety analysis report and bases to TS), since sediment cleaning of diesel fuel oil storage [average temperature] is logged at appropriate these are not affected by changes to the tanks every 10 years from the Technical surveillance frequencies. Similarly, there is intervals (in addition to strip chart recorders Specifications and places it under licensee no impact to safety analysis acceptance and computer logging of temperature). The control. Diesel fuel oil storage tank cleaning criteria as described in the plant licensing is not an initiator of any accident previously measurement of RCS temperature is not an basis. To evaluate a change in the relocated evaluated. This change will have no effect on initiator of any accident previously surveillance frequency, PPL will perform a diesel generator fuel oil quality, which is evaluated. The minimum RCS temperature risk evaluation using the guidance contained tested in accordance with other Technical for criticality is not changed. As a result, the in NRC approved NEI 04-10, Rev. 1 in Specifications requirements. Removing the mitigation of any accident previously accordance with the TS SFCP. NEI 04-10, diesel fuel oil storage tank sediment cleaning evaluated is not affected.

Rev. 1, methodology provides reasonable requirements from the Technical Therefore, the proposed change does not acceptance guidelines and methods for Specifications will have no effect on the involve a significant increase in the ability to mitigate an accident. probability or consequences of any accident evaluating the risk increase of proposed Therefore, the proposed change does not previously evaluated.

changes to surveillance frequencies involve a significant increase in the 2. Does the proposed amendment create consistent with Regulatory Guide 1.177. probability or consequences of any accident Therefore, the proposed changes do not the possibility of a new or different kind of previously evaluated. accident from any accident previously involve a significant reduction in a margin of 2. Does the proposed amendment create safety. evaluated?

the possibility of a new or different kind of Response: No.

accident from any accident previously The NRC staff has reviewed the The proposed change does not involve a evaluated?

licensees analysis and, based on this Response: No. physical alteration to the plant (i.e., no new review, it appears that the three The proposed change does not involve a or different type of equipment will be standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are physical alteration to the plant (i.e., no new installed) or a change to the methods satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff or different type of equipment will be governing normal plant operation. The installed) or a change to the methods changes do not alter the assumptions made proposes to determine that the governing normal plant operation. The in the safety analysis.

amendment request involves no changes do not alter the assumptions made Therefore, the proposed change does not significant hazards consideration. create the possibility of a new or different in the safety analysis.

Attorney for licensee: Bryan A. Snapp, Therefore, the proposed change does not kind of accident from any accident Esquire, Assoc. General Counsel, PPL create the possibility of a new or different previously evaluated.

Services Corporation, 2 North Ninth St., kind of accident from any accident 3. Does the proposed amendment involve GENTW3, Allentown, PA 18101-1179. previously evaluated. a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

3. Does the proposed amendment involve Response: No.

NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. a significant reduction in a margin of safety? The proposed change revises the Broaddus. Response: No. Surveillance Frequency for monitoring RCS The proposed change removes the temperature to ensure the minimum Southern Nuclear Operating Company, requirement to clean sediment from the Inc. (SNC), Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50- temperature for criticality is met. The diesel fuel oil storage tank from the 425, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, current, condition based Frequency Technical Specifications and places it under Units 1 and 2, Burke County, Georgia represents a distraction to the control room licensee control. The margin of safety provided by the fuel oil storage tank operator during the critical period of plant Date of amendment request: July 18, sediment cleaning is unaffected by this startup. RCS temperature is closely 2014. A publicly-available version is in relocation because the quality of diesel fuel monitored by the operator during the ADAMS under Accession Package No. oil is tested in accordance with other approach to criticality, and temperature is ML14203A124. Technical Specifications requirements. recorded on charts and computer logs.

Therefore, the proposed change does not Allowing the operator to monitor Description of amendment request: involve a significant reduction in a margin of temperature as needed by the situation and The licensee requested 23 revisions to safety. logging RCS temperature at a periodic the Technical Specifications (TSs). Based on the above, SNC concludes that Frequency that it is controlled in accordance These revisions adopt various the proposed amendment does not involve a with the Surveillance Frequency Control previously NRC-approved Technical significant hazards consideration under the Program is sufficient to ensure that the LCO Specifications Task Force (TSTF) standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and, [Limiting Condition for Operation] is met Travelers. A list of the requested accordingly, a finding of no significant while eliminating a diversion of the revisions is included in Enclosure 1 of hazards consideration is justified. operators attention.

the application. 2: TSTF-27-A, Revision 3, Revise SR Therefore, the proposed change does not mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

[Surveillance Requirement] Frequency for involve a significant reduction in a margin of Basis for proposed no significant Minimum Temperature for Criticality for TS safety.

hazards consideration determination: 3.4.2, TS Page 3.4.2-1 Based on the above, SNC concludes that As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 1. Does the proposed amendment involve the proposed amendment does not involve a licensee has provided its analysis of the a significant increase in the probability or significant hazards consideration under the issue of no significant hazards consequences of an accident previously standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and, consideration for each of the 24 changes evaluated? accordingly, a finding of no significant requested, which is presented below: Response: No. hazards consideration is justified.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Mar 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\03MRN1.SGM 03MRN1

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Notices 11481 3: TSTF-28-A, Revision 0, Delete being locked, sealed, or secured. Because the probability or consequences of an accident Unnecessary Action to Measure Gross valves are in the condition assumed in the previously evaluated.

Specific Activity, TS 3.4.16, TS page 3.4-16 accident analysis, the proposed change will 2. Does the proposed amendment create

1. Does the proposed amendment involve not affect the initiators or mitigation of any the possibility of a new or different kind of a significant increase in the probability or accident previously evaluated. accident from any accident previously consequences of an accident previously Therefore, the proposed change does not evaluated?

evaluated? involve a significant increase in the Response: No.

Response: No. probability or consequences of any accident The proposed change does not result in a The proposed change eliminates Required previously evaluated. change in the manner in which the CIVs Action B.1 of Specification 3.4.16, RCS 2. Does the proposed amendment create provide plant protection or introduce any Specific Activity, which requires verifying the possibility of a new or different kind of new or different operational conditions.

that Dose Equivalent I-131 specific activity is accident from any accident previously Periodic verification that the closure times within limits. Determination of Dose evaluated? for CIVs that receive an automatic closure Equivalent I-131 is not an initiator of any Response: No. signal are within the limits established by the accident previously evaluated. Determination The proposed change does not involve a accident analysis will continue to be of Dose Equivalent I-131 has no effect on the physical alteration to the plant (i.e., no new performed under SR 3.6.3.5. The change does mitigation of any accident previously or different type of equipment will be not alter assumptions made in the safety evaluated. installed) or a change to the methods analysis, and is consistent with the safety Therefore, the proposed change does not governing normal plant operation. The analysis assumptions and current plant involve a significant increase in the changes do not alter the assumptions made operating practice. There are also no design probability or consequences of any accident in the safety analysis. changes associated with the proposed previously evaluated. Therefore, the proposed change does not changes, and the change does not involve a

2. Does the proposed amendment create create the possibility of a new or different physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new kind of accident from any accident or different type of equipment will be the possibility of a new or different kind of previously evaluated. installed).

accident from any accident previously

3. Does the proposed amendment involve Therefore, the proposed change does not evaluated?

a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

Response: No. create the possibility of a new or different Response: No.

The proposed change does not involve a kind of accident from any accident The proposed change replaces the periodic physical alteration to the plant (i.e., no new previously evaluated.

verification of valve position with or different type of equipment will be 3. Does the proposed amendment involve verification of valve position followed by installed) or a change to the methods a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

locking, sealing, or otherwise securing the governing normal plant operation. The Response: No.

valve in position. Periodic verification is also changes do not alter the assumptions made The proposed change provides clarification effective in detecting valve mispositioning.

in the safety analysis. that only CIVs that receive an automatic However, verification followed by securing Therefore, the proposed change does not the valve in position is effective in isolation signal are within the scope of the create the possibility of a new or different preventing valve mispositioning. Therefore, SR 3.6.3.5. The proposed change does not kind of accident from any accident the proposed change does not involve a result in a change in the manner in which the previously evaluated. significant reduction in a margin of safety. CIVs provide plant protection. Periodic

3. Does the proposed amendment involve Based on the above, SNC concludes that verification that closure times for CIVs that a significant reduction in a margin of safety? the proposed amendment does not involve a receive an automatic isolation signal are Response: No. significant hazards consideration under the within the limits established by the accident The proposed change eliminates a standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and, analysis will continue to be performed. The Required Action. The activities performed accordingly, a finding of no significant proposed change does not affect the safety under the Required Action will still be hazards consideration is justified. analysis acceptance criteria for any analyzed performed to determine if the LCO is met or event, nor is there a change to any safety the plant will exit the Applicability of the 5: TSTF-46-A, Revision 1, Clarify the CIV analysis limit. The proposed change does not Specification. In either case, the presence of Surveillance to Apply Only to Automatic alter the manner in which safety limits, the Required Action does not provide any Isolation Valves, TS 3.6.3, TS page 3.6.3.5 limiting safety system settings or limiting significant margin of safety. 1. Does the proposed amendment involve conditions for operation are determined, nor Therefore, the proposed change does not a significant increase in the probability or is there any adverse effect on those plant involve a significant reduction in a margin of consequences of an accident previously systems necessary to assure the safety. evaluated? accomplishment of protection functions. The Based on the above, SNC concludes that Response: No. proposed change will not result in plant the proposed amendment does not involve a The proposed change revises the operation in a configuration outside the significant hazards consideration under the requirements in Technical Specification SR design basis.

standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and, 3.6.3.5, and the associated Bases, to delete Therefore, the proposed change does not accordingly, a finding of no significant the requirement to verify the isolation time involve a significant reduction in a margin of hazards consideration is justified. of each power operated containment safety.

isolation valve (CIV) and only require Based on the above, SNC concludes that 4: TSTF-45-A, Revision 2, Exempt verification of closure time for each the proposed amendment does not involve a Verification of CIVs that are Locked, Sealed automatic power operated isolation valve. significant hazards consideration under the or Otherwise Secured, TS 3.6.3, TS pages The closure times for CIVs that do not receive standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and, 3.6.3-4, 3.6.3-5 an automatic closure signal are not an accordingly, a finding of no significant

1. Does the proposed amendment involve initiator of any design basis accident or hazards consideration is justified.

a significant increase in the probability or event, and therefore the proposed change consequences of an accident previously 6: TSTF-87-A, Revision 2, Revise RTBs does not increase the probability of any evaluated? accident previously evaluated. The CIVs are [Reactor Trip Breaker] Open and CRDM Response: No. used to respond to accidents previously [Control Rod Drive Mechanism] De-mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES The proposed change exempts containment evaluated. Power operated CIVs that do not energized Actions to Incapable of Rod isolation valves (CIVs) located inside and receive an automatic closure signal are not Withdrawal, TS 3.4.5, TS Pages 3.4.5-2, outside of containment that are locked, assumed to close in a specified time. The 3.4.9-1 sealed, or otherwise secured in position from proposed change does not change how the 1. Does the proposed amendment involve the periodic verification of valve position plant would mitigate an accident previously a significant increase in the probability or required by Surveillance Requirements evaluated. consequences of an accident previously 3.6.3.3 and 3.6.2.4. The exempted valves are Therefore, the proposed change does not evaluated?

verified to be in the correct position upon involve a significant increase in the Response: No.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Mar 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\03MRN1.SGM 03MRN1

11482 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Notices This change revises the Required Actions proposed change will not result in plant increased risk of a reactor trip. Delaying the for LCO 3.4.5, RCS LoopsMode 3, operation in a configuration outside the trip setpoint reduction until the power Conditions C.2 and D.1, from De-energize design basis. reduction has been completed and the all control rod drive mechanisms, to Place Therefore, the proposed change does not condition is verified will minimize overall the Rod Control System in a condition involve a significant reduction in a margin of plant risk.

incapable of rod withdrawal. It also revises safety. Therefore, the proposed change does not LCO 3.4.9, Pressurizer, Required Action Based on the above, SNC concludes that involve a significant reduction in a margin of A.1, from requiring Reactor Trip Breakers to the proposed amendment does not involve a safety.

be open after reaching MODE 3 to Place the significant hazards consideration under the Based on the above, SNC concludes that Rod Control System in a condition incapable standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and, the proposed amendment does not involve a of rod withdrawal, and to require full accordingly, a finding of no significant significant hazards consideration under the insertion of all rods. Inadvertent rod hazards consideration is justified. standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and, withdrawal can be an initiator for design 7: TSTF-95-A, Revision 0, Revise accordingly, a finding of no significant basis accidents or events during certain plant Completion Time for Reducing Power Range hazards consideration is justified.

conditions, and therefore must be prevented High trip Setpoint from 8 to 72 Hours, TS 8: TSTF-110-A, Revision 2, Delete SR under those conditions. The proposed 3.2.1, TS Pages 3.2.1-1 and 3.2.2-1 Frequencies Based on Inoperable Alarms, Required Actions for LCO 3.4.5 and LCO TS 3.1, TS pages 3.1.4-3, 3.1.6-3, 3.2.3-1, 3.4.9 satisfy the same intent as the current 1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or 3.2.4-4 Required Actions, which is to prevent inadvertent rod withdrawal when an consequences of an accident previously 1. Does the proposed amendment involve applicable Condition is not met, and is evaluated? a significant increase in the probability or consistent with the assumptions of the Response: No. consequences of an accident previously accident analysis. As a result, the proposed The proposed change extends the time evaluated?

allowed to reduce the Power Range Neutron Response: No.

change does not increase the probability of FluxHigh trip setpoint when Specification The proposed change removes surveillance any accident previously evaluated. The 3.2.1, Heat Flux Hot Channel Factor, or Frequencies associated with inoperable proposed change does not change how the Specification 3.2.2, Nuclear Enthalpy Rise alarms (rod position deviation monitor, rod plant would mitigate an accident previously Hot Channel Factor, are not within their insertion limit monitor, AFD [Axial Flux evaluated, as in both the current and limits. Both specifications require a power Difference] monitor and QPTR [Quadrant proposed requirements, rod withdrawal is reduction followed by a reduction in the Power Tilt Ratio] alarm) from the Technical prohibited.

Power Range Neutron FluxHigh trip Specifications and places the actions in plant Therefore, the proposed change does not setpoint. Because reactor power has been administrative procedures. The subject plant involve a significant increase in the reduced, the reactor core power distribution alarms are not an initiator of any accident probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. The subject plant limits are within the assumptions of the previously evaluated. alarms are not used to mitigate any accident accident analysis. Reducing the Power Range

2. Does the proposed amendment create previously evaluated, as the control room Neutron FluxHigh trip setpoints ensures the possibility of a new or different kind of that reactor power is not inadvertently indications of these parameters are sufficient accident from any accident previously increased. Reducing the Power Range to alert the operator of an abnormal condition evaluated? Neutron FluxHigh trip setpoints is not an without the alarms. The alarms are not Response: No. initiator to any accident previously credited in the accident analysis.

The proposed change provides less evaluated. The consequences of any accident Therefore, the proposed change does not specific, but equivalent, direction on the previously evaluated with the Power Range involve a significant increase in the manner in which inadvertent control rod Neutron FluxHigh trip setpoints not probability or consequences of any accident withdrawal is to be prevented when the reduced are no different under the proposed previously evaluated.

Conditions of LCO 3.4.5 and LCO 3.4.9 are Completion Time than under the existing 2. Does the proposed amendment create not met. Rod withdrawal will continue to be Completion Time. Therefore, the proposed the possibility of a new or different kind of prevented when the applicable Conditions of change does not involve a significant accident from any accident previously LCO 3.4.5 and LCO 3.4.9 are met. There are increase in the probability or consequences evaluated?

no design changes associated with the of any accident previously evaluated. Response: No.

proposed changes, and the change does not 2. Does the proposed amendment create The proposed change does not involve a involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., the possibility of a new or different kind of physical alteration to the plant (i.e., no new no new or different type of equipment will accident from any accident previously or different type of equipment will be be installed). The change does not alter evaluated? installed) or a change to the methods assumptions made in the safety analysis, and Response: No. governing normal plant operation. The is consistent with the safety analysis. The proposed change does not involve a changes do not alter the assumptions made Therefore, the proposed change does not physical alteration to the plant (i.e., no new in the safety analysis.

create the possibility of a new or different or different type of equipment will be Therefore, the proposed change does not kind of accident from any accident installed) or a change to the methods create the possibility of a new or different previously evaluated. governing normal plant operation. The kind of accident from any accident

3. Does the proposed amendment involve changes do not alter the assumptions made previously evaluated.

a significant reduction in a margin of safety? in the safety analysis. 3. Does the proposed amendment involve Response: No. Therefore, the proposed change does not a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

The proposed change provides the create the possibility of a new or different Response: No.

operational flexibility of allowing alternate, kind of accident from any accident The proposed change removes surveillance but equivalent, methods of preventing rod previously evaluated. Frequencies associated with inoperable withdrawal when the applicable Conditions 3. Does the proposed amendment involve alarms (rod position deviation monitor, rod of LCO 3.4.5 and LCO 3.4.9 are met. The a significant reduction in a margin of safety? insertion limit monitor, AFD monitor and proposed change does not affect the safety Response: No. QPTR alarm) from the Technical analysis acceptance criteria for any analyzed The proposed change provides additional Specifications and places the actions in plant mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES event, nor is there a change to any safety time before requiring the Power Range administrative procedures. The alarms are analysis limit. The proposed change does not Neutron FluxHigh trip setpoint be reduced not being removed from the plant. The alter the manner in which safety limits, when the reactor core power distribution actions to be taken when the alarms are not limiting safety system settings or limiting limits are not met. The manual reduction in available are proposed to be controlled under conditions for operation are determined, nor reactor power required by the specifications licensee administrative procedures. As a is there any adverse effect on those plant provides the necessary margin of safety for result, plant operation is unaffected by this systems necessary to assure the this condition. Reducing the Power Range change and there is no effect on a margin of accomplishment of protection functions. The Neutron FluxHigh trip setpoints carries an safety.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Mar 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00096 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\03MRN1.SGM 03MRN1

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Notices 11483 Therefore, the proposed change does not 10: TSTF-234-A, Revision 1, Add Action consequences of an accident previously involve a significant reduction in a margin of for More Than One [D]RPI Inoperable, TS evaluated?

safety. 3.1.7, TS Pages 3.1.7-1 and 3.1.7-2. Response: No.

