ML15223A318: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
||
Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
=Text= | =Text= | ||
{{#Wiki_filter:15144 Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 52/Tuesday, March 18, 2014/Notices *evaluate the accuracy of the agencys estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, | {{#Wiki_filter:15144 Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 52/Tuesday, March 18, 2014/Notices *evaluate the accuracy of the agencys estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the | ||
including the validity of the | |||
methodology and assumptions used; *enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be | methodology and assumptions used; *enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be | ||
Line 26: | Line 24: | ||
are to respond, including through the | are to respond, including through the | ||
use of appropriate automated, | use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other | ||
electronic, mechanical, or other | |||
technological collection techniques or | technological collection techniques or | ||
other forms of information technology, | other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions | ||
e.g., permitting electronic submissions | |||
of responses. | of responses. | ||
Line 65: | Line 59: | ||
Total Annual Responses: | Total Annual Responses: | ||
258. Average Time per Response: | 258. Average Time per Response: | ||
30 minutes. | 30 minutes. Estimated Total Burden Hours: | ||
Estimated Total Burden Hours: | |||
129. Frequency: | 129. Frequency: | ||
Annually. | Annually. | ||
Line 91: | Line 84: | ||
Conservation Act of 1978, Public Law | Conservation Act of 1978, Public Law | ||
95-541. SUMMARY: The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish a notice of permit applications received | 95-541. | ||
==SUMMARY== | |||
: The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish a notice of permit applications received | |||
to conduct activities regulated under the | to conduct activities regulated under the | ||
Line 114: | Line 110: | ||
application may be inspected by | application may be inspected by | ||
interested parties at the Permit Office, | interested parties at the Permit Office, address below. | ||
ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to Permit Office, Room 755, Division of Polar Programs, National | |||
address below. | |||
ADDRESSES | |||
: Comments should be addressed to Permit Office, Room 755, | |||
Division of Polar Programs, National | |||
Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson | Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson | ||
Line 136: | Line 127: | ||
Act of 1978 (Pub. L. 95-541), as | Act of 1978 (Pub. L. 95-541), as | ||
amended by the Antarctic Science, | amended by the Antarctic Science, Tourism and Conservation Act of 1996, has developed regulations for the | ||
Tourism and Conservation Act of 1996, | |||
has developed regulations for the | |||
establishment of a permit system for | establishment of a permit system for | ||
Line 238: | Line 225: | ||
(79 FR 12241). | (79 FR 12241). | ||
ADDRESSES | ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods (unless | ||
: You may submit comments by any of the following methods (unless | |||
this document describes a different | this document describes a different | ||
Line 252: | Line 238: | ||
Gallagher; telephone: 301-287-3422; | Gallagher; telephone: 301-287-3422; | ||
email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov | email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For technical questions, contact the | ||
. For technical questions, contact the | |||
individual listed in the FORFURTHER INFORMATIONCONTACT section of this document. | individual listed in the FORFURTHER INFORMATIONCONTACT section of this document. | ||
Line 262: | Line 247: | ||
Administration, Mail Stop: 3WFN | Administration, Mail Stop: 3WFN | ||
44M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:34 Mar 17, 2014Jkt 232001PO 00000Frm 00050Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\18MRN1.SGM18MRN1 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES 15145 Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 52/Tuesday, March 18, 2014/Notices Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. For additional direction on accessing information and submitting comments, | 44M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:34 Mar 17, 2014Jkt 232001PO 00000Frm 00050Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\18MRN1.SGM18MRN1 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES 15145 Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 52/Tuesday, March 18, 2014/Notices Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. For additional direction on accessing information and submitting comments, see Accessing Information and | ||
see Accessing Information and | |||
Submitting Comments in the SUPPLEMENTARYINFORMATION section of this document. SUPPLEMENTARYINFORMATION | Submitting Comments in the SUPPLEMENTARYINFORMATION section of this document. SUPPLEMENTARYINFORMATION | ||
Line 277: | Line 260: | ||
this action by the following methods: | this action by the following methods: | ||
*Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2014-0045. | *Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2014-0045. | ||
*NRCs Agencywide Documents Access and Management System | *NRCs Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may access publicly | ||
(ADAMS): You may access publicly | |||
available documents online in the NRC | available documents online in the NRC | ||
Library at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html | Library at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select ADAMS Public Documents and | ||
. To begin the search, select ADAMS Public Documents and | |||
then select Begin Web-based ADAMS | then select Begin Web-based ADAMS | ||
Search. For problems with ADAMS, | Search. For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRCs Public | ||
please contact the NRCs Public | |||
Document Room (PDR) reference staff at | Document Room (PDR) reference staff at | ||
Line 296: | Line 274: | ||
1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by | 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by | ||
email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov | email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The ADAMS accession number for each | ||
. The ADAMS accession number for each | |||
document referenced in this document | document referenced in this document (if that document is available in | ||
(if that document is available in | |||
ADAMS) is provided the first time that | ADAMS) is provided the first time that | ||
Line 359: | Line 334: | ||
ADAMS. Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating | ADAMS. Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating | ||
Licenses and Combined Licenses, | Licenses and Combined Licenses, Proposed No Significant Hazards | ||
Proposed No Significant Hazards | |||
Consideration Determination, and | Consideration Determination, and | ||
Line 446: | Line 419: | ||
Commission make a final No Significant | Commission make a final No Significant | ||
Hazards Consideration Determination, | Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after | ||
any hearing will take place after | |||
issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will occur very infrequently. | issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will occur very infrequently. | ||
Line 475: | Line 446: | ||
Part 2. Interested person(s) should | Part 2. Interested person(s) should | ||
consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, | consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the NRCs PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room | ||
which is available at the NRCs PDR, | |||
located at One White Flint North, Room | |||
O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first | O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first | ||
Line 614: | Line 581: | ||
participate fully in the conduct of the | participate fully in the conduct of the | ||
hearing. | hearing. If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final | ||
If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final | |||
determination on the issue of no | determination on the issue of no | ||
Line 741: | Line 707: | ||
agencys public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e- | agencys public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e- | ||
submittals.html | submittals.html. Participants may attempt to use other software not listed | ||
. Participants may attempt to use other software not listed | |||
on the Web site, but should note that the | on the Web site, but should note that the | ||
Line 777: | Line 742: | ||
based submission form, including the | based submission form, including the | ||
installation of the Web browser plug-in, | installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on the NRCs public Web | ||
is available on the NRCs public Web | |||
site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. | site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. | ||
Line 790: | Line 753: | ||
for leave to intervene. Submissions | for leave to intervene. Submissions | ||
should be in Portable Document Format | should be in Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with the NRC | ||
(PDF) in accordance with the NRC | |||
guidance available on the NRCs public | guidance available on the NRCs public | ||
Line 831: | Line 792: | ||
serve the documents on those | serve the documents on those | ||
participants separately. Therefore, | participants separately. Therefore, applicants and other participants (or | ||
applicants and other participants (or | |||
their counsel or representative) must | their counsel or representative) must | ||
Line 854: | Line 813: | ||
Desk through the Contact Us link | Desk through the Contact Us link | ||
located on the NRC Web site at http:// www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html | located on the NRC Web site at http:// www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html , by email to MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov , or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-7640. The NRC | ||
, by email to MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov | |||
, or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-7640. The NRC | |||
Meta System Help Desk is available | Meta System Help Desk is available | ||
Line 862: | Line 819: | ||
between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern | between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern | ||
Time, Monday through Friday, | Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays. | ||
excluding government holidays. | |||
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting | Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting | ||
Line 889: | Line 844: | ||
0001, Attention: Rulemaking and | 0001, Attention: Rulemaking and | ||
Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, | Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery | ||
service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking | |||
service to the Office of the Secretary, | |||
Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, | |||
11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, | |||
Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking | |||
and Adjudications Staff. Participants | and Adjudications Staff. Participants | ||
Line 931: | Line 878: | ||
available to the public at http://ehd1. | available to the public at http://ehd1. | ||
nrc.gov/ehd/; | nrc.gov/ehd/;, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the Commission, or the | ||
, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the Commission, or the | |||
presiding officer. Participants are | presiding officer. Participants are | ||
Line 942: | Line 888: | ||
security numbers, home addresses, or | security numbers, home addresses, or | ||
home phone numbers in their filings, | home phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC regulation or other law | ||
unless an NRC regulation or other law | |||
requires submission of such | requires submission of such | ||
Line 964: | Line 908: | ||
adjudicatory filings and would | adjudicatory filings and would | ||
constitute a Fair Use application, | constitute a Fair Use application, participants are requested not to include | ||
participants are requested not to include | |||
copyrighted materials in their | copyrighted materials in their | ||
Line 1,010: | Line 952: | ||
accessible electronically through | accessible electronically through | ||
ADAMS in the NRC Library at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html | ADAMS in the NRC Library at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do not have access to | ||
. Persons who do not have access to | |||
ADAMS or who encounter problems in | ADAMS or who encounter problems in | ||
Line 1,022: | Line 963: | ||
415-4737, or by email to pdr.resource@ | 415-4737, or by email to pdr.resource@ | ||
nrc.gov. Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., | nrc.gov. Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-247, Indian Point | ||
Docket No. 50-247, Indian Point | |||
Nuclear Generating, Unit 2, Westchester | Nuclear Generating, Unit 2, Westchester | ||
Line 1,032: | Line 972: | ||
The proposed amendment would revise | The proposed amendment would revise | ||
Technical Specification (TS) 5.5.7, | Technical Specification (TS) 5.5.7, Steam Generator (SG) Program, to | ||
Steam Generator (SG) Program, to | |||
exclude portions of the SG tube below | exclude portions of the SG tube below | ||
Line 1,087: | Line 1,025: | ||
steam generator tube inspection and repair | steam generator tube inspection and repair | ||
criteria are the steam generator tube rupture | criteria are the steam generator tube rupture (SGTR), the main steam line break (MSLB), | ||
(SGTR), the main steam line break (MSLB), | |||
Locked Rotor and Control Rod Ejection. | Locked Rotor and Control Rod Ejection. | ||
At normal operating pressures, leakage from Primary Water Stress Corrosion | At normal operating pressures, leakage from Primary Water Stress Corrosion | ||
Line 1,125: | Line 1,060: | ||
side. The structural margins against burst, as | side. The structural margins against burst, as | ||
discussed in Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.121, | discussed in Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.121, Bases for Plugging Degraded PWR Steam | ||
Bases for Plugging Degraded PWR Steam | |||
Generator Tubes, (Reference 11) and NEI | Generator Tubes, (Reference 11) and NEI | ||
Line 1,253: | Line 1,186: | ||
leakage is not exceeded. | leakage is not exceeded. | ||
Based on the above, the performance criteria of NEI 97-06 and Regulatory Guide | Based on the above, the performance criteria of NEI 97-06 and Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.121 continue to be met and the | ||
(RG) 1.121 continue to be met and the | |||
proposed change does not involve a | proposed change does not involve a | ||
Line 1,277: | Line 1,208: | ||
repair criteria (H*). The proposed change | repair criteria (H*). The proposed change | ||
does not introduce any new equipment, | does not introduce any new equipment, create new failure modes for existing VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:34 Mar 17, 2014Jkt 232001PO 00000Frm 00053Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\18MRN1.SGM18MRN1 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES 15148 Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 52/Tuesday, March 18, 2014/Notices equipment, or create any new limiting single failures resulting from tube degradation. The | ||
create new failure modes for existing VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:34 Mar 17, 2014Jkt 232001PO 00000Frm 00053Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\18MRN1.SGM18MRN1 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES 15148 Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 52/Tuesday, March 18, 2014/Notices equipment, or create any new limiting single failures resulting from tube degradation. The | |||
proposed change does not affect the design | proposed change does not affect the design | ||
Line 1,347: | Line 1,276: | ||
that provides the necessary resistance to tube | that provides the necessary resistance to tube | ||
pullout due to the pressure induced forces, | pullout due to the pressure induced forces, with applicable safety factors applied. | ||
with applicable safety factors applied. | |||
Application of the limited hot and cold leg | Application of the limited hot and cold leg | ||
Line 1,403: | Line 1,330: | ||
NRC Branch Chief: | NRC Branch Chief: | ||
Benjamin G. | Benjamin G. | ||
Beasley. | Beasley. Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-255, Palisades Nuclear | ||
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., | |||
Docket No. 50-255, Palisades Nuclear | |||
Plant, Van Buren County, Michigan Date of amendment request: | Plant, Van Buren County, Michigan Date of amendment request: | ||
Line 1,528: | Line 1,453: | ||
establish emergency planning standards and | establish emergency planning standards and | ||
requirements that require adequate staffing, | requirements that require adequate staffing, satisfactory performance of key functional | ||
satisfactory performance of key functional | |||
areas and critical tasks, and timely | areas and critical tasks, and timely | ||
Line 1,536: | Line 1,459: | ||
augmentation of the response capability. | augmentation of the response capability. | ||
Since the SEP was originally developed, | Since the SEP was originally developed, there have been improvements in the | ||
there have been improvements in the | |||
technology used to support the SEP functions | technology used to support the SEP functions | ||
Line 1,590: | Line 1,511: | ||
NRC Branch Chief: | NRC Branch Chief: | ||
Robert D. Carlson. | Robert D. Carlson. | ||
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., | Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-255, Palisades Nuclear | ||
Docket No. 50-255, Palisades Nuclear | |||
Plant, Van Buren County, Michigan Date of amendment request: | Plant, Van Buren County, Michigan Date of amendment request: | ||
Line 1,604: | Line 1,524: | ||
requirements for unavailable barriers by | requirements for unavailable barriers by | ||
adding limiting condition for operation | adding limiting condition for operation (LCO) 3.0.9. The changes are consistent | ||
(LCO) 3.0.9. The changes are consistent | |||
with the NRCs approved industry/ | with the NRCs approved industry/ | ||
Technical Specification Task Force | Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Standard Technical | ||
(TSTF) Standard Technical | |||
Specification (STS) change TSTF-427, | Specification (STS) change TSTF-427, Allowance for Non-Technical | ||
Allowance for Non-Technical | |||
Specification Barrier Degradation on | Specification Barrier Degradation on | ||
Line 1,737: | Line 1,651: | ||
barrier, if risk is assessed and managed. The postulated initiating events which may require a functional barrier are limited to | barrier, if risk is assessed and managed. The postulated initiating events which may require a functional barrier are limited to | ||
those with low frequencies of occurrence, | those with low frequencies of occurrence, and the overall TS system safety function | ||
and the overall TS system safety function | |||
would still be available for the majority of anticipated challenges. The risk impact of the | would still be available for the majority of anticipated challenges. The risk impact of the | ||
Line 1,761: | Line 1,673: | ||
safety is insignificant as indicated by the | safety is insignificant as indicated by the | ||
anticipated low levels of associated risk | anticipated low levels of associated risk (ICCDP and ICLERP) as shown in Table 1 of | ||
(ICCDP and ICLERP) as shown in Table 1 of | |||
Section 3.1.1 in the Safety Evaluation. | Section 3.1.1 in the Safety Evaluation. | ||
Line 1,854: | Line 1,764: | ||
during a design basis flood event. The | during a design basis flood event. The | ||
proposed Updated Safety Analysis Report | proposed Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR) changes for implementing | ||
(USAR) changes for implementing | |||
modification EC 55394 allow for maintaining | modification EC 55394 allow for maintaining | ||
Line 1,967: | Line 1,875: | ||
NRC Branch Chief: | NRC Branch Chief: | ||
Michael T. | Michael T. | ||
Markley. | Markley. Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. Docket Nos. 52-025 and | ||
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. Docket Nos. 52-025 and | |||
52-026, Vogtle Electric Generating | 52-026, Vogtle Electric Generating | ||
Plant, Units 3 and 4, Burke County, | Plant, Units 3 and 4, Burke County, Georgia Date of amendment request: | ||
Georgia Date of amendment request: | |||
November 21, 2013. | November 21, 2013. | ||
Description of amendment request: | Description of amendment request: | ||
Line 1,991: | Line 1,896: | ||
information as incorporated into the | information as incorporated into the | ||
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report | Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) to allow use of a new | ||
(UFSAR) to allow use of a new | |||
methodology to determine the effective | methodology to determine the effective | ||
Line 2,172: | Line 2,075: | ||
Burkhart. | Burkhart. | ||
Union Electric Company, Docket No. | Union Electric Company, Docket No. | ||
50-483, Callaway Plant, Unit 1, | 50-483, Callaway Plant, Unit 1, Callaway County, Missouri Date of amendment request: | ||
Callaway County, Missouri Date of amendment request: | |||
December 6, 2013. | December 6, 2013. | ||
Description of amendment request: | Description of amendment request: | ||
Line 2,187: | Line 2,088: | ||
Standard Plant Table 3.6-2, Design Comparison to Regulatory Positions of | Standard Plant Table 3.6-2, Design Comparison to Regulatory Positions of | ||
Regulatory Guide 1.46, Revision 0, | Regulatory Guide 1.46, Revision 0, dated May 1973, titled Protection | ||
dated May 1973, titled Protection | |||
Against Pipe Whip Inside Containment, in particular regard to | Against Pipe Whip Inside Containment, in particular regard to | ||
Line 2,197: | Line 2,096: | ||
piping installed in ASME Class 3 line | piping installed in ASME Class 3 line | ||
segments of the essential service water | segments of the essential service water (ESW) system. New Reference 25 would | ||
(ESW) system. New Reference 25 would | |||
be added to FSAR Standard Plant | be added to FSAR Standard Plant | ||
Line 2,240: | Line 2,137: | ||
The proposed change will not increase the likelihood of accident initiators or precursors | The proposed change will not increase the likelihood of accident initiators or precursors | ||
or adversely alter the design assumptions, | or adversely alter the design assumptions, conditions, and configuration of the facility | ||
conditions, and configuration of the facility | |||
or the manner in which the plant is operated | or the manner in which the plant is operated | ||
Line 2,256: | Line 2,151: | ||
changes. The proposed changes will not | changes. The proposed changes will not | ||
affect the source term, containment isolation, | affect the source term, containment isolation, or radiological release assumptions used in | ||
or radiological release assumptions used in | |||
evaluating the radiological consequences of | evaluating the radiological consequences of | ||
Line 2,283: | Line 2,176: | ||
in which safety-related systems perform their | in which safety-related systems perform their | ||
functions per the intended plant design. VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:34 Mar 17, 2014Jkt 232001PO 00000Frm 00056Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\18MRN1.SGM18MRN1 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES 15151 Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 52/Tuesday, March 18, 2014/Notices As such, the proposed change will not alter or prevent the capability of structures, | functions per the intended plant design. VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:34 Mar 17, 2014Jkt 232001PO 00000Frm 00056Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\18MRN1.SGM18MRN1 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES 15151 Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 52/Tuesday, March 18, 2014/Notices As such, the proposed change will not alter or prevent the capability of structures, systems, and components (SSCs) to perform | ||
systems, and components (SSCs) to perform | |||
their intended functions for mitigating the | their intended functions for mitigating the | ||
Line 2,359: | Line 2,250: | ||
associated with reactor operation or the | associated with reactor operation or the | ||
reactor coolant system. The design factor | reactor coolant system. The design factor (DF) of 0.50 discussed in ULNRC-05553 | ||
(DF) of 0.50 discussed in ULNRC-05553 | |||
dated October 9, 2008 has not changed. This | dated October 9, 2008 has not changed. This | ||
Line 2,377: | Line 2,266: | ||
channel factor (FQ), nuclear enthalpy rise hot | channel factor (FQ), nuclear enthalpy rise hot | ||
channel factor (F | channel factor (F D H), loss of coolant accident peak cladding temperature (LOCA PCT), peak | ||
local power density, or any other limit and | local power density, or any other limit and | ||
Line 2,409: | Line 2,298: | ||
John ONeill, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman | John ONeill, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman | ||
LLP, 2300 N Street NW., Washington, | LLP, 2300 N Street NW., Washington, DC 20037. | ||
DC 20037. | |||
NRC Branch Chief: | NRC Branch Chief: | ||
Michael T. | Michael T. | ||
Markley. | Markley. Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation, Docket No. 50-482, Wolf | ||
Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation, Docket No. 50-482, Wolf | |||
Creek Generating Station, Coffey | Creek Generating Station, Coffey | ||
Line 2,458: | Line 2,344: | ||
the proposed deviations from [10 CFR Part | the proposed deviations from [10 CFR Part | ||
50] Appendix R, Sections III.L.1 and III.L.2, | 50] Appendix R, Sections III.L.1 and III.L.2, and Calculation XX-E-013. The proposed | ||
and Calculation XX-E-013. The proposed | |||
changes to the approved fire protection | changes to the approved fire protection | ||
Line 2,466: | Line 2,350: | ||
program are based on the RCS [reactor | program are based on the RCS [reactor | ||
coolant system] thermal-hydraulic response | coolant system] thermal-hydraulic response (Evaluation SA-08-006) for a postulated | ||
(Evaluation SA-08-006) for a postulated | |||
control room fire performed for changes to | control room fire performed for changes to | ||
Line 2,476: | Line 2,358: | ||
outlined in letter SLNRC 84-0109, Fire | outlined in letter SLNRC 84-0109, Fire | ||
Protection Review. Drawing E-1F9915, | Protection Review. Drawing E-1F9915, Design Basis Document for OFN RP-017, Control Room Evacuation, Revision 5, Evaluation SA-08-006, RETRAN-3D Post- | ||
Design Basis Document for OFN RP-017, | |||
Control Room Evacuation, Revision 5, | |||
Evaluation SA-08-006, RETRAN-3D Post- | |||
Fire Safe Shutdown (PFSSD) Consequence | Fire Safe Shutdown (PFSSD) Consequence | ||
Line 2,587: | Line 2,463: | ||
significant hazards consideration. | significant hazards consideration. | ||
Attorney for licensee: | Attorney for licensee: | ||
Jay Silberg, Esq., | Jay Silberg, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, 2300 N Street NW., Washington, DC | ||
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, | |||
2300 N Street NW., Washington, DC | |||
20037. NRC Branch Chief: | 20037. NRC Branch Chief: | ||
Michael T. | Michael T. | ||
Markley. | Markley. Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation, Docket No. 50-482, Wolf | ||
Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation, Docket No. 50-482, Wolf | |||
Creek Generating Station, Coffey | Creek Generating Station, Coffey | ||
Line 2,604: | Line 2,476: | ||
The amendment would revise Technical | The amendment would revise Technical | ||
Specification Surveillance Requirement | Specification Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.7.10.1 and SR 3.7.13.1 to reduce | ||
(SR) 3.7.10.1 and SR 3.7.13.1 to reduce | |||
the required run time for periodic | the required run time for periodic | ||
Line 2,614: | Line 2,484: | ||
pressurization system filter trains and | pressurization system filter trains and | ||
emergency exhaust system filter trains, | emergency exhaust system filter trains, with heaters on, from 10 hours to 15 | ||
with heaters on, from 10 hours to 15 | |||
minutes. The proposed amendment is | minutes. The proposed amendment is | ||
Line 2,648: | Line 2,516: | ||
The proposed change replaces existing Surveillance Requirements to operate the | The proposed change replaces existing Surveillance Requirements to operate the | ||
Control Room Emergency Ventilation System | Control Room Emergency Ventilation System (CREVS) and the Emergency Exhaust System (EES) for a continuous 10 hour period with | ||
applicable heaters operating every 31 days, with requirements to operate these systems | |||
applicable heaters operating every 31 days, | |||
with requirements to operate these systems | |||
for 15 continuous minutes with applicable | for 15 continuous minutes with applicable | ||
Line 2,755: | Line 2,617: | ||
significant hazards consideration. | significant hazards consideration. | ||
Attorney for licensee: | Attorney for licensee: | ||
Jay Silberg, Esq., | Jay Silberg, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, 2300 N Street NW., Washington, DC | ||
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, | |||
2300 N Street NW., Washington, DC | |||
20037. NRC Branch Chief: | 20037. NRC Branch Chief: | ||
Michael T. | Michael T. | ||
Markley. | Markley. Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and | ||
Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and | |||
Combined Licenses During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, the | Combined Licenses During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, the | ||
Line 2,798: | Line 2,656: | ||
applicable, proposed no significant | applicable, proposed no significant | ||
hazards consideration determination, | hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a hearing in | ||
and opportunity for a hearing in | |||
connection with these actions, was | connection with these actions, was | ||
Line 2,842: | Line 2,698: | ||
items are available for public inspection | items are available for public inspection | ||
at the NRCs Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike | at the NRCs Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. | ||
(first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. | |||
Publicly available documents created or | Publicly available documents created or | ||
Line 2,868: | Line 2,722: | ||
or by email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. | or by email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. | ||
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., | Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Docket No. 50-423, Millstone Power | ||
Docket No. 50-423, Millstone Power | |||
Station, Unit 3, New London County, | Station, Unit 3, New London County, Connecticut Date of amendment request: | ||
Connecticut Date of amendment request: | |||
October 4, 2012, as supplemented by letters | October 4, 2012, as supplemented by letters | ||
Line 2,890: | Line 2,741: | ||
program with the adoption of Technical | program with the adoption of Technical | ||
Specification Task Force (TSTF)-425, | Specification Task Force (TSTF)-425, Revision 3, Relocate Surveillance | ||
Revision 3, Relocate Surveillance | |||
Frequencies to Licensee Control[Risk- | Frequencies to Licensee Control[Risk- | ||
Line 2,906: | Line 2,755: | ||
Frequency Control Program (SFCP), to | Frequency Control Program (SFCP), to | ||
Technical Specification Section 6, | Technical Specification Section 6, Administrative Controls. | ||
Administrative Controls. | |||
Date of issuance: | Date of issuance: | ||
February 25, 2014. | February 25, 2014. | ||
Line 2,927: | Line 2,774: | ||
application, did not expand the scope of | application, did not expand the scope of | ||
the application as originally noticed, | the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staffs original | ||
and did not change the staffs original | |||
proposed no significant hazards | proposed no significant hazards | ||
Line 2,936: | Line 2,781: | ||
The Commissions related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a | The Commissions related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a | ||
Safety Evaluation dated February 25, | Safety Evaluation dated February 25, 2014. No significant hazards consideration comments received: | ||
2014. No significant hazards consideration comments received: | |||
No. Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370, McGuire | No. Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370, McGuire | ||
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, | Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:34 Mar 17, 2014Jkt 232001PO 00000Frm 00058Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\18MRN1.SGM18MRN1 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES 15153 Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 52/Tuesday, March 18, 2014/Notices Date of application for amendments: | ||
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:34 Mar 17, 2014Jkt 232001PO 00000Frm 00058Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\18MRN1.SGM18MRN1 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES 15153 Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 52/Tuesday, March 18, 2014/Notices Date of application for amendments: | |||
April 16, 2013. | April 16, 2013. | ||
Brief description of amendments: | Brief description of amendments: | ||
Line 2,978: | Line 2,819: | ||
Safety Evaluation dated February 28, 2014. No significant hazards consideration comments received: | Safety Evaluation dated February 28, 2014. No significant hazards consideration comments received: | ||
No. Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287, | No. Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287, Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 and | ||
Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 and | |||
3, Oconee County, South Carolina Date of application for amendments: | 3, Oconee County, South Carolina Date of application for amendments: | ||
Line 3,007: | Line 2,846: | ||
cooldown in TS Tables 3.4.3-1 and | cooldown in TS Tables 3.4.3-1 and | ||
3.4.3-2. | 3.4.3-2. Date of Issuance: | ||
Date of Issuance: | |||
February 27, 2014. | February 27, 2014. | ||
Effective date: | Effective date: | ||
Line 3,022: | Line 2,860: | ||
Amendments revised the license and | Amendments revised the license and | ||
the TSs. | the TSs. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: | ||
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: | |||
April 16, 2013, 78 FR 22568. | April 16, 2013, 78 FR 22568. | ||
The supplemental letters dated September 10, October 25, November | The supplemental letters dated September 10, October 25, November | ||
Line 3,033: | Line 2,870: | ||
application, did not expand the scope of | application, did not expand the scope of | ||
the application as originally noticed, | the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staffs original | ||
and did not change the staffs original | |||
proposed no significant hazards | proposed no significant hazards | ||
Line 3,041: | Line 2,876: | ||
consideration determination as | consideration determination as | ||
published in the Federal Register | published in the Federal Register. The Commissions related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a | ||
. The Commissions related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a | |||
Safety Evaluation dated February 27, | Safety Evaluation dated February 27, 2014. No significant hazards consideration comments received: | ||
2014. No significant hazards consideration comments received: | |||
No. Duke Energy Progress Inc., Docket Nos. 50-325 and 50-324, Brunswick | No. Duke Energy Progress Inc., Docket Nos. 50-325 and 50-324, Brunswick | ||
Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, | Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, Brunswick County, North Carolina. | ||
Brunswick County, North Carolina. | |||
Date of application for amendments: | Date of application for amendments: | ||
June 19, 2012, as supplemented by | June 19, 2012, as supplemented by | ||
Line 3,071: | Line 2,901: | ||
Actions C.3 and D.4. The licensee will | Actions C.3 and D.4. The licensee will | ||
to add a supplemental AC power source | to add a supplemental AC power source (i.e., a supplemental diesel generator) | ||
(i.e., a supplemental diesel generator) | |||
with the capability to power any | with the capability to power any | ||
Line 3,109: | Line 2,937: | ||
consideration determination as | consideration determination as | ||
published in the Federal Register | published in the Federal Register. The Commissions related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a | ||
. The Commissions related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a | |||
2014. No significant hazards consideration comments received: | Safety Evaluation dated February 24, 2014. No significant hazards consideration comments received: | ||
None. Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., | None. Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-247, Indian Point | ||
Docket No. 50-247, Indian Point | |||
Nuclear Generating, Unit 2, Westchester | Nuclear Generating, Unit 2, Westchester | ||
Line 3,123: | Line 2,947: | ||
February 6, 2013, as supplemented by | February 6, 2013, as supplemented by | ||
letters dated July 9, 2013, October 3, | letters dated July 9, 2013, October 3, 2013, and February 24, 2014. | ||
2013, and February 24, 2014. | |||
Brief description of amendment: | Brief description of amendment: | ||
The amendment changes the Technical | The amendment changes the Technical | ||
Line 3,137: | Line 2,959: | ||
requirements to cover a lifetime burnup | requirements to cover a lifetime burnup | ||
of 48 Effective Full Power Years (EFPY), | of 48 Effective Full Power Years (EFPY), | ||
which is an increase from the current | which is an increase from the current | ||
Line 3,152: | Line 2,973: | ||
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: | Date of initial notice in Federal Register: | ||
April 2, 2013 (78 FR 19750). | April 2, 2013 (78 FR 19750). | ||
The supplemental letters dated July 9, 2013, October 3, 2013, and February 24, | The supplemental letters dated July 9, 2013, October 3, 2013, and February 24, 2014, provided additional information | ||
2014, provided additional information | |||
that clarified the application, did not | that clarified the application, did not | ||
Line 3,168: | Line 2,987: | ||
determination as published in the | determination as published in the | ||
Federal Register | Federal Register. The Commissions related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a | ||
. The Commissions related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a | |||
Safety Evaluation dated March 5, 2014. | Safety Evaluation dated March 5, 2014. | ||
Line 3,184: | Line 3,002: | ||
Specifications (TSs) to allow the use of | Specifications (TSs) to allow the use of | ||
Optimized ZIRLO | Optimized ZIRLO TM as an approved fuel rod cladding. | ||
Date of issuance: | Date of issuance: | ||
February 20, 2014. | February 20, 2014. | ||
Line 3,198: | Line 3,016: | ||
August 20, 2013 (78 FR 51219). The Commissions related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a | August 20, 2013 (78 FR 51219). The Commissions related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a | ||
Safety Evaluation dated February 20, | Safety Evaluation dated February 20, 2014. No significant hazards consideration comments received: | ||
No. Luminant Generation Company LLC, Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446, Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2 (CPNPP), Somervell | |||
County, Texas Date of amendment request: | |||
County, Texas Date of amendment request: | |||
August 29, 2013, as supplemented by letter | August 29, 2013, as supplemented by letter | ||
Line 3,237: | Line 3,049: | ||
consistent with NRC-approved | consistent with NRC-approved | ||
Technical Specifications Task Force | Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) change traveler TSTF-510, Revision 2, Revision to Steam | ||