Based on the above, SNC concludes that 1. Does the proposed amendment involve The proposed change revises the the proposed amendment does not involve a a significant increase in the probability or requirements in Technical Specification significant hazards consideration under the consequences of an accident previously 3.7.5, Auxiliary Feedwater (AFW) System, standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and, evaluated? to clarify the operability of an AFW train accordingly, a finding of no significant Response: No. when it is aligned for manual steam generator hazards consideration is justified. The proposed change provides a Condition level control. The AFW System is not an and Required Actions for more than one initiator of any design basis accident or 9: TSTF-142-A, Revision 0, Increase the event, and therefore the proposed change Completion Time When the Core Reactivity inoperable digital rod position indicator (DRPI) per rod group. The DRPIs are not an does not increase the probability of any Balance is Not Within Limit, TS 3.1.2, TS accident previously evaluated. The AFW Page 3.1.2-1 initiator of any accident previously evaluated. The DRPIs are one indication used System is used to respond to accidents

1. Does the proposed amendment involve by operators to verify control rod insertion previously evaluated. The proposed change a significant increase in the probability or following an accident, however other does not affect the design of the AFW consequences of an accident previously indications are available. Therefore, allowing System, and no physical changes are made to evaluated? a finite period to time to correct more than the plant. The proposed change does not Response: No. one inoperable DRPI prior to requiring a significantly change how the plant would The proposed change extends the plant shutdown will not result in a mitigate an accident previously evaluated.

Completion Time to take the Required significant increase in the consequences of Therefore, the proposed change does not Actions when measured core reactivity is not any accident previously evaluated. involve a significant increase in the within the specified limit of the predicted Therefore, the proposed change does not probability or consequences of an accident values. The Completion Time to respond to involve a significant increase in the previously evaluated.

a difference between predicted and measured probability or consequences of any accident 2. Does the proposed amendment create core reactivity is not an initiator to any previously evaluated. the possibility of a new or different kind of accident previously evaluated. The 2. Does the proposed amendment create accident from any accident previously consequences of an accident during the the possibility of a new or different kind of evaluated?

accident from any accident previously Response: No.

proposed Completion Time are no different evaluated? The proposed change does not result in a from the consequences of an accident during Response: No. change in the manner in which the AFW the existing Completion Time. Therefore, the The proposed change does not involve a System provides plant protection. The AFW proposed change does not involve a physical alteration to the plant (i.e., no new System will continue to supply water to the significant increase in the probability or or different type of equipment will be steam generators to remove decay heat and consequences of any accident previously other residual heat by delivering at least the evaluated. installed) or a change to the methods governing normal plant operation. The minimum required flow rate to the steam

2. Does the proposed amendment create generators. There are no design changes the possibility of a new or different kind of changes do not alter the assumptions made in the safety analysis. associated with the proposed changes, and accident from any accident previously the change does not involve a physical evaluated? Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or Response: No. different type of equipment will be installed).

The proposed change does not involve a kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. The change does not alter assumptions made physical alteration to the plant (i.e., no new in the safety analysis, and is consistent with or different type of equipment will be 3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? the safety analysis assumptions and current installed) or a change to the methods plant operating practice. Manual control of governing normal plant operation. The Response: No.

The proposed change provides time to AFW level control valves is not an accident changes do not alter the assumptions made initiator.

in the safety analysis. Therefore, the correct the condition of more than one DRPI inoperable in a rod group. Compensatory Therefore, the proposed change does not proposed change does not create the create the possibility of a new or different possibility of a new or different kind of measures are required to verify that the rods monitored by the inoperable DRPIs are not kind of accident from any accident accident from any accident previously previously evaluated.

evaluated. moved to ensure that there is no effect on core reactivity. Requiring a plant shutdown 3. Does the proposed amendment involve

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

a significant reduction in a margin of safety? with inoperable rod position indications introduces plant risk and should not be Responses: No.

Response: No. The proposed change provides the initiated unless the rod position indication The proposed change provides additional operational flexibility of allowing an AFW cannot be repaired in a reasonable period of time to investigate and to implement train(s) to be considered operable when it is time. As a result, the safety benefit provided appropriate operating restrictions when not in the normal standby alignment and is by the proposed Condition offsets the small measured core reactivity is not within the temporarily incapable of automatic initiation, decrease in safety resulting from continued specified limit of the predicted values. The such as during alignment and operation for operation with more than one inoperable additional time will not have a significant manual steam generator level control, DRPI.

effect on plant safety due to the provided it is capable of being manually Therefore, the proposed change does not conservatisms used in designing the reactor realigned to the AFW heat removal mode of involve a significant reduction in a margin of core and performing the safety analyses and operation. The proposed change does not safety.

the low probability of an accident or Based on the above, SNC concludes that result in a change in the manner in which the transient which would approach the core the proposed amendment does not involve a AFW System provides plant protection. The design limits during the additional time. significant hazards consideration under the AFW System will continue to supply water Therefore, the proposed change does not to the steam generators to remove decay heat mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and, involve a significant reduction in a margin of accordingly, a finding of no significant and other residual heat by delivering at least safety. hazards consideration is justified. the minimum required flow rate to the steam Based on the above, SNC concludes that generators. The proposed change does not the proposed amendment does not involve a 11: TSTF-245-A, Revision 1, AFW Train affect the safety analysis acceptance criteria significant hazards consideration under the Operable When in Service, TS 3.7.5, TS for any analyzed event, nor is there a change standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and, Page 3.7.5-3 to any safety analysis limit. The proposed accordingly, a finding of no significant 1. Does the proposed amendment involve change does not alter the manner in which hazards consideration is justified. a significant increase in the probability or safety limits, limiting safety system settings VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Mar 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\03MRN1.SGM 03MRN1

11484 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Notices or limiting conditions for operation are assumptions and current plant operating Therefore, the proposed change does not determined, nor is there any adverse effect on practice. Operation of the PORV block valves involve a significant increase in the those plant systems necessary to assure the is not an accident initiator. probability or consequences of any accident accomplishment of protection functions. The Therefore, the proposed change does not previously evaluated.

proposed change will not result in plant create the possibility of a new or different 2. Does the proposed amendment create operation in a configuration outside the kind of accident from any accident the possibility of a new or different kind of design basis. previously evaluated. accident from any accident previously Therefore, the proposed change does not 3. Does the proposed amendment involve evaluated?

involve a significant reduction in a margin of a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No.

safety. Response: No. The proposed change does not involve a Based on the above, SNC concludes that The proposed changes provide clarification physical alteration to the plant (i.e., no new the proposed amendment does not involve a that separate Condition entry is allowed for or different type of equipment will be significant hazards consideration under the each block valve. Additionally, the Actions installed) or a change to the methods standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and, are modified to no longer require that the governing normal plant operation. The accordingly, a finding of no significant PORVs be placed in manual operation when changes do not alter the assumptions made hazards consideration is justified. both block valves are inoperable and cannot in the safety analysis.

12: TSTF-247-A, Revision 0, Provide be restored to operable status within the Therefore, the proposed change does not Separate Condition Entry for Each [Power specified Completion Time. This preserves create the possibility of a new or different Operated Relief Valve] PORV and Block the overpressure protection capabilities of kind of accident from any accident Valve, TS 3.4.11, TS Pages 3.4.11-1, 3.4.11- the PORVs. The proposed change does not previously evaluated.

2, 3.4.11-3 result in a change in the manner in which the 3. Does the proposed amendment involve PORV and block valves provide plant a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

1. Does the proposed amendment involve Response: No.

a significant increase in the probability or protection. The PORVs will continue to The proposed change modifies the consequences of an accident previously provide overpressure protection, and the definition of Shutdown Margin to eliminate evaluated? block valves will continue to provide the requirement to assume the highest worth Response: No. isolation capability in the event a PORV is control rod is fully withdrawn when The proposed change revises the experiencing excessive leakage. The calculating Shutdown Margin if it can be requirements in Technical Specification proposed change does not affect the safety verified by two independent means that all 3.4.11, Pressurizer PORVs, to clarify that analysis acceptance criteria for any analyzed control rods are inserted. The additional separate Condition entry is allowed for each event, nor is there a change to any safety margin of safety provided by the assumption block valve. Additionally, the Actions are analysis limit. The proposed change does not that the highest worth control rod is fully modified to no longer require that the PORVs alter the manner in which safety limits, withdrawn is unnecessary if it can be be placed in manual operation when both limiting safety system settings or limiting independently verified that all controls rods block valves are inoperable and cannot be conditions for operation are determined, nor are inserted.

restored to operable status within the is there any adverse effect on those plant Therefore, the proposed change does not specified Completion Time. This preserves systems necessary to assure the involve a significant reduction in a margin of the overpressure protection capabilities of accomplishment of protection functions. The safety.

the PORVs. The pressurizer block valves are proposed change will not result in plant Based on the above, SNC concludes that used to isolate their respective PORV in the operation in a configuration outside the the proposed amendment does not involve a event it is experiencing excessive leakage, design basis. significant hazards consideration under the and are not an initiator of any design basis Therefore, the proposed change does not standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and, accident or event. Therefore the proposed involve a significant reduction in a margin of accordingly, a finding of no significant change does not increase the probability of safety. hazards consideration is justified.

any accident previously evaluated. The Based on the above, SNC concludes that PORV and block valves are used to respond the proposed amendment does not involve a 14: TSTF-266-A, Revision 3, Eliminate the to accidents previously evaluated. The significant hazards consideration under the Remote Shutdown System Table of proposed change does not affect the design standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and, Instrumentation and Controls, TS 3.3.4, TS of the PORV and block valves, and no accordingly, a finding of no significant Pages 3.3.4-1, 3.3.4-3 physical changes are made to the plant. The hazards consideration is justified. 1. Does the proposed amendment involve proposed change does not change how the 13: TSTF-248-A, Revision 0, Revise a significant increase in the probability or plant would mitigate an accident previously Shutdown Margin Definition for Stuck Rod consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Exception, TS 1.1, TS Page 1.1-6 evaluated?

Therefore, the proposed change does not Response: No.

involve a significant increase in the 1. Does the proposed amendment involve The proposed change removes the list of probability or consequences of an accident a significant increase in the probability or Remote Shutdown System instrumentation previously evaluated. consequences of an accident previously and controls from the Technical

2. Does the proposed amendment create evaluated? Specifications and places them in the Bases.

the possibility of a new or different kind of Response: No. The Technical Specifications continue to accident from any accident previously The proposed change modifies the require that the instrumentation and controls evaluated? definition of Shutdown Margin to eliminate be operable. The location of the list of Response: No. the requirement to assume the highest worth Remote Shutdown System instrumentation The proposed change does not result in a control rod is fully withdrawn when and controls is not an initiator to any change in the manner in which the PORV calculating Shutdown Margin if it can be accident previously evaluated. The proposed and block valves provide plant protection. verified by two independent means that all change will have no effect on the mitigation The PORVs will continue to provide control rods are inserted. The method for of any accident previously evaluated because overpressure protection, and the block valves calculating shutdown margin is not an the instrumentation and controls continue to will continue to provide isolation capability initiator of any accident previously be required to be operable.

in the event a PORV is experiencing evaluated. If it can be verified by two Therefore, the proposed change does not mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES excessive leakage. There are no design independent means that all control rods are involve a significant increase in the changes associated with the proposed inserted, the calculated Shutdown Margin probability or consequences of any accident changes, and the change does not involve a without the conservatism of assuming the previously evaluated.

physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new highest worth control rod is withdrawn is 2. Does the proposed amendment create or different type of equipment will be accurate and consistent with the assumptions the possibility of a new or different kind of installed). The change does not alter in the accident analysis. As a result, the accident from any accident previously assumptions made in the safety analysis, and mitigation of any accident previously evaluated?

is consistent with the safety analysis evaluated is not affected. Response: No.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Mar 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00098 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\03MRN1.SGM 03MRN1

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Notices 11485 The proposed change does not involve a changes do not alter the assumptions made its specific TS LCO and plant configuration physical alteration to the plant (i.e., no new in the safety analysis. will be governed by the required actions of or different type of equipment will be Therefore, the proposed change does not those LCOs. The proposed changes are installed) or a change to the methods create the possibility of a new or different clarifications that do not degrade the governing normal plant operation. The kind of accident from any accident availability or capability of safety related changes do not alter the assumptions made previously evaluated. equipment, and therefore do not create the in the safety analysis. 3. Does the proposed amendment involve possibility of a new or different kind of Therefore, the proposed change does not a significant reduction in a margin of safety? accident from any accident previously create the possibility of a new or different Response: No. evaluated. There are no design changes kind of accident from any accident The proposed change modifies the associated with the proposed changes, and previously evaluated. Applicability of Specification 3.9.1, Boron the changes do not involve a physical

3. Does the proposed amendment involve Concentration, to clarify that the boron alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or a significant reduction in a margin of safety? concentration limits are only applicable to different type of equipment will be installed).

Response: No. the refueling canal and the refueling cavity The changes do not alter assumptions made The proposed change removes the list of when those volumes are attached to the RCS. in the safety analysis, and are consistent with Remote Shutdown System instrumentation Technical Specification SR 3.0.4 requires that the safety analysis assumptions and current and controls from the Technical Surveillances be met prior to entering the plant operating practice. Due to the Specifications and places it in the Bases. The Applicability of a Specification. As a result, administrative nature of the changes, they review performed by the NRC when the list the boron concentration of the refueling cannot be an accident initiator.

of Remote Shutdown System instrumentation cavity or the refueling canal must be verified Therefore, the proposed change does not and controls is revised will no longer be to satisfy the LCO prior to connecting those create the possibility of a new or different needed unless the criteria in 10 CFR 50.59 volumes to the RCS. The margin of safety kind of accident from any accident are not met such that prior NRC review is provided by the refueling boron previously evaluated.

required. The Technical Specification concentration is not affected by this change 3. Does the proposed amendment involve requirement that the Remote Shutdown as the RCS boron concentration will continue a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

System be operable, the definition of to satisfy the LCO. Response: No.

operability, the requirements of 10 CFR Therefore, the proposed change does not The proposed changes to TS 5.5.15 are 50.59, and the Technical Specifications Bases involve a significant reduction in a margin of clarifications and are editorial and Control Program are sufficient to ensure that safety. administrative in nature. No changes are revision of the list without prior NRC review Based on the above, SNC concludes that made the LCOs for plant equipment, the time and approval does not introduce a significant the proposed amendment does not involve a required for the TS Required Actions to be safety risk. significant hazards consideration under the completed, or the out of service time for the Therefore, the proposed change does not standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and, components involved. The proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a margin of accordingly, a finding of no significant do not affect the safety analysis acceptance safety. hazards consideration is justified. criteria for any analyzed event, nor is there Based on the above, SNC concludes that 16: TSTF-273-A, Revision 2, Safety a change to any safety analysis limit. The the proposed amendment does not involve a Function Determination Program proposed changes do not alter the manner in significant hazards consideration under the Clarifications, TS 5.5.15, TS Page 5.5-15 which safety limits, limiting safety system standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and, settings or limiting conditions for operation accordingly, a finding of no significant 1. Does the proposed amendment involve are determined, nor is there any adverse hazards consideration is justified. a significant increase in the probability or effect on those plant systems necessary to consequences of an accident previously assure the accomplishment of protection 15: TSTF-272-A, Revision 1, Refueling evaluated?

Boron Concentration Clarification, TS 3.9.1, functions. The proposed changes will not Response: No. result in plant operation in a configuration TS Page 3.9.1-1 The proposed TS changes add explanatory outside the design basis.

1. Does the proposed amendment involve text to the programmatic description of the Therefore, the proposed changes do not a significant increase in the probability or Safety Function Determination Program involve a significant reduction in a margin of consequences of an accident previously (SFDP) in Specification 5.5.15 to clarify in safety.

evaluated? the requirements that consideration does not Based on the above, SNC concludes that Response: No. have to be made for a loss of power in the proposed amendment does not involve a The proposed change modifies the determining loss of function. The Bases for significant hazards consideration under the Applicability of Specification 3.9.1, Boron LCO 3.0.6 is revised to provide clarification standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and, Concentration, to clarify that the boron of the appropriate LCO for loss of function, accordingly, a finding of no significant concentration limits are only applicable to and that consideration does not have to be hazards consideration is justified.

the refueling canal and the refueling cavity made for a loss of power in determining loss when those volumes are attached to the of function. The changes are editorial and 17: TSTF-284-A, Revision 3, Add Met vs.

Reactor Coolant System (RCS). The boron administrative in nature, and therefore do not Perform to Technical Specification 1.4, concentration of water volumes not increase the probability of any accident Frequency, TS 1.4, TS 3.4, TS 3.9, TS Pages connected to the RCS are not an initiator of previously evaluated. No physical or 1.4-1, 1.4-4, 3.4.11-3, 3.4.12-4 and 3.9.4-2 an accident previously evaluated. The ability operational changes are made to the plant. 1. Does the proposed amendment involve to mitigate any accident previously evaluated The proposed change does not change how a significant increase in the probability or is not affected by the boron concentration of the plant would mitigate an accident consequences of an accident previously water volumes not connected to the RCS. previously evaluated. evaluated?

Therefore, the proposed change does not Therefore, the proposed change does not Response: No.

involve a significant increase in the involve a significant increase in the The proposed changes insert a discussion probability or consequences of any accident probability or consequences of an accident paragraph into Specification 1.4, and several previously evaluated. previously evaluated. new examples are added to facilitate the use

2. Does the proposed amendment create 2. Does the proposed amendment create and application of SR Notes that utilize the the possibility of a new or different kind of the possibility of a new or different kind of terms met and perform. The changes mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES accident from any accident previously accident from any accident previously also modify SRs in multiple Specifications to evaluated? evaluated? appropriately use met and perform Response: No. Response: No. exceptions. The changes are administrative The proposed change does not involve a The proposed changes are editorial and in nature because they provide clarification physical alteration to the plant (i.e., no new administrative in nature and do not result in and correction of existing expectations, and or different type of equipment will be a change in the manner in which the plant therefore the proposed change does not installed) or a change to the methods operates. The loss of function of any specific increase the probability of any accident governing normal plant operation. The component will continue to be addressed in previously evaluated. No physical or VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Mar 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00099 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\03MRN1.SGM 03MRN1

11486 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Notices operational changes are made to the plant. consequences of an accident previously or alter plant operating practices such that The proposed change does not significantly evaluated? the probability of an accident previously change how the plant would mitigate an Response: No. evaluated would be significantly increased.

accident previously evaluated. The proposed change revises Specification The proposed change does not significantly Therefore, the proposed change does not 5.5.4, Radioactive Effluent Controls change how the plant would mitigate an involve a significant increase in the Program, paragraph e, to describe the accident previously evaluated, and is probability or consequences of an accident original intent of the dose projections. The bounded by the fuel handling accident (FHA) previously evaluated. cumulative and projection of doses due to accident analysis.

2. Does the proposed amendment create liquid releases are not an assumption in any the possibility of a new or different kind of accident previously evaluated and have no Therefore, the proposed change does not accident from any accident previously effect on the mitigation of any accident involve a significant increase in the evaluated? previously evaluated. probability or consequences of an accident Response: No. Therefore, the proposed change does not previously evaluated.