(TSTF) change traveler TSTF-510, | |||
Revision 2, Revision to Steam | |||
Generator Program Inspection | Generator Program Inspection | ||
Line 3,252: | Line 3,060: | ||
The amendments also incorporated minor non-technical variations from the | The amendments also incorporated minor non-technical variations from the | ||
TS changes proposed in TSTF-510, | TS changes proposed in TSTF-510, Revision 2. The TSs for CPNPP, Units 1 | ||
Revision 2. The TSs for CPNPP, Units 1 | |||
and 2 utilize different numbering and | and 2 utilize different numbering and | ||
Line 3,260: | Line 3,066: | ||
titles than the Standard Technical | titles than the Standard Technical | ||
Specifications on which TSTF-510, | Specifications on which TSTF-510, Revision 2, is based, since the steam | ||
Revision 2, is based, since the steam | |||
generators for CPNPP, Units 1 and 2, are | generators for CPNPP, Units 1 and 2, are | ||
Line 3,270: | Line 3,074: | ||
are administrative in nature and do not | are administrative in nature and do not | ||
affect the applicability of TSTF-510, | affect the applicability of TSTF-510, Revision 2, to the TSs for CPNPP, Units | ||
1 and 2. Date of issuance: | |||
1 and 2. | |||
Date of issuance: | |||
February 27, 2014. | February 27, 2014. | ||
Effective date: | Effective date: | ||
Line 3,299: | Line 3,100: | ||
The Commissions related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a | The Commissions related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a | ||
Safety Evaluation dated February 27, | Safety Evaluation dated February 27, 2014. No significant hazards consideration comments received: | ||
No. NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC, Docket No. 50-443, Seabrook Station, Unit. 1, Rockingham County, New | |||
2014. No significant hazards consideration comments received: | |||
No. NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC, Docket No. 50-443, Seabrook Station, | |||
Unit. 1, Rockingham County, New | |||
Hampshire Date of amendment request: | Hampshire Date of amendment request: | ||
Line 3,313: | Line 3,110: | ||
TS to allow the use of Optimized | TS to allow the use of Optimized | ||
ZIRLO TM as an approved fuel rod cladding material. | |||
Date of issuance: | Date of issuance: | ||
March 5, 2014. | March 5, 2014. | ||
Line 3,325: | Line 3,122: | ||
Safety Evaluation dated March 5, 2014. | Safety Evaluation dated March 5, 2014. | ||
No significant hazards consideration comments received: | No significant hazards consideration comments received: | ||
No. Northern States Power Company Minnesota (NSPM), Docket No. 50-263, | No. Northern States Power Company Minnesota (NSPM), Docket No. 50-263, Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, Wright County, Minnesota Date of application for amendment: | ||
Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, | |||
Wright County, Minnesota Date of application for amendment: | |||
April 19, 2013. | April 19, 2013. | ||
Brief description of amendment: | Brief description of amendment: | ||
Line 3,340: | Line 3,133: | ||
Standard Technical Specifications | Standard Technical Specifications | ||
Change Traveler TSTF-535, Revision 0, | Change Traveler TSTF-535, Revision 0, Revise Shutdown Margin Definition to | ||
Revise Shutdown Margin Definition to | |||
Address Advanced Fuel Designs, dated | Address Advanced Fuel Designs, dated | ||
Line 3,382: | Line 3,173: | ||
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 3, 2013 (78 FR 54285). The Commissions related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a | Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 3, 2013 (78 FR 54285). The Commissions related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a | ||
Safety Evaluation dated February 28, | Safety Evaluation dated February 28, 2014. No significant hazards consideration comments received: | ||
2014. No significant hazards consideration comments received: | |||
No. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323, Diablo | No. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323, Diablo | ||
Line 3,395: | Line 3,184: | ||
Room Ventilation System (CRVS), and | Room Ventilation System (CRVS), and | ||
TS 5.6.5, Core Operating Limits Report | TS 5.6.5, Core Operating Limits Report (COLR), to incorporate editorial | ||
(COLR), to incorporate editorial | |||
changes. Specifically, the proposed | changes. Specifically, the proposed | ||
Line 3,426: | Line 3,213: | ||
The Commissions related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a | The Commissions related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a | ||
Safety Evaluation dated February 27, | Safety Evaluation dated February 27, 2014. No significant hazards consideration comments received: | ||
2014. No significant hazards consideration comments received: | |||
No. PPL Susquehanna, LLC, Docket Nos. | No. PPL Susquehanna, LLC, Docket Nos. | ||
50-387 and 50-388, Susquehanna | 50-387 and 50-388, Susquehanna | ||
Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2, | Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania Date of application for amendments: | ||
Luzerne County, Pennsylvania Date of application for amendments: | |||
June 6, 2013, as supplemented by letter dated December 4, 2013. | June 6, 2013, as supplemented by letter dated December 4, 2013. | ||
Brief description of amendments: | Brief description of amendments: | ||
Line 3,471: | Line 3,254: | ||
TS. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 10, 2013 (78 FR 74184). The supplemental letter dated December 4, 2013, provided additional | TS. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 10, 2013 (78 FR 74184). The supplemental letter dated December 4, 2013, provided additional | ||
information that clarified the VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:34 Mar 17, 2014Jkt 232001PO 00000Frm 00060Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\18MRN1.SGM18MRN1 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES 15155 Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 52/Tuesday, March 18, 2014/Notices application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, | information that clarified the VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:34 Mar 17, 2014Jkt 232001PO 00000Frm 00060Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\18MRN1.SGM18MRN1 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES 15155 Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 52/Tuesday, March 18, 2014/Notices application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staffs original | ||
and did not change the staffs original | |||
proposed no significant hazards | proposed no significant hazards | ||
Line 3,479: | Line 3,260: | ||
consideration determination as | consideration determination as | ||
published in the Federal Register | published in the Federal Register. The Commissions related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a | ||
. The Commissions related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a | |||
Safety Evaluation dated February 26, | Safety Evaluation dated February 26, 2014. No significant hazards consideration comments received: | ||
2014. No significant hazards consideration comments received: | |||
No. South Carolina Electric and Gas Company, South Carolina Public | No. South Carolina Electric and Gas Company, South Carolina Public | ||
Service Authority, Docket No. 50-395, | Service Authority, Docket No. 50-395, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit, Fairfield County, South Carolina Date of application for amendment: | ||
Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit, | |||
Fairfield County, South Carolina Date of application for amendment: | |||
April 2, 2013 as supplemented by letter | April 2, 2013 as supplemented by letter | ||
Line 3,502: | Line 3,276: | ||
steam generator tube inspections and | steam generator tube inspections and | ||
reporting as described in TSTF-510, | reporting as described in TSTF-510, Revision 2, Revision to Steam | ||
Revision 2, Revision to Steam | |||
Generator Program Inspection | Generator Program Inspection | ||
Line 3,519: | Line 3,291: | ||
Amendment No.: | Amendment No.: | ||
196. Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-12: | 196. Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-12: | ||
Amendment revises the License. | Amendment revises the License. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 25, 2013 (78 FR 38083). | ||
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 25, 2013 (78 FR 38083). | |||
The Commissions related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a | The Commissions related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a | ||
Safety Evaluation dated February 28, | Safety Evaluation dated February 28, 2014. No significant hazards consideration comments received: | ||
2014. No significant hazards consideration comments received: | |||
No. Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and | No. Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and | ||
Line 3,553: | Line 3,322: | ||
standards and requirements of the | standards and requirements of the | ||
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended | Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commissions rules | ||
(the Act), and the Commissions rules | |||
and regulations. The Commission has | and regulations. The Commission has | ||
Line 3,568: | Line 3,335: | ||
the amendment was needed, there was | the amendment was needed, there was | ||
not time for the Commission to publish, | not time for the Commission to publish, for public comment before issuance, its | ||
for public comment before issuance, its | |||
usual notice of consideration of | usual notice of consideration of | ||
Line 3,580: | Line 3,345: | ||
determination, and opportunity for a | determination, and opportunity for a | ||
hearing. | hearing. For exigent circumstances, the Commission has either issued a Federal Register notice providing opportunity for public comment or has used local | ||
For exigent circumstances, the Commission has either issued a Federal Register notice providing opportunity for public comment or has used local | |||
media to provide notice to the public in | media to provide notice to the public in | ||
Line 3,710: | Line 3,474: | ||
items are available for public inspection | items are available for public inspection | ||
at the NRCs Public Document Room | at the NRCs Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. | ||
(PDR), located at One White Flint North, | |||
Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike | |||
(first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. | |||
Publicly available documents created or | Publicly available documents created or | ||
Line 3,774: | Line 3,532: | ||
the NRCs PDR, located at One White | the NRCs PDR, located at One White | ||
Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, | Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852, and electronically on | ||
the Internet at the NRCs Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc- | |||
the Internet at the NRCs Web site, | |||
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc- | |||
collections/cfr/. | collections/cfr/. | ||
Line 3,972: | Line 3,726: | ||
the Secretary by email at | the Secretary by email at | ||
hearing.docket@nrc.gov | hearing.docket@nrc.gov , or by telephone at 301-415-1677, to request (1) a digital | ||
, or by telephone at 301-415-1677, to request (1) a digital | |||
identification (ID) certificate, which | identification (ID) certificate, which | ||
Line 4,049: | Line 3,802: | ||
based submission form, including the | based submission form, including the | ||
installation of the Web browser plug-in, | installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on the NRCs public Web | ||
is available on the NRCs public Web | |||
site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. | site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. | ||
Line 4,062: | Line 3,813: | ||
for leave to intervene. Submissions | for leave to intervene. Submissions | ||
should be in Portable Document Format | should be in Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with the NRCs | ||
(PDF) in accordance with the NRCs | |||
guidance available on the NRCs public | guidance available on the NRCs public | ||
Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html | Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the time the | ||
. A filing is considered complete at the time the | |||
documents are submitted through the | documents are submitted through the | ||
Line 4,105: | Line 3,853: | ||
serve the documents on those | serve the documents on those | ||
participants separately. Therefore, | participants separately. Therefore, applicants and other participants (or | ||
applicants and other participants (or | |||
their counsel or representative) must | their counsel or representative) must | ||
Line 4,128: | Line 3,874: | ||
Desk through the Contact Us link | Desk through the Contact Us link | ||
located on the NRC Web site at http:// www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html | located on the NRC Web site at http:// www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html , by email to MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov , or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-7640. The NRC | ||
, by email to MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov | |||
, or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-7640. The NRC | |||
Meta System Help Desk is available | Meta System Help Desk is available | ||
Line 4,159: | Line 3,903: | ||
0001, Attention: Rulemaking and | 0001, Attention: Rulemaking and | ||
Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, | Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery | ||
express mail, or expedited delivery | |||
Maryland, 20852, Attention: | service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: | ||
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. | Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. | ||
Line 4,209: | Line 3,945: | ||
available to the public at http://ehd1. | available to the public at http://ehd1. | ||
nrc.gov/ehd/ | nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the Commission, or the | ||
, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the Commission, or the | |||
presiding officer. Participants are | presiding officer. Participants are | ||
Line 4,220: | Line 3,955: | ||
security numbers, home addresses, or | security numbers, home addresses, or | ||
home phone numbers in their filings, | home phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC regulation or other law | ||
unless an NRC regulation or other law | |||
requires submission of such information. However, a request to | requires submission of such information. However, a request to | ||
Line 4,240: | Line 3,973: | ||
adjudicatory filings and would | adjudicatory filings and would | ||
constitute a Fair Use application, | constitute a Fair Use application, participants are requested not to include | ||
participants are requested not to include | |||
copyrighted materials in their | copyrighted materials in their | ||
submission. | submission. | ||
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, et al., | Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, et al., Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414, Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York County, South Carolina Date of amendment request: | ||
Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414, | |||
Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, | |||
York County, South Carolina Date of amendment request: | |||
February 17, 2014. | February 17, 2014. | ||
Description of amendment request: | Description of amendment request: | ||
The amendments revise Technical | The amendments revise Technical | ||
Specification (TS) Table 3.3.4-1, | Specification (TS) Table 3.3.4-1, Remote Shutdown System | ||
Remote Shutdown System | |||
Instrumentation and Controls as a result | Instrumentation and Controls as a result | ||
Line 4,267: | Line 3,991: | ||
function on Unit 2. Table 3.3.4-1 | function on Unit 2. Table 3.3.4-1 | ||
specifies requirements for Function 3.b., | specifies requirements for Function 3.b., | ||
Decay Heat Removal via Steam | Decay Heat Removal via Steam | ||
Line 4,319: | Line 4,042: | ||
consideration (NSHC): | consideration (NSHC): | ||
Yes. The NRC staff noticed the February 17, 2014, | Yes. The NRC staff noticed the February 17, 2014, application in the Rock Hill, SC local | ||
application in the Rock Hill, SC local | |||
newspaper, The Herald on Friday, February 21, 2014, and Saturday, February 22, 2014. The notice provided an opportunity to submit comments on the Commissions proposed NSHC determination. No comments have been received. | newspaper, The Herald on Friday, February 21, 2014, and Saturday, February 22, 2014. The notice provided an opportunity to submit comments on the Commissions proposed NSHC determination. No comments have been received. | ||
Line 4,330: | Line 4,051: | ||
final NSHC determination are contained | final NSHC determination are contained | ||
in a safety evaluation dated February 27, | in a safety evaluation dated February 27, 2014. Attorney for licensee: | ||
2014. Attorney for licensee: | |||
Lara S. Nichols, Associate General Counsel, Duke Energy | Lara S. Nichols, Associate General Counsel, Duke Energy | ||
Line 4,343: | Line 4,062: | ||
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 10th day of March 2014. | Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 10th day of March 2014. | ||
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. | For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. | ||
Michele G. Evans, | Michele G. Evans, Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor | ||
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor | |||
Regulation. | Regulation. | ||
Line 4,356: | Line 4,073: | ||
Unit 2 Combined License AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. | Unit 2 Combined License AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. | ||
ACTION: Determination of inspections, tests, analyses, and acceptance criteria | ACTION: Determination of inspections, tests, analyses, and acceptance criteria (ITAAC). | ||
==SUMMARY== | |||
: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff has determined | |||
that the inspections, tests, and analyses | that the inspections, tests, and analyses | ||
Line 4,370: | Line 4,087: | ||
C. Summer Nuclear Station Unit 2. | C. Summer Nuclear Station Unit 2. | ||
ADDRESSES | ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2008-0441 when contacting the | ||
: Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2008-0441 when contacting the | |||
NRC about the availability of | NRC about the availability of | ||
Line 4,392: | Line 4,108: | ||
individuals listed in the FORFURTHER INFORMATIONCONTACT section of this document. | individuals listed in the FORFURTHER INFORMATIONCONTACT section of this document. | ||
*NRCs Agencywide Documents Access and Management System | *NRCs Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may access publicly | ||
(ADAMS): You may access publicly | |||
available documents online in the NRC | available documents online in the NRC | ||
Line 4,411: | Line 4,125: | ||
The ADAMS accession number for each | The ADAMS accession number for each | ||
document referenced in this document | document referenced in this document (if that document is available in | ||
(if that document is available in | |||
ADAMS) is provided the first time that | ADAMS) is provided the first time that |
Revision as of 00:50, 9 July 2018
ML15223A318 | |
Person / Time | |
---|---|
Site: | Indian Point ![]() |
Issue date: | 03/18/2014 |
From: | NRC/OGC |
To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
SECY RAS | |
References | |
RAS 28156, ASLBP 07-858-03-LR-BD01, 50-247-LR, 50-286-LR | |
Download: ML15223A318 (14) | |
Text
15144 Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 52/Tuesday, March 18, 2014/Notices *evaluate the accuracy of the agencys estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; *enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be
collected; and *minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who
are to respond, including through the
use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other
technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions
of responses.
III. Current Actions:
The Department of Labor seeks the approval for the
extension of this currently approved
information collection in order to
ensure the accurate payment of benefits
to current and former Federal
employees with recurring work-related
injuries.
Type of Review:
Extension.
Agency: Office of Workers Compensation Programs.
Title: Notice of Recurrences OMB Number:
1240-0009.
Agency Number:
CA-2a.
Affected Public:
Individuals or households.
Total Respondents:
258.
Total Annual Responses:
258. Average Time per Response:
30 minutes. Estimated Total Burden Hours:
129. Frequency:
Annually.
Total Burden Cost (capital/startup):
$0. Total Burden Cost (operating/
maintenance):
$126. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of
Management and Budget approval of the
information collection request; they will
also become a matter of public record.
Dated: March 10, 2014.
Yoon Ferguson, Agency Clearance Officer, Office of Workers Compensation Programs, US Department of
Labor. [FR Doc. 2014-05981 Filed 3-17-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-CH-P NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Notice of Permit Applications Received Under the Antarctic Conservation Act
of 1978 (Pub. L.95-541)
AGENCY: National Science Foundation.
ACTION: Notice of Permit Applications Received Under the Antarctic
Conservation Act of 1978, Public Law 95-541.
SUMMARY
- The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish a notice of permit applications received
to conduct activities regulated under the
Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978.
NSF has published regulations under
the Antarctic Conservation Act at Title
45 Part 670 of the Code of Federal
Regulations. This is the required notice
of permit applications received.
DATES: Interested parties are invited to submit written data, comments, or
views with respect to this permit
application by April 17, 2014. This
application may be inspected by
interested parties at the Permit Office, address below.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to Permit Office, Room 755, Division of Polar Programs, National
Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson
Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22230. FORFURTHERINFORMATIONCONTACT
- Polly Penhale, ACA Permit Officer, at
the above address or ACApermits@
nsf.gov or (703) 292-7420. SUPPLEMENTARYINFORMATION
- The National Science Foundation, as
directed by the Antarctic Conservation
Act of 1978 (Pub. L.95-541), as
amended by the Antarctic Science, Tourism and Conservation Act of 1996, has developed regulations for the
establishment of a permit system for
various activities in Antarctica and
designation of certain animals and
certain geographic areas a requiring
special protection. The regulations
establish such a permit system to
designate Antarctic Specially Protected
Areas. Application Details
- 1. Applicant:
Permit Application: 2014-030 Prof. Chi-Hing Christina Cheng Department of Animal Biology, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, IL Activity for Which Permit Is Requested ASPA, Import into USA: This permit would allow entry into ASPA 153
Eastern Dallmann Bay and ASPA 152
Western Bransfield Strait for the
purpose of collecting a small number of
icefish species via trawling and trapping
for a study on freezing avoidance and
evolutionary cold adaptation in
Antarctic fishes. Some whole, frozen
individuals as well as tissue samples
would be imported back into the U.S.A.
for physiological, biochemical, and
molecular studies. Port of Entry is Port
Hueneme, CA.
Location Antarctic Specially Protected Area No. 153, Eastern Dallmann Bay; and Antarctic Specially Protected Area No.
152, Western Bransfield Strait (Area
around Low Island).
Dates June 21, 2014 to October 21, 2014.
Nadene G. Kennedy, Polar Coordination Specialist, Division of Polar Programs.
[FR Doc. 2014-05881 Filed 3-17-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2014-0045]
Biweekly Notice; Applications and
Amendments to Facility Operating
Licenses and Combined Licenses
Involving No Significant Hazards
Considerations Background Pursuant to Section 189a. (2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) is publishing this
regular biweekly notice. The Act
requires the Commission to publish
notice of any amendments issued, or
proposed to be issued and grants the
Commission the authority to issue and
make immediately effective any
amendment to an operating license or
combined license, as applicable, upon a
determination by the Commission that
such amendment involves no significant
hazards consideration, notwithstanding
the pendency before the Commission of
a request for a hearing from any person.
This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or
proposed to be issued from March 5 to
March 18, 2014. The last biweekly
notice was published on March 4, 2014
(79 FR 12241).
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods (unless
this document describes a different
method for submitting comments on a
specific subject):
- Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2014-0045. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol
Gallagher; telephone: 301-287-3422;
email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For technical questions, contact the
individual listed in the FORFURTHER INFORMATIONCONTACT section of this document.
- Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Chief, Rules, Announcements, and
Directives Branch (RADB), Office of
Administration, Mail Stop: 3WFN
44M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:34 Mar 17, 2014Jkt 232001PO 00000Frm 00050Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\18MRN1.SGM18MRN1 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES 15145 Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 52/Tuesday, March 18, 2014/Notices Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. For additional direction on accessing information and submitting comments, see Accessing Information and
Submitting Comments in the SUPPLEMENTARYINFORMATION section of this document. SUPPLEMENTARYINFORMATION
- I. Accessing Information and Submitting Comments A. Accessing Information Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2014-0045 when contacting the NRC about
the availability of information regarding
this document. You may access
publicly-available information related to
this action by the following methods:
- Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2014-0045.
- NRCs Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may access publicly
available documents online in the NRC
Library at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select ADAMS Public Documents and
then select Begin Web-based ADAMS
Search. For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRCs Public
Document Room (PDR) reference staff at
1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by
email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The ADAMS accession number for each
document referenced in this document (if that document is available in
ADAMS) is provided the first time that
a document is referenced.
- NRCs PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at
the NRCs PDR, Room O1-F21, One
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville
Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
B. Submitting Comments Please include Docket ID NRC-2014-0045 in the subject line of your
comment submission, in order to ensure
that the NRC is able to make your
comment submission available to the
public in this docket.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that
you do not want to be publicly
disclosed in your comment submission.
The NRC posts all comment
submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.
The NRC does not routinely edit
comment submissions to remove
identifying or contact information.
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for
submission to the NRC, then you should
inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly
disclosed in their comment submission.
Your request should state that the NRC
does not routinely edit comment
submissions to remove such information
before making the comment
submissions available to the public or
entering the comment submissions into
ADAMS. Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating
Licenses and Combined Licenses, Proposed No Significant Hazards
Consideration Determination, and
Opportunity for a Hearing The Commission has made a proposed determination that the
following amendment requests involve
no significant hazards consideration.
Under the Commissions regulations in
§50.92 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), this means that operation of the facility in accordance
with the proposed amendment would
not (1) involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated; or (2)
create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any
accident previously evaluated; or (3)
involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety. The basis for this
proposed determination for each
amendment request is shown below.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed
determination. Any comments received
within 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice will be
considered in making any final
determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the
expiration of 60 days after the date of
publication of this notice. The
Commission may issue the license
amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment
involves no significant hazards
consideration. In addition, the
Commission may issue the amendment
prior to the expiration of the 30-day
comment period should circumstances
change during the 30-day comment
period such that failure to act in a
timely way would result, for example in
derating or shutdown of the facility.
Should the Commission take action
prior to the expiration of either the
comment period or the notice period, it
will publish in the Federal Register a notice of issuance. Should the
Commission make a final No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after
issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will occur very infrequently.
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any person(s)
whose interest may be affected by this
action may file a request for a hearing
and a petition to intervene with respect
to issuance of the amendment to the
subject facility operating license or
combined license. Requests for a
hearing and a petition for leave to
intervene shall be filed in accordance
with the Commissions Agency Rules
of Practice and Procedure in 10 CFR
Part 2. Interested person(s) should
consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the NRCs PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room
O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first
floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. The
NRC regulations are accessible
electronically from the NRC Library on
the NRCs Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-
collections/cfr/.
If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed
by the above date, the Commission or a
presiding officer designated by the
Commission or by the Chief
Administrative Judge of the Atomic
Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will
rule on the request and/or petition; and
the Secretary or the Chief
Administrative Judge of the Atomic
Safety and Licensing Board will issue a
notice of a hearing or an appropriate
order. As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene shall set
forth with particularity the interest of
the petitioner in the proceeding, and
how that interest may be affected by the
results of the proceeding. The petition
should specifically explain the reasons
why intervention should be permitted
with particular reference to the
following general requirements: (1) the
name, address, and telephone number of
the requestor or petitioner; (2) the
nature of the requestors/petitioners
right under the Act to be made a party
to the proceeding; (3) the nature and
extent of the requestors/petitioners
property, financial, or other interest in
the proceeding; and (4) the possible
effect of any decision or order which
may be entered in the proceeding on the
requestors/petitioners interest. The
petition must also identify the specific contentions which the requestor/
petitioner seeks to have litigated at the
proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or
fact to be raised or controverted. In
addition, the requestor/petitioner shall
provide a brief explanation of the bases
for the contention and a concise
statement of the alleged facts or expert VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:34 Mar 17, 2014Jkt 232001PO 00000Frm 00051Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\18MRN1.SGM18MRN1 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES 15146 Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 52/Tuesday, March 18, 2014/Notices opinion which support the contention and on which the requestor/petitioner
intends to rely in proving the contention
at the hearing. The requestor/petitioner
must also provide references to those
specific sources and documents of
which the petitioner is aware and on
which the requestor/petitioner intends
to rely to establish those facts or expert
opinion. The petition must include
sufficient information to show that a
genuine dispute exists with the
applicant on a material issue of law or
fact. Contentions shall be limited to
matters within the scope of the
amendment under consideration. The
contention must be one which, if
proven, would entitle the requestor/
petitioner to relief. A requestor/
petitioner who fails to satisfy these
requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to
intervene, and have the opportunity to
participate fully in the conduct of the
hearing. If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final
determination on the issue of no
significant hazards consideration. The
final determination will serve to decide
when the hearing is held. If the final
determination is that the amendment
request involves no significant hazards
consideration, the Commission may
issue the amendment and make it
immediately effective, notwithstanding
the request for a hearing. Any hearing
held would take place after issuance of
the amendment. If the final
determination is that the amendment
request involves a significant hazards
consideration, then any hearing held
would take place before the issuance of
any amendment.
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a
request for hearing, a petition for leave
to intervene, any motion or other
document filed in the proceeding prior
to the submission of a request for
hearing or petition to intervene, and
documents filed by interested
governmental entities participating
under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in
accordance with the NRCs E-Filing rule
(72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to
submit and serve all adjudicatory
documents over the internet, or in some
cases to mail copies on electronic
storage media. Participants may not
submit paper copies of their filings
unless they seek an exemption in
accordance with the procedures
described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10
days prior to the filing deadline, the
participant should contact the Office of
the Secretary by email at
hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by telephone at 301-415-1677, to request (1) a digital
identification (ID) certificate, which
allows the participant (or its counsel or representative) to digitally sign
documents and access the E-Submittal server for any proceeding in which it is
participating; and (2) advise the
Secretary that the participant will be
submitting a request or petition for
hearing (even in instances in which the
participant, or its counsel or
representative, already holds an NRC-
issued digital ID certificate). Based upon
this information, the Secretary will
establish an electronic docket for the
hearing in this proceeding if the
Secretary has not already established an
electronic docket.