The proposed changes are administrative involve a significant increase in the 2. Does the proposed amendment create in nature and do not result in a change in the probability or consequences of any accident the possibility of a new or different kind of manner in which the plant operates. The previously evaluated. accident from any accident previously proposed changes provide clarification and 2. Does the proposed amendment create evaluated?

correction of existing expectations that do the possibility of a new or different kind of Response: No.

not degrade the availability or capability of accident from any accident previously Allowing penetration flow paths to be open safety related equipment, and therefore do evaluated? is not an initiator for any accident. The not create the possibility of a new or different Response: No. proposed change to allow open penetration kind of accident from any accident The proposed change does not involve a flow paths will not affect plant safety previously evaluated. There are no design physical alteration to the plant (i.e., no new functions or plant operating practices such changes associated with the proposed or different type of equipment will be that a new or different accident could be changes, and the changes do not involve a installed) or a change to the methods physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new governing normal plant operation. The created. There are no design changes or different type of equipment will be changes do not alter the assumptions made associated with the proposed changes, and installed). The changes do not alter in the safety analysis. the change does not involve a physical assumptions made in the safety analysis, and Therefore, the proposed change does not alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or are consistent with the safety analysis create the possibility of a new or different different type of equipment will be installed).

assumptions and current plant operating kind of accident from any accident The change does not alter assumptions made practice. Due to the administrative nature of previously evaluated. in the safety analysis, and is consistent with the changes, they cannot be an accident 3. Does the proposed amendment involve the safety analysis assumptions and current initiator. a significant reduction in a margin of safety? plant operating practice.

Therefore, the proposed change does not Response: No. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different The proposed change revises Specification create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 5.5.4, Radioactive Effluent Controls kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. Program, paragraph e, to describe the previously evaluated.

3. Does the proposed amendment involve original intent of the dose projections. The

3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? cumulative and projection of doses due to a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

Response: No. liquid releases are administrative tools to The proposed changes are administrative assure compliance with regulatory limits. Response: No.

in nature and do not result in a change in the The proposed change revises the requirement TS 3.9.4 provides measures to ensure that manner in which the plant operates. The to clarify the intent, thereby improving the the dose consequences of a postulated FHA proposed changes provide clarification and administrative control over this process. As inside containment are minimized. The correction of existing expectations that do a result, any effect on the margin of safety proposed change to LCO 3.9.4 will allow not degrade the availability or capability of should be minimal. penetration flow path(s) to be open during safety related equipment, or alter their Therefore, the proposed change does not refueling operations under administrative operation. The proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of control. These administrative controls will affect the safety analysis acceptance criteria safety. can and will be achieved in the event of an for any analyzed event, nor is there a change Based on the above, SNC concludes that FHA inside containment, and will minimize to any safety analysis limit. The proposed the proposed amendment does not involve a dose consequences. The proposed change is changes do not alter the manner in which significant hazards consideration under the bounded by the existing FHA analysis. The safety limits, limiting safety system settings standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and, proposed change does not affect the safety or limiting conditions for operation are accordingly, a finding of no significant analysis acceptance criteria for any analyzed determined, nor is there any adverse effect on hazards consideration is justified.

event, nor is there a change to any safety those plant systems necessary to assure the 19: TSTF-312-A, Revision 1, accomplishment of protection functions. The analysis limit. The proposed change does not Administrative Control of Containment alter the manner in which safety limits, proposed changes will not result in plant Penetrations, TS 3.9.4, TS Page 3.9.4-1 operation in a configuration outside the limiting safety system settings or limiting design basis. 1. Does the proposed amendment involve conditions for operation are determined, nor Therefore, the proposed changes do not a significant increase in the probability or is there any adverse effect on those plant involve a significant reduction in a margin of consequences of an accident previously systems necessary to assure the safety. evaluated? accomplishment of protection functions. The Based on the above, SNC concludes that Response: No. proposed change will not result in plant the proposed amendment does not involve a The proposed change would allow operation in a configuration outside the significant hazards consideration under the containment penetrations to be unisolated design basis.

standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and, under administrative controls during core Therefore, the proposed change does not alterations or movement of irradiated fuel mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES accordingly, a finding of no significant involve a significant reduction in a margin of hazards consideration is justified. assemblies within containment. The status of containment penetration flow paths (i.e., safety.

18: TSTF-308-A, Revision 1, Determination open or closed) is not an initiator for any Based on the above, SNC concludes that of Cumulative and Projected Dose design basis accident or event, and therefore the proposed amendment does not involve a Contributions in RECP [Radioactive Effluent the proposed change does not increase the significant hazards consideration under the Controls Program], TS 5.5.4, TS Page 5.5-3 probability of any accident previously standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and,

1. Does the proposed amendment involve evaluated. The proposed change does not accordingly, a finding of no significant a significant increase in the probability or affect the design of the primary containment, hazards consideration is justified.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Mar 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00100 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\03MRN1.SGM 03MRN1

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Notices 11487 20: TSTF-314-A, Revision 0, Require Static Response: No. The frequency of visual examinations of and Transient FQ Measurement, TS 3.1.4, The proposed change revises Specification the containment and the mode of operation 3.2.4, TS Pages 3.1.4-2, 3.2.4-1, 3.2.4-3 3.7.5, Auxiliary Feedwater (AFW) System, during which those examinations are

1. Does the proposed amendment involve to allow a 7 day Completion Time to restore performed does not affect the initiation of a significant increase in the probability or an inoperable AFW turbine-driven pump in any accident previously evaluated. The use consequences of an accident previously Mode 3 immediately following a refueling of NRC approved methods and frequencies outage, if Mode 2 has not been entered. An for performing the inspections will ensure evaluated?

inoperable AFW turbine-driven pump is not the containment continues to perform the Response: No.

an initiator of any accident previously mitigating function assumed for accidents The proposed change revises the Required evaluated. The ability of the plant to mitigate previously evaluated.

Actions of Specification 3.1.4, Rod Group an accident is no different while in the Therefore, the proposed changes do not Alignment Limits, and Specification 3.2.4, extended Completion Time than during the involve a significant increase in the Quadrant Power Tilt Ratio, to require existing Completion Time. probability or consequences of an accident measurement of both the steady state and Therefore, the proposed change does not previously evaluated.

transient portions of the Heat Flux Hot involve a significant increase in the 2. Does the proposed amendment create Channel Factor, FQ(Z). This change will probability or consequences of any accident the possibility of a new or different kind of ensure that the hot channel factors are within previously evaluated. accident from any accident previously their limits when the rod alignment limits or

2. Does the proposed amendment create evaluated?

quadrant power tilt ratio are not within their the possibility of a new or different kind of Response: No.

limits. The verification of hot channel factors accident from any accident previously The proposed change revises the TS is not an initiator of any accident previously evaluated? Administrative Controls programs for evaluated. The verification that both the Response: No. consistency with the requirements of 10 CFR steady state and transient portion of FQ(Z)

The proposed change does not involve a 50, paragraph 55a(g)(4) for components are within their limits will ensure this initial physical alteration to the plant (i.e., no new classified as Code Class CC. The proposed assumption of the accident analysis is met or different type of equipment will be change affects the frequency of visual should a previously evaluated accident installed) or a change to the methods examinations that will be performed for the occur.

governing normal plant operation. The steel containment liner plate for the purpose Therefore, the proposed change does not changes do not alter the assumptions made of the Containment Leakage Rate Testing involve a significant increase in the in the safety analysis. Program.

probability or consequences of any accident Therefore, the proposed change does not The proposed changes do not involve a previously evaluated. modification to the physical configuration of create the possibility of a new or different

2. Does the proposed amendment create the plant (i.e., no new equipment will be kind of accident from any accident the possibility of a new or different kind of installed) or change in the methods previously evaluated.

accident from any accident previously governing normal plant operation. The

3. Does the proposed amendment involve evaluated? a significant reduction in of safety? proposed changes will not impose any new Response: No. Response: No. or different requirements or introduce a new The proposed change does not involve a The proposed change revises Specification accident initiator, accident precursor, or physical alteration to the plant (i.e., no new 3.7.5, Auxiliary Feedwater (AFW) System, malfunction mechanism. Additionally, there or different type of equipment will be to allow a 7-day Completion Time to restore is no change in the types or increases in the installed) or a change to the methods an inoperable turbine-driven AFW pump in amounts of any effluent that may be released governing normal plant operation. The Mode 3 immediately following a refueling off-site and there is no increase in individual changes do not alter the assumptions made outage if Mode 2 has not been entered. In or cumulative occupational exposure.

in the safety analysis. Mode 3 immediately following a refueling Therefore, the proposed changes do not Therefore, the proposed change does not outage, core decay heat is low and the need create the possibility of a new or different create the possibility of a new or different for AFW is also diminished. The two kind of accident from any accident kind of accident from any accident operable motor driven AFW pumps are previously evaluated.

previously evaluated. available and there are alternate means of 3. Does the proposed amendment involve

3. Does the proposed amendment involve decay heat removal if needed. As a result, the a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

a significant reduction in a margin of safety? risk presented by the extended Completion Response: No.

Response: No. Time is minimal. The proposed changes revise the Technical The proposed change revises the Required Therefore, the proposed change does not Specifications (TS) Administrative Controls Actions in the Specifications for Rod Group involve a significant reduction in a margin of programs for consistency with the Alignment Limits and Quadrant Power Tilt safety. requirements of 10 CFR 50, paragraph Ratio to require measurement of both the Based on the above, SNC concludes that 55a(g)(4) for components classified as Code steady state and transient portions of the the proposed amendment does not involve a Class CC. The proposed change affects the Heat Flux Hot Channel Factor, FQ(Z). This significant hazards consideration under the frequency of visual examinations that will be change is a correction that ensures that the standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and, performed for the steel containment liner plant conditions are as assumed in the accordingly, a finding of no significant plate for the purpose of the Containment accident analysis. hazards consideration is justified. Leakage Rate Testing Program. The safety Therefore, the proposed change does not function of the containment as a fission 22: TSTF-343-A, Revision 1, Containment involve a significant reduction in a margin of product barrier will be maintained.