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the
NRCs public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/
apply-certificates.html.
System requirements for accessing the E-
Submittal server are detailed in the
NRCs Guidance for Electronic
Submission, which is available on the
agencys public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-
submittals.html. Participants may attempt to use other software not listed
on the Web site, but should note that the
NRCs E-Filing system does not support
unlisted software, and the NRC Meta
System Help Desk will not be able to
offer assistance in using unlisted
software.
If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC in
accordance with the E-Filing rule, the
participant must file the document
using the NRCs online, Web-based
submission form. In order to serve
documents through the Electronic
Information Exchange System, users
will be required to install a Web
browser plug-in from the NRCs Web
site. Further information on the Web-
based submission form, including the
installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on the NRCs public Web
site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html.
Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a docket has
been created, the participant can then
submit a request for hearing or petition
for leave to intervene. Submissions
should be in Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with the NRC
guidance available on the NRCs public
Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html.
A filing is considered complete at the time the documents are submitted through the
NRCs E-Filing system. To be timely, an
electronic filing must be submitted to
the E-Filing system no later than 11:59
p.m. Eastern Time on the due date.
Upon receipt of a transmission, the E-
Filing system time-stamps the document
and sends the submitter an email notice
confirming receipt of the document. The
E-Filing system also distributes an email
notice that provides access to the
document to the NRCs Office of the
General Counsel and any others who
have advised the Office of the Secretary
that they wish to participate in the
proceeding, so that the filer need not
serve the documents on those
participants separately. Therefore, applicants and other participants (or
their counsel or representative) must
apply for and receive a digital ID
certificate before a hearing request/
petition to intervene is filed so that they
can obtain access to the document via
the E-Filing system.
A person filing electronically using the agencys adjudicatory E-Filing
system may seek assistance by
contacting the NRC Meta System Help
Desk through the Contact Us link
located on the NRC Web site at http:// www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html , by email to MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov , or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-7640. The NRC
Meta System Help Desk is available
between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern
Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays.
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting
documents electronically must file an
exemption request, in accordance with
10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper
filing requesting authorization to
continue to submit documents in paper
format. Such filings must be submitted
by: (1) First class mail addressed to the
Office of the Secretary of the
Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-
0001, Attention: Rulemaking and
Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery
service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking
and Adjudications Staff. Participants
filing a document in this manner are
responsible for serving the document on
all other participants. Filing is
considered complete by first-class mail
as of the time of deposit in the mail, or
by courier, express mail, or expedited
delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the
service. A presiding officer, having VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:34 Mar 17, 2014Jkt 232001PO 00000Frm 00052Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\18MRN1.SGM18MRN1 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES 15147 Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 52/Tuesday, March 18, 2014/Notices granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant
or party to use E-Filing if the presiding
officer subsequently determines that the
reason for granting the exemption from
use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRCs
electronic hearing docket which is
available to the public at http://ehd1.
nrc.gov/ehd/;, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the Commission, or the
presiding officer. Participants are
requested not to include personal
privacy information, such as social
security numbers, home addresses, or
home phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC regulation or other law
requires submission of such
information. However, a request to
intervene will require including
information on local residence in order
to demonstrate a proximity assertion of
interest in the proceeding. With respect
to copyrighted works, except for limited
excerpts that serve the purpose of the
adjudicatory filings and would
constitute a Fair Use application, participants are requested not to include
copyrighted materials in their
submission.
Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 days from the
date of publication of this notice.
Requests for hearing, petitions for leave
to intervene, and motions for leave to
file new or amended contentions that
are filed after the 60-day deadline will
not be entertained absent a
determination by the presiding officer
that the filing demonstrates good cause
by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR
2.309(c)(1)(i)-(iii).
For further details with respect to this license amendment application, see the
application for amendment which is
available for public inspection at the
NRCs PDR, located at One White Flint
North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville
Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland
20852. Publicly available documents
created or received at the NRC are
accessible electronically through
ADAMS in the NRC Library at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do not have access to
ADAMS or who encounter problems in
accessing the documents located in
ADAMS, should contact the NRCs PDR
Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-
415-4737, or by email to pdr.resource@
nrc.gov. Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-247, Indian Point
Nuclear Generating, Unit 2, Westchester
County, New York Date of amendment request:
January 16, 2014.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed amendment would revise
Technical Specification (TS) 5.5.7, Steam Generator (SG) Program, to
exclude portions of the SG tube below
the top of the SG tubesheet from
periodic inspections and plugging by
implementing the H* alternate repair
criteria. In addition, TS 5.6.7, Steam
Generator Tube Inspection Report,
would also be revised to include
additional reporting requirements.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
licensee has provided its analysis of the
issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented
below: 1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change excludes the lower portion of steam generator tubes from inspection by implementing the alternate
repair criteria H* and does not have a
detrimental impact on the integrity of any
plant structure, system, or component that
initiates an analyzed event. The proposed
change has no significant effect upon
accident probabilities or consequences.
Of the applicable accidents previously evaluated, the limiting transients with
consideration to the proposed change to the
steam generator tube inspection and repair
criteria are the steam generator tube rupture (SGTR), the main steam line break (MSLB),
Locked Rotor and Control Rod Ejection.
At normal operating pressures, leakage from Primary Water Stress Corrosion
Cracking (PWSCC) below the proposed
limited inspection depth is limited by both
the tube-to-tubesheet crevice and the limited
crack opening permitted by the tubesheet
constraint. Consequently, negligible normal
operating leakage is expected from cracks
within the tubesheet region.
For the SGTR event, the required structural integrity margins of the steam generator tubes
and the tube-to-tubesheet joint over the H*
distance will be maintained. Tube rupture in
tubes with cracks within the tubesheet is
precluded by the constraint provided by the
tube-to-tubesheet joint. This constraint
results from the hydraulic expansion process, thermal expansion mismatch between the tube and tubesheet, and from the differential
pressure between the primary and secondary
side. The structural margins against burst, as
discussed in Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.121, Bases for Plugging Degraded PWR Steam
Generator Tubes, (Reference 11) and NEI
97-06, Steam Generator Program
Guidelines (Reference 3) are maintained for
both normal and postulated accident
conditions. Therefore, the proposed change
results in no significant increase in the
probability of the occurrence of a SGTR
accident.
The probability of a Steam Line Break, Locked Rotor, and Control Rod Ejection are
not affected by the potential failure of a SG tube, as the failure of a tube is not an initiator for any of these events. In the supporting
Westinghouse analyses, leakage is modeled
as flow through a porous medium via the use
of the Darcy equation. The leakage model is
used to develop a relationship between
allowable leakage and leakage at accident
conditions that is based on differential
pressure across the tubesheet and the
viscosity of the fluid. A leak rate ratio was
developed to relate the leakage at operating
conditions to leakage at accident conditions.
The fluid viscosity is based on fluid
temperature and it has been shown that for
the most limiting accident, the fluid
temperature does not exceed the normal
operating temperature. Therefore, the
viscosity ratio is assumed to be 1.0 and the
leak rate ratio is a function of the ratio of the
accident differential pressure and the normal
operating differential pressure.
The leakage factor of 1.75 for IP2 for a-postulated MSLB, has been calculated as
shown in the supporting Westinghouse
analysis. IP2 [Indian Point Unit 2] will apply
a factor of 1.75 to the normal operating
leakage associated with the tubesheet
expansion region in the Condition
Monitoring Assessment and Operational
Assessment. Through application of the
limited tubesheet inspection scope, the
administrative leakage limit of 75 gpd
[gallons per day] provides assurance that
excessive leakage (i.e., greater than accident
analysis assumptions) will not occur. No
leakage factor will be applied to the Locked
Rotor or Control Rod Ejection due to their
short duration, since the calculated leak rate
ratio is less than 1.0. Therefore, the proposed
change does not result in a significant
increase in the consequences of these
accidents.
For the Condition Monitoring Assessment, the component of leakage from the prior
cycle from below the H* distance will be
multiplied by a factor of 1.75 and added to
the total leakage from any other source and
compared to the allowable MSLB leakage
limit. For the Operational Assessment, the
difference in the leakage between the
allowable leakage and the accident induced
leakage from sources other than the tubesheet
expansion region will be divided by 1.75 and
compared to the observed operational
leakage. As noted above, an administrative
limit of 75 gpd has been established at IP2
to assure that the allowable accident induced
leakage is not exceeded.
Based on the above, the performance criteria of NEI 97-06 and Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.121 continue to be met and the
proposed change does not involve a
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.
- 2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change excludes the lower portion of steam generator tubes from
inspection by implementing the alternate
repair criteria (H*). The proposed change
does not introduce any new equipment, create new failure modes for existing VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:34 Mar 17, 2014Jkt 232001PO 00000Frm 00053Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\18MRN1.SGM18MRN1 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES 15148 Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 52/Tuesday, March 18, 2014/Notices equipment, or create any new limiting single failures resulting from tube degradation. The
proposed change does not affect the design
of the SGs or their method of operation. In
addition, the proposed change does not
impact any other plant system or component.
Plant operation will not be altered, and all
safety functions will continue to perform as
previously assumed in accident analyses.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
- 3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change defines the safety significant portion of the SG tubing that must
be inspected and repaired. WCAP-17828-P
identifies the inspection depth below which
any type of degradation is shown to have no
impact on the steam generator tube integrity
performance criteria in NEI 97-06. The
proposed change does not affect tube design
or operating environment. The proposed
change will continue to require monitoring of
the physical condition of the SG tubes but
will limit inspection within the tubesheet to
the portion of the tube from the top of the
tubesheet to a distance H* below the top of
the tubesheet.
The proposed change maintains the required structural margins of the SG tubes
for both normal and accident conditions. For
axially oriented cracking located within the
tubesheet, tube burst is precluded due to the
presence of the tubesheet. For
circumferentially oriented cracking, the
supporting Westinghouse analyses define a
length of degradation-free expanded tubing
that provides the necessary resistance to tube
pullout due to the pressure induced forces, with applicable safety factors applied.
Application of the limited hot and cold leg
tubesheet inspection criteria will preclude
unacceptable primary to secondary leakage
during all plant conditions. The MSLB leak
rate factor for IP2 is 1.75. Multiplying the IP2
administrative leak rate limit of 75 gpd/SG by
this factor shows that the primary-to-
secondary leak rate during a postulated SLB
is not exceeded.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in any margin
of safety.
Based on the above, Entergy concludes that the proposed amendment to the Indian Point
2 Technical Specifications presents no
significant hazards consideration under the
standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and
accordingly, a finding of no significant
hazards consideration is justified.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensees analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee:
Jeanne Cho, Assistant General Counsel, Entergy
Nuclear Operations, Inc., 440 Hamilton
Avenue, White Plains, NY 10601.
NRC Branch Chief:
Benjamin G.
Beasley. Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-255, Palisades Nuclear
Plant, Van Buren County, Michigan Date of amendment request:
June 25, 2013, supplemented by letter dated
August 7, 2013.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed amendment would revise
Palisades Nuclear Plant Site Emergency
Plan (SEP) to increase the staff
augmentation response times for certain
Emergency Response Organization
positions from 30 to 60 minutes. Entergy
Nuclear Organization has reviewed the
proposed changes against the standards in §50.47(b) and the requirements in 10
CFR Part 50, Appendix E.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
licensee has provided its analysis of the
issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented
below: 1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed extension of staff augmentation times has no effect on normal
plant operation or on any accident initiator.
The change affects the response to
radiological emergencies under the Palisades
Nuclear Plant SEP. The ability of the
emergency response organization to respond
adequately to radiological emergencies has
been evaluated. Changes in the on-shift
organization, such as the addition of staff and
reassignment of key on-shift emergency
response functions, provide assurance of
emergency response without competing or conflicting duties. An analysis was also
performed on the effect of the proposed
change on the timeliness of performing major
tasks for the major functional areas of the
SEP. The analysis concluded that extension
of staff augmentation times would not
significantly affect the ability to perform the
required tasks.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
- 2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change affects the required response times for supplementing onsite
personnel in response to a radiological
emergency. It has been evaluated and
determined not to significantly affect the
ability to perform that function. It has no
effect on the plant design or on the normal
operation of the plant and does not affect
how the plant is physically operated under
emergency conditions. The extension of staff
augmentation times in the SEP does not
affect the plant operating procedures which are performed by plant staff during all plant conditions.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
- 3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not affect plant design or method of operation. Section
50.47(b) and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E
establish emergency planning standards and
requirements that require adequate staffing, satisfactory performance of key functional
areas and critical tasks, and timely
augmentation of the response capability.
Since the SEP was originally developed, there have been improvements in the
technology used to support the SEP functions
and in the capabilities of onsite personnel. A
functional analysis was performed on the
effect of the proposed change on the
timeliness of performing major tasks for the
functional areas of SEP. The analysis
concluded that an increase in staff
augmentation times would not significantly
affect the ability to perform the required SEP
tasks. Thus, the proposed change has been
determined not to adversely affect the ability
to meet the emergency planning standards as
described in 10 CFR 50.47(b) and
requirements in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensees analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee:
William Dennis, Assistant General Counsel, Entergy
Nuclear Operations, Inc., 440 Hamilton
Ave., White Plains, NY 10601.
NRC Branch Chief:
Robert D. Carlson.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-255, Palisades Nuclear
Plant, Van Buren County, Michigan Date of amendment request:
December 11, 2013.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed amendment would
modify Palisades Nuclear Plant
technical specifications (TS)
requirements for unavailable barriers by
adding limiting condition for operation (LCO) 3.0.9. The changes are consistent
with the NRCs approved industry/
Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Standard Technical
Specification (STS) change TSTF-427, Allowance for Non-Technical
Specification Barrier Degradation on
Supported System OPERABILITY,
Revision 2.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:
The licensee has affirmed the VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:34 Mar 17, 2014Jkt 232001PO 00000Frm 00054Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\18MRN1.SGM18MRN1 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES 15149 Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 52/Tuesday, March 18, 2014/Notices applicability of the model proposed non-significant hazards consideration
published on October 2, 2006 (71 FR
58444), as part of the Consolidated Line
Item Improvement Process, Notice of
Availability of the Model Safety
Evaluation. The licensee has
concluded that the findings presented in
that evaluation are applicable to PNP
and is hereby referenced below:
Criterion 1The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant Increase in the
Probability or Consequences of an Accident
Previously Evaluated The proposed change allows a delay time for entering a supported system technical
specification (TS) when the inoperability is
due solely to an unavailable barrier if risk is
assessed and managed. The postulated
initiating events which may require a
functional barrier are limited to those with
low frequencies of occurrence, and the
overall TS system safety function would still
be available for the majority of anticipated
challenges. Therefore, the probability of an
accident previously evaluated is not
significantly increased, if at all. The
consequences of an accident while relying on the allowance provided by proposed LCO 3.0.9 are no different than the consequences
of an accident while relying on the TS required actions in effect without the allowance provided by proposed LCO 3.0.9.
Therefore, the consequences of an accident
previously evaluated are not significantly
affected by this change. The addition of a
requirement to assess and manage the risk
introduced by this change will further
minimize possible concerns.
Therefore, this change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.
Criterion 2The Proposed Change Does Not Create the Possibility of a New or Different
Kind of Accident from any Previously
Evaluated The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (no new or
different type of equipment will be installed).
Allowing delay times for entering supported
system TS when inoperability is due solely
to an unavailable barrier, if risk is assessed
and managed, will not introduce new failure
modes or effects and will not, in the absence
of other unrelated failures, lead to an
accident whose consequences exceed the
consequences of accidents previously
evaluated. The addition of a requirement to
assess and manage the risk introduced by this
change will further minimize possible
concerns.
Thus, this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from an accident previously
evaluated.
Criterion 3The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant Reduction in the Margin
of Safety.
The proposed change allows a delay time for entering a supported system TS when the
inoperability is due solely to an unavailable
barrier, if risk is assessed and managed. The postulated initiating events which may require a functional barrier are limited to
those with low frequencies of occurrence, and the overall TS system safety function
would still be available for the majority of anticipated challenges. The risk impact of the
proposed TS changes was assessed following
the three-tiered approach recommended in
RG 1.177. A bounding risk assessment was
performed to justify the proposed TS
changes. This application of LCO 3.0.9 is
predicated upon the licensees performance
of a risk assessment and the management of
plant risk. The net change to the margin of
safety is insignificant as indicated by the
anticipated low levels of associated risk (ICCDP and ICLERP) as shown in Table 1 of
Section 3.1.1 in the Safety Evaluation.
Therefore, this change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensees analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee:
William Dennis, Assistant General Counsel, Entergy
Nuclear Operations, Inc., 440 Hamilton
Ave., White Plains, NY 10601.
NRC Branch Chief:
Robert D. Carlson.
Omaha Public Power District, Docket No. 50-285, Fort Calhoun Station, Unit
1, Washington County, Nebraska Date of amendment request:
August 16, 2013.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed amendment would revise
the design basis method in the Fort
Calhoun Station Updated Safety
Analysis Report for controlling the raw
water intake cell level during periods of
elevated river levels.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
licensee has provided its analysis of the
issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented
below: 1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed modification engineering change (EC) 55394, Raw Water [RW] Pump Operation and Safety Classification of
Components during a Flood, installed intake cell flood water inlet valves at Fort Calhoun
Station (FCS). The modification would
employ the trash rack blowdown portion of
the circulating water system to allow river
water to flow into four of those pipes and
then through four newly installed safety class
valves for control of cell level (RW pump
suction level) using river level as the driving
force. This modification EC 55394 enhances
the flood protection provided to the RW
pumps for an external flooding event thus assuring the availability of the ultimate heat sink and core cooling. As such, the proposed
change does not increase the consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
In addition, implementing this strategy eliminates the need for the exterior sluice
gates to be safety class and allows for
continuous control of the intake cell level
during a design basis flood event. The
proposed Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR) changes for implementing
modification EC 55394 allow for maintaining
RW pump operation during a flooding event
at FCS. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
- 2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed modification EC 55394 to provide control of the intake cell level by
operation of the manual valves and the
associated USAR changes do not alter the
safety limits or safety analysis assumptions
associated with the operation of the plant.
Hence, the proposed changes do not
introduce any new accident initiators, nor do
they reduce or adversely affect the
capabilities of any plant structure or system
in the performance of their safety function.
The proposed amendment revises the USAR
to include the necessary information to
support the implementation of the
modification allowing for maintaining RW
pump operation during an abnormal
operating procedure AOP-01 flooding event
at FCS. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
- 3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed modification, which provides control of the intake cell level by
operation of the manual valves, and the
associated USAR changes do not alter the
safety limits or safety analysis assumptions
associated with the operation of the plant.
The proposed modification and associated
USAR revisions ensure there is adequate
protection to the RW pumps from an external
flood hazard thus assuring adequate
protection during a flood. Providing RW
pump intake cell level control during
flooding conditions allows for adjustment of
flow and control of the intake cell level
throughout the duration of the flood since the
new valves are located inside the intake
structure; thereby ensuring the RW pumps
remain operable during a flood condition and
will not adversely impact any margin of
safety. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensees analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:34 Mar 17, 2014Jkt 232001PO 00000Frm 00055Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\18MRN1.SGM18MRN1 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES 15150 Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 52/Tuesday, March 18, 2014/Notices satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee:
David A. Repka, Esq., Winston & Strawn, 1700 K Street
NW., Washington, DC 20006-3817.
NRC Branch Chief:
Michael T.
Markley. Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. Docket Nos.52-025 and 52-026, Vogtle Electric Generating
Plant, Units 3 and 4, Burke County, Georgia Date of amendment request:
November 21, 2013.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed change would amend
Combined License Nos. NPF-91 and
NPF-92 for the Vogtle Electric
Generating Plant (VEGP) Units 3 and 4
by departing from the approved AP1000
Design Control Document (DCD) Tier 2
information as incorporated into the
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) to allow use of a new
methodology to determine the effective
thermal conductivity resulting from
oxidation of the inorganic zinc (IOZ)
used in the containment vessel coating
system. Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
licensee has provided its analysis of the
issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented
below: 1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
Implementation of a methodology which specifies an effective thermal conductivity
and oxidation progression for the inorganic
zinc coating of the containment vessel is
used to eliminate non-mechanistic modeling
of inorganic zinc thermal conductivity in the
containment integrity analyses to show that
the value for inorganic zinc thermal
conductivity used in the containment
integrity analyses is conservative, but is not
used to change any of the parameters used in
those analyses. There is no change to any
accident initiator or condition of the
containment that would affect the probability
of any accident. The containment peak
pressure analysis as reported in the UFSAR
is not affected; therefore, the previously
reported consequences are not affected.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve an increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.
- 2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment to implement a methodology which specifies an effective thermal conductivity and oxidation progression and effects for the inorganic zinc
coating of the containment vessel is used to
eliminate non-mechanistic modeling of
inorganic zinc thermal conductivity in the containment integrity analyses to show that
the value for inorganic zinc thermal
conductivity used in the containment
integrity analyses is conservative, but is not
used to change any of the parameters used in
the containment peak pressure analysis. The
change in methodology does not change the
condition of containment; therefore, no new
accident initiator is created. The containment
peak pressure analysis as currently evaluated
is not affected, and the consequences
previously reported are not changed. The
new methodology does not change the
containment; therefore, no new fault or
sequence of events that could lead to containment failure or release of radioactive material is created.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident.
- 3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed implementation of a methodology which specifies an effective
thermal conductivity and oxidation
progression and effects for the inorganic zinc
coating of the containment vessel is used to
eliminate non-mechanistic modeling of
inorganic zinc thermal conductivity in the
containment integrity analyses to show that
the value for inorganic zinc thermal
conductivity used in the containment
integrity analyses is conservative, but is not
used to change any of the parameters used in
the containment peak pressure analysis. The
change in methodology does not change the
condition of the containment and the
integrity of the containment vessel is not
affected. The containment peak pressure
analysis as currently evaluated is not
affected, and the consequences previously
reported are not changed. No safety analysis
or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is
changed by the proposed change, thus no
margin of safety is reduced.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not reduce the margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensees analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee:
M. Stanford Blanton, Balch & Bingham LLP, 1710
Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL
35203-2015.
NRC Branch Chief:
Lawrence J.
Burkhart.
Union Electric Company, Docket No.
50-483, Callaway Plant, Unit 1, Callaway County, Missouri Date of amendment request:
December 6, 2013.
Description of amendment request:
The amendment would add a new pipe crack exclusion allowance to Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) Standard
Plant Section 3.6.2.1.2.4, ASME
[American Society of Mechanical
Engineers] Section III and Non-Nuclear Piping-Moderate-Energy, and FSAR
Standard Plant Table 3.6-2, Design Comparison to Regulatory Positions of
Regulatory Guide 1.46, Revision 0, dated May 1973, titled Protection
Against Pipe Whip Inside Containment, in particular regard to
the high-density polyethylene (HDPE)
piping installed in ASME Class 3 line
segments of the essential service water (ESW) system. New Reference 25 would
be added to FSAR Standard Plant
Section 3.6.3 to cite the NRC-approved
version of the HDPE requirements
covered by Relief Request I3R-10.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
licensee has provided its analysis of the
issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented
below: 1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
There are no new design changes associated with the proposed amendment.
All design, material, and construction
standards that were applicable prior to this
amendment request, including those
standards in place following the NRC
approval of using the HDPE piping, will
continue to be applicable.
The proposed change will not increase the likelihood of accident initiators or precursors
or adversely alter the design assumptions, conditions, and configuration of the facility
or the manner in which the plant is operated
and maintained with respect to such
initiators or precursors.
The proposed changes do not affect the way in which safety-related systems perform
their functions.
All accident analysis acceptance criteria will continue to be met with the proposed
changes. The proposed changes will not
affect the source term, containment isolation, or radiological release assumptions used in
evaluating the radiological consequences of
an accident previously evaluated. The
proposed changes will not alter any
assumptions or change any mitigation actions
in the radiological consequence evaluations
in the FSAR.
The applicable radiological dose acceptance criteria will continue to be met.
Since the proposed change is based on a calculation that demonstrates that a moderate
energy crack in the ESW HDPE piping is
unlikely, there are no impacts on the plants
existing hazard analyses.
The proposed change does not physically alter safety-related systems or affect the way
in which safety-related systems perform their
functions per the intended plant design. VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:34 Mar 17, 2014Jkt 232001PO 00000Frm 00056Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\18MRN1.SGM18MRN1 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES 15151 Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 52/Tuesday, March 18, 2014/Notices As such, the proposed change will not alter or prevent the capability of structures, systems, and components (SSCs) to perform
their intended functions for mitigating the
consequences of an accident and meeting
applicable acceptance limits.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
- 2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
With respect to any new or different kind of accident, there are no new design changes
being proposed nor are there any changes in
the method by which any safety-related plant
SSC performs its specified safety function.
The proposed change will not affect the
normal method of plant operation. No new
transient precursors will be introduced as a
result of this amendment.
The HDPE piping design change was previously approved by the NRC under Relief
Request I3R-10. The proposed change in this
amendment request does not create the
possibility of a new type of accident, rather
the proposed change seeks to eliminate the
need to postulate an existing type of hazard
event (moderate energy piping leakage crack)
for the subject HDPE piping which has been
shown to experience such low stresses that
such a crack, and the potential flooding for
that hazard event, need not be postulated.
The change does not have a detrimental impact on the manner in which plant
equipment operates or responds to an
actuation signal.
The proposed change does not, therefore, create the possibility of a new or different
accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
- 3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
There will be no effect on those plant systems necessary to assure the
accomplishment of protection functions
associated with reactor operation or the
reactor coolant system. The design factor (DF) of 0.50 discussed in ULNRC-05553
dated October 9, 2008 has not changed. This
DF was approved by the NRC in Relief
Request 13R-10 (Reference 6.2 to this
Evaluation). There will be no impact on the
overpower limit, departure from nucleate
boiling ratio (DNBR) limits, heat flux hot
channel factor (FQ), nuclear enthalpy rise hot
channel factor (F D H), loss of coolant accident peak cladding temperature (LOCA PCT), peak
local power density, or any other limit and
associated margin of safety. Required
shutdown margins in the COLR [core
operating limits report] will not be changed.
The proposed change does not eliminate any
surveillances or alter the frequency of
surveillances required by the Technical
Specifications.
As such, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety as defined in any regulatory requirement or guidance document.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensees analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee:
John ONeill, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman
LLP, 2300 N Street NW., Washington, DC 20037.
NRC Branch Chief:
Michael T.
Markley. Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation, Docket No. 50-482, Wolf
Creek Generating Station, Coffey
County, Kansas Date of amendment request:
November 21, 2013.
Description of amendment request:
The amendment would revise the
approved Fire Protection Program as
described in the Updated Safety Analysis Report, based on the reactor
coolant system thermal hydraulic
response evaluation of a postulated
control room fire, performed for changes
to the alternative shutdown
methodology.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
licensee has provided its analysis of the
issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented
below: 1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The design function of structures, systems and components (SSCs) are not impacted by
the proposed deviations from [10 CFR Part
50] Appendix R, Sections III.L.1 and III.L.2, and Calculation XX-E-013. The proposed
changes to the approved fire protection
program are based on the RCS [reactor
coolant system] thermal-hydraulic response (Evaluation SA-08-006) for a postulated
control room fire performed for changes to
the alternative shutdown methodology
outlined in letter SLNRC 84-0109, Fire
Protection Review. Drawing E-1F9915, Design Basis Document for OFN RP-017, Control Room Evacuation, Revision 5, Evaluation SA-08-006, RETRAN-3D Post-
Fire Safe Shutdown (PFSSD) Consequence
Evaluation for a Postulated Control Room
Fire, Revision 3, and Calculation WCNOC-
CP-003, VIPRE-01 MDNBR Analyses of
Control Room Fire Scenarios, Revision 0
demonstrate the adequacy of the revised
alternative shutdown procedure, OFN RF-
017. The proposed changes do not alter or
prevent the ability of SSCs from performing
their intended function to mitigate the
consequences of an initiating event within
the assumed acceptance limits.
Therefore, the probability of any accident previously evaluated is not increased.
Equipment required to mitigate an accident
remains capable of performing the assumed
function.
- 2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes will not alter the requirement or function for systems required
during accident conditions. The design
function of structures, systems and
components are not impacted by the
proposed change. Evaluation SA-08-006 and
Calculation WCNOC-CP-003 determined
natural circulation is maintained and
adequate core cooling is maintained. The
fission product boundary integrity is not
affected and safe shutdown capability is
maintained.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
- 3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
There will be no effect on the manner in which safety limits or limiting safety system
settings are determined nor will there be any
effect on those plant systems necessary to
assure the accomplishment of protection
functions. The revised alternative shutdown
methodology provides the ability to achieve
and maintain safe shutdown in the event of
a fire. Evaluation SA-08-006 and Calculation
WCNOC-CP-003 determined natural
circulation is maintained and adequate core
cooling is maintained.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensees analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee:
Jay Silberg, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, 2300 N Street NW., Washington, DC
20037. NRC Branch Chief:
Michael T.
Markley. Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation, Docket No. 50-482, Wolf
Creek Generating Station, Coffey
County, Kansas Date of amendment request:
December 17, 2013.