Structural Integrity, TS 5.5, TS Page 5.5-16 safety. Therefore, the proposed change does not Based on the above, SNC concludes that 1. Does the proposed amendment involve involve a significant reduction in a margin of the proposed amendment does not involve a a significant increase in the probability or safety.

significant hazards consideration under the consequences of an accident previously Based on the above, SNC concludes that standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and, evaluated? the proposed amendment does not involve a accordingly, a finding of no significant Response: No. significant hazards consideration under the hazards consideration is justified. The proposed change revises the Technical standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and, Specifications (TS) Administrative Controls mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 21: TSTF-340-A, Revision 3, Allow 7 Day accordingly, a finding of no significant programs for consistency with the hazards consideration is justified.

Completion Time for a TurbineDriven requirements of 10 CFR 50, paragraph AFW Pump Inoperable, TS 3.7.5, TS Page 55a(g)(4) for components classified as Code 23: TSTF-349-A, Revision 1, Add Note to 3.7.5-1 Class CC. The proposed changes affect the LCO 3.9.5 Allowing Shutdown Cooling

1. Does the proposed amendment involve frequency of visual examinations that will be Loops Removal From Operation, TS 3.9.6, a significant increase in the probability or performed for the steel containment liner TS Page 3.9.6-1 consequences of an accident previously plate for the purpose of the Containment 1. Does the proposed amendment involve evaluated? Leakage Rate Testing Program. a significant increase in the probability or VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Mar 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00101 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\03MRN1.SGM 03MRN1

11488 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Notices consequences of an accident previously standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are alternative manner of performing rod evaluated? satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff position verification. The proposed change Response: No. proposes to determine that the does not affect the reactor protection system.

The proposed change adds an LCO Note to amendment request involves no Hence, no new failure modes are created that LCO 3.9.6, RHR and Coolant Circulation would cause a new or different kind of Low Water Level, to allow securing the significant hazards consideration. accidents from any accident previously operating train of Residual Heat Removal Attorney for licensee: Leigh D. Perry, evaluated.

(RHR) for up to 15 minutes to support SVP & General Counsel of Operations Therefore, operation of the facility in switching operating trains. The allowance is and Nuclear, Southern Nuclear accordance with the proposed amendments restricted to conditions in which core outlet Operating Company, 40 Iverness Center would not create the possibility of a new or temperature is maintained at least 10 degrees Parkway, Birmingham, AL 35201. different kind of accident from any F below the saturation temperature, when NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. previously evaluated.

there are no draining operations, and when Pascarelli. 3. Does the proposed change involve a operations that could reduce the reactor significant reduction in a margin of safety?

coolant system (RCS) boron concentration are Virginia Electric and Power Company, Response: No.

prohibited. Securing an RHR train to Docket Nos. 50-338 and 50-339, North The basis of TS 3.1.7 states that the facilitate the changing of the operating train Anna Power, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Louisa operability of the rod position indicators is is not an initiator to any accident previously County, Virginia required to determine control rod positions evaluated. The restrictions on the use of the and thereby ensure compliance with the allowance ensure that an RHR train will not Date of amendment request: February control rod alignment and insertion limits.

be needed during the 15 minute period to 4, 2015. A publicly-available version is The proposed change does not alter the mitigate any accident previously evaluated. in ADAMS under Accession No. requirement to determine rod position but Therefore, the proposed change does not ML15041A667. provides an alternative method for involve a significant increase in the Description of amendment request: determining the position of the affected rod.

probability or consequences of any accident The proposed license amendment As a result, the initial conditions of the previously evaluated. requests the changes to the Technical accident analysis are preserved and the

2. Does the proposed amendment create consequences of previously analyzed Specification (TS) TS 3.1.7, Rod the possibility of a new or different kind of accidents are unaffected.

accident from any accident previously Position Indication, to provide an Therefore, operation of the facility in evaluated? additional monitoring option for an accordance with the proposed amendment Response: No. inoperable control rod position would not involve a significant reduction in The proposed change does not involve a indicator. Specifically, the proposed a margin of safety.

physical alteration to the plant (i.e., no new changes would allow monitoring of Based on the above, Dominion concludes or different type of equipment will be control rod drive mechanism stationary that the proposed amendment presents no installed) or a change to the methods gripper coil voltage every eight hours as significant hazards consideration under the governing normal plant operation. The an alternative to using the movable in standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and, changes do not alter the assumptions made accordingly, a finding of no significant core detectors every eight hours to in the safety analysis. hazards consideration is justified.

Therefore, the proposed change does not verify control rod position.

Basis for proposed no significant The NRC staff has reviewed the create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident hazards consideration determination: licensees analysis and, based on this previously evaluated. As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the review, it appears that the three

3. Does the proposed amendment involve licensee has provided its analysis of the standards of 50.92(c) are satisfied.

a significant reduction in a margin of safety? issue of no significant hazards Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to Response: No. consideration, which is presented determine that the amendment request The proposed change adds an LCO Note to below: involves no significant hazards LCO 3.9.6, RHR and Coolant Circulation consideration.

Low Water Level, to allow securing the 1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or Attorney for licensee: Lillian M.

operating train of RHR to support switching Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion operating trains. The allowance is restricted consequences of an accident previously to conditions in which core outlet evaluated? Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar temperature is maintained at least 10 degrees Response: No. Street, RS-2, Richmond, VA 23219.

F below the saturation temperature, when The proposed change provides an NRC Branch Chief: Robert Pascarelli.

there are no draining operations, and when alternative method for verifying rod position of one rod. The proposed change meets the III. Notice of Issuance of Amendments operations that could reduce the reactor intent of the current specification in that it to Facility Operating Licenses and coolant system (RCS) boron concentration are prohibited. With these restrictions, combined ensures verification of position of the rod Combined Licenses with the short time frame allowed to swap once every 8 hours0.333 days <br />0.0476 weeks <br />0.011 months <br />. The proposed change During the period since publication of operating RHR trains and the ability to start provides only an alternative method of the last biweekly notice, the an operating RHR train if needed, the monitoring rod position and does not change the assumptions or results of any previously Commission has issued the following occurrence of an event that would require amendments. The Commission has immediate operation of an RHR train is evaluated accident.

extremely remote. Therefore, operation of the facility in determined for each of these Therefore, the proposed change does not accordance with the proposed amendment amendments that the application involve a significant reduction in a margin of would not involve a significant increase in complies with the standards and safety. the probability or consequences of an requirements of the Atomic Energy Act Based on the above, SNC concludes that accident previously evaluated. of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the

2. Does the proposed change create the mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES the proposed amendment does not involve a Commissions rules and regulations.

significant hazards consideration under the possibility of a new or different kind of The Commission has made appropriate standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and, accident from any accident previously evaluated?

findings as required by the Act and the accordingly, a finding of no significant Commissions rules and regulations in hazards consideration is justified. Response: No.

The proposed change provides only an 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in The NRC staff has reviewed the alternative method of determining the the license amendment.

licensees analysis and, based on this position of one rod. No new accident A notice of consideration of issuance review, it appears that the three initiators are introduced by the proposed of amendment to facility operating VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Mar 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00102 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\03MRN1.SGM 03MRN1

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Notices 11489 license or combined license, as September 23, October 15, October 17, Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-applicable, proposed no significant October 31, and November 7, 2013, and 368, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit No. 2, hazards consideration determination, January 7, March 13, April 29, and Pope County, Arkansas and opportunity for a hearing in October 6, 2014, and January 15, 2015, Date of application for amendment:

connection with these actions, was provided additional information that December 17, 2012, as supplemented by published in the Federal Register as clarified the application, did not expand letters dated November 7, and December indicated. the scope of the application as originally 4, 2013; January 6, May 22, June 30, Unless otherwise indicated, the noticed, and did not change the staffs August 7, September 24, and December Commission has determined that these original proposed no significant hazards 9, 2014.

amendments satisfy the criteria for consideration determination as Brief description of amendment: The categorical exclusion in accordance published in the Federal Register. amendment authorized the transition of with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant The Commissions related evaluation the Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit No. 2, to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental of the amendment is contained in a fire protection program to a risk-impact statement or environmental Safety Evaluation dated February 13, informed, performance-based program assessment need be prepared for these 2015. based on National Fire Protection amendments. If the Commission has No significant hazards consideration Association (NFPA) 805, in accordance prepared an environmental assessment comments received: No.

with 10 CFR 50.48(c). NFPA 805 allows under the special circumstances Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket the use of performance-based methods provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has Nos. 50-413 and 50-414, Catawba such as fire modeling and risk-informed made a determination based on that Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York methods such as fire probabilistic risk assessment, it is so indicated.

County, South Carolina assessment to demonstrate compliance For further details with respect to the Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket with the nuclear safety performance action see (1) the applications for Nos. 50-369 and 50-370 McGuire criteria.

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

Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Date of issuance: February 18, 2015.

the Commissions related letter, Safety Mecklenburg County, North Carolina Effective date: As of its date of Evaluation and/or Environmental issuance and shall be implemented by 6 Assessment as indicated. All of these Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket months from the date of issuance.

items can be accessed as described in Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287, Amendment No.: 300. A publicly-the Obtaining Information and Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and available version is in ADAMS under Submitting Comments section of this 3, Oconee County, South Carolina Accession No. ML14356A227; document.

Date of application for amendments: documents related to this amendment Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc. July 21, 2014. are listed in the Safety Evaluation Docket No. 50-305, Kewaunee Power Brief description of amendments: The enclosed with the amendment.

Station, Kewaunee County, Wisconsin amendment revises the licensed Renewed Facility Operating License Date of application for amendment: operator training requirements to be No. NPR-6: Amendment revised the May 29, 2013, as supplemented by consistent with the National Academy License and Technical Specifications.

letters dated September 23, October 15, for Nuclear Training (NANT) program. Date of initial notice in Federal October 17, October 31, and November Additionally, the amendment makes Register: July 23, 2013 (78 FR 44171).

7, 2013, and January 7, March 13, April administrative changes to Technical The supplemental letters dated 29, and October 6, 2014, and January 15, Specification Sections 5.1, November 7 and December 4, 2013; and 2015. Responsibility; 5.2, Organization; January 6, May 22, June 30, August 7, Brief description of amendment: The 5.3, Unit Staff Qualifications; 5.5, September 24, and December 9, 2014, amendment revised the Renewed Programs and Manuals; and for provided additional information that Facility Operating License and Catawba and McGuire, Section 5.7, clarified the application, did not expand associated Technical Specifications to High Radiation Area. the scope of the application as originally conform to the permanent shutdown Date of issuance: February 12, 2015. noticed, and did not change the staffs and defueled status of the facility. It also Effective date: This license original proposed no significant hazards denied a proposal to delete paragraphs amendment is effective as of its date of consideration determination as 1.B, 1.I, and 1.J of the Kewaunee issuance and shall be implemented published in the Federal Register.

Operating License. within 120 days of issuance. The Commissions related evaluation Date of issuance: February 13, 2015. Amendment Nos.: 273, 269, 276, 256, of the amendment is contained in a Effective date: As of the date of 389, 391, and 390. A publicly-available Safety Evaluation dated February 18, issuance and shall be implemented version is available in ADAMS under 2015.

within 90 days from the date of Accession No. ML15002A324. No significant hazards consideration issuance. Renewed Facility Operating License comments received: No.

Amendment No.: 215. A publicly- Nos. NPF-35, NPF-52, NPF-9, NPF-17, Entergy Nuclear FitzPatrick, LLC and available version is in ADAMS under DPR-38, DPR-47, and DPR-55:

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.,

Accession No. ML14237A045; Amendments revised the licenses and Docket No. 50-333, James A. FitzPatrick documents related to this amendment Technical Specifications.

Nuclear Power Plant, Oswego County, are listed in the Safety Evaluation Date of initial notice in Federal New York mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES enclosed with the amendment. Register: November 12, 2014 (79 FR Renewed Facility Operating License 67199). Date of amendment request: October No. DPR-43: The amendment revised The Commissions related evaluation 8, 2013, as supplemented by a letter the renewed facility operating license of the amendments is contained in a dated November 18, 2014.

and Technical Specifications. Safety Evaluation dated February 12, Brief description of amendment: The Date of initial notice in Federal 2015. amendment modifies the Technical Register: August 20, 2013 (78 FR No significant hazards consideration Specifications (TSs) to reduce the 51224). The supplemental letters dated comments received: No. reactor steam dome pressure associated VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Mar 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00103 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\03MRN1.SGM 03MRN1

11490 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Notices with the Reactor Core Safety Limit from Amendment No.: 262. A publicly- NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC, Docket 785 psig to 685 psig in TS 2.1.1.1 and available version is in ADAMS under No. 50-443, Seabrook Station, Unit No.

TS 2.1.1.2. This change addresses the Accession No. ML14304A588; 1, Rockingham County, New Hampshire potential to not meet the pressure/ documents related to this amendment Date of amendment request: June 24, thermal power/minimal critical power are listed in the Safety Evaluation 2014, as supplemented by letter dated ratio TS safety limit during a pressure enclosed with the amendment. December 11, 2014.

regulator failure-maximum demand Facility Operating License No. DPR- Brief description of amendment: The (open) (PRFO) transient. The PRFO 28: The amendment revised the amendment revised the Seabrook transient was reported by General Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications (TSs).

Electric as a notification pursuant to Technical Specifications. Specifically, the amendment modifies Title 10 of the Code of Federal Date of initial notice in Federal Seabrook TSs to address U.S. Nuclear Regulations, Part 21, Reporting of Register: September 16, 2014 (79 FR Regulatory Commission Generic Letter Defects and Noncompliance. 55511). (GL) 2008-01, Managing Gas Date of issuance: February 9, 2015. The supplemental letters dated June Accumulation in Emergency Core Effective date: As of the date of 9, 2014, August 6, 2014, and October 9, Cooling, Decay Heat Removal, and issuance and shall be implemented 2014, provided additional information Containment Spray Systems, as within 30 days of issuance. that clarified the application, did not described in TSTF-523, Revision 2, Amendment No.: 309. A publicly- expand the scope of the application as Generic Letter 2008-01, Managing Gas available version is in ADAMS under originally noticed, and did not change Accumulation.

Accession No. ML15014A277; the NRC staffs original proposed no Date of issuance: February 6, 2015.

documents related to this amendment significant hazards consideration Effective date: As of its date of are listed in the Safety Evaluation determination as published in the issuance and shall be implemented enclosed with the amendment. Federal Register. within 60 days.

Renewed Facility Operating License The Commissions related evaluation Amendment No.: 144. A publicly-No. DPR-59: Amendment revised the of this amendment is contained in a available version is in ADAMS under Renewed Facility Operating License and Safety Evaluation dated February 12, Accession No. ML14345A288; Technical Specifications. 2015. documents related to this amendment Date of initial notice in Federal No significant hazards consideration are listed in the Safety Evaluation Register: July 8, 2014 (79 FR 38589). comments received: No. enclosed with the amendment.

The supplemental letter dated Facility Operating License No. NPF-NextEra Energy Duane Arnold, LLC, November 18, 2014, provided additional 86: The amendment revised the License Docket No. 50-331, Duane Arnold information that clarified the and TS.

Energy Center, Linn County, Iowa application, did not expand the scope of Date of initial notice in Federal the application as originally noticed, Date of amendment request: June 23, Register: September 2, 2014 (79 FR and did not change the staffs original 2014. 52066). The supplemental letter dated proposed no significant hazards Brief description of amendment: The December 11, 2014, provided additional consideration determination as amendment revised the Technical information that clarified the published in the Federal Register. Specification (TS) requirements to application, did not expand the scope of The Commissions related evaluation address NRC Generic Letter (GL) 2008- the application as originally noticed, of the amendment is contained in a 01, Managing Gas Accumulation in and did not change the staffs original Safety Evaluation dated February 9, Emergency Core Cooling, Decay Heat proposed no significant hazards 2015. Removal, and Containment Spray consideration determination as No significant hazards consideration Systems, as described in TSTF-523, published in the Federal Register.

comments received: No. Revision 2, Generic Letter 2008-01, The Commissions related evaluation Managing Gas Accumulation. of the amendment is contained in a Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC Date of issuance: February 10, 2015.

and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Safety Evaluation dated February 6, Effective date: As of the date of 2015.

Docket No. 50-271, Vermont Yankee issuance and shall be implemented Nuclear Power Station, Vernon, No significant hazards consideration within 90 days. comments received: No.

Vermont Amendment No.: 290. A publicly-Date of amendment request: available version is in ADAMS under South Carolina Electric and Gas November 14, 2013, as supplemented by Accession No. ML15014A200; Company, South Carolina Public letters dated June 9, 2014, August 6, documents related to this amendment Service Authority, Docket No. 50-395, 2014, and October 9, 2014. are listed in the Safety Evaluation Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit Description of amendment request: enclosed with the amendment. 1, Fairfield County, South Carolina The amendment eliminates operability Renewed Facility Operating License Date of amendment request:

requirements for secondary containment No. DPR-49: The amendment revised November 15, 2011, as supplemented by when handling sufficiently decayed the Renewed Facility Operating License letters dated November 22, 2011; irradiated fuel or a fuel cask following and Technical Specifications. January 26 and October 10, 2012; a minimum of 13 days after the Date of initial notice in Federal February 1, April 1, October 14, and Register: September 30, 2014 (79 FR mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES permanent cessation of reactor November 26, 2013; January 9, February operation. 58820). 25, May 2, May 11, August 14, October Date of Issuance: February 12, 2015. The Commissions related evaluation 9, and December 11, 2014.

Effective date: The license of the amendment is contained in a Brief description of amendment: The amendment becomes effective 13 days Safety Evaluation dated February 10, amendment authorizes the transition of after the licensees submittal of the 2015. the V.C. Summer fire protection certifications, as required by 10 CFR No significant hazards consideration program to a risk-informed, 50.82(a)(1)(i) and (ii). comments received: No performance-based program based on VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Mar 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00104 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\03MRN1.SGM 03MRN1

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Notices 11491 National Fire Protection Association Accession No. ML15020A434; 64546). The supplements dated May 12 (NFPA) 805, Performance-Based documents related to this amendment (two letters), May 19, and December 17, Standard for Fire Protection for Light are listed in the Safety Evaluation 2014, provided additional information Water Reactor Electric Generating enclosed with the amendment. that clarified the application, did not Plants, 2001 Edition (NFPA 805), in Renewed Facility Operating License expand the scope of the application as accordance with 10 CFR 50.48(c). Nos. DPR-57 and NPF-5: Amendment originally noticed, and did not change Date of issuance: February 11, 2015. revised the licenses and the Technical the staffs original proposed no Effective date: This amendment is Specifications. significant hazards consideration effective as of its date of issuance and Date of initial notice in Federal determination as published in the shall be implemented per the December Register: January 6, 2015, (80 FR 536). Federal Register.