Description of amendment request:
The amendment would revise Technical
Specification Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.7.10.1 and SR 3.7.13.1 to reduce
the required run time for periodic
operation of the control room
pressurization system filter trains and
emergency exhaust system filter trains, with heaters on, from 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br /> to 15
minutes. The proposed amendment is
consistent with plant-specific options
provided in the NRCs model safety
evaluation of Technical Specifications VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:34 Mar 17, 2014Jkt 232001PO 00000Frm 00057Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\18MRN1.SGM18MRN1 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES 15152 Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 52/Tuesday, March 18, 2014/Notices Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-522-A, Revision 0, Revise Ventilation
System Surveillance Requirements to
Operate for 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br /> per Month.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
licensee has provided its analysis of the
issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented
below: 1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change replaces existing Surveillance Requirements to operate the
Control Room Emergency Ventilation System (CREVS) and the Emergency Exhaust System (EES) for a continuous 10 hour1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br /> period with
applicable heaters operating every 31 days, with requirements to operate these systems
for 15 continuous minutes with applicable
heaters operating every 31 days.
These systems are not accident initiators (i.e., their malfunction cannot initiate an
accident or transient) and therefore, these
changes do not involve a significant increase
in the probability of an accident. The
proposed system and filter testing changes
are consistent with current regulatory
guidance for these systems and will continue
to assure that these systems perform their
design function which may include
mitigating accidents. Therefore, the change
does not involve a significant increase in the
consequences of an accident.
Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
- 2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The change proposed for these ventilation systems does not change any system
operations or maintenance activities. Testing
requirements will be revised and will
continue to demonstrate that the Limiting
Conditions for Operation are met and the
system components are capable of
performing their intended safety functions.
The change does not create new failure
modes or mechanisms and no new accident
precursors are generated.
Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
- 3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The design basis for the ventilation system heaters in the EES and in the pressurization
trains of the CREVS includes the capability
to heat the incoming air, reducing the relative
humidity (and thereby increasing adsorber
efficiency). The heater testing change
proposed will continue to demonstrate that
the heaters are capable of heating the air and
will thus perform their design function. The proposed change is consistent with regulatory guidance.
Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensees analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee:
Jay Silberg, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, 2300 N Street NW., Washington, DC
20037. NRC Branch Chief:
Michael T.
Markley. Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and
Combined Licenses During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, the
Commission has issued the following
amendments. The Commission has
determined for each of these
amendments that the application
complies with the standards and
requirements of the Atomic Energy Act
of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the
Commissions rules and regulations.
The Commission has made appropriate
findings as required by the Act and the
Commissions rules and regulations in
10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in
the license amendment.
A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility operating
license or combined license, as
applicable, proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a hearing in
connection with these actions, was
published in the Federal Register as indicated.
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that these
amendments satisfy the criteria for
categorical exclusion in accordance
with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant
to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental
impact statement or environmental
assessment need be prepared for these
amendments. If the Commission has
prepared an environmental assessment
under the special circumstances
provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has
made a determination based on that
assessment, it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the action see (1) the applications for
amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3)
the Commissions related letter, Safety
Evaluation and/or Environmental
Assessment as indicated. All of these
items are available for public inspection
at the NRCs Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852.
Publicly available documents created or
received at the NRC are accessible
electronically through the Agencywide
Documents Access and Management
System (ADAMS) in the NRC Library at
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/
adams.html.
If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in
accessing the documents located in
ADAMS, contact the PDRs Reference
staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737
or by email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Docket No. 50-423, Millstone Power
Station, Unit 3, New London County, Connecticut Date of amendment request:
October 4, 2012, as supplemented by letters
dated January 4, April 17, and October
30, 2013.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed amendment would
modify Technical Specifications by
relocating specific surveillance
frequencies to a licensee controlled
program with the adoption of Technical
Specification Task Force (TSTF)-425, Revision 3, Relocate Surveillance
Frequencies to Licensee Control[Risk-
Informed Technical Specification Task
Force (RITSTF)] Initiative 5b.
Additionally, the change would add a
new program, the Surveillance
Frequency Control Program (SFCP), to
Technical Specification Section 6, Administrative Controls.
Date of issuance:
February 25, 2014.
Effective date:
As of the date of issuance, and shall be implemented
within 90 days.
Amendment No.:
258. Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-49:
Amendment revised the License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register:
December 11, 2012 (77 FR 73687). The supplemental letters dated January 4, 2013, April 17, 2013, and
October 30, 2013, provided additional
information that clarified the
application, did not expand the scope of
the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staffs original
proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination.
The Commissions related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated February 25, 2014. No significant hazards consideration comments received:
No. Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370, McGuire
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:34 Mar 17, 2014Jkt 232001PO 00000Frm 00058Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\18MRN1.SGM18MRN1 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES 15153 Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 52/Tuesday, March 18, 2014/Notices Date of application for amendments:
April 16, 2013.
Brief description of amendments:
The amendments remove superseded
temporary Technical Specification (TS)
requirements for McGuire Nuclear
Station (MNS), Units 1 and 2, in
accordance with a licensee commitment
described in a May 28, 2010, license
amendment request.
Date of issuance:
February 28, 2014.
Effective date:
This license amendment is effective as of its date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.:
272 and 252.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-9 and NPF-17:
Amendments revised the licenses and technical
specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register:
June 25, 2013 (78 FR 38081).
The Commissions related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated February 28, 2014. No significant hazards consideration comments received:
No. Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287, Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 and
3, Oconee County, South Carolina Date of application for amendments:
February 22, 2013, as supplemented on
September 10, October 25, November
29, and December 16, 2013.
Brief description of amendments:
The amendments revise Technical
Specification (TS) 3.4.3, to replace its
current reactor coolant system pressure-
temperature (P-T) limits with new P-T
limits applicable to 54 effective full
power years. In addition, the
amendments change the operational
requirements for unit heatup and
cooldown in TS Tables 3.4.3-1 and
3.4.3-2. Date of Issuance:
February 27, 2014.
Effective date:
As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days from the date of
issuance.
Amendment Nos.:
384, 386, and 385.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-38, DPR-47, and DPR-55:
Amendments revised the license and
the TSs. Date of initial notice in Federal Register:
April 16, 2013, 78 FR 22568.
The supplemental letters dated September 10, October 25, November
29, and December 16, 2013, provided
additional information that clarified the
application, did not expand the scope of
the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staffs original
proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination as
published in the Federal Register. The Commissions related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated February 27, 2014. No significant hazards consideration comments received:
No. Duke Energy Progress Inc., Docket Nos. 50-325 and 50-324, Brunswick
Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, Brunswick County, North Carolina.
Date of application for amendments:
June 19, 2012, as supplemented by
letters dated January 21, May 14, and August 29, 2013, and January 22, 2014.
Brief description of amendments:
The amendments revised the Technical Specification (TS) to extend the
Completion Time (CT) of TS 3.8.1
Required Action D.4 for an inoperable
diesel generator. A commensurate
change is also made to extend the
maximum CT of TS 3.8.1 Required
Actions C.3 and D.4. The licensee will
to add a supplemental AC power source (i.e., a supplemental diesel generator)
with the capability to power any
emergency bus within 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> from a
Station Blackout event, and with the
capacity to bring the affected unit to
cold shutdown.
Date of issuance:
February 24, 2014.
Effective date:
As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
prior to startup from the 2014 Unit 1
refueling outage.
Amendment Nos.:
264 and 292.
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-62 AND DPR-71:
Amendments revised the License and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register:
October 16, 2013 (77 FR 63346). The supplements dated January 21, May 14, and August 29, 2013, and
January 22, 2014, provided additional
information that clarified the
application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staffs original
proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination as
published in the Federal Register. The Commissions related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated February 24, 2014. No significant hazards consideration comments received:
None. Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-247, Indian Point
Nuclear Generating, Unit 2, Westchester
County, New York Date of application for amendment:
February 6, 2013, as supplemented by
letters dated July 9, 2013, October 3, 2013, and February 24, 2014.
Brief description of amendment:
The amendment changes the Technical
Specifications by revising the reactor heatup and cooldown curves (also referred to as pressure-temperature (P-
T) limits) and low temperature
overpressure protection (LTOP)
requirements to cover a lifetime burnup
of 48 Effective Full Power Years (EFPY),
which is an increase from the current
value of 29.2 EFPY.
Date of issuance:
March 5, 2014.
Effective date:
As of the date of issuance, and shall be implemented
within 30 days.
Amendment No.:
274. Facility Operating License No. DPR-26: The amendment revised the License and the Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register:
April 2, 2013 (78 FR 19750).
The supplemental letters dated July 9, 2013, October 3, 2013, and February 24, 2014, provided additional information
that clarified the application, did not
expand the scope of the application as
originally noticed, and did not change
the NRC staffs original proposed no
significant hazards consideration
determination as published in the
Federal Register. The Commissions related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated March 5, 2014.
No significant hazards consideration comments received:
No. Florida Power and Light Company, Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251, Turkey
Point Nuclear Generating, Units 3 and
4, Miami-Dade County, Florida Date of application for amendment:
March 22, 2013.
Brief description of amendment:
The amendments revised the Technical
Specifications (TSs) to allow the use of
Optimized ZIRLO TM as an approved fuel rod cladding.
Date of issuance:
February 20, 2014.
Effective date:
As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment No.:
259 and 254.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-31 and DPR-41:
Amendments revised the licenses and the TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register:
August 20, 2013 (78 FR 51219). The Commissions related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated February 20, 2014. No significant hazards consideration comments received:
No. Luminant Generation Company LLC, Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446, Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2 (CPNPP), Somervell
County, Texas Date of amendment request:
August 29, 2013, as supplemented by letter
dated February 19, 2014. VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:34 Mar 17, 2014Jkt 232001PO 00000Frm 00059Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\18MRN1.SGM18MRN1 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES 15154 Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 52/Tuesday, March 18, 2014/Notices Description of amendment request:
The amendments revised Technical
Specification (TS) 3.4.17, Steam
Generator (SG) Tube Integrity, TS 5.5.9, Unit 1 Model D76 and Unit 2
Model D5 Steam Generator (SG)
Program, and TS 5.6.9, Unit 1 Model
D76 and Unit 2 Model D5 Steam
Generator Tube Inspection Report. The
changes address implementation issues
associated with inspection periods, and
address other administrative changes
and clarifications. The amendment is
consistent with NRC-approved
Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) change traveler TSTF-510, Revision 2, Revision to Steam
Generator Program Inspection
Frequencies and Tube Sample
Selection, as part of the consolidated
line item improvement process.
The amendments also incorporated minor non-technical variations from the
TS changes proposed in TSTF-510, Revision 2. The TSs for CPNPP, Units 1
and 2 utilize different numbering and
titles than the Standard Technical
Specifications on which TSTF-510, Revision 2, is based, since the steam
generators for CPNPP, Units 1 and 2, are
of different models. These differences
are administrative in nature and do not
affect the applicability of TSTF-510, Revision 2, to the TSs for CPNPP, Units
1 and 2. Date of issuance:
February 27, 2014.
Effective date:
As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days from the date of
issuance.
Amendment No.:
Unit 1161; Unit 2161. Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-87 and NPF-89:
The amendments revised the Facility Operating Licenses
and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 1, 2013 (78 FR 60324). The February 19, 2014, supplement did not expand the scope of the
application as originally noticed, and
did not change the NRC staffs initial
proposed finding of no significant
hazards consideration.
The Commissions related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated February 27, 2014. No significant hazards consideration comments received:
No. NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC, Docket No. 50-443, Seabrook Station, Unit. 1, Rockingham County, New
Hampshire Date of amendment request:
June 25, 2013. Description of amendment request:
The amendment revised the Seabrook Technical Specifications (TS).
Specifically, the amendment revised the
TS to allow the use of Optimized
ZIRLO TM as an approved fuel rod cladding material.
Date of issuance:
March 5, 2014.
Effective date:
As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment No.:
139. Facility Operating License No. NPF-86: The amendment revised the License and TS. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 20, 2013 (78 FR 51228). The Commissions related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated March 5, 2014.
No significant hazards consideration comments received:
No. Northern States Power Company Minnesota (NSPM), Docket No. 50-263, Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, Wright County, Minnesota Date of application for amendment:
April 19, 2013.
Brief description of amendment:
The amendment allows NSPM to adopt the
NRCs approved Technical
Specifications Task Force (TSTF)
Standard Technical Specifications
Change Traveler TSTF-535, Revision 0, Revise Shutdown Margin Definition to
Address Advanced Fuel Designs, dated
August 8, 2011. The amendment
modifies the Technical Specification
definition of shutdown margin (SDM)
to require calculation of the SDM at a
reactor moderator temperature of 68
°F or higher, representing the most reactive
state throughout the operating cycle.
This change addresses newer boiling-
water reactor fuel designs which may be
more reactive at shutdown temperatures
above 68°F. Date of issuance:
February 28, 2014.
Effective date:
This license amendment is effective as of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days from the date of
issuance.
Amendment No.:
179. Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-22:
The amendment revises the Renewed Facility Operating License
and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 3, 2013 (78 FR 54285). The Commissions related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated February 28, 2014. No significant hazards consideration comments received:
No. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323, Diablo
Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, San Luis Obispo County, California Date of amendment request:
June 6, 2013. Description of amendment request:
The amendments revised Technical
Specification (TS) 3.7.10, Control
Room Ventilation System (CRVS), and
TS 5.6.5, Core Operating Limits Report (COLR), to incorporate editorial
changes. Specifically, the proposed
amendments delete footnote (1) from the
TS 3.7.10 Condition A Completion
Time, and revise inconsistent wording
in TS 5.6.5a.4, TS 5.6.5a.5, and TS 5.6.5a.9.
Date of issuance:
February 27, 2014.
Effective date:
As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days from the date of
issuance.
Amendment Nos.:
Unit 1217; Unit 2219. Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-80 and DPR-82:
The amendments revised the Facility Operating Licenses
and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 6, 2013 (78 FR 47791).
The Commissions related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated February 27, 2014. No significant hazards consideration comments received:
No. PPL Susquehanna, LLC, Docket Nos.
50-387 and 50-388, Susquehanna
Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania Date of application for amendments:
June 6, 2013, as supplemented by letter dated December 4, 2013.
Brief description of amendments:
The amendments change the Technical
Specifications (TSs) for Susquehanna
Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2.
Specifically, these amendments change
TS 3.3.6.1, Primary Containment
Isolation Instrumentation, to add a
footnote to Function 6.c. in TS Table
3.3.6.1-1, allowing only one Trip
System to be operable in MODES 4 and
5 for the Manual Initiation Function for
Shutdown Cooling System isolation.
Date of issuance:
February 26, 2014.
Effective date:
As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days.