11, 2014, supplement, Attachment S, The Commissions related evaluation The Commissions related evaluation Table S-2 Implementation Items, of the amendments is contained in a of the amendments is contained in a requiring full implementation by March Safety Evaluation dated February 18, Safety Evaluation dated February 13, 31, 2016. 2015. 2015.

Amendment No.: 199. A publicly- No significant hazards consideration No significant hazards consideration available version is in ADAMS under comments received: No. comments received: No.

Accession No. ML14287A289; STP Nuclear Operating Company, Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No.

documents related to this amendment Docket Nos. 50-498 and 50-499, South 50-259, Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, are listed in the Safety Evaluation Texas Project (STP), Units 1 and 2, Unit 1, Limestone County, Alabama enclosed with the amendment.

Renewed Facility Operating License Matagorda County, Texas Date of amendment request:

No. NPF-12: Amendment revised the Date of amendment request: July 23, December 18, 2013, as supplemented by Facility Operating License. 2013, as supplemented by letters dated letter dated June 13, 2014.

Date of initial notice in Federal May 12 (two letters), May 19, and Brief description of amendment: The Register: August 14, 2012 (77 FR December 17, 2014. amendment revised the Technical 48561). The supplemental letters dated Brief description of amendments: The Specification (TS) 3.4.9, RCS [Reactor November 22, 2011; October 10, 2012; amendments revised the STP, Units 1 Coolant System] Pressure and February 1, April 1, October 14, and and 2, Fire Protection Program (FPP) Temperature (P/T) Limits, Figures November 26, 2013; January 9, February related to the alternate shutdown 3.4.9-1 through 3.4.9-2. The P/T limits 25, May 2, May 11, August 14, October capability. Specifically, it approves the are based on proprietary topical report 9, and December 11, 2014, provided following operator actions in the control NEDC-33178P-A, Revision 1, GE additional information that clarified the room prior to evacuation due to a fire [General Electric] Hitachi Nuclear application, did not expand the scope of for meeting the alternate shutdown Energy Methodology for Development of the application as originally noticed, capability, in addition to manually Reactor Pressure Vessel Pressure-and did not change the staffs original tripping the reactor that is currently Temperature Curves. NEDO-33178-A, proposed no significant hazards credited in the STP, Units 1 and 2, FPP Revision 1 is the non-proprietary consideration determination as licensing basis: version of the NRC-approved topical published in the Federal Register.

• Initiate main steam line isolation report.

The Commissions related evaluation

• Closing the pressurizer power- Date of issuance: February 2, 2015.

of the amendment is contained in a operated relief valves block valves Effective date: As of the date of Safety Evaluation dated February 11,

• Securing all reactor coolant pumps issuance and shall be implemented 2015.

• Closing feedwater isolation valves within 60 days of issuance.

No significant hazards consideration

• Securing the startup feedwater Amendment No.: 287. A publicly comments received: No. pump available version is in ADAMS under

• Isolating reactor coolant system Accession No. ML14325A501; Southern Nuclear Operating Company, letdown documents related to this amendment Inc., Georgia Power Company,

• Securing the centrifugal charging are listed in the Safety Evaluation (SE)

Oglethorpe Power Corporation, pumps enclosed with the amendment.

Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, In addition, the licensee credits the Renewed Facility Operating License City of Dalton, Georgia, Docket No. 50- automatic trip of the main turbine upon No. DPR-33: Amendment revised the 366, Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant the initiation of a manual reactor trip for TSs and the Operating License.

(HNP), Unit No. 2, Appling County, meeting the alternate shutdown Date of initial notice in Federal Georgia capability. Register: May 6, 2014 (79 FR 25902).

Date of amendment request: August 8, Date of issuance: February 13, 2015. The supplemental letter dated June 13, 2014, as supplemented by letters dated Effective date: As of the date of 2014, provided additional information September 8 and October 24, 2014. issuance and shall be implemented that clarified the application, did not Brief description of amendments: The within 45 days of issuance. expand the scope of the application as amendment revises the Technical Amendment Nos.: Unit 1203; Unit originally noticed, and did not change Specification value of the Safety Limit 2191. A publicly-available version is the staffs original proposed no Minimum Critical Power Ratio to in ADAMS under Accession No. significant hazards consideration support operation in the next fuel cycle. ML14339A170; documents related to determination as published in the mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Date of issuance: February 18, 2015. these amendments are listed in the Federal Register.

Effective date: As of the date of Safety Evaluation enclosed with the The Commissions related evaluation issuance and shall be implemented amendments. of the amendment is contained in the SE prior to reactor startup following the Facility Operating License Nos. NPF- dated February 2, 2015.

HNP, Unit 2, spring 2015 refueling 76 and NPF-80: The amendments No significant hazards consideration outage. revised the Facility Operating Licenses. comments received: No.

Amendment No(s).: 218. A publicly- Date of initial notice in Federal Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 23rd day available version is in ADAMS under Register: October 29, 2013 (78 FR of February 2015.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Mar 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00105 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\03MRN1.SGM 03MRN1

11492 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Notices For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-3463; submissions at http://

Michele G. Evans, email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. www.regulations.gov as well as entering Director, Division of Operating Reactor

• Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, the comment submissions into ADAMS.

Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Office of Administration, Mail Stop: The NRC does not routinely edit Regulation. O12-H08, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory comment submissions to remove

[FR Doc. 2015-04298 Filed 3-2-15; 8:45 am] Commission, Washington, DC 20555- identifying or contact information.

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P 0001. If you are requesting or aggregating For additional direction on obtaining comments from other persons for information and submitting comments, submission to the NRC, then you should NUCLEAR REGULATORY see Obtaining Information and inform those persons not to include COMMISSION Submitting Comments in the identifying or contact information that SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of they do not want to be publicly

[NRC-2015-0030] disclosed in their comment submission.

this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Your request should state that the NRC Applications and Amendments to Shirley Rohrer, Office of Nuclear does not routinely edit comment Facility Operating Licenses and Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear submissions to remove such information Combined Licenses Involving Regulatory Commission, Washington, before making the comment Proposed No Significant Hazards DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415- submissions available to the public or Considerations and Containing 5411; email: Shirley.Rohrer@nrc.gov. entering the comment submissions into Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

ADAMS.

Information and Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive II. Background I. Obtaining Information and Unclassified Non-Safeguards Submitting Comments Pursuant to Section 189a.(2) of the Information Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended A. Obtaining Information (the Act), the NRC is publishing this AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015- notice. The Act requires the 0030 when contacting the NRC about Commission to publish notice of any ACTION: License amendment request; the availability of information for this amendments issued, or proposed to be opportunity to comment, request a action. You may obtain publicly- issued and grants the Commission the hearing, and petition for leave to available information related to this authority to issue and make intervene; order.

action by any of the following methods: immediately effective any amendment

SUMMARY

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to to an operating license or combined Commission (NRC) received and is http://www.regulations.gov and search license, as applicable, upon a considering approval of four for Docket ID NRC-2015-0030. determination by the Commission that amendment requests. The amendment

• NRCs Agencywide Documents such amendment involves no significant requests are for Braidwood Station, Access and Management System hazards consideration, notwithstanding Units 1 and 2, and Byron Station, Units (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly- the pendency before the Commission of 1 and 2; Peach Bottom Atomic Power available documents online in the a request for a hearing from any person.

Station, Unit 2; Diablo Canyon Nuclear ADAMS Public Documents collection at This notice includes notices of Power Plant, Units 1 and 2; and Vogtle http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ amendments containing SUNSI.

Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, adams.html. To begin the search, select III. Notice of Consideration of Issuance Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 ADAMS Public Documents and then of Amendments to Facility Operating and 2, and Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear select Begin Web-based ADAMS Licenses and Combined Licenses, Plant, Units 1 and 2. The NRC proposes Search. For problems with ADAMS, Proposed No Significant Hazards to determine that each amendment please contact the NRCs Public Consideration Determination, and request involves no significant hazards Document Room (PDR) reference staff at Opportunity for a Hearing consideration. In addition, each 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The The Commission has made a amendment request contains sensitive ADAMS accession number for each proposed determination that the unclassified non-safeguards information document referenced (if it is available in following amendment requests involve (SUNSI).

ADAMS) is provided the first time that no significant hazards consideration.

DATES: Comments must be filed by April Under the Commissions regulations in it is mentioned in the SUPPLEMENTARY 2, 2015. A request for a hearing must be 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation INFORMATION section.

filed by May 4, 2015. Any potential

• NRCs PDR: You may examine and of the facility in accordance with the party as defined in § 2.4 of Title 10 of purchase copies of public documents at proposed amendment would not (1) the Code of Federal Regulations (10 the NRCs PDR, Room O1-F21, One involve a significant increase in the CFR), who believes access to SUNSI is White Flint North, 11555 Rockville probability or consequences of an necessary to respond to this notice must Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. accident previously evaluated, or (2) request document access by March 13, create the possibility of a new or 2015. B. Submitting Comments different kind of accident from any ADDRESSES: You may submit comments Please include Docket ID NRC-2015- accident previously evaluated, or (3) mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES by any of the following methods (unless 0030, facility name, unit number(s), involve a significant reduction in a this document describes a different application date, and subject in your margin of safety. The basis for this method for submitting comments on a comment submission. proposed determination for each specific subject): The NRC cautions you not to include amendment request is shown below.

• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to identifying or contact information that The Commission is seeking public http://www.regulations.gov and search you do not want to be publicly comments on this proposed for Docket ID NRC-2015-0030. Address disclosed in your comment submission. determination. Any comments received questions about NRC dockets to Carol The NRC posts all comment within 30 days after the date of VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:24 Mar 02, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00106 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\03MRN1.SGM 03MRN1