Amendment Nos.:
259 and 240.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-14 and NPF-22:
The amendments revised the license and the
TS. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 10, 2013 (78 FR 74184). The supplemental letter dated December 4, 2013, provided additional
information that clarified the VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:34 Mar 17, 2014Jkt 232001PO 00000Frm 00060Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\18MRN1.SGM18MRN1 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES 15155 Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 52/Tuesday, March 18, 2014/Notices application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staffs original
proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination as
published in the Federal Register. The Commissions related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated February 26, 2014. No significant hazards consideration comments received:
No. South Carolina Electric and Gas Company, South Carolina Public
Service Authority, Docket No. 50-395, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit, Fairfield County, South Carolina Date of application for amendment:
April 2, 2013 as supplemented by letter
dated May 16, 2013.
Brief description of amendment:
This amendment revises the Technical
Specifications requirements regarding
steam generator tube inspections and
reporting as described in TSTF-510, Revision 2, Revision to Steam
Generator Program Inspection
Frequencies and Tube Sample
Selection.
Date of issuance:
February 28, 2014.
Effective date:
This license amendment is effective as of the date of
its issuance.
Amendment No.:
196. Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-12:
Amendment revises the License. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 25, 2013 (78 FR 38083).
The Commissions related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated February 28, 2014. No significant hazards consideration comments received:
No. Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and
Combined Licenses and Final
Determination of No Significant
Hazards Consideration and
Opportunity for a Hearing (Exigent
Public Announcement or Emergency
Circumstances)
During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, the
Commission has issued the following
amendments. The Commission has
determined for each of these
amendments that the application for the
amendment complies with the
standards and requirements of the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commissions rules
and regulations. The Commission has
made appropriate findings as required
by the Act and the Commissions rules
and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.
Because of exigent or emergency circumstances associated with the date
the amendment was needed, there was
not time for the Commission to publish, for public comment before issuance, its
usual notice of consideration of
issuance of amendment, proposed no
significant hazards consideration
determination, and opportunity for a
hearing. For exigent circumstances, the Commission has either issued a Federal Register notice providing opportunity for public comment or has used local
media to provide notice to the public in
the area surrounding a licensees facility
of the licensees application and of the
Commissions proposed determination
of no significant hazards consideration.
The Commission has provided a
reasonable opportunity for the public to
comment, using its best efforts to make
available to the public means of
communication for the public to
respond quickly, and in the case of
telephone comments, the comments
have been recorded or transcribed as
appropriate and the licensee has been
informed of the public comments.
In circumstances where failure to act in a timely way would have resulted, for
example, in derating or shutdown of a
nuclear power plant or in prevention of
either resumption of operation or of
increase in power output up to the
plants licensed power level, the
Commission may not have had an
opportunity to provide for public
comment on its no significant hazards
consideration determination. In such
case, the license amendment has been
issued without opportunity for comment. If there has been some time
for public comment but less than 30
days, the Commission may provide an opportunity for public comment. If comments have been requested, it is so stated. In either event, the State has been consulted by telephone whenever
possible.
Under its regulations, the Commission may issue and make an amendment
immediately effective, notwithstanding
the pendency before it of a request for
a hearing from any person, in advance
of the holding and completion of any
required hearing, where it has
determined that no significant hazards
consideration is involved.
The Commission has applied the standards of 10 CFR 50.92 and has made
a final determination that the
amendment involves no significant
hazards consideration. The basis for this
determination is contained in the
documents related to this action.
Accordingly, the amendments have been issued and made effective as indicated.
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that these
amendments satisfy the criteria for
categorical exclusion in accordance
with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant
to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental
impact statement or environmental
assessment need be prepared for these
amendments. If the Commission has
prepared an environmental assessment
under the special circumstances
provision in 10 CFR 51.12(b) and has
made a determination based on that
assessment, it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the action see (1) the application for
amendment, (2) the amendment to
Facility Operating License or Combined
License, as applicable, and (3) the
Commissions related letter, Safety
Evaluation and/or Environmental
Assessment, as indicated. All of these
items are available for public inspection
at the NRCs Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852.
Publicly available documents created or
received at the NRC are accessible
electronically through the Agencywide
Documents Access and Management
System (ADAMS) in the NRC Library at
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/
adams.html.
If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in
accessing the documents located in
ADAMS, contact the PDRs Reference
staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737
or by email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
The Commission is also offering an opportunity for a hearing with respect to
the issuance of the amendment. Within
60 days after the date of publication of
this notice, any person(s) whose interest
may be affected by this action may file
a request for a hearing and a petition to
intervene with respect to issuance of the
amendment to the subject facility
operating license or combined license.
Requests for a hearing and a petition for
leave to intervene shall be filed in
accordance with the Commissions
Agency Rules of Practice and
Procedure in 10 CFR Part 2. Interested
person(s) should consult a current copy
of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at
the NRCs PDR, located at One White
Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852, and electronically on
the Internet at the NRCs Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-
collections/cfr/.
If there are problems in accessing the document, contact the
PDRs Reference staff at 1-800-397-
4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to
pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
If a request for a VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:34 Mar 17, 2014Jkt 232001PO 00000Frm 00061Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\18MRN1.SGM18MRN1 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES 15156 Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 52/Tuesday, March 18, 2014/Notices hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed by the above date, the
Commission or a presiding officer
designated by the Commission or by the
Chief Administrative Judge of the
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
Panel, will rule on the request and/or
petition; and the Secretary or the Chief
Administrative Judge of the Atomic
Safety and Licensing Board will issue a
notice of a hearing or an appropriate
order. As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene shall set
forth with particularity the interest of
the petitioner in the proceeding, and
how that interest may be affected by the
results of the proceeding. The petition
should specifically explain the reasons
why intervention should be permitted
with particular reference to the
following general requirements: (1) The
name, address, and telephone number of
the requestor or petitioner; (2) the
nature of the requestors/petitioners
right under the Act to be made a party
to the proceeding; (3) the nature and
extent of the requestors/petitioners
property, financial, or other interest in
the proceeding; and (4) the possible
effect of any decision or order which
may be entered in the proceeding on the
requestors/petitioners interest. The
petition must also identify the specific
contentions which the requestor/
petitioner seeks to have litigated at the
proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or
fact to be raised or controverted. In
addition, the requestor/petitioner shall
provide a brief explanation of the bases
for the contention and a concise
statement of the alleged facts or expert
opinion which support the contention
and on which the petitioner intends to
rely in proving the contention at the
hearing. The petitioner must also
provide references to those specific
sources and documents of which the
petitioner is aware and on which the
petitioner intends to rely to establish
those facts or expert opinion. The
petition must include sufficient
information to show that a genuine
dispute exists with the applicant on a
material issue of law or fact.
Contentions shall be limited to matters
within the scope of the amendment under consideration. The contention
must be one which, if proven, would
entitle the petitioner to relief. A
requestor/petitioner who fails to satisfy
these requirements with respect to at
least one contention will not be
permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any
limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the
hearing. Since the Commission has
made a final determination that the
amendment involves no significant
hazards consideration, if a hearing is
requested, it will not stay the
effectiveness of the amendment. Any
hearing held would take place while the
amendment is in effect.
All documents filed in the NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or other
document filed in the proceeding prior
to the submission of a request for
hearing or petition to intervene, and
documents filed by interested
governmental entities participating
under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in
accordance with the NRCs E-Filing rule
(72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007). The E-
Filing process requires participants to
submit and serve all adjudicatory
documents over the internet, or in some
cases to mail copies on electronic
storage media. Participants may not
submit paper copies of their filings
unless they seek an exemption in
accordance with the procedures
described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10
days prior to the filing deadline, the
participant should contact the Office of
the Secretary by email at
hearing.docket@nrc.gov , or by telephone at 301-415-1677, to request (1) a digital
identification (ID) certificate, which
allows the participant (or its counsel or
representative) to digitally sign
documents and access the E-Submittal
server for any proceeding in which it is
participating; and (2) advise the
Secretary that the participant will be
submitting a request or petition for
hearing (even in instances in which the
participant, or its counsel or
representative, already holds an NRC-
issued digital ID certificate). Based upon
this information, the Secretary will
establish an electronic docket for the
hearing in this proceeding if the
Secretary has not already established an
electronic docket.
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on NRCs public Web site at http:// www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/
apply-certificates.html.
System requirements for accessing the E-Submittal server are detailed in NRCs
Guidance for Electronic Submission,
which is available on the agencys
public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/
site-help/e-submittals.html.
Participants may attempt to use other software not
listed on the Web site, but should note
that the NRCs E-Filing system does not support unlisted software, and the NRC Meta System Help Desk will not be able
to offer assistance in using unlisted
software.
If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC in
accordance with the E-Filing rule, the
participant must file the document
using the NRCs online, Web-based
submission form. In order to serve
documents through the Electronic
Information Exchange System, users
will be required to install a Web
browser plug-in from the NRCs Web
site. Further information on the Web-
based submission form, including the
installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on the NRCs public Web
site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html.
Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a docket has
been created, the participant can then
submit a request for hearing or petition
for leave to intervene. Submissions
should be in Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with the NRCs
guidance available on the NRCs public
Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the time the
documents are submitted through the
NRCs E-Filing system. To be timely, an
electronic filing must be submitted to
the E-Filing system no later than 11:59
p.m. Eastern Time on the due date.
Upon receipt of a transmission, the E-
Filing system time-stamps the document
and sends the submitter an email notice
confirming receipt of the document. The
E-Filing system also distributes an email
notice that provides access to the
document to the NRCs Office of the
General Counsel and any others who
have advised the Office of the Secretary
that they wish to participate in the
proceeding, so that the filer need not
serve the documents on those
participants separately. Therefore, applicants and other participants (or
their counsel or representative) must
apply for and receive a digital ID
certificate before a hearing request/
petition to intervene is filed so that they
can obtain access to the document via
the E-Filing system.
A person filing electronically using the agencys adjudicatory E-Filing
system may seek assistance by
contacting the NRC Meta System Help
Desk through the Contact Us link
located on the NRC Web site at http:// www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html , by email to MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov , or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-7640. The NRC
Meta System Help Desk is available
between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:34 Mar 17, 2014Jkt 232001PO 00000Frm 00062Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\18MRN1.SGM18MRN1 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES 15157 Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 52/Tuesday, March 18, 2014/Notices Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays.
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting
documents electronically must file an
exemption request, in accordance with
10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper
filing requesting authorization to
continue to submit documents in paper
format. Such filings must be submitted
by: (1) First class mail addressed to the
Office of the Secretary of the
Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-
0001, Attention: Rulemaking and
Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery
service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention:
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff.
Participants filing a document in this
manner are responsible for serving the
document on all other participants.
Filing is considered complete by first-
class mail as of the time of deposit in
the mail, or by courier, express mail, or
expedited delivery service upon
depositing the document with the
provider of the service. A presiding
officer, having granted an exemption
request from using E-Filing, may require
a participant or party to use E-Filing if
the presiding officer subsequently
determines that the reason for granting
the exemption from use of E-Filing no
longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRCs
electronic hearing docket which is
available to the public at http://ehd1.
nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the Commission, or the
presiding officer. Participants are
requested not to include personal
privacy information, such as social
security numbers, home addresses, or
home phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC regulation or other law
requires submission of such information. However, a request to
intervene will require including
information on local residence in order
to demonstrate a proximity assertion of
interest in the proceeding. With respect
to copyrighted works, except for limited
excerpts that serve the purpose of the
adjudicatory filings and would
constitute a Fair Use application, participants are requested not to include
copyrighted materials in their
submission.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, et al., Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414, Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York County, South Carolina Date of amendment request:
February 17, 2014.
Description of amendment request:
The amendments revise Technical
Specification (TS) Table 3.3.4-1, Remote Shutdown System
Instrumentation and Controls as a result
of an inoperable instrumentation
function on Unit 2. Table 3.3.4-1
specifies requirements for Function 3.b.,
Decay Heat Removal via Steam
Generators (SGs)Reactor Coolant
System (RCS) Cold Leg Temperature
Loop A and B as 1 per loop. Loop A of this function is presently inoperable
on Unit 2 due to a failed resistance temperature detector (RTD). Loop B of
this function is operable with a reliable
maintenance history. The failed RTD on
Loop A cannot be replaced in the
present operating mode of Unit 2 (Mode
1). Therefore, Duke Energy requested
the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) approval to allow
Unit 2 to remain in Mode 1 until such time that the failed RTD can be
replaced. The replacement would occur
in the next refueling outage or the next
outage that would facilitate
replacement, whichever occurs first.
Date of issuance:
February 27, 2014.
Effective date:
As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days from the date of
issuance.
Amendment Nos.:
272 and 268.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-35 and NPF-52:
Amendments revised the licenses and the technical
specifications.
Public comments requested as to proposed no significant hazards
consideration (NSHC):
Yes. The NRC staff noticed the February 17, 2014, application in the Rock Hill, SC local
newspaper, The Herald on Friday, February 21, 2014, and Saturday, February 22, 2014. The notice provided an opportunity to submit comments on the Commissions proposed NSHC determination. No comments have been received.
The Commissions related evaluation of the amendment, finding of exigent
circumstances, state consultation, and
final NSHC determination are contained
in a safety evaluation dated February 27, 2014. Attorney for licensee:
Lara S. Nichols, Associate General Counsel, Duke Energy
Corporation, 526 South Church Street
EC07H, Charlotte, NC 28202.
NRC Branch Chief:
Robert J.
Pascarelli.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 10th day of March 2014.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Michele G. Evans, Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2014-05645 Filed 3-17-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 5200027; NRC-2008-0441]
Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and
Acceptance Criteria; Virgil C. Summer
Unit 2 Combined License AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Determination of inspections, tests, analyses, and acceptance criteria (ITAAC).
SUMMARY
- The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff has determined
that the inspections, tests, and analyses
have been successfully completed, and
that the specified acceptance criteria are
met for ITAAC 3.3.00.09, for the Virgil
C. Summer Nuclear Station Unit 2.
ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2008-0441 when contacting the
NRC about the availability of
information regarding this document.
You may access publicly-available
information related to this document
using any of the following methods:
- Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2008-0441. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol
Gallagher; telephone: 301-287-3422;
email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov.
For technical questions, contact the
individuals listed in the FORFURTHER INFORMATIONCONTACT section of this document.
- NRCs Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may access publicly
available documents online in the NRC
Library at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.
To begin the search, select ADAMS Public Documents and
then select Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.
For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRCs Public
Document Room (PDR) reference staff at
1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by
email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
The ADAMS accession number for each
document referenced in this document (if that document is available in
ADAMS) is provided the first time that
a document is referenced.
- NRCs PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at
the NRCs PDR, Room O1-F21, One VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:34 Mar 17, 2014Jkt 232001PO 00000Frm 00063Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\18MRN1.SGM18MRN1 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES