ML16057A551
| ML16057A551 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 03/17/2015 |
| From: | State of NY, Office of the Attorney General |
| To: | NRC/OCM |
| SECY RAS | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML16057A531 | List: |
| References | |
| RAS 50964, ASLBP 15-942-06-LA-BD01, 50-247-LA | |
| Download: ML16057A551 (19) | |
Text
13902 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 51/Tuesday, March 17, 2015/Notices under part 110. The NRC Form 7 application will be reviewed by the NRC
and by the Executive Branch, and if
applicable statutory, regulatory, and
policy considerations are satisfied, the
NRC will issue an export, import, amendment or renewal license.
III. Specific Requests for Comments Submit, by May 18, 2015, comments that address the following questions:
- 1. Is the proposed collection of information necessary for the NRC to properly perform its functions? Does the
information have practical utility?
- 2. Is the estimate of the burden of the information collection accurate?
- 3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected?
- 4. How can the burden of the information collection on respondents
be minimized, including the use of
automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology?
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day of March 2015.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Tremaine Donnell, NRC Clearance Officer, Office of Information Services.
[FR Doc. 2015-06014 Filed 3-16-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2015-0001]
Sunshine Act Meeting Notice DATES: March 16, 23, 30, April 6, 13, 20, 2015. PLACE: Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
STATUS: Public and Closed.
Week of March 16, 2015 There are no meetings scheduled for the week of March 16, 2015.
Week of March 23, 2015-Tentative
Thursday, March 26, 2015 9:30 a.m. Briefing on Security Issues (Closed-Ex. 1) 1:30 p.m. Briefing on Security Issues (Closed-Ex. 1)
Friday, March 27, 2015
9:30 a.m. Briefing on Threat Environment Assessment (Closed-Ex. 1) Week of March 30, 2015-Tentative There are no meetings scheduled for the week of March 30, 2015.
Week of April 6, 2015-Tentative There are no meetings scheduled for the week of April 6, 2015.
Week of April 13, 2015-Tentative
Tuesday, April 14, 2015 9:30 a.m. Meeting with the Advisory Committee on the Medical Uses of Isotopes (Public Meeting) (Contact:
Nima Ashkeboussi, 301-415-5775)
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address-http://www.nrc.gov/.
Thursday, April 16, 2015 9:30 a.m. Meeting with the Organization of Agreement States and the Conference of Radiation Control
Program Directors (Public Meeting)
(Contact: Nima Ashkeboussi, 301-
415-5775)
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address-http://www.nrc.gov/.
Week of April 20, 2015-Tentative There are no meetings scheduled for the week of April 20, 2015.
- * * *
- The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. For more information or to verify
the status of meetings, contact Glenn
Ellmers at 301-415-0442 or via email at
Glenn.Ellmers@nrc.gov.
- * * *
- Additional Information
- 1. By a vote of 3-0 on March 9, 2015, the Commission determined pursuant to U.S.C. 552b(e) and 9.107(a) of the
Commission's rules that an Affirmation
Session for Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Indian Point Nuclear Generating
Units 2 and 3)-Petitions for Review of
LBP-13-13 (Partial Initial Decision) and
Related Decisions (Appeals of Board
Decisions Related to Contentions NUS-
8 CW-EC-3) be held with less than one
week notice to the public. The meeting
was held on March 9, 2015.
- 2. The Affirmation Session for Omaha Public Power District (Fort Calhoun
Station, Unit 1), Petition to Intervene
and Request for Adjudicatory Hearing
by Sierra Club (Apr. 23, 2014),
previously scheduled for March 5, 2015, was held on March 9, 2015.
- 3. The meeting with the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, scheduled for March 5, 2015, was
postponed.
- * * *
- The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet at: http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/
public-meetings/schedule.html.
- * * *
- The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to
participate in these public meetings, or
need this meeting notice or the
transcript or other information from the
public meetings in another format (e.g.
braille, large print), please notify
Kimberly Meyer, NRC Disability
Program Manager, at 301-287-0727, by
videophone at 240-428-3217, or by
email at Kimberly.Meyer-Chambers@
nrc.gov. Determinations on requests for reasonable accommodation will be
made on a case-by-case basis.
- * * *
- Members of the public may request to receive this information electronically.
If you would like to be added to the
distribution, please contact the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Office of the
Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-
415-1969), or email
Brenda.Akstulewicz@nrc.gov or Patricia.Jimenez@nrc.gov.
Dated: March 13, 2015.
Glenn Ellmers, Policy Coordinator, Office of the Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-06188 Filed 3-13-15; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 7590-01--P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2015-0055]
Biweekly Notice; Applications and
Amendments to Facility Operating
Licenses and Combined Licenses
Involving No Significant Hazards
Considerations AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Biweekly notice.
SUMMARY
- Pursuant to section 189a. (2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) is
publishing this regular biweekly notice.
The Act requires the Commission to
publish notice of any amendments
issued, or proposed to be issued and
grants the Commission the authority to
issue and make immediately effective
any amendment to an operating license
or combined license, as applicable, upon a determination by the
Commission that such amendment
involves no significant hazards
consideration, notwithstanding the
pendency before the Commission of a
request for a hearing from any person.
This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or
proposed to be issued from February 19, 2015 to March 4, 2015. The last VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015Jkt 235001PO 00000Frm 00081Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM17MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 13903 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 51/Tuesday, March 17, 2015/Notices biweekly notice was published on March 3, 2015.
DATES: Comments must be filed by April 16, 2015. A request for a hearing must
be filed by May 18, 2015.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods (unless
this document describes a different
method for submitting comments on a
specific subject):
- Federal Rulemaking Web site:
Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2015-0055. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol
Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-3463;
email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov.
- Mail comments to:
Cindy Bladey, Office of Administration, Mail Stop:
OWFN-12-H08, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see Obtaining Information and
Submitting Comments in the SUPPLEMENTARYINFORMATION section of this document. FORFURTHERINFORMATIONCONTACT
- Beverly A. Clayton, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-
3475, email:
Beverly.Clayton@nrc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARYINFORMATION
- I. Obtaining Information and
Submitting Comments A. Obtaining Information Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0055 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this
action. You may obtain publicly-
available information related to this
action by any of the following methods:
- Federal Rulemaking Web site:
Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2015-0055.
- NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the
ADAMS Public Documents collection at
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/
adams.html.
To begin the search, select
ADAMS Public Documents
and then select Begin Web-based ADAMS
Search. For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public
Document Room (PDR) reference staff at
1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by
email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
The ADAMS accession number for each
document referenced (if it is available in
ADAMS) is provided the first time that
it is mentioned in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section. *NRC's PDR:
You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville
Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
B. Submitting Comments Please include Docket ID NRC-2015-0055, facility name, unit number(s), application date, and subject in your
comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that
you do not want to be publicly
disclosed in your comment submission.
The NRC 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. II. Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating
Licenses and Combined Licenses and
Proposed No Significant Hazards
Consideration Determination The Commission has made a proposed determination that the
following amendment requests involve
no significant hazards consideration.
Under the Commission's regulations in
§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.
A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing and Petition for Leave To Intervene Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any person(s)
whose interest may be affected by this
action may file a request for a hearing
and a petition to intervene with respect
to issuance of the amendment to the
subject facility operating license or
combined license. Requests for a
hearing and a petition for leave to
intervene shall be filed in accordance
with the Commission's Agency Rules
of Practice and Procedure in 10 CFR
part 2. Interested person(s) should
consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room
O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first
floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. The
NRC's regulations are accessible
electronically from the NRC Library on
the NRC's Web site at http://
www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-
collections/cfr/.
If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed
by the above date, the Commission or a
presiding officer designated by the
Commission or by the Chief
Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will
rule on the request and/or petition; and
the Secretary or the Chief
Administrative Judge of the Atomic
Safety and Licensing Board will issue a
notice of a hearing or an appropriate
order. As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene shall set
forth with particularity the interest of
the petitioner in the proceeding, and
how that interest may be affected by the
results of the proceeding. The petition VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015Jkt 235001PO 00000Frm 00082Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM17MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 13904 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 51/Tuesday, March 17, 2015/Notices should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted
with particular reference to the
following general requirements: (1) the
name, address, and telephone number of
the requestor or petitioner; (2) the
nature of the requestor's/petitioner's
right under the Act to be made a party
to the proceeding; (3) the nature and
extent of the requestor's/petitioner's
property, financial, or other interest in
the proceeding; and (4) the possible
effect of any decision or order which
may be entered in the proceeding on the
requestor's/petitioner's interest. The
petition must also identify the specific
contentions which the requestor/
petitioner seeks to have litigated at the
proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or
fact to be raised or controverted. In
addition, the requestor/petitioner shall
provide a brief explanation of the bases
for the contention and a concise
statement of the alleged facts or expert
opinion which support the contention
and on which the requestor/petitioner
intends to rely in proving the contention
at the hearing. The requestor/petitioner
must also provide references to those
specific sources and documents of
which the petitioner is aware and on
which the requestor/petitioner intends
to rely to establish those facts or expert
opinion. The petition must include
sufficient information to show that a
genuine dispute exists with the
applicant on a material issue of law or
fact. Contentions shall be limited to
matters within the scope of the
amendment under consideration. The
contention must be one which, if
proven, would entitle the requestor/
petitioner to relief. A requestor/
petitioner who fails to satisfy these
requirements with respect to at least one
contention will not be permitted to
participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any
limitations in the order granting leave to
intervene, and have the opportunity to
participate fully in the conduct of the
hearing. If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final
determination on the issue of no
significant hazards consideration. The
final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If the final
determination is that the amendment
request involves no significant hazards
consideration, the Commission may
issue the amendment and make it
immediately effective, notwithstanding
the request for a hearing. Any hearing
held would take place after issuance of
the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards
consideration, then any hearing held
would take place before the issuance of
any amendment unless the Commission
finds an imminent danger to the health
or safety of the public, in which case it
will issue an appropriate order or rule
under 10 CFR part 2.
B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing, a petition for leave
to intervene, any motion or other
document filed in the proceeding prior
to the submission of a request for
hearing or petition to intervene, and
documents filed by interested
governmental entities participating
under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in
accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule
(72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007). The E-
Filing process requires participants to
submit and serve all adjudicatory
documents over the internet, or in some
cases to mail copies on electronic
storage media. Participants may not
submit paper copies of their filings
unless they seek an exemption in
accordance with the procedures
described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least ten 10
days prior to the filing deadline, the
participant should contact the Office of
the Secretary by email at
hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by telephone at 301-415-1677, to request (1) a digital
identification (ID) certificate, which
allows the participant (or its counsel or
representative) to digitally sign
documents and access the E-Submittal
server for any proceeding in which it is
participating; and (2) advise the
Secretary that the participant will be
submitting a request or petition for
hearing (even in instances in which the
participant, or its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-
issued digital ID certificate). Based upon
this information, the Secretary will
establish an electronic docket for the
hearing in this proceeding if the
Secretary has not already established an
electronic docket.
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the
NRC's public Web site at http://
www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/
getting-started.html.
System requirements for accessing the E-
Submittal server are detailed in the
NRC's Guidance for Electronic
Submission, which is available on the
agency's public Web site at http://
www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-
submittals.html.
Participants may attempt to use other software not listed on the Web site, but should note that the NRC's E-Filing system does not support
unlisted software, and the NRC Meta
System Help Desk will not be able to
offer assistance in using unlisted
software.
If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC in
accordance with the E-Filing rule, the
participant must file the document
using the NRC's online, Web-based
submission form. In order to serve
documents through the Electronic
Information Exchange System, users
will be required to install a Web
browser plug-in from the NRC's Web
site. Further information on the Web-
based submission form, including the
installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on the NRC's public Web
site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-
submittals.html.
Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a docket has
been created, the participant can then
submit a request for hearing or petition
for leave to intervene. Submissions
should be in Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance
available on the NRC's public Web site
at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html.
A filing is considered complete at the time the documents are
submitted through the NRC's E-Filing
system. To be timely, an electronic
filing must be submitted to the E-Filing
system no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern
Time on the due date. Upon receipt of
a transmission, the E-Filing system
time-stamps the document and sends
the submitter an email notice
confirming receipt of the document. The
E-Filing system also distributes an email
notice that provides access to the
document to the NRC's Office of the
General Counsel and any others who
have advised the Office of the Secretary
that they wish to participate in the
proceeding, so that the filer need not
serve the documents on those
participants separately. Therefore, applicants and other participants (or
their counsel or representative) must
apply for and receive a digital ID
certificate before a hearing request/
petition to intervene is filed so that they
can obtain access to the document via
the E-Filing system.
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the
NRC Meta System Help Desk through
the Contact Us link located on the
NRC's public Web site at http://
www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-
submittals.html, by email to MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-7640. The NRC
Meta System Help Desk is available VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015Jkt 235001PO 00000Frm 00083Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM17MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 13905 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 51/Tuesday, March 17, 2015/Notices between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays.
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting
documents electronically must file an
exemption request, in accordance with
10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper
filing requesting authorization to
continue to submit documents in paper
format. Such filings must be submitted
by: (1) First class mail addressed to the
Office of the Secretary of the
Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-
0001, Attention: Rulemaking and
Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery
service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking
and Adjudications Staff. Participants
filing a document in this manner are
responsible for serving the document on
all other participants. Filing is
considered complete by first-class mail
as of the time of deposit in the mail, or
by courier, express mail, or expedited
delivery service upon depositing the
document with the provider of the
service. A presiding officer, having
granted an exemption request from
using E-Filing, may require a participant
or party to use E-Filing if the presiding
officer subsequently determines that the
reason for granting the exemption from
use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's
electronic hearing docket which is
available to the public at http://
ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the Commission, or the presiding officer. Participants are
requested not to include personal
privacy information, such as social
security numbers, home addresses, or
home phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC regulation or other law
requires submission of such
information. However, a request to
intervene will require including
information on local residence in order
to demonstrate a proximity assertion of
interest in the proceeding. With respect
to copyrighted works, except for limited
excerpts that serve the purpose of the
adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use application, participants are requested not to include
copyrighted materials in their
submission.
Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 days from the
date of publication of this notice.
Requests for hearing, petitions for leave
to intervene, and motions for leave to
file new or amended contentions that are filed after the 60-day deadline will
not be entertained absent a
determination by the presiding officer
that the filing demonstrates good cause
by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR
2.309(c)(1)(i)-(iii).
For further details with respect to these license amendment applications, see the application for amendment
which is available for public inspection
in ADAMS and at the NRC's PDR. For
additional direction on accessing
information related to this document, see the Obtaining Information and
Submitting Comments section of this
document.
Duke Energy Florida, Inc. (DEF), et al., Docket No. 50-302, Crystal River, Unit
3 Nuclear Generating Plant (CR-3),
Citrus County, Florida Date of amendment request:
November 7, 2014. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession
No. ML14321A450.
Description of amendment request:
The amendment would reflect the
transfer of ownership, held by eight
minority co-owners, in CR-3 to DEF.
The transfer of ownership will take
place pursuant to the Settlement, Release and Acquisition Agreement, dated September 26, 2014, wherein DEF
will purchase the 6.52 percent
combined ownership share in CR-3
held by these minority co-owners, leaving DEF and Seminole Electric
Cooperative, Inc., as the remaining
licensees for CR-3.
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 changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability of any
accident previously evaluated because no
accident initiators or assumptions are
affected. The proposed license transfers are
administrative in nature and have no direct
effect on any plant system, plant personnel
qualifications, or the operation and
maintenance of CR-3.
- 2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any previously evaluated
because no new accident initiators or
assumptions are introduced by the proposed
changes. The proposed license transfers are administrative in nature and have no direct effect on any plant system, plant personnel
qualifications, or operation and maintenance
of CR-3. 3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety
because the proposed changes do not involve
changes to the initial conditions contributing
to accident severity or consequences, or
reduce response or mitigation capabilities.
The proposed license transfers are
administrative in nature and have no direct
effect on any plant system, plant personnel
qualifications, or operation and maintenance
of CR-3. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three
standards of 50.92(c) are satisfied.
Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to
determine that the amendment request
involves no significant hazards
consideration.
Attorney for licensee:
Lara S. Nichols, 550 South Tryon Street, Charlotte NC
28202. NRC Branch Chief:
Douglas A.
Broaddus.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-247, Indian Point
Nuclear Generating, Unit 2, Westchester
County, New York Date of amendment request:
December 9, 2014. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession
No. ML14353A015.
Description of amendment request:
The amendment would revise Technical
Specification 5.5.14, Containment
Leakage Rate Testing Program, to
extend the frequency of the
Containment Integrated Leak Rate Test
or Type A Test from once every 10 years
to once every 15 years on a permanent
basis. 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 amendment involves changes to the IP2 [Indian Point Unit No. 2]
containment leakage rate testing program.
The proposed amendment does not involve
a physical change to the plant or a change in
the manner in which the plant is operated or
controlled. The primary containment
function is to provide an essentially leak
tight barrier against the uncontrolled release
of radioactivity to the environment for VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015Jkt 235001PO 00000Frm 00084Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM17MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 13906 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 51/Tuesday, March 17, 2015/Notices postulated accidents. As such, the containment itself and the testing
requirements to periodically demonstrate the
integrity of the containment exist to ensure
the plant's ability to mitigate the
consequences of an accident do not involve
any accident precursors or initiators.
Therefore, the probability of occurrence of an accident previously evaluated is not
significantly increased by the proposed
amendment.
The proposed amendment adopts the NRC accepted guidelines of NEI 94-01, Revision
2A, for development of the IP2 performance-
based testing program for the Type A testing.
Implementation of these guidelines continues
to provide adequate assurance that during
design basis accidents, the primary
containment and its components would limit
leakage rates to less than the values assumed
in the plant safety analyses. The potential
consequences of extending the ILRT
[integrated leak rate test] interval to 15 years
have been evaluated by analyzing the
resulting changes in risk. The increase in risk
in terms of person-rem per year within 50
miles resulting from design basis accidents
was estimated to be acceptably small and
determined to be within the guidelines
published in RG 1.174. Additionally, the
proposed change maintains defense-in-depth
by preserving a reasonable balance among
prevention of core damage, prevention of
containment failure, and consequence
mitigation. Entergy has determined that the increase in conditional containment failure
probability due to the proposed change
would be very small. Therefore, it is
concluded that the proposed amendment
does not significantly increase the
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
- 2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment adopts the NRC-accepted guidelines of NEI 94-01, Revision
2A, for the development of the IP2
performance-based leakage testing program, and establishes a 15-year interval for the
performance of the containment ILRT. The
containment and the testing requirements to
periodically demonstrate the integrity of the
containment exist to ensure the plant's
ability to mitigate the consequences of an
accident do not involve any accident
precursors or initiators. The proposed change
does not involve a physical change to the
plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a change to
the manner in which the plant is operated or
controlled.
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 amendment adopts the NRC-accepted guidelines of NEI 94-01, Revision 2A, for the development of the IP2
performance-based leakage testing program, and establishes a 15-year interval for the
performance of the containment ILRT. This
amendment does not alter the manner in
which safety limits, limiting safety system
setpoints, or limiting conditions for operation
are determined. The specific requirements
and conditions of the containment leakage
rate testing program, as defined in the TS
[technical specifications], ensure that the
degree of primary containment structural
integrity and leak-tightness that is considered
in the plant's safety analysis is maintained.
The overall containment leakage rate limit
specified by the TS is maintained, and the
Type A containment leakage tests would be
performed at the frequencies established in
accordance with the NRC-accepted
guidelines of NEI 94-01, Revision 2A with no
change to the 60 month frequencies of Type B, and Type C tests.
Containment inspections performed in accordance with other plant programs serve
to provide a high degree of assurance that the
containment would not degrade in a manner
that is not detectable by an ILRT. A risk
assessment using the current IP2 PSA
[probabilistic safety assessment] model
concluded that extending the ILRT test
interval from ten years to 15 years results in
a very small change to the risk profile.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee:
Ms. Jeanne Cho, Assistant General Counsel, Entergy
Nuclear Operations, Inc., 440 Hamilton
Avenue, White Plains, NY 10601.
NRC Branch Chief:
Benjamin G.
Beasley. Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-410, Nine Mile Point
Nuclear Station, Unit 2 (NMP2), Oswego
County, New York Date of amendment request:
November 19, 2014. A publicly-
available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML14329A353.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed amendment would
modify the Nine Mile Point (NMP)
Nuclear Station, Unit 2 Technical
Specifications (TS) 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. The licensee's
application dated November 19, 2014, Attachment 1, section 2.2, has identified
some variations or deviations from the
TSTF-425. Additionally, the change
would add a new program, the
Surveillance Frequency Control
Program, to TS section 5, Administrative Controls. The NRC staff
issued a notice of opportunity for
comment in the Federal Register on December 5, 2008, 73 FR 74202, on
possible amendments to revise the plant
specific TS, to Relocate Surveillance
Frequencies to Licensee Control-
RITSTF Initiative 5b. The Notice
included a model safety evaluation and
model No Significant Hazards
Consideration (NSHC) determination, using the consolidated line-item
improvement process. The NRC staff
subsequently issued a notice of
availability of the models for referencing
in license amendment applications in
the Federal Register on July 6, 2009 (74 FR 31996). The licensee affirmed the
applicability of the model NSHC
determination in its application dated
November 19, 2014, which is presented
below. 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. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes relocate the specified frequencies for periodic
surveillance requirements to licensee control
under a new Surveillance Frequency Control
Program (SFCP). Surveillance frequencies are
not an initiator to any accident previously
evaluated. As a result, the probability of any
accident previously evaluated is not
significantly increased. The systems and
components required by the technical
specifications for which the surveillance
frequencies are relocated are still required to
be operable, meet the acceptance criteria for
the surveillance requirements, and be
capable of performing any mitigation
function assumed in the accident analysis.
As a result, the consequences of any accident
previously evaluated are not significantly
increased.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
- 2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
No new or different accidents result from utilizing the proposed changes. The changes
do not involve a physical alteration of the
plant (i.e., no new or different type of VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015Jkt 235001PO 00000Frm 00085Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM17MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 13907 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 51/Tuesday, March 17, 2015/Notices equipment will be installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant
operation. In addition, the changes do not
impose any new or different requirements.
The changes do not alter assumptions made
in the safety analysis. The proposed changes
are consistent with the safety analysis
assumptions and current plant operating
practice.
Therefore, the proposed changes do 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.
The design, operation, testing methods, and acceptance criteria for systems, structures, and components (SSCs), specified
in applicable codes and standards (or
alternatives approved for use by the NRC)
will continue to be met as described in the
plant licensing basis (including the final
safety analysis report and bases to TS), since
these are not affected by changes to the
surveillance frequencies. Similarly, there is
no impact to safety analysis acceptance
criteria as described in plant licensing basis.
To evaluate a change in the relocated
surveillance frequency, Exelon will perform
a probabilistic risk evaluation using the
guidance contained in NRC approved NEI
04-10, Rev. 1 in accordance with the TS
SFCP. NEI 04-10, Rev. 1, methodology
provides reasonable acceptance guidelines
and methods for evaluating the risk increase
of proposed changes to surveillance
frequencies consistent with Regulatory Guide
1.177. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee:
J. Bradley Fewell, Senior Vice President, Regulatory Affairs, Nuclear, and General
Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555.
NRC Branch Chief:
Benjamin G.
Beasley. Exelon Generation Company LLC (), Docket Nos. STN 50-456 and STN 50-
457, Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, Will County, Illinois Docket Nos. STN 50-454 and STN 50-455, Byron Station, Units 1 and 2, Ogle
County, Illinois Date of amendment request:
December 18, 2014. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession
No. ML14352A204.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed amendment would increase the voltage limit for the diesel
generator (DG) full load rejection test
specified by technical specification (TS)
Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.8.1.10.
Additionally, the proposed amendment
would add Note 3 to TS SR 3.8.1.10 for
alignment with the Standard Technical
Specifications documented in NUREG-
1431, April 2012 (ADAMS Accession
No. ML12100A222).
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: EGC [Exelon Generation Company] has evaluated the proposed change for Braidwood Station and Byron Station, using
the criteria in 10 CFR 50.92, and has
determined that the proposed change does
not involve a significant hazards
consideration. The following information is
provided to support a finding of no
significant hazards consideration.
- 1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The DGs design function is to mitigate an accident and there are no analyzed scenarios
where the DGs are initiators of any
previously evaluated accident. Since DGs do
not initiate accidents, this change does not
increase the probability of occurrence of a
previously evaluated accident. The proposed
change to the testing approach of the DGs is
consistent with the original design of the
DGs. The proposed change is in accordance
with RG [Regulatory Guide] 1.9 Revision 3, and this change to the testing approach does
not impact the DGs ability to mitigate
accidents. The DGs will continue to operate
within the parameters and conditions
assumed within the accident analysis. This
change does not result in an increase in the
likelihood of malfunction of the DGs or their
supported equipment. Since the DGs will
continue to perform its required function, there is no increase in the consequences of
previously evaluated accidents.
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 amendment does not change the DGs operation or ability to perform its
design function. The proposed change to TS
SR 3.8.1.10 at increased voltage will ensure
the DGs ability to perform at rated power
factor while meeting its requirements. The
change to TS SR 3.8.1.10 does not result in
DG operation that would create a new failure
mode of the DGs that could create a new
initiator of an accident. This is because the
DGs ability to perform its design function is
maintained in the same manner as originally designed. The proposed change does not change the single failure capabilities of the
electrical power system or create a potential
for loss of power since the design operation
of the DGs 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 change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The margin of safety is established through the design of the plant structures, systems, and components, the parameters within
which the plant is operated, and the
setpoints for the actuation of equipment
relied upon to respond to an event. The
proposed change does not modify the safety
limits or setpoints at which protective
actions are initiated. The proposed change
increases the voltage limit for the DG full
load rejection test which results in new test
acceptance criterion that is more restrictive
than the existing acceptance criteria. The
proposed change ensures the availability and
operability of safety-related DGs.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety. Based on the above evaluation, EGC concludes that the proposed amendment
presents no significant hazards consideration
under the standards set forth in 10 CFR
50.92, paragraph (c), and accordingly, a
finding of no significant hazards
consideration is justified.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
requested amendments involve no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee:
Bradley J.
Fewell, Associate General Counsel, Exelon Nuclear, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555.
NRC Branch Chief:
Travis L. Tate.
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating
Company, Docket No. 50-440, Perry
Nuclear Power Plant (PNPP), Unit 1, Perry, Ohio Date of amendment request:
November 24, 2014. A publicly-
available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML14328A665.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed amendment is intended to
revise the battery capacity testing surveillance requirements in the
technical specifications to reflect test
requirements when the battery is near
end of life.
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: VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015Jkt 235001PO 00000Frm 00086Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM17MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 13908 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 51/Tuesday, March 17, 2015/Notices
- 1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment does not change the design function of the Class 1 E
divisional battery systems and does not
change the way the plant is maintained or
operated when performing battery
surveillance testing. The proposed amendment does not affect any accident
mitigating feature or increase the likelihood
of malfunction for plant structures, systems
and components.
The proposed amendment does not affect the operability requirements of the Class 1 E
divisional battery systems. Verification of
operating the plant within prescribed limits
will continue to be performed, as currently
required. Compliance with and continued
verification of the prescribed limits support
the capability of the Class 1 E divisional
battery systems to perform their required
design functions during all plant operating, accident, and station blackout conditions, consistent with the plant safety analyses.
The proposed amendment will not change any of the analyses associated with the PNPP
Updated Safety Analysis Report Chapter 15
accidents because plant operation, plant
structures, systems, components, accident
initiators, and accident mitigation functions
remain unchanged.
Therefore, the proposed amendment 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 amendment does not change the design function of the Class 1 E
divisional battery systems, and does not
change the way the plant is operated or
maintained. The proposed amendment does
not create a credible failure mechanism, malfunction or accident initiator not already
considered in the design and licensing basis.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
- 3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
Safety margins are applied to design and licensing basis functions and to the
controlling values of parameters to account
for various uncertainties and to avoid
exceeding regulatory or licensing limits. The
proposed amendment does not involve a
physical change to the plant, does not change
methods of plant operation within prescribed
limits, or affect design and licensing basis
functions or controlling values of parameters
for plant systems, structures, and
components.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee:
David W. Jenkins, Attorney, FirstEnergy
Corporation, Mail Stop A-GO-15, 76
South Main Street, Akron, OH 44308.
NRC Branch Chief:
Travis L. Tate.
Florida Power and Light Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389, St.
Lucie Plant, Units 1 and 2, St. Lucie
County, Florida Date of amendment request:
August 7, 2014 (ADAMS Accession No.
Description of amendment request:
The amendment would revise the
Technical Specifications to add a short
Allowed Outage Time to restore an
inoperable system for conditions under
which the existing specifications require
a plant shutdown. The proposed
amendment is consistent with an NRC-
approved change identified as Technical
Specifications Task Force (TSTF)
Traveler TSTF-426, Revision 5, Revise
or Add Actions to Preclude Entry into
LCO [Limiting Condition for Operation]
3.0.3-RITSTF [Risk-Informed TSTF]
Initiatives 6b & 6c (see 78 FR 32476, May 30, 2013). The Allowed Outage
Time would be added to specifications
governing the boron injection flow paths
of the reactivity control systems, pressurizer heaters, containment spray
trains, shield building ventilation
systems, and control room emergency
air cleanup systems.
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 reproduced
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 provides a short Allowed Outage Time to restore an
inoperable system for conditions under
which the existing Technical Specifications
require a plant shutdown to begin within one
hour in accordance with Limiting Condition
for Operation (LCO) 3.0.3. Entering into
Technical Specification Actions is not an
initiator of any accident previously
evaluated. As a result, the probability of an
accident previously evaluated is not
significantly increased. The consequences of
any accident previously evaluated that may
occur during the proposed Allowed Outage
Times are no different from the consequences
of the same accident during the existing one-
hour allowance. As a result, the consequences of any accident previously
evaluated are not significantly increased.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
- 2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
No new or different accidents [would]
result from utilizing the proposed change.
The changes [to the TSs] do not involve a
physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be
installed) or a change in the methods
governing normal plant operation. In
addition, the changes do not impose any new
or different requirements. The changes do not
alter assumptions made in [any] safety
analysis.
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 increases the time the plant may operate without the ability to
perform an assumed safety function. The
analyses in [the NRC-approved topical
report] WCAP-16125-NP-A, Justification
for Risk-Informed Modifications to Selected
Technical Specifications for Conditions
Leading to Exigent Plant Shutdown,
Revision 2, August 2010, demonstrated that
there is an acceptably small increase in risk
due to a limited period of continued
operation in these conditions and that this
risk is balanced by avoiding the risks
associated with a plant shutdown. As a
result, the change to the margin of safety
provided by requiring a plant shutdown
within one hour is not significant.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and determines that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c)
are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the proposed
amendment involves no significant
hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee:
William S.
Blair, Managing Attorney-Nuclear, Florida Power & Light Company, 700
Universe Blvd., MS LAW/JB, Juno
Beach, FL 33408-0420.
NRC Branch Chief:
Shana R. Helton.
Florida Power and Light Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389, St.
Lucie Plant, Units 1 and 2, St. Lucie
County, Florida Date of amendment request:
December 5, 2014 (ADAMS Accession
No. ML14353A016).
Description of amendment request:
The proposed amendment will modify
the Technical Specification (TS) VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015Jkt 235001PO 00000Frm 00087Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM17MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 13909 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 51/Tuesday, March 17, 2015/Notices requirements related to Completion Times for Required Actions to provide
the option to calculate longer, risk-
informed Completion Times. The
proposed amendment will also add a
new program, the Risk Informed
Completion Time Program, to TS
section 6.0, Administrative Controls.
The methodology for using the Risk
Informed Completion Time Program is
described in Nuclear Energy Institute
topical report NEI 06-09, Risk-
Informed Technical Specifications
Initiative 4b, Risk-Managed Technical
Specifications (RMTS) Guidelines,
Revision 0-A, which was approved by
the NRC on May 17, 2007. The proposed
amendment is consistent with the NRC-
approved industry-proposed Technical
Specification Task Force-505, Revision
1, Provide Risk-Informed Extended
Completion Times-RITSTF Initiative
4b. 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 reproduced
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 permits the extension of Completion Times provided the
associated risk is assessed and managed in
accordance with the NRC[-]approved Risk
Informed Completion Time Program. The
proposed change does not involve a
significant increase in the probability of an
accident previously evaluated because the
change involves no change to the plant or its
modes of operation. The proposed change
does not increase the consequences of an
accident because the design-basis mitigation
function of the affected systems is not
changed and the consequences of an accident
[occurring] during the extended Completion
Time are no different from those [occurring]
during the existing Completion Time.
- 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 does not change the design, configuration, or method of operation
of the plant. The proposed change does not
involve a physical alteration of the plant (no
new or different kind of equipment will be
installed).
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
- 3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change permits the extension of Completion Times provided risk is assessed and managed in accordance with
the NRC[-]approved Risk Informed
Completion Time Program. The proposed
change implements a risk-informed
configuration management program to assure
that adequate margins of safety are
maintained. Application of these new
specifications and the configuration
management program considers cumulative
effects of multiple systems or components
being out of service and does so more
effectively than the current TS.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and determines that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c)
are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the proposed
amendment involves no significant
hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee:
William S.
Blair, Managing Attorney-Nuclear, Florida Power & Light Company, 700
Universe Blvd., MS LAW/JB, Juno
Beach, FL 33408-0420.
NRC Branch Chief:
Shana R. Helton.
Indiana Michigan Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-315 and 50-316, Donald
C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Berrien County, Michigan Date of amendment request:
December 17, 2014. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession
No. ML14356A022.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed amendment would amend
the Appendix A technical specifications
to Facility Operating Licenses DPR-58
and DPR-74, to modify the notes to TS
3.8.1, AC Sources-Operating, to
allow surveillance testing of the onsite
standby emergency diesel generators (DGs) during modes in which it is
currently prohibited. Specifically, the
license amendment request proposes
removing the mode restrictions for the
following Surveillance Requirements (SRs): 3.8.1.10 (DG single largest load
rejection test), 3.8.1.11 (DG full load
rejection test), and 3.8.1.15 (DG
endurance run).
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 of occurrence or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The design of plant equipment is not being modified by the proposed changes. In
addition, the DGs and their associated
emergency loads are accident mitigating features. As such, testing of the DGs themselves is not associated with any
potential accident-initiating mechanism.
Therefore, there will be no significant impact on any accident probabilities by the
approval of the requested changes.
The changes include an increase in the time that a DG under test will be paralleled
to the grid while the unit is in Modes 1 or
- 2. As such, the ability of the tested DG to
respond to a DBA [design-basis accident]
could be minimally adversely impacted by
the proposed changes. However, the impacts
are not considered significant based, in part, on the ability of the remaining DG to mitigate
a DBA or provide safe shutdown. Experience
shows that testing for these SRs typically
does not perturb the electrical distribution
system. In addition, operating experience
supports the conclusion that the proposed
changes do not involve any significant increases in the likelihood of a safety-related
bus blackout or damage to plant loads.
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 capability to synchronize a DG to the offsite source (via the associated plant bus)
and test the DG in such a configuration is a
design feature of the DGs, including the test
mode override in response to a safety
injection signal. Paralleling the DG for longer
periods of time during plant operation may
slightly increase the probability of incurring
an adverse effect from the offsite source, but
this increase in probability is judged to be
still quite small and such a possibility is not
a new or previously unrecognized
consideration.
The proposed change does not introduce a new mode of plant operation and does not
involve physical modification to the plant.
The change does not introduce new accident
initiators or impact assumptions made in the
safety analysis.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
- 3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not exceed or alter a design basis or safety limit, so there
is no significant reduction in the margin of
safety. The margin of safety is related to the
confidence in the ability of the fission
product barriers to perform their design
functions during and following an accident
situation. These barriers include the fuel
cladding, the reactor coolant system, and the
containment system. The proposed changes
do not directly affect these barriers, nor do
they involve any significantly adverse impact
on the DGs which serve to support these
barriers in the event of an accident
concurrent with a LOOP [loss of offsight
power]. The proposed changes to the testing
requirements for the plant DGs do not affect
the OPERABILITY requirements for the DGs, VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015Jkt 235001PO 00000Frm 00088Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM17MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 13910 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 51/Tuesday, March 17, 2015/Notices as verification of such OPERABILITY will continue to be performed as required (except
during different allowed modes). The
changes have an insignificant impact on DG
availability, as the DGs remain available to
perform their required function of providing
emergency power to plant equipment that
supports or constitutes the fission product
barriers. Only one DG is to be tested at a
time, so that the remaining DG will be
available to safety shut down the plant if
required. Consequently, performance of the
fission product barriers will not be impacted
by implementation of the proposed
amendment.
In addition, the proposed changes involve no changes to setpoints or limits established
or assumed by the accident analysis.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
amendment requests involve no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee:
Robert B.
Haemer, Senior Nuclear Counsel, One
Cook Place, Bridgman, MI 49106.
NRC Branch Chief:
David L. Pelton.
Nebraska Public Power District, Docket
No. 50-298, Cooper Nuclear Station, Nemaha County, Nebraska Date of amendment request:
January 15, 2015. A publicly-available version is
in ADAMS under Accession No.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed amendment would revise
the Technical Specifications (TSs) to
add a limiting condition for operation, applicability, required actions, completion times, and surveillance
requirements for the residual heat
removal (RHR) containment spray
system consistent with the guidance in
NUREG-1433, Revision 4, Standard
Technical Specifications General
Electric BWR [Boiling Water Reactor]/4
Plants, dated April 2012 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML12104A192). New TS
section 3.6.1.9, Residual Heat Removal (RHR) Containment Spray, would be
added to reflect the reliance on
containment spray to maintain the
drywell within design temperature
limits during a small steam line break.
In addition, the Drywell Pressure-
High function that serves as an
interlock permissive to allow RHR
containment spray mode alignment
would be relocated from the Technical
Requirements Manual (TRM) to TS
3.3.5.1, Emergency Core Cooling
System (ECCS) Instrumentation.
The requirements for the RHR containment spray function and
Drywell Pressure-High function are
currently contained in TRM sections
T3.6.1, RHR Containment Spray, and
T3.3.2, ECCS and Reactor Core
Isolation Cooling Instrumentation,
respectively. These TRM sections
established specific guidance and
criteria related to the applicability, operation, and testing for the RHR
containment spray system. The TRM
requirements for the RHR containment
spray system would be removed once
the TS requirements are approved.
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. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change to establish the RHR Containment Spray requirement in TS does
not introduce new equipment or new
equipment operating modes, nor do the
proposed changes alter existing system
relationships. The proposed change does not
affect plant operation, design function, or any
analysis that verifies the capability of a
structure, system, or component (SSC) to
perform a design function. There are no
changes or modifications to the RHR system.
The RHR system will continue to function as
designed in all modes of operation, including the Containment Spray function. There are
no significant changes to procedures or
training related to the operation of the
Containment Spray function. Primary
containment integrity is not adversely
impacted and radiological consequences
from the accidents analyzed in the Updated
Safety Analysis Report (USAR) are not
increased. Containment parameters are not
increased beyond those previously evaluated
and the potential for failure of the
containment is not increased.
There is no adverse impact on systems designed to mitigate the consequences of
accidents. The proposed change does not
increase system or component pressures, temperatures, and flowrates for systems
designed to prevent accidents or mitigate the
consequences of an accident. Since these
conditions do not change, the likelihood of
failure of SSC is not increased.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
- 2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change to establish the RHR Containment Spray requirement in TS does
not alter the design function or operation of
any SSC. The Containment system will
continue to function as designed in all modes
of operation, including RHR Containment Spray function. There is no new system component being installed, no new
construction, and no performance of a new
test or maintenance function. The proposed
TS change does not create the possibility of
a new credible failure mechanism or
malfunction. The proposed change does not
modify the design function or operation of
any SSC. The proposed change does not
introduce new accident initiators. Primary
containment integrity is not adversely
impacted and radiological consequences
from the accident analyzed in the USAR are
not increased. Containment parameters are
not increased beyond those previously
evaluated and the potential for failure of the
containment is not increased. The proposed
change does not increase system or
component pressures, temperatures, and
flowrates for systems designed to prevent
accidents or mitigate the consequences of an
accident. Since these conditions do not
change, the likelihood of failure of an SSC is
not increased.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
- 3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not increase system or component pressures, temperatures, and flowrates for systems
designed to prevent accidents or mitigate the
consequences of an accident. Containment
parameters are not increased beyond those
previously evaluated and the potential for
failure of the containment is not increased.
The proposed change to establish the RHR Containment Spray requirement in TS is
needed in order to reflect the current safety
function of Containment Spray related to the
small steam line break accident. The
proposed change does not exceed or alter a
design basis or a safety limit parameter that
is described in the USAR.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee:
Mr. John C.
McClure, Nebraska Public Power
District, Post Office Box 499, Columbus, NE 68602-0499.
Acting NRC Branch Chief:
Eric R. Oesterle.
Northern States Power Company-Minnesota, Docket Nos. 50-282 and 50-
306, Prairie Island Nuclear Generating
Plant, Units 1 and 2, Goodhue County, Minnesota Date of amendment request:
February 20, 2013, as supplemented by letters
dated June 25, 2013; September 15, VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015Jkt 235001PO 00000Frm 00089Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM17MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 13911 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 51/Tuesday, March 17, 2015/Notices 2014; and February 26, 2015. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS under
Accession Nos. ML13053A199, ML13178A024, ML14258A089, and
ML15057A480, respectively.
Brief description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would remove the technical
specification (TS) 3.5.3 ECCS
[Emergency Core Cooling System]-
Shutdown, Limiting Condition for
Operation (LCO) Note 1 to eliminate
information to the plant operators that
could cause non-conservative operation, and would revise the LCO Applicability
statement to apply to all of Mode 4.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
licensee provided its analysis of the
issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which the Commission
previously issued in the Federal Register on August 20, 2013 (78 FR 51229). The licensee revised its analysis
of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented
below, to consider expansion of the
scope of the amendments by revising
the LCO Applicability statement to
include all of Mode 4.
- 1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
This license amendment request proposes to revise the Technical Specification for
ECCS operability requirements in Mode 4 by
removing the LCO Note which allows the
RHR [residual heat removal] subsystem to be
considered operable for ECCS when aligned
for shutdown cooling and revising the
Applicability statement to include all of
Mode 4. These changes will require one train
of RHR to be aligned for ECCS operation
throughout Mode 4.
The proposed changes do not affect the ECCS and RHR subsystem design, the
interfaces between the RHR subsystem and
other plant systems' operating functions, or
the reliability of the RHR subsystem. The
proposed changes do not change or impact
the initiators and assumptions of the
analyzed accidents. Therefore, the ECCS and
RHR subsystems will be capable of
performing their accident mitigation
functions, and the proposed TS changes do
not involve an increase in the probability of
an accident.
The proposed TS changes will require that one train of RHR is aligned for ECCS
operation during Mode 4 which assures that
one train of ECCS is operable to mitigate the
consequences of a loss of coolant accident.
Thus the proposed TS changes do not
involve a significant increase in the
consequences of an accident.
Therefore, the proposed Technical Specification changes do 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.
This license amendment request proposes to revise the Technical Specification for
ECCS operability requirements in Mode 4 by
removing the LCO Note which allows the
RHR subsystem to be considered operable for
ECCS when aligned for shutdown cooling
and revising the Applicability statement to
include all of Mode 4. These changes will
require one train of RHR to be aligned for
ECCS operation throughout Mode 4.
The proposed Technical Specification changes involve changes to when system
trains are operated, but they do not change
any system functions or maintenance
activities. The changes do not involve
physical alteration of the plant, that is, no
new or different type of equipment will be
installed. The changes do not alter
assumptions made in the safety analyses but
ensure that one train of ECCS is operable to
mitigate the consequences of a loss of coolant
accident. These changes do not create new
failure modes or mechanisms which are not
identifiable during testing and no new
accident precursors are generated.
Therefore, the proposed Technical Specification changes do 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.
This license amendment request proposes to revise the Technical Specification [TS] for
ECCS operability requirements in Mode 4 by
removing the LCO Note which allows the
RHR subsystem to be considered operable for
ECCS when aligned for shutdown cooling
and revising the Applicability statement to
include all of Mode 4. These changes will
require one train of RHR to be aligned for
ECCS operation throughout Mode 4.
This license amendment proposes Technical Specification changes which
assure that the ECCS-Shutdown TS LCO
requirements are met if a Mode 4 LOCA were
to occur. With these changes, other TS
requirements for shutdown cooling in Mode
4 will continue to be met. Based on review
of plant operating experience, there is no
discernable change in cooldown rates when
utilizing a single train of RHR for shutdown
cooling. Thus, no margin of safety is reduced
as part of this change.
Therefore, the proposed Technical Specification changes do not involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
amendment requests involve no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee:
Peter M. Glass, Assistant General Counsel, Xcel Energy
Services, Inc., 414 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, MN 55401.
NRC Branch Chief:
David L. Pelton.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC), Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-
366, Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Appling County, GA Date of amendment request:
January 13, 2015. A publicly-available version is
in ADAMS under Accession No.
Description of amendment request:
The licensee proposes to adopt
Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) change number 523, revision 2,
Generic Letter 2008-01, Managing Gas
Accumulation, for the Hatch Nuclear
Plant, Unit 1 and 2, technical
specifications (TS). The proposed
change would revise or add
Surveillance Requirements to verify that
the system locations susceptible to gas
accumulation are sufficiently filled with
water and to provide allowances which
permit performance of the verification.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
licensee has provided its analysis of the
issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented
below: 1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises or adds Surveillance Requirement(s) (SRs) that
require verification that the Emergency Core
Cooling System (ECCS), the Residual Heat
Removal (RHR) System, the RHR Shutdown
Cooling (SDC) System, the Containment
Spray (CS) System, and the Reactor Core
Isolation Cooling (RCIC) System are not
rendered inoperable due to accumulated gas
and to provide allowances which permit
performance of the revised verification. Gas
accumulation in the subject systems is not an
initiator of any accident previously
evaluated. As a result, the probability of any
accident previously evaluated is not
significantly increased. The proposed SRs
ensure that the subject systems continue to
be capable to perform their assumed safety
function and are not rendered inoperable due
to gas accumulation. Thus, the consequences
of any accident previously evaluated are not
significantly increased.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
- 2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises or adds SRs that require verification that the ECCS, the
RHR, the RHR SDC System, the CS System, and the RCIC System are not rendered
inoperable due to accumulated gas and to VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015Jkt 235001PO 00000Frm 00090Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM17MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 13912 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 51/Tuesday, March 17, 2015/Notices provide allowances which permit performance of the revised verification. The
proposed change does not involve a physical
alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be installed)
or a change in the methods governing normal
plant operation. In addition, the proposed
change does not impose any new or different
requirements that could initiate an accident.
The proposed change does not alter
assumptions made in the safety analysis and
is consistent with the safety analysis
assumptions.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
- 3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises or adds SRs that require verification that the ECCS, the
RHR, RHR SDC System, the CS System, and
the RCIC System are not rendered inoperable
due to accumulated gas and to provide
allowances which permit performance of the
revised verification. The proposed change
adds new requirements to manage gas
accumulation in order to ensure the subject
systems are capable of performing their
assumed safety functions. The proposed SRs
are more comprehensive than the current SRs
and will ensure that the assumptions of the
safety analysis are protected. The proposed
change does not adversely affect any current
plant safety margins or the reliability of the
equipment assumed in the safety analysis.
Therefore, there are no changes being made
to any safety analysis assumptions, safety
limits or limiting safety system settings that
would adversely affect plant safety as a result
of the proposed change.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety. Based on the above, SNC concludes that the proposed change 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 licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee:
Jennifer M.
Buettner, Associate General Counsel, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 40 Inverness Center Parkway, Birmingham, AL 35201.
NRC Branch Chief:
Robert J.
Pascarelli.
South Carolina Electric and Gas Company, Docket Nos.: 52-027 and 52-
028, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3, Fairfield County, South
Carolina Date of amendment request:
January 27, 2015. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed change, if approved, would revise, in part, the description
and scope of human factors engineering (HFE) operational sequence analysis (OSA) task and delete a reference to
document WCAP-15847, which are
both identified as Tier 2* information in
the Updated Final Safety Analysis
Report (UFSAR).
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 deletion of WCAP-15847 removes obsolete and superseded procedures
from the licensing basis. The amendment of
the operational sequence analysis (OSA) task
alters the automatic depressurization system (ADS) testing from Mode 1 to Mode 5. The
proposed changes to the procedures do not
involve any accident initiating component/
system failure or event, and the change to the
ADS testing mode helps prevent accidents
that would occur if the tests were performed
in Mode 1. Thus, the probabilities of the
accidents previously evaluated are not
affected. The affected procedures and
requirements do not adversely affect or
interact with safety-related equipment or a
radioactive material barrier, and this activity
does not involve the containment of
radioactive material. Thus, the proposed
changes would not affect any safety-related
accident mitigating function. The radioactive
material source terms and release paths used
in the safety analyses are unchanged, thus
the radiological releases in the Updated Final
Safety Analysis Report accident analyses are
not affected.
Therefore, the proposed amendment 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.
Removing WCAP-15847 from the UFSAR and amending the OSA task regarding ADS
valve testing does not adversely affect the
design or operation of safety-related
equipment or equipment whose failure could
initiate an accident other than what is
already described in the licensing basis.
These changes do not adversely affect safety-
related equipment or fission product barriers.
No safety analysis or design basis acceptance
limit/criterion is challenged or exceeded by
the requested change.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
- 3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to remove WCAP-15847 from the UFSAR and amend the OSA
task do not adversely affect any safety-related
equipment, design code compliance, design
function, design analysis, safety analysis
input or result, or design/safety margin
because NQA-1 requirements are maintained
in other Westinghouse procedures and
testing of the ADS valves is still performed.
No safety analysis or design basis acceptance
limit/criterion is challenged or exceeded by
the proposed changes, thus no margin of
safety is reduced.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee:
Ms. Kathryn M.
Sutton, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLC, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004-2514.
NRC Branch Chief:
Lawrence J.
Burkhart.
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:
January 30, 2015. A publicly-available version is
in ADAMS under Accession No.
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.
The requested amendment proposes
changes to Tier 2* information
contained within the Human Factors
Engineering Design Verification, Task
Support Verification and Integrated
System Validation (ISV) plans. These
documents are incorporated by
reference into the VEGP Units 3 and 4
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report, and will additionally require changes to
be made to affected Tier 2 information.
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? VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015Jkt 235001PO 00000Frm 00091Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM17MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 13913 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 51/Tuesday, March 17, 2015/Notices Response: No.
The proposed amendment includes changes to Integrated System Validation (ISV) activities, which are performed on the
AP1000 plant simulator to validate the
adequacy of the AP1000 human system
interface design and confirm that it meets
human factors engineering principles. The
proposed changes involve administrative
details related to performance of the ISV, and
no plant hardware or equipment is affected
whose failure could initiate an accident, or
that interfaces with a component that could
initiate an accident, or that contains
radioactive material. Therefore, these
changes have no effect on any accident
initiator in the Updated Final Safety Analysis
Report (UFSAR), nor do they affect the
radioactive material releases in the UFSAR
accident analysis.
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 includes changes to ISV activities, which are
performed on the AP1000 plant simulator to
validate the adequacy of the AP1000 human
system interface design and confirm that it
meets human factors engineering principles.
The proposed changes involve administrative
details related to performance of the ISV, and
no plant hardware or equipment is affected
whose failure could initiate an accident, or
that interfaces with a component that could
initiate an accident, or that contains
radioactive material. Although the ISV may
identify a need to initiate changes to add, modify, or remove plant structures, systems, or components, these changes will not be
made directly as part of the ISV.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
- 3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment includes changes to ISV activities, which are
performed on the AP1000 plant simulator to
validate the adequacy of the AP1000 human
system interface design and confirm that it
meets human factors engineering principles.
The proposed changes involve administrative
details related to performance of the ISV, and
do not affect any safety-related equipment, design code compliance, design function, design analysis, safety analysis input or
result, or design/safety margin. No safety
analysis or design basis acceptance limit/
criterion is challenged or exceeded by the
proposed changes, thus no margin of safety
is reduced.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee:
Mr. M. Stanford Blanton, Balch & Bingham LLP, 1710
Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL
35203-2015.
NRC Branch Chief:
Lawrence J.
Burkhart.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-425, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1
and 2, Burke County, Georgia Date of amendment request:
September 13, 2012, as supplemented
August 2, 2013, July 3, July 17, November 11, and December 12, 2014.
Publicly-available versions are in
ADAMS under Accession Nos.
ML12258A055, ML13217A072, ML14189A554, ML14198A574, ML14315A051 and ML14346A643, respectively.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed amendment would
modify certain Technical Specification (TS) requirements related to Completion
Times for Required Actions to provide
the option to calculate a longer, risk-
informed Completion Time. The
allowance will be described in a new
program, Risk Informed Completion
Time Program (RICT), to be approved
by NRC and to be added to Chapter 5,
Administrative Controls, of the
Technical Specifications. The
methodology for using the RICT
Program is described in an industry
document NEI 06-09, Risk-Informed
Technical Specifications Initiative 4b, Risk-Managed Technical Specifications (RMTS) Guidelines, which was
approved by the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) on May 17, 2007.
Adherence to NEI 06-09 is required by
the proposed RICT Program. The
proposed amendment is also consistent
with the methodologies presented in an industry initiative identified as TSTF-
505, Revision 1, Provide Risk-Informed
Extended Completion Times-RITSTF
Initiative 4b. Although the proposed
amendment is consistent with TSTF-
505, the licensee is not proposing
adoption of TSTF-505 with this
proposed amendment; the proposed
amendment is a site-specific action.
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 permits the extension of Completion Times provided risk
is assessed and managed within the Risk
Informed Completion Time Program. The
proposed change does not involve a
significant increase in the probability of an
accident previously evaluated because the
changes involve no change to the plant or its
modes of operation. This proposed change
does not increase the consequences of an
accident because the design-basis mitigation
function of the affected systems is not
changed and the consequences of an accident
during the extended Completion Time are no
different from those during the existing
Completion Time.
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 does not change the design, configuration, or method of operation
of the plant. The proposed change does not
involve a physical alteration of the plant (no
new or different kind of equipment will be
installed).
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
- 3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety[?]
Response: No.
The proposed change permits the extension of Completion Times provided risk
is assessed and managed within the Risk
Informed Completion Time Program. The
proposed change implements a risk-informed
configuration management program to assure
that adequate margins of safety are
maintained. Application of these new
specifications and the configuration
management program considers cumulative
effects of multiple systems or components
being out of service and does so more
effectively than the current TS.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
requested amendment involve no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee:
Jennifer M.
Buettner, Associate General Counsel, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 40 Inverness Center Parkway, Birmingham, AL 35242.
NRC Branch Chief:
Robert J.
Pascarelli. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015Jkt 235001PO 00000Frm 00092Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM17MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 13914 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 51/Tuesday, March 17, 2015/Notices Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), Docket Nos. 50-327 and 50-328, Sequoyah Nuclear Plant (SQN), Units 1
and 2, Hamilton County, Tennessee Date of amendment request:
December 2, 2014. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession
No. ML14339A539.
Description of amendment request:
The amendments would revise
Technical Specification (TS) 6.8.4.h,
Containment Leakage Rate Testing
Program, by adopting Nuclear Energy
Institute (NEI) 94-01, Revision 3-A,
Industry Guideline for Implementing
Performance-Based Option of 10 CFR
part 50, Appendix J, as the
implementation document for the
performance-based Option B of 10 CFR
part 50, Appendix J. The proposed
changes would permanently extend the
Type A containment integrated leak rate
testing (ILRT) interval from 10 years to
15 years, and the Type C local leakage
rate testing (LLRT) intervals from 60
months to 75 months.
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 consequence of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed revision to TS 6.8.4.h changes the testing period to a permanent 15-year interval for Type A testing (10 CFR part
50, Appendix J, Option B, ILRT) and a 75-
month interval for Type C testing (10 CFR
part 50, Appendix J, Option B, LLRT). The
current type A test interval of 10 years would
be extended to 15 years from the last Type
A test. The proposed extension to Type A
testing does not involve a significant increase
in the consequences of an accident because
research documented in NUREG-1493,
Performance-Based Containment System
Leakage Testing Requirements [sic]
[Performance-Based Containment Leak-Test
Program], September 1995, has found that, generically, very few potential containment
leakage paths are not identified by Type B
and C tests. NUREG-1493 concluded that
reducing the Type A testing frequency to one
per twenty years was found to lead to an
imperceptible increase in risk. A high degree
of assurance is provided through testing and
inspection that the containment will not
degrade in a manner detectable only by Type
A testing. The last Type A test (performed
October 27, 2007 for SQN, Unit 1 and
December 30, 2006 for SQN, Unit 2) shows
leakage to be below acceptance criteria, indicating a very leak tight containment.
Inspections required by the ASME [American
Society of Mechanical Engineers] Code
section Xl (subsections IWE and IWL) and
Maintenance Rule monitoring (10 CFR 50.65, Requirements for Monitoring the
Effectiveness of Maintenance at Nuclear
Power Plants), are performed in order to
identify indications of containment
degradation that could affect that leak
tightness. Types B and C testing required by
TSs will identify any containment opening
such as valves that would otherwise be
detected by the Type A tests. These factors
show that a Type A test interval extension
will not represent a significant increase in
the consequences of an accident.
The proposed amendment involves changes to the SQN, Units 1 and 2, 10 CFR
50 Appendix J Testing Program Plan. The
proposed amendment does not involve a
physical change to the plant or a change in
the manner in which the units are operated
or controlled. The primary containment
function is to provide an essentially leak
tight barrier against the uncontrolled release of radioactivity to the environment for
postulated accidents. As such, the
containment itself and the testing
requirements to periodically demonstrate the
integrity of the containment exist to ensure
the plant's ability to mitigate the
consequences of an accident, and do not
involve any accident precursors or initiators.
Therefore, the probability of occurrence of an accident previously evaluated is not
significantly increased by the proposed
amendment.
The proposed amendment adopts the NRC-accepted guidelines of NEI 94-01, Revision
3-A, for development of the SQN, Units 1
and 2, performance-based leakage testing
program. Implementation of these guidelines
continues to provide adequate assurance that
during design basis accidents, the primary
containment and its components will limit
leakage rates to less than the values assumed
in the plant safety analyses. The potential
consequences of extending the ILRT interval
from 10 years to 15 years have been
evaluated by analyzing the resulting changes
in risk. The increase in risk in terms of
person-rem per year resulting from design
basis accidents was estimated to be very
small, and the increase in the LERF [large
early release frequency] resulting from the
proposed change was determined to be
within the guidelines published in NRC RG
[Regulatory Guide] 1.174. Additionally, the
proposed change maintains defense-in-depth
by preserving a reasonable balance among
prevention of core damage, prevention of
containment failure, and consequence
mitigation. TVA has determined that the
increase in CCFP [conditional containment
failure probability] due to the proposed
change would be very small.
Based on the above discussions, the proposed changes do 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 revision to TS 6.8.4.h changes the testing period to a permanent 15-
year interval for Type A testing (10 CFR part
50, Appendix J, Option B, ILRT) and a 75-
month interval for Type C testing (10 CFR part 50, Appendix J, Option B, LLRT). The current test interval of 10 years, based on
past performance, would be extended to 15
years from the last Type A test (performed
October 27, 2007 for SQN, Unit 1 and
December 30, 2006 for SQN, Unit 2). The
proposed extension to Type A and Type C
test intervals does not create the possibility
of a new or different type of accident because
there are no physical changes being made to
the plant and there are no changes to the
operation of the plant that could introduce a
new failure mode creating an accident or
affecting the mitigation of an accident.
Therefore, the proposed changes do 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.
The proposed revision to TS 6.8.4.h changes the testing period to a permanent 15-
year interval for Type A testing (10 CFR part
50, Appendix J, Option B, ILRT) and a 75-
month interval for Type C testing (10 CFR
part 50, Appendix J, Option B, LLRT). The
current test interval of 10 years, based on
past performance, would be extended to 15
years from the last Type A test (performed
October 27, 2007 for SQN, Unit 1 and
December 30, 2006 for SQN, Unit 2). The
proposed extension to Type A testing will
not significantly reduce the margin of safety.
NUREG-1493, Performance-Based
Containment System Leakage Testing
Requirements [sic] [Performance-Based
Containment Leak-Test Program],
September 1995, generic study of the effects
of extending containment leakage testing, found that a 20-year extension to Type A
leakage testing resulted in an imperceptible
increase in risk to the public. NUREG-1493
found that, generically, the design
containment leakage rate contributes about
0.1% to the individual risk and that the
decrease in Type A testing frequency would
have a minimal effect on this risk since 95%
of the potential leakage paths are detected by
Type C testing. Regular inspections required
by the ASME Code section Xl (subsections
IWE and IWL) and maintenance rule
monitoring (10 CFR 50.65, Requirements for
Monitoring the Effectiveness of Maintenance
at Nuclear Power Plants) will further reduce
the risk of a containment leakage path going
undetected.
The proposed amendment adopts the NRC-accepted guidelines of NEI 94-01, Revision
3-A, for development of the SQN, Units 1
and 2, performance-based leakage testing
program, and establishes a 15-year interval
for the performance of the primary
containment ILRT and a 75-month interval
for Type C testing. The amendment does not
alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system setpoints, or limiting
conditions for operation are determined. The
specific requirements and conditions of the
10 CFR part 50, Appendix J Testing Program
Plan, as defined in the TS, ensure that the
degree of primary containment structural
integrity and leak-tightness that is considered
in the plant safety analyses is maintained.
The overall containment leakage rate limit
specified by the TS is maintained, and the VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015Jkt 235001PO 00000Frm 00093Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM17MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 13915 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 51/Tuesday, March 17, 2015/Notices Type A, B, and C containment leakage tests will continue to be performed at the
frequencies established in accordance with
the NRC-accepted guidelines of NEI 94-01, Revision 3-A.
Containment inspections performed in accordance with other plant programs serve
to provide a high degree of assurance that the
containment will not degrade in a manner
that is detectable only by an ILRT. This
ensures that evidence of containment
structural degradation is identified in a
timely manner. Furthermore, a risk assessment using the current SQN, Units 1
and 2, PRA model concluded that extending
the ILRT test interval from 10 years to 15
years results in a very small change to the
SQN, Units 1 and 2, risk profile.
Accordingly, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee:
General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, 6A West
Tower, Knoxville, TN 37902.
NRC Branch Chief:
Shana R. Helton.
III. Previously Published Notices of
Consideration of Issuance of
Amendments to Facility Operating
Licenses and Combined Licenses, Proposed No Significant Hazards
Consideration Determination, and
Opportunity for a Hearing The following notices were previously published as separate individual
notices. The notice content was the
same as above. They were published as
individual notices either because time
did not allow the Commission to wait
for this biweekly notice or because the
action involved exigent circumstances.
They are repeated here because the
biweekly notice lists all amendments
issued or proposed to be issued
involving no significant hazards
consideration.
For details, see the individual notice in the Federal Register on the day and
page cited. This notice does not extend
the notice period of the original notice.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-247, Indian Point
Nuclear Generating Unit 2, Westchester
County, New York Date of amendment request:
February 12, 2015. A publicly-available version is
in ADAMS under Accession No.
Brief description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would allow a revision to the acceptance criteria for the Surveillance
Requirement 3.1.4.2 for Control Rod G-
- 3. During the last two performances of
this Surveillance on September 18, 2014, and December 11, 2014, Control
Rod G-3 misalignment occurred with
Shutdown Bank B group movement as
displayed by Individual Rod Position
Indication and Plant Instrument
Computer System. The proposed change
is to defer subsequent testing of the
Control Rod G-3 until repaired during
the next refuel outage (March 2016) or
forced outage long enough to repair the
Date of publication of individual notice in Federal Register:
March 2, 2015 (80 FR 11236).
Expiration date of individual notice:
April 1, 2015 (public comments); May 1, 2015 (hearing requests).
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323 for
Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant (DCPP), Units 1 and 2, Docket No. 72-
26 for Diablo Canyon Independent
Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI),
San Luis Obispo County, California Date of amendment request:
September 24, 2013, as supplemented
by letters dated December 18, 2013 (security-related), and May 15, 2014.
Publicly-available versions of the letters
dated September 24, 2013, and May 15, 2014, are in ADAMS under Accession
Nos. ML13268A398 and ML14135A379, respectively.
Brief description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would modify the licenses to reflect a
grant of section 161A of the Atomic
Energy Act, to authorize the licensee the
authority to possess and use certain
firearms, ammunition, and other devices
such as large-capacity ammunition
feeding devices, to implement the NRC-
approved security plan for DCPP, Unit
Nos. 1 and 2, and the Diablo Canyon
ISFSI. Date of publication of individual notice in Federal Register:
February 18, 2015 (80 FR 8706).
Expiration date of individual notice:
March 20, 2015 (public comments);
April 19, 2015 (hearing requests).
Southern California Edison Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-361, 50-362, and
72-41, San Onofre Nuclear Generating
Station, Units 2 and 3, and Independent
Spent Fuel Storage Installation, San
Diego County, California Date of amendment request:
August 28, 2013, as supplemented by letters
dated December 31, 2013, May 15, 2014, and February 10, 2015. Publicly-
available versions are in ADAMS under
Accession Nos. ML13242A277, ML14007A496, ML14139A424, and ML15044A047, respectively.
Brief description of amendment request: The licensee is requesting that the Commission grant it preemption
authority consistent with the
Commission's authority under section
161A of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, to authorize the security
personnel of designated classes of
licensees to possess, use, and access
covered weapons for the physical
security of SONGS, Units 2 and 3, and
the Independent Spent Fuel Storage
Installation, notwithstanding Federal, State, or local laws prohibiting such
possession or use. If the amendment
request is granted, the licenses would be
modified to reflect the Commission's
granting of section 161A preemption
authority.
Date of publication of individual notice in Federal Register:
February 18, 2015 (80 FR 8701).
Expiration date of individual notice:
March 20, 2015 (public comments);
April 20, 2015 (hearing requests).
IV. 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 Commission's rules
and regulations. The Commission has
made appropriate findings as required
by the Act and the Commission's rules
and regulations in 10 CFR chapter I, which are set forth in the license
amendment.
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 licensee's facility
of the licensee's application and of the VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015Jkt 235001PO 00000Frm 00094Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM17MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 13916 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 51/Tuesday, March 17, 2015/Notices Commission's 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
plant's 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
Commission's related letter, Safety
Evaluation and/or Environmental
Assessment, as indicated. All of these
items can be accessed as described in
the Obtaining Information and
Submitting Comments section of this
document.
A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing and Petition for Leave To Intervene 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 Commission's
Agency Rules of Practice and
Procedure in 10 CFR part 2. Interested
person(s) should consult a current copy
of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at
the NRC's PDR, located at One White
Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852, and electronically on
the Internet at the NRC's Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-
collections/cfr/.
If there are problems in accessing the document, contact the
PDR's Reference staff at 1-800-397-
4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to
pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene
is filed by the above date, the
Commission or a presiding officer
designated by the Commission or by the
Chief Administrative Judge of the
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
Panel, will rule on the request and/or
petition; and the Secretary or the Chief
Administrative Judge of the Atomic
Safety and Licensing Board will issue a
notice of a hearing or an appropriate
order. As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene shall set
forth with particularity the interest of
the petitioner in the proceeding, and
how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition
should specifically explain the reasons
why intervention should be permitted
with particular reference to the
following general requirements: (1) the
name, address, and telephone number of
the requestor or petitioner; (2) the
nature of the requestor's/petitioner's
right under the Act to be made a party
to the proceeding; (3) the nature and
extent of the requestor's/petitioner's
property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which
may be entered in the proceeding on the
requestor's/petitioner's interest. The
petition must also identify the specific
contentions which the requestor/
petitioner seeks to have litigated at the
proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or
fact to be raised or controverted. In
addition, the requestor/petitioner shall
provide a brief explanation of the bases
for the contention and a concise
statement of the alleged facts or expert
opinion which support the contention
and on which the 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.
B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing, a petition for leave
to intervene, any motion or other
document filed in the proceeding prior
to the submission of a request for
hearing or petition to intervene, and
documents filed by interested
governmental entities participating
under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in
accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule
(72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007). The E-
Filing process requires participants to
submit and serve all adjudicatory
documents over the internet, or in some
cases to mail copies on electronic
storage media. Participants may not VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015Jkt 235001PO 00000Frm 00095Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM17MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 13917 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 51/Tuesday, March 17, 2015/Notices submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in
accordance with the procedures
described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least ten 10
days prior to the filing deadline, the
participant should contact the Office of
the Secretary by email at
hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by telephone at 301-415-1677, to request (1) a digital
identification (ID) certificate, which
allows the participant (or its counsel or
representative) to digitally sign
documents and access the E-Submittal
server for any proceeding in which it is
participating; and (2) advise the
Secretary that the participant will be
submitting a request or petition for
hearing (even in instances in which the
participant, or its counsel or
representative, already holds an NRC-
issued digital ID certificate). Based upon
this information, the Secretary will
establish an electronic docket for the
hearing in this proceeding if the
Secretary has not already established an
electronic docket.
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the
NRC's public Web site at http://
www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/
getting-started.html.
System requirements for accessing the E-
Submittal server are detailed in the
NRC's Guidance for Electronic
Submission, which is available on the
agency's public Web site at http://
www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-
submittals.html.
Participants may attempt to use other software not listed
on the Web site, but should note that the
NRC's E-Filing system does not support
unlisted software, and the NRC Meta
System Help Desk will not be able to
offer assistance in using unlisted
software.
If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC in
accordance with the E-Filing rule, the
participant must file the document
using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to serve
documents through the Electronic
Information Exchange System, users
will be required to install a Web
browser plug-in from the NRC's Web
site. Further information on the Web-
based submission form, including the
installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on the NRC's public Web
site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-
submittals.html.
Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a docket has
been created, the participant can then
submit a request for hearing or petition
for leave to intervene. Submissions
should be in Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance available on the NRC's public Web site
at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html.
A filing is considered complete at the time the documents are
submitted through the NRC's E-Filing
system. To be timely, an electronic
filing must be submitted to the E-Filing
system no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern
Time on the due date. Upon receipt of
a transmission, the E-Filing system
time-stamps the document and sends
the submitter an email notice
confirming receipt of the document. The
E-Filing system also distributes an email
notice that provides access to the
document to the NRC's Office of the
General Counsel and any others who
have advised the Office of the Secretary
that they wish to participate in the
proceeding, so that the filer need not
serve the documents on those
participants separately. Therefore, applicants and other participants (or
their counsel or representative) must
apply for and receive a digital ID
certificate before a hearing request/
petition to intervene is filed so that they
can obtain access to the document via
the E-Filing system.
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system
may seek assistance by contacting the
NRC Meta System Help Desk through
the Contact Us link located on the
NRC's public Web site at http://
www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-
submittals.html, by email to MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-7640. The NRC
Meta System Help Desk is available
between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern
Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays.
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting
documents electronically must file an
exemption request, in accordance with
10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper
filing requesting authorization to
continue to submit documents in paper
format. Such filings must be submitted
by: (1) first class mail addressed to the
Office of the Secretary of the
Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-
0001, Attention: Rulemaking and
Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery
service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking
and Adjudications Staff. Participants
filing a document in this manner are
responsible for serving the document on
all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail
as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited
delivery service upon depositing the
document with the provider of the
service. A presiding officer, having
granted an exemption request from
using E-Filing, may require a participant
or party to use E-Filing if the presiding
officer subsequently determines that the
reason for granting the exemption from
use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's
electronic hearing docket which is
available to the public at http://
ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the Commission, or the presiding officer. Participants are
requested not to include personal
privacy information, such as social
security numbers, home addresses, or
home phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC regulation or other law
requires submission of such
information. However, 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.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-353, Limerick Generating
Station, Unit 2, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania Date of amendment request:
February 12, 2015.
Description of amendment request:
The amendment extends the
implementation period for Amendment
No. 174, Leak Detection System
Setpoint and Allowable Value
Changes, which was issued on
December 29, 2014. Amendment No.
174 was effective as of the date of
issuance (i.e., on December 29, 2014) and was required to be implemented
within 60 days (i.e., by February 27, 2015). Amendment No. 177 extends the
implementation period for Amendment
No. 174 from 60 days to prior to startup
from the spring 2015 refueling outage.
Date of issuance:
February 25, 2015.
Effective date:
As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented prior to startup from the Spring 2015
Unit 2 Refueling Outage.
Amendment No.:
177. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML15049A084;
documents related to this amendment
are listed in the Safety Evaluation
enclosed with the amendment. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015Jkt 235001PO 00000Frm 00096Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM17MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 13918 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 51/Tuesday, March 17, 2015/Notices Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-85:
Amendment revised the Renewed Facility Operating License to
extend the implementation date of
Amendment No. 174, issued on
December 29, 2014, to prior to startup
from the Spring 2015 Unit 2 Refueling
Outage. Public comments requested as to proposed no significant hazards
consideration (NSHC):
Yes. Public
notice of the proposed amendment was
published in The Pottstown Mercury, located in in Pottstown, Pennsylvania, on February 15, and February 16, 2015.
The notice provided an opportunity to
submit comments on the Commission's
proposed NSHC determination.
Comments were received.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment, finding of exigent
circumstances, state consultation, public comments, and final NSHC
determination are contained in a safety
evaluation dated February 25, 2015.
Attorney for licensee:
J. Bradley Fewell, Esquire, Vice President and
Deputy General Counsel, Exelon
Generation Company, LLC, 200 Exelon
Way, Kennett Square, PA 19348.
NRC Branch Chief:
Douglas A.
Broaddus.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-259, 50-260, and 50-296, Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN),
Units 1, 2, and 3, Respectively, Limestone County, Alabama Date of amendment request:
February 12, 2015.
Brief description of amendment request: The amendments revised Technical Specification (TS) 5.6.5,
Core Operating Limits Report (COLR),
to add the date of a previously issued
NRC safety evaluation (SE) that stated it
was acceptable for the licensee to use
new analytical methods supporting the
use of ATRIUM 10XM (10XM) fuel. In
its letter dated February 12, 2015, the
licensee stated BFN, Unit 2, is entering
an outage on March 14, 2015, and is
scheduled to commence loading 10XM
fuel on March 17, 2015. Because the TSs
do not reference the aforementioned
NRC evaluation, the licensee would not
be able to issue a COLR for the Unit 2
transition cycle unless the notation to
the latest NRC SE is added. Therefore, the licensee requested that NRC process
the license amendment request under
exigent circumstances in accordance
with 10 CFR 50.91(a)(6). The NRC staff
determined that the provisions of 10
CFR 50.91(a)(6) were applicable for
processing the licensee's request under
exigent circumstances.
Date of issuance:
February 26, 2015.
Effective date:
As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
during the refueling outages in fall of
2016 for Unit 1, in spring of 2015 for
Unit 2, and in spring of 2016 for Unit
- 3. Amendment Nos.:
288, 313, and 272, which are available in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML15051A337.
Documents related to these amendments
are listed in the SE enclosed with the
amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-33, DPR-52, and DPR-68:
Amendments revised the TSs.
Public comments requested as to proposed no significant hazards
consideration (NSHC):
The public
notice was published in The
Huntsville Times, located in
Huntsville, Alabama, on February 18
and 20, 2015. The notice provided an
opportunity to submit comments on the
Commission's proposed NSHC
determination. No comments have been
received.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment, finding of exigent
circumstances, state consultation, and
final NSHC determination are contained
in a safety evaluation dated February 26, 2015. Attorney for licensee:
General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, ET 11A, Knoxville, TN 37902.
NRC Branch Chief:
Shana R. Helton.
V. Notice of Issuance of Amendments to
Facility Operating Licenses and
Combined Licenses During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, the
Commission has issued the following
amendments. The Commission has
determined for each of these
amendments that the application
complies with the standards and
requirements of the Atomic Energy Act
of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the
Commission's rules and regulations.
The Commission has made appropriate
findings as required by the Act and the
Commission's rules and regulations in
10 CFR chapter I, which are set forth in
the license amendment.
A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility operating
license or combined license, as
applicable, proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a hearing in
connection with these actions, was
published in the Federal Register as indicated.
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that these
amendments satisfy the criteria for
categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental
impact statement or environmental
assessment need be prepared for these
amendments. If the Commission has prepared an environmental assessment
under the special circumstances
provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has
made a determination based on that
assessment, it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the action see (1) the applications for
amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3)
the Commission's related letter, Safety
Evaluation and/or Environmental
Assessment as indicated. All of these
items can be accessed as described in
the Obtaining Information and
Submitting Comments section of this
document.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-255, Palisades Nuclear
Plant, Van Buren County, Michigan Date of application for amendment:
December 12, 2012, as supplemented by
letters dated February 21, September 30, October 24, and December 2, 2013;
April 2, May 7, June 17, August 14, November 4, and December 18, 2014.
Brief description of amendment:
The amendment authorizes the transition of
the Palisades Nuclear Plant fire
protection program to a risk-informed, performance-based program based on
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 805, in accordance with 10 CFR
50.48(c). NFPA 805 allows the use of
performance-based methods such as fire
modeling and risk-informed methods
such as fire probabilistic risk assessment
to demonstrate compliance with the
nuclear safety performance criteria.
Date of issuance:
February 27, 2015.
Effective date:
As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented by six months from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.:
254. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML15007A191;
documents related to this amendment
are listed in the Safety Evaluation
enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-20:
Amendment revised the
Renewed Facility Operating License and
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register:
February 27, 2014 (79 FR 11148). The supplements dated April 2, May 7, June 17, August 14, November 4, and December 18, 2014, provided
additional information that clarified the
application, did not expand the scope of
the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original
proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination as
published in the Federal Register. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015Jkt 235001PO 00000Frm 00097Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM17MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 13919 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 51/Tuesday, March 17, 2015/Notices The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated February 27, 2015. No significant hazards consideration comments received:
No. Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-313, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1, Pope County, Arkansas Date of amendment request:
March 26, 2013, as supplemented by letters
dated November 14, 2013, and August
18, October 22, and December 5, 2014.
Brief description of amendment:
The amendment revised the Technical
Specification (TS) requirements for end
states associated with the
implementation of the NRC-approved
Topical Report BAW-2441-A, Revision
2, Risk-Informed Justification for LCO
End-State Changes, as well as Required
Actions revised by a specific Note in TS
Task Force (TSTF) change traveler
TSTF-431, Revision 3, Change in
Technical Specifications End States (BAW-2441).
Date of issuance:
March 3, 2015.
Effective date:
As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 90 days from the date of
issuance.
Amendment No.:
253. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML15023A147;
documents related to this amendment
are listed in the Safety Evaluation
enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-51:
Amendment revised the
TSs/license.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register:
July 23, 2013 (78 FR 44170).
The supplemental letters dated
November 14, 2013, and August 19, October 22, and December 5, 2014, provided additional information that
clarified the application, did not expand
the scope of the application as originally
noticed, and did not change the staff's
original proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination as
published in the Federal Register. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated March 3, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration comments received:
No. Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-382, Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3, St. Charles Parish, Louisiana Date of amendment request:
December 9, 2013, as supplemented by
letters dated October 1, 2014, and
December 17, 2014.
Brief description of amendment:
The amendment revised the Technical
Specifications for the Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3 to improve
clarity, correct administrative and
typographical errors, or establish
consistency with NUREG-1432,
Standard Technical Specifications-
Combustion Engineering Plants,
Revision 4.0.
Date of issuance:
February 23, 2015.
Effective date:
As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 90 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.:
242. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML15005A126;
documents related to this amendment
are listed in the Safety Evaluation
enclosed with the amendment.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-38: The amendment revised the Facility Operating License and Technical
Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register:
August 5, 2014 (79 FR 45475).
The supplements dated October 1, 2014, and December 17, 2014, provided
additional information that clarified the
application, did not expand the scope of
the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original
proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination as
published in the Federal Register. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated February 23, 2015. No significant hazards consideration comments received:
No. Florida Power and Light Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389, St.
Lucie Plant, Units 1 and 2, St. Lucie
County, Florida Date of amendment request:
February 26, 2014, as supplemented by letters
dated May 29 and July 25, 2014.
Brief description of amendment:
The amendments revised the Technical
Specifications (TSs), modifying
requirements for mode change
limitations in Limiting Condition for
Operation 3.0.4 and Surveillance
Requirement (SR) 4.0.4 to adopt the
provisions of Industry/TS Task Force (TSTF)-359, Rev. 9, Increase
Flexibility in MODE Restraints. The
language of SR 4.0.1 is revised to
conform to the language of NUREG-
1432, Standard Technical
Specifications for Combustion
Engineering Plants, to resolve language
incongruences and ensure conservative
implementation of the TSTF-359, Rev.
9, changes.
Date of issuance:
February 27, 2015.
Effective date:
As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.:
220 and 170. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS
under Accession No. ML14343A918;
documents related to these amendments
are listed in the Safety Evaluation (SE)
enclosed with the amendments.
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-67 and NPF-16: Amendments revised
the Renewed Facility Operating
Licenses and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register:
May 27, 2014 (79 FR 30187).
The supplements dated May 29 and July
25, 2014, provided additional
information that clarified the
application, did not expand the scope of
the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original
proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination as
published in the Federal Register. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a SE
dated February 27, 2015.
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, Somervell County, Texas Date of amendment request:
July 1, 2014. Brief description of amendment:
The amendments revised Technical
Specification 3.8.1, AC [Alternating
Current] Sources-Operating, to extend
on a one-time basis the Completion
Time (CT) of Required Action A.3,
Restore required offsite circuit to
OPERABLE status, from 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> to 14
days. The CT extension from 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />
to 14 days will be used while
completing the plant modification to
install alternate startup transformer
XST1A and will expire on March 31, 2017. Date of issuance:
February 24, 2015.
Effective date:
As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within [licensee requested number] days
from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.:
Unit 1-164; Unit 2-164. A publicly-available version is
in ADAMS under Accession No.
ML15008A133; documents related to
these amendments are listed in the
Safety Evaluation enclosed with the
amendments.
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 28, 2014 (79 FR 64226). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015Jkt 235001PO 00000Frm 00098Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM17MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 13920 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 51/Tuesday, March 17, 2015/Notices Safety Evaluation dated February 24, 2015. No significant hazards consideration comments received:
No. Omaha Public Power District, Docket No. 50-285, Fort Calhoun Station, Unit
1, Washington County, Nebraska Date of amendment request:
April 30, 2014, as supplemented by letter dated
January 27, 2015.
Brief description of amendment:
The amendment revised Technical
Specification section 3.2, Table 3-5, for
Fort Calhoun Station, Unit No. 1, to add
a new surveillance requirement to verify
the correct position of the valves
required to restrict flow in the high
pressure safety injection system.
Date of issuance:
February 20, 2015.
Effective date:
As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 120 days from the date of
issuance.
Amendment No.:
280. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML15015A413;
documents related to this amendment
are listed in the Safety Evaluation
enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-40:
The amendment revised
the license and Technical
Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register:
August 19, 2014 (79 FR 49108). The supplemental letter dated
January 27, 2015, provided additional
information that clarified the
application, did not expand the scope of
the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original
proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination as
published in the Federal Register. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a
safety evaluation dated February 20, 2015. No significant hazards consideration comments received:
No. STP Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 50-498 and 50-499, South
Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, Matagorda
County, Texas Date of amendment request:
August 14, 2014, as supplemented by letter
dated December 18, 2014.
Brief description of amendments:
The amendments revised Administrative
Controls Technical Specification (TS)
6.9.1.6, Core Operating Limits Report (COLR), with respect to the analytical
methods used to determine the core
operating limits.
Date of issuance:
February 27, 2015.
Effective date:
As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 90 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.:
Unit 1-204; Unit 2-192. A publicly-available version is
in ADAMS under Accession No.
ML15049A129; documents related to
these amendments are listed in the
Safety Evaluation enclosed with the
amendments.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-76 and NPF-80:
The amendments
revised the Facility Operating Licenses
and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register:
December 2, 2014 (79 FR 71455). The supplemental letter dated
December 18, 2014, provided additional
information that clarified the
application, did not expand the scope of
the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original
proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination as
published in the Federal Register. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated February 27, 2015. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day of March 2015.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Michele G. Evans, Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2015-05994 Filed 3-16-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD Agency Forms Submitted for OMB Review, Request for Comments
SUMMARY
- In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Railroad
Retirement Board (RRB) is forwarding
an Information Collection Request (ICR)
to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Office of
Management and Budget (OMB). Our
ICR describes the information we seek
to collect from the public. Review and
approval by OIRA ensures that we
impose appropriate paperwork burdens.
The RRB invites comments on the proposed collection of information to
determine (1) the practical utility of the
collection; (2) the accuracy of the
estimated burden of the collection; (3)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information that is the
subject of collection; and (4) ways to
minimize the burden of collections on
respondents, including the use of
automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
Comments to the RRB or OIRA must contain the OMB control number of the
ICR. For proper consideration of your
comments, it is best if the RRB and
OIRA receive them within 30 days of
the publication date.
Title and Purpose of information collection:
Evidence for Application of Overall Minimum; OMB 3220-0083.
Under Section 3(f)(3) of the Railroad Retirement Act (RRA), the total monthly
benefits payable to a railroad employee
and his/her family are guaranteed to be
no less than the amount which would
be payable if the employee's railroad
service had been covered by the Social
Security Act. This is referred to as the
Social Security Overall Minimum
Guarantee, which is prescribed in 20
CFR 229. To administer this provision, the Railroad Retirement Board (RRB)
requires information about a retired
employee's spouse and child(ren) who
would not be eligible for benefits under
the RRA but would be eligible for
benefits under the Social Security Act if
the employee's railroad service had
been covered by that Act. The RRB
obtains the required information by the
use of Forms G-319, Statement
Regarding Family and Earnings for
Special Guaranty Computation, and G-
320, Student Questionnaire for Special
Guaranty Computation. One response is
required of each respondent.
Completion is required to obtain or
retain benefits.
Previous Requests for Comments:
The RRB has already published the initial
60-day notice (80 FR 1679 on January
13, 2015) required by 44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(2). That request elicited no
comments.
Information Collection Request (ICR)
Title: Statement Regarding Contributions and Support of Children.
Title: Evidence for Application of Overall Minimum.
OMB Control Number:
3220-0083.
Forms submitted:
G-319 and G-320.
Type of request:
Extension without change of a currently approved collection.
Affected public:
Individuals or Households.
Abstract:
Under Section 3(f)(3) of the Railroad Retirement Act, the total
monthly benefits payable to a railroad
employee and his/her family are
guaranteed to be no less than the
amount which would be payable if the
employee's railroad service had been
covered by the Social Security Act.
Changes proposed:
The RRB proposes non-burden impacting editorial changes
to Forms G-319 and G-320.
The burden estimate for the ICR is as follows: VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015Jkt 235001PO 00000Frm 00099Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM17MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 13902 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 51/Tuesday, March 17, 2015/Notices under part 110. The NRC Form 7 application will be reviewed by the NRC
and by the Executive Branch, and if
applicable statutory, regulatory, and
policy considerations are satisfied, the
NRC will issue an export, import, amendment or renewal license.
III. Specific Requests for Comments Submit, by May 18, 2015, comments that address the following questions:
- 1. Is the proposed collection of information necessary for the NRC to properly perform its functions? Does the
information have practical utility?
- 2. Is the estimate of the burden of the information collection accurate?
- 3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected?
- 4. How can the burden of the information collection on respondents
be minimized, including the use of
automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology?
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day of March 2015.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Tremaine Donnell, NRC Clearance Officer, Office of Information Services.
[FR Doc. 2015-06014 Filed 3-16-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2015-0001]
Sunshine Act Meeting Notice DATES: March 16, 23, 30, April 6, 13, 20, 2015. PLACE: Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
STATUS: Public and Closed.
Week of March 16, 2015 There are no meetings scheduled for the week of March 16, 2015.
Week of March 23, 2015-Tentative
Thursday, March 26, 2015 9:30 a.m. Briefing on Security Issues (Closed-Ex. 1) 1:30 p.m. Briefing on Security Issues (Closed-Ex. 1)
Friday, March 27, 2015
9:30 a.m. Briefing on Threat Environment Assessment (Closed-Ex. 1) Week of March 30, 2015-Tentative There are no meetings scheduled for the week of March 30, 2015.
Week of April 6, 2015-Tentative There are no meetings scheduled for the week of April 6, 2015.
Week of April 13, 2015-Tentative
Tuesday, April 14, 2015 9:30 a.m. Meeting with the Advisory Committee on the Medical Uses of Isotopes (Public Meeting) (Contact:
Nima Ashkeboussi, 301-415-5775)
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address-http://www.nrc.gov/.
Thursday, April 16, 2015 9:30 a.m. Meeting with the Organization of Agreement States and the Conference of Radiation Control
Program Directors (Public Meeting)
(Contact: Nima Ashkeboussi, 301-
415-5775)
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address-http://www.nrc.gov/.
Week of April 20, 2015-Tentative There are no meetings scheduled for the week of April 20, 2015.
- * * *
- The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. For more information or to verify
the status of meetings, contact Glenn
Ellmers at 301-415-0442 or via email at
Glenn.Ellmers@nrc.gov.
- * * *
- Additional Information
- 1. By a vote of 3-0 on March 9, 2015, the Commission determined pursuant to U.S.C. 552b(e) and 9.107(a) of the
Commission's rules that an Affirmation
Session for Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Indian Point Nuclear Generating
Units 2 and 3)-Petitions for Review of
LBP-13-13 (Partial Initial Decision) and
Related Decisions (Appeals of Board
Decisions Related to Contentions NUS-
8 CW-EC-3) be held with less than one
week notice to the public. The meeting
was held on March 9, 2015.
- 2. The Affirmation Session for Omaha Public Power District (Fort Calhoun
Station, Unit 1), Petition to Intervene
and Request for Adjudicatory Hearing
by Sierra Club (Apr. 23, 2014),
previously scheduled for March 5, 2015, was held on March 9, 2015.
- 3. The meeting with the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, scheduled for March 5, 2015, was
postponed.
- * * *
- The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet at: http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/
public-meetings/schedule.html.
- * * *
- The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to
participate in these public meetings, or
need this meeting notice or the
transcript or other information from the
public meetings in another format (e.g.
braille, large print), please notify
Kimberly Meyer, NRC Disability
Program Manager, at 301-287-0727, by
videophone at 240-428-3217, or by
email at Kimberly.Meyer-Chambers@
nrc.gov. Determinations on requests for reasonable accommodation will be
made on a case-by-case basis.
- * * *
- Members of the public may request to receive this information electronically.
If you would like to be added to the
distribution, please contact the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Office of the
Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-
415-1969), or email
Brenda.Akstulewicz@nrc.gov or Patricia.Jimenez@nrc.gov.
Dated: March 13, 2015.
Glenn Ellmers, Policy Coordinator, Office of the Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-06188 Filed 3-13-15; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 7590-01--P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2015-0055]
Biweekly Notice; Applications and
Amendments to Facility Operating
Licenses and Combined Licenses
Involving No Significant Hazards
Considerations AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Biweekly notice.
SUMMARY
- Pursuant to section 189a. (2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) is
publishing this regular biweekly notice.
The Act requires the Commission to
publish notice of any amendments
issued, or proposed to be issued and
grants the Commission the authority to
issue and make immediately effective
any amendment to an operating license
or combined license, as applicable, upon a determination by the
Commission that such amendment
involves no significant hazards
consideration, notwithstanding the
pendency before the Commission of a
request for a hearing from any person.
This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or
proposed to be issued from February 19, 2015 to March 4, 2015. The last VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015Jkt 235001PO 00000Frm 00081Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM17MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 13903 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 51/Tuesday, March 17, 2015/Notices biweekly notice was published on March 3, 2015.
DATES: Comments must be filed by April 16, 2015. A request for a hearing must
be filed by May 18, 2015.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods (unless
this document describes a different
method for submitting comments on a
specific subject):
- Federal Rulemaking Web site:
Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2015-0055. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol
Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-3463;
email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov.
- Mail comments to:
Cindy Bladey, Office of Administration, Mail Stop:
OWFN-12-H08, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see Obtaining Information and
Submitting Comments in the SUPPLEMENTARYINFORMATION section of this document. FORFURTHERINFORMATIONCONTACT
- Beverly A. Clayton, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-
3475, email:
Beverly.Clayton@nrc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARYINFORMATION
- I. Obtaining Information and
Submitting Comments A. Obtaining Information Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0055 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this
action. You may obtain publicly-
available information related to this
action by any of the following methods:
- Federal Rulemaking Web site:
Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2015-0055.
- NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the
ADAMS Public Documents collection at
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/
adams.html.
To begin the search, select
ADAMS Public Documents
and then select Begin Web-based ADAMS
Search. For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public
Document Room (PDR) reference staff at
1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by
email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
The ADAMS accession number for each
document referenced (if it is available in
ADAMS) is provided the first time that
it is mentioned in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section. *NRC's PDR:
You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville
Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
B. Submitting Comments Please include Docket ID NRC-2015-0055, facility name, unit number(s), application date, and subject in your
comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that
you do not want to be publicly
disclosed in your comment submission.
The NRC 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. II. Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating
Licenses and Combined Licenses and
Proposed No Significant Hazards
Consideration Determination The Commission has made a proposed determination that the
following amendment requests involve
no significant hazards consideration.
Under the Commission's regulations in
§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.
A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing and Petition for Leave To Intervene Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any person(s)
whose interest may be affected by this
action may file a request for a hearing
and a petition to intervene with respect
to issuance of the amendment to the
subject facility operating license or
combined license. Requests for a
hearing and a petition for leave to
intervene shall be filed in accordance
with the Commission's Agency Rules
of Practice and Procedure in 10 CFR
part 2. Interested person(s) should
consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room
O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first
floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. The
NRC's regulations are accessible
electronically from the NRC Library on
the NRC's Web site at http://
www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-
collections/cfr/.
If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed
by the above date, the Commission or a
presiding officer designated by the
Commission or by the Chief
Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will
rule on the request and/or petition; and
the Secretary or the Chief
Administrative Judge of the Atomic
Safety and Licensing Board will issue a
notice of a hearing or an appropriate
order. As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene shall set
forth with particularity the interest of
the petitioner in the proceeding, and
how that interest may be affected by the
results of the proceeding. The petition VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015Jkt 235001PO 00000Frm 00082Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM17MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 13904 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 51/Tuesday, March 17, 2015/Notices should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted
with particular reference to the
following general requirements: (1) the
name, address, and telephone number of
the requestor or petitioner; (2) the
nature of the requestor's/petitioner's
right under the Act to be made a party
to the proceeding; (3) the nature and
extent of the requestor's/petitioner's
property, financial, or other interest in
the proceeding; and (4) the possible
effect of any decision or order which
may be entered in the proceeding on the
requestor's/petitioner's interest. The
petition must also identify the specific
contentions which the requestor/
petitioner seeks to have litigated at the
proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or
fact to be raised or controverted. In
addition, the requestor/petitioner shall
provide a brief explanation of the bases
for the contention and a concise
statement of the alleged facts or expert
opinion which support the contention
and on which the requestor/petitioner
intends to rely in proving the contention
at the hearing. The requestor/petitioner
must also provide references to those
specific sources and documents of
which the petitioner is aware and on
which the requestor/petitioner intends
to rely to establish those facts or expert
opinion. The petition must include
sufficient information to show that a
genuine dispute exists with the
applicant on a material issue of law or
fact. Contentions shall be limited to
matters within the scope of the
amendment under consideration. The
contention must be one which, if
proven, would entitle the requestor/
petitioner to relief. A requestor/
petitioner who fails to satisfy these
requirements with respect to at least one
contention will not be permitted to
participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any
limitations in the order granting leave to
intervene, and have the opportunity to
participate fully in the conduct of the
hearing. If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final
determination on the issue of no
significant hazards consideration. The
final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If the final
determination is that the amendment
request involves no significant hazards
consideration, the Commission may
issue the amendment and make it
immediately effective, notwithstanding
the request for a hearing. Any hearing
held would take place after issuance of
the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards
consideration, then any hearing held
would take place before the issuance of
any amendment unless the Commission
finds an imminent danger to the health
or safety of the public, in which case it
will issue an appropriate order or rule
under 10 CFR part 2.
B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing, a petition for leave
to intervene, any motion or other
document filed in the proceeding prior
to the submission of a request for
hearing or petition to intervene, and
documents filed by interested
governmental entities participating
under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in
accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule
(72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007). The E-
Filing process requires participants to
submit and serve all adjudicatory
documents over the internet, or in some
cases to mail copies on electronic
storage media. Participants may not
submit paper copies of their filings
unless they seek an exemption in
accordance with the procedures
described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least ten 10
days prior to the filing deadline, the
participant should contact the Office of
the Secretary by email at
hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by telephone at 301-415-1677, to request (1) a digital
identification (ID) certificate, which
allows the participant (or its counsel or
representative) to digitally sign
documents and access the E-Submittal
server for any proceeding in which it is
participating; and (2) advise the
Secretary that the participant will be
submitting a request or petition for
hearing (even in instances in which the
participant, or its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-
issued digital ID certificate). Based upon
this information, the Secretary will
establish an electronic docket for the
hearing in this proceeding if the
Secretary has not already established an
electronic docket.
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the
NRC's public Web site at http://
www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/
getting-started.html.
System requirements for accessing the E-
Submittal server are detailed in the
NRC's Guidance for Electronic
Submission, which is available on the
agency's public Web site at http://
www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-
submittals.html.
Participants may attempt to use other software not listed on the Web site, but should note that the NRC's E-Filing system does not support
unlisted software, and the NRC Meta
System Help Desk will not be able to
offer assistance in using unlisted
software.
If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC in
accordance with the E-Filing rule, the
participant must file the document
using the NRC's online, Web-based
submission form. In order to serve
documents through the Electronic
Information Exchange System, users
will be required to install a Web
browser plug-in from the NRC's Web
site. Further information on the Web-
based submission form, including the
installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on the NRC's public Web
site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-
submittals.html.
Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a docket has
been created, the participant can then
submit a request for hearing or petition
for leave to intervene. Submissions
should be in Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance
available on the NRC's public Web site
at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html.
A filing is considered complete at the time the documents are
submitted through the NRC's E-Filing
system. To be timely, an electronic
filing must be submitted to the E-Filing
system no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern
Time on the due date. Upon receipt of
a transmission, the E-Filing system
time-stamps the document and sends
the submitter an email notice
confirming receipt of the document. The
E-Filing system also distributes an email
notice that provides access to the
document to the NRC's Office of the
General Counsel and any others who
have advised the Office of the Secretary
that they wish to participate in the
proceeding, so that the filer need not
serve the documents on those
participants separately. Therefore, applicants and other participants (or
their counsel or representative) must
apply for and receive a digital ID
certificate before a hearing request/
petition to intervene is filed so that they
can obtain access to the document via
the E-Filing system.
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the
NRC Meta System Help Desk through
the Contact Us link located on the
NRC's public Web site at http://
www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-
submittals.html, by email to MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-7640. The NRC
Meta System Help Desk is available VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015Jkt 235001PO 00000Frm 00083Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM17MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 13905 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 51/Tuesday, March 17, 2015/Notices between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays.
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting
documents electronically must file an
exemption request, in accordance with
10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper
filing requesting authorization to
continue to submit documents in paper
format. Such filings must be submitted
by: (1) First class mail addressed to the
Office of the Secretary of the
Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-
0001, Attention: Rulemaking and
Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery
service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking
and Adjudications Staff. Participants
filing a document in this manner are
responsible for serving the document on
all other participants. Filing is
considered complete by first-class mail
as of the time of deposit in the mail, or
by courier, express mail, or expedited
delivery service upon depositing the
document with the provider of the
service. A presiding officer, having
granted an exemption request from
using E-Filing, may require a participant
or party to use E-Filing if the presiding
officer subsequently determines that the
reason for granting the exemption from
use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's
electronic hearing docket which is
available to the public at http://
ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the Commission, or the presiding officer. Participants are
requested not to include personal
privacy information, such as social
security numbers, home addresses, or
home phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC regulation or other law
requires submission of such
information. However, a request to
intervene will require including
information on local residence in order
to demonstrate a proximity assertion of
interest in the proceeding. With respect
to copyrighted works, except for limited
excerpts that serve the purpose of the
adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use application, participants are requested not to include
copyrighted materials in their
submission.
Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 days from the
date of publication of this notice.
Requests for hearing, petitions for leave
to intervene, and motions for leave to
file new or amended contentions that are filed after the 60-day deadline will
not be entertained absent a
determination by the presiding officer
that the filing demonstrates good cause
by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR
2.309(c)(1)(i)-(iii).
For further details with respect to these license amendment applications, see the application for amendment
which is available for public inspection
in ADAMS and at the NRC's PDR. For
additional direction on accessing
information related to this document, see the Obtaining Information and
Submitting Comments section of this
document.
Duke Energy Florida, Inc. (DEF), et al., Docket No. 50-302, Crystal River, Unit
3 Nuclear Generating Plant (CR-3),
Citrus County, Florida Date of amendment request:
November 7, 2014. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession
No. ML14321A450.
Description of amendment request:
The amendment would reflect the
transfer of ownership, held by eight
minority co-owners, in CR-3 to DEF.
The transfer of ownership will take
place pursuant to the Settlement, Release and Acquisition Agreement, dated September 26, 2014, wherein DEF
will purchase the 6.52 percent
combined ownership share in CR-3
held by these minority co-owners, leaving DEF and Seminole Electric
Cooperative, Inc., as the remaining
licensees for CR-3.
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 changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability of any
accident previously evaluated because no
accident initiators or assumptions are
affected. The proposed license transfers are
administrative in nature and have no direct
effect on any plant system, plant personnel
qualifications, or the operation and
maintenance of CR-3.
- 2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any previously evaluated
because no new accident initiators or
assumptions are introduced by the proposed
changes. The proposed license transfers are administrative in nature and have no direct effect on any plant system, plant personnel
qualifications, or operation and maintenance
of CR-3. 3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety
because the proposed changes do not involve
changes to the initial conditions contributing
to accident severity or consequences, or
reduce response or mitigation capabilities.
The proposed license transfers are
administrative in nature and have no direct
effect on any plant system, plant personnel
qualifications, or operation and maintenance
of CR-3. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three
standards of 50.92(c) are satisfied.
Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to
determine that the amendment request
involves no significant hazards
consideration.
Attorney for licensee:
Lara S. Nichols, 550 South Tryon Street, Charlotte NC
28202. NRC Branch Chief:
Douglas A.
Broaddus.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-247, Indian Point
Nuclear Generating, Unit 2, Westchester
County, New York Date of amendment request:
December 9, 2014. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession
No. ML14353A015.
Description of amendment request:
The amendment would revise Technical
Specification 5.5.14, Containment
Leakage Rate Testing Program, to
extend the frequency of the
Containment Integrated Leak Rate Test
or Type A Test from once every 10 years
to once every 15 years on a permanent
basis. 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 amendment involves changes to the IP2 [Indian Point Unit No. 2]
containment leakage rate testing program.
The proposed amendment does not involve
a physical change to the plant or a change in
the manner in which the plant is operated or
controlled. The primary containment
function is to provide an essentially leak
tight barrier against the uncontrolled release
of radioactivity to the environment for VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015Jkt 235001PO 00000Frm 00084Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM17MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 13906 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 51/Tuesday, March 17, 2015/Notices postulated accidents. As such, the containment itself and the testing
requirements to periodically demonstrate the
integrity of the containment exist to ensure
the plant's ability to mitigate the
consequences of an accident do not involve
any accident precursors or initiators.
Therefore, the probability of occurrence of an accident previously evaluated is not
significantly increased by the proposed
amendment.
The proposed amendment adopts the NRC accepted guidelines of NEI 94-01, Revision
2A, for development of the IP2 performance-
based testing program for the Type A testing.
Implementation of these guidelines continues
to provide adequate assurance that during
design basis accidents, the primary
containment and its components would limit
leakage rates to less than the values assumed
in the plant safety analyses. The potential
consequences of extending the ILRT
[integrated leak rate test] interval to 15 years
have been evaluated by analyzing the
resulting changes in risk. The increase in risk
in terms of person-rem per year within 50
miles resulting from design basis accidents
was estimated to be acceptably small and
determined to be within the guidelines
published in RG 1.174. Additionally, the
proposed change maintains defense-in-depth
by preserving a reasonable balance among
prevention of core damage, prevention of
containment failure, and consequence
mitigation. Entergy has determined that the increase in conditional containment failure
probability due to the proposed change
would be very small. Therefore, it is
concluded that the proposed amendment
does not significantly increase the
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
- 2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment adopts the NRC-accepted guidelines of NEI 94-01, Revision
2A, for the development of the IP2
performance-based leakage testing program, and establishes a 15-year interval for the
performance of the containment ILRT. The
containment and the testing requirements to
periodically demonstrate the integrity of the
containment exist to ensure the plant's
ability to mitigate the consequences of an
accident do not involve any accident
precursors or initiators. The proposed change
does not involve a physical change to the
plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a change to
the manner in which the plant is operated or
controlled.
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 amendment adopts the NRC-accepted guidelines of NEI 94-01, Revision 2A, for the development of the IP2
performance-based leakage testing program, and establishes a 15-year interval for the
performance of the containment ILRT. This
amendment does not alter the manner in
which safety limits, limiting safety system
setpoints, or limiting conditions for operation
are determined. The specific requirements
and conditions of the containment leakage
rate testing program, as defined in the TS
[technical specifications], ensure that the
degree of primary containment structural
integrity and leak-tightness that is considered
in the plant's safety analysis is maintained.
The overall containment leakage rate limit
specified by the TS is maintained, and the
Type A containment leakage tests would be
performed at the frequencies established in
accordance with the NRC-accepted
guidelines of NEI 94-01, Revision 2A with no
change to the 60 month frequencies of Type B, and Type C tests.
Containment inspections performed in accordance with other plant programs serve
to provide a high degree of assurance that the
containment would not degrade in a manner
that is not detectable by an ILRT. A risk
assessment using the current IP2 PSA
[probabilistic safety assessment] model
concluded that extending the ILRT test
interval from ten years to 15 years results in
a very small change to the risk profile.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee:
Ms. Jeanne Cho, Assistant General Counsel, Entergy
Nuclear Operations, Inc., 440 Hamilton
Avenue, White Plains, NY 10601.
NRC Branch Chief:
Benjamin G.
Beasley. Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-410, Nine Mile Point
Nuclear Station, Unit 2 (NMP2), Oswego
County, New York Date of amendment request:
November 19, 2014. A publicly-
available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML14329A353.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed amendment would
modify the Nine Mile Point (NMP)
Nuclear Station, Unit 2 Technical
Specifications (TS) 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. The licensee's
application dated November 19, 2014, Attachment 1, section 2.2, has identified
some variations or deviations from the
TSTF-425. Additionally, the change
would add a new program, the
Surveillance Frequency Control
Program, to TS section 5, Administrative Controls. The NRC staff
issued a notice of opportunity for
comment in the Federal Register on December 5, 2008, 73 FR 74202, on
possible amendments to revise the plant
specific TS, to Relocate Surveillance
Frequencies to Licensee Control-
RITSTF Initiative 5b. The Notice
included a model safety evaluation and
model No Significant Hazards
Consideration (NSHC) determination, using the consolidated line-item
improvement process. The NRC staff
subsequently issued a notice of
availability of the models for referencing
in license amendment applications in
the Federal Register on July 6, 2009 (74 FR 31996). The licensee affirmed the
applicability of the model NSHC
determination in its application dated
November 19, 2014, which is presented
below. 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. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes relocate the specified frequencies for periodic
surveillance requirements to licensee control
under a new Surveillance Frequency Control
Program (SFCP). Surveillance frequencies are
not an initiator to any accident previously
evaluated. As a result, the probability of any
accident previously evaluated is not
significantly increased. The systems and
components required by the technical
specifications for which the surveillance
frequencies are relocated are still required to
be operable, meet the acceptance criteria for
the surveillance requirements, and be
capable of performing any mitigation
function assumed in the accident analysis.
As a result, the consequences of any accident
previously evaluated are not significantly
increased.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
- 2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
No new or different accidents result from utilizing the proposed changes. The changes
do not involve a physical alteration of the
plant (i.e., no new or different type of VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015Jkt 235001PO 00000Frm 00085Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM17MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 13907 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 51/Tuesday, March 17, 2015/Notices equipment will be installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant
operation. In addition, the changes do not
impose any new or different requirements.
The changes do not alter assumptions made
in the safety analysis. The proposed changes
are consistent with the safety analysis
assumptions and current plant operating
practice.
Therefore, the proposed changes do 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.
The design, operation, testing methods, and acceptance criteria for systems, structures, and components (SSCs), specified
in applicable codes and standards (or
alternatives approved for use by the NRC)
will continue to be met as described in the
plant licensing basis (including the final
safety analysis report and bases to TS), since
these are not affected by changes to the
surveillance frequencies. Similarly, there is
no impact to safety analysis acceptance
criteria as described in plant licensing basis.
To evaluate a change in the relocated
surveillance frequency, Exelon will perform
a probabilistic risk evaluation using the
guidance contained in NRC approved NEI
04-10, Rev. 1 in accordance with the TS
SFCP. NEI 04-10, Rev. 1, methodology
provides reasonable acceptance guidelines
and methods for evaluating the risk increase
of proposed changes to surveillance
frequencies consistent with Regulatory Guide
1.177. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee:
J. Bradley Fewell, Senior Vice President, Regulatory Affairs, Nuclear, and General
Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555.
NRC Branch Chief:
Benjamin G.
Beasley. Exelon Generation Company LLC (), Docket Nos. STN 50-456 and STN 50-
457, Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, Will County, Illinois Docket Nos. STN 50-454 and STN 50-455, Byron Station, Units 1 and 2, Ogle
County, Illinois Date of amendment request:
December 18, 2014. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession
No. ML14352A204.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed amendment would increase the voltage limit for the diesel
generator (DG) full load rejection test
specified by technical specification (TS)
Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.8.1.10.
Additionally, the proposed amendment
would add Note 3 to TS SR 3.8.1.10 for
alignment with the Standard Technical
Specifications documented in NUREG-
1431, April 2012 (ADAMS Accession
No. ML12100A222).
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: EGC [Exelon Generation Company] has evaluated the proposed change for Braidwood Station and Byron Station, using
the criteria in 10 CFR 50.92, and has
determined that the proposed change does
not involve a significant hazards
consideration. The following information is
provided to support a finding of no
significant hazards consideration.
- 1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The DGs design function is to mitigate an accident and there are no analyzed scenarios
where the DGs are initiators of any
previously evaluated accident. Since DGs do
not initiate accidents, this change does not
increase the probability of occurrence of a
previously evaluated accident. The proposed
change to the testing approach of the DGs is
consistent with the original design of the
DGs. The proposed change is in accordance
with RG [Regulatory Guide] 1.9 Revision 3, and this change to the testing approach does
not impact the DGs ability to mitigate
accidents. The DGs will continue to operate
within the parameters and conditions
assumed within the accident analysis. This
change does not result in an increase in the
likelihood of malfunction of the DGs or their
supported equipment. Since the DGs will
continue to perform its required function, there is no increase in the consequences of
previously evaluated accidents.
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 amendment does not change the DGs operation or ability to perform its
design function. The proposed change to TS
SR 3.8.1.10 at increased voltage will ensure
the DGs ability to perform at rated power
factor while meeting its requirements. The
change to TS SR 3.8.1.10 does not result in
DG operation that would create a new failure
mode of the DGs that could create a new
initiator of an accident. This is because the
DGs ability to perform its design function is
maintained in the same manner as originally designed. The proposed change does not change the single failure capabilities of the
electrical power system or create a potential
for loss of power since the design operation
of the DGs 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 change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The margin of safety is established through the design of the plant structures, systems, and components, the parameters within
which the plant is operated, and the
setpoints for the actuation of equipment
relied upon to respond to an event. The
proposed change does not modify the safety
limits or setpoints at which protective
actions are initiated. The proposed change
increases the voltage limit for the DG full
load rejection test which results in new test
acceptance criterion that is more restrictive
than the existing acceptance criteria. The
proposed change ensures the availability and
operability of safety-related DGs.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety. Based on the above evaluation, EGC concludes that the proposed amendment
presents no significant hazards consideration
under the standards set forth in 10 CFR
50.92, paragraph (c), and accordingly, a
finding of no significant hazards
consideration is justified.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
requested amendments involve no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee:
Bradley J.
Fewell, Associate General Counsel, Exelon Nuclear, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555.
NRC Branch Chief:
Travis L. Tate.
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating
Company, Docket No. 50-440, Perry
Nuclear Power Plant (PNPP), Unit 1, Perry, Ohio Date of amendment request:
November 24, 2014. A publicly-
available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML14328A665.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed amendment is intended to
revise the battery capacity testing surveillance requirements in the
technical specifications to reflect test
requirements when the battery is near
end of life.
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: VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015Jkt 235001PO 00000Frm 00086Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM17MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 13908 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 51/Tuesday, March 17, 2015/Notices
- 1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment does not change the design function of the Class 1 E
divisional battery systems and does not
change the way the plant is maintained or
operated when performing battery
surveillance testing. The proposed amendment does not affect any accident
mitigating feature or increase the likelihood
of malfunction for plant structures, systems
and components.
The proposed amendment does not affect the operability requirements of the Class 1 E
divisional battery systems. Verification of
operating the plant within prescribed limits
will continue to be performed, as currently
required. Compliance with and continued
verification of the prescribed limits support
the capability of the Class 1 E divisional
battery systems to perform their required
design functions during all plant operating, accident, and station blackout conditions, consistent with the plant safety analyses.
The proposed amendment will not change any of the analyses associated with the PNPP
Updated Safety Analysis Report Chapter 15
accidents because plant operation, plant
structures, systems, components, accident
initiators, and accident mitigation functions
remain unchanged.
Therefore, the proposed amendment 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 amendment does not change the design function of the Class 1 E
divisional battery systems, and does not
change the way the plant is operated or
maintained. The proposed amendment does
not create a credible failure mechanism, malfunction or accident initiator not already
considered in the design and licensing basis.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
- 3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
Safety margins are applied to design and licensing basis functions and to the
controlling values of parameters to account
for various uncertainties and to avoid
exceeding regulatory or licensing limits. The
proposed amendment does not involve a
physical change to the plant, does not change
methods of plant operation within prescribed
limits, or affect design and licensing basis
functions or controlling values of parameters
for plant systems, structures, and
components.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee:
David W. Jenkins, Attorney, FirstEnergy
Corporation, Mail Stop A-GO-15, 76
South Main Street, Akron, OH 44308.
NRC Branch Chief:
Travis L. Tate.
Florida Power and Light Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389, St.
Lucie Plant, Units 1 and 2, St. Lucie
County, Florida Date of amendment request:
August 7, 2014 (ADAMS Accession No.
Description of amendment request:
The amendment would revise the
Technical Specifications to add a short
Allowed Outage Time to restore an
inoperable system for conditions under
which the existing specifications require
a plant shutdown. The proposed
amendment is consistent with an NRC-
approved change identified as Technical
Specifications Task Force (TSTF)
Traveler TSTF-426, Revision 5, Revise
or Add Actions to Preclude Entry into
LCO [Limiting Condition for Operation]
3.0.3-RITSTF [Risk-Informed TSTF]
Initiatives 6b & 6c (see 78 FR 32476, May 30, 2013). The Allowed Outage
Time would be added to specifications
governing the boron injection flow paths
of the reactivity control systems, pressurizer heaters, containment spray
trains, shield building ventilation
systems, and control room emergency
air cleanup systems.
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 reproduced
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 provides a short Allowed Outage Time to restore an
inoperable system for conditions under
which the existing Technical Specifications
require a plant shutdown to begin within one
hour in accordance with Limiting Condition
for Operation (LCO) 3.0.3. Entering into
Technical Specification Actions is not an
initiator of any accident previously
evaluated. As a result, the probability of an
accident previously evaluated is not
significantly increased. The consequences of
any accident previously evaluated that may
occur during the proposed Allowed Outage
Times are no different from the consequences
of the same accident during the existing one-
hour allowance. As a result, the consequences of any accident previously
evaluated are not significantly increased.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
- 2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
No new or different accidents [would]
result from utilizing the proposed change.
The changes [to the TSs] do not involve a
physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be
installed) or a change in the methods
governing normal plant operation. In
addition, the changes do not impose any new
or different requirements. The changes do not
alter assumptions made in [any] safety
analysis.
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 increases the time the plant may operate without the ability to
perform an assumed safety function. The
analyses in [the NRC-approved topical
report] WCAP-16125-NP-A, Justification
for Risk-Informed Modifications to Selected
Technical Specifications for Conditions
Leading to Exigent Plant Shutdown,
Revision 2, August 2010, demonstrated that
there is an acceptably small increase in risk
due to a limited period of continued
operation in these conditions and that this
risk is balanced by avoiding the risks
associated with a plant shutdown. As a
result, the change to the margin of safety
provided by requiring a plant shutdown
within one hour is not significant.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and determines that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c)
are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the proposed
amendment involves no significant
hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee:
William S.
Blair, Managing Attorney-Nuclear, Florida Power & Light Company, 700
Universe Blvd., MS LAW/JB, Juno
Beach, FL 33408-0420.
NRC Branch Chief:
Shana R. Helton.
Florida Power and Light Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389, St.
Lucie Plant, Units 1 and 2, St. Lucie
County, Florida Date of amendment request:
December 5, 2014 (ADAMS Accession
No. ML14353A016).
Description of amendment request:
The proposed amendment will modify
the Technical Specification (TS) VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015Jkt 235001PO 00000Frm 00087Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM17MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 13909 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 51/Tuesday, March 17, 2015/Notices requirements related to Completion Times for Required Actions to provide
the option to calculate longer, risk-
informed Completion Times. The
proposed amendment will also add a
new program, the Risk Informed
Completion Time Program, to TS
section 6.0, Administrative Controls.
The methodology for using the Risk
Informed Completion Time Program is
described in Nuclear Energy Institute
topical report NEI 06-09, Risk-
Informed Technical Specifications
Initiative 4b, Risk-Managed Technical
Specifications (RMTS) Guidelines,
Revision 0-A, which was approved by
the NRC on May 17, 2007. The proposed
amendment is consistent with the NRC-
approved industry-proposed Technical
Specification Task Force-505, Revision
1, Provide Risk-Informed Extended
Completion Times-RITSTF Initiative
4b. 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 reproduced
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 permits the extension of Completion Times provided the
associated risk is assessed and managed in
accordance with the NRC[-]approved Risk
Informed Completion Time Program. The
proposed change does not involve a
significant increase in the probability of an
accident previously evaluated because the
change involves no change to the plant or its
modes of operation. The proposed change
does not increase the consequences of an
accident because the design-basis mitigation
function of the affected systems is not
changed and the consequences of an accident
[occurring] during the extended Completion
Time are no different from those [occurring]
during the existing Completion Time.
- 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 does not change the design, configuration, or method of operation
of the plant. The proposed change does not
involve a physical alteration of the plant (no
new or different kind of equipment will be
installed).
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
- 3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change permits the extension of Completion Times provided risk is assessed and managed in accordance with
the NRC[-]approved Risk Informed
Completion Time Program. The proposed
change implements a risk-informed
configuration management program to assure
that adequate margins of safety are
maintained. Application of these new
specifications and the configuration
management program considers cumulative
effects of multiple systems or components
being out of service and does so more
effectively than the current TS.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and determines that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c)
are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the proposed
amendment involves no significant
hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee:
William S.
Blair, Managing Attorney-Nuclear, Florida Power & Light Company, 700
Universe Blvd., MS LAW/JB, Juno
Beach, FL 33408-0420.
NRC Branch Chief:
Shana R. Helton.
Indiana Michigan Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-315 and 50-316, Donald
C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Berrien County, Michigan Date of amendment request:
December 17, 2014. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession
No. ML14356A022.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed amendment would amend
the Appendix A technical specifications
to Facility Operating Licenses DPR-58
and DPR-74, to modify the notes to TS
3.8.1, AC Sources-Operating, to
allow surveillance testing of the onsite
standby emergency diesel generators (DGs) during modes in which it is
currently prohibited. Specifically, the
license amendment request proposes
removing the mode restrictions for the
following Surveillance Requirements (SRs): 3.8.1.10 (DG single largest load
rejection test), 3.8.1.11 (DG full load
rejection test), and 3.8.1.15 (DG
endurance run).
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 of occurrence or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The design of plant equipment is not being modified by the proposed changes. In
addition, the DGs and their associated
emergency loads are accident mitigating features. As such, testing of the DGs themselves is not associated with any
potential accident-initiating mechanism.
Therefore, there will be no significant impact on any accident probabilities by the
approval of the requested changes.
The changes include an increase in the time that a DG under test will be paralleled
to the grid while the unit is in Modes 1 or
- 2. As such, the ability of the tested DG to
respond to a DBA [design-basis accident]
could be minimally adversely impacted by
the proposed changes. However, the impacts
are not considered significant based, in part, on the ability of the remaining DG to mitigate
a DBA or provide safe shutdown. Experience
shows that testing for these SRs typically
does not perturb the electrical distribution
system. In addition, operating experience
supports the conclusion that the proposed
changes do not involve any significant increases in the likelihood of a safety-related
bus blackout or damage to plant loads.
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 capability to synchronize a DG to the offsite source (via the associated plant bus)
and test the DG in such a configuration is a
design feature of the DGs, including the test
mode override in response to a safety
injection signal. Paralleling the DG for longer
periods of time during plant operation may
slightly increase the probability of incurring
an adverse effect from the offsite source, but
this increase in probability is judged to be
still quite small and such a possibility is not
a new or previously unrecognized
consideration.
The proposed change does not introduce a new mode of plant operation and does not
involve physical modification to the plant.
The change does not introduce new accident
initiators or impact assumptions made in the
safety analysis.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
- 3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not exceed or alter a design basis or safety limit, so there
is no significant reduction in the margin of
safety. The margin of safety is related to the
confidence in the ability of the fission
product barriers to perform their design
functions during and following an accident
situation. These barriers include the fuel
cladding, the reactor coolant system, and the
containment system. The proposed changes
do not directly affect these barriers, nor do
they involve any significantly adverse impact
on the DGs which serve to support these
barriers in the event of an accident
concurrent with a LOOP [loss of offsight
power]. The proposed changes to the testing
requirements for the plant DGs do not affect
the OPERABILITY requirements for the DGs, VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015Jkt 235001PO 00000Frm 00088Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM17MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 13910 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 51/Tuesday, March 17, 2015/Notices as verification of such OPERABILITY will continue to be performed as required (except
during different allowed modes). The
changes have an insignificant impact on DG
availability, as the DGs remain available to
perform their required function of providing
emergency power to plant equipment that
supports or constitutes the fission product
barriers. Only one DG is to be tested at a
time, so that the remaining DG will be
available to safety shut down the plant if
required. Consequently, performance of the
fission product barriers will not be impacted
by implementation of the proposed
amendment.
In addition, the proposed changes involve no changes to setpoints or limits established
or assumed by the accident analysis.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
amendment requests involve no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee:
Robert B.
Haemer, Senior Nuclear Counsel, One
Cook Place, Bridgman, MI 49106.
NRC Branch Chief:
David L. Pelton.
Nebraska Public Power District, Docket
No. 50-298, Cooper Nuclear Station, Nemaha County, Nebraska Date of amendment request:
January 15, 2015. A publicly-available version is
in ADAMS under Accession No.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed amendment would revise
the Technical Specifications (TSs) to
add a limiting condition for operation, applicability, required actions, completion times, and surveillance
requirements for the residual heat
removal (RHR) containment spray
system consistent with the guidance in
NUREG-1433, Revision 4, Standard
Technical Specifications General
Electric BWR [Boiling Water Reactor]/4
Plants, dated April 2012 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML12104A192). New TS
section 3.6.1.9, Residual Heat Removal (RHR) Containment Spray, would be
added to reflect the reliance on
containment spray to maintain the
drywell within design temperature
limits during a small steam line break.
In addition, the Drywell Pressure-
High function that serves as an
interlock permissive to allow RHR
containment spray mode alignment
would be relocated from the Technical
Requirements Manual (TRM) to TS
3.3.5.1, Emergency Core Cooling
System (ECCS) Instrumentation.
The requirements for the RHR containment spray function and
Drywell Pressure-High function are
currently contained in TRM sections
T3.6.1, RHR Containment Spray, and
T3.3.2, ECCS and Reactor Core
Isolation Cooling Instrumentation,
respectively. These TRM sections
established specific guidance and
criteria related to the applicability, operation, and testing for the RHR
containment spray system. The TRM
requirements for the RHR containment
spray system would be removed once
the TS requirements are approved.
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. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change to establish the RHR Containment Spray requirement in TS does
not introduce new equipment or new
equipment operating modes, nor do the
proposed changes alter existing system
relationships. The proposed change does not
affect plant operation, design function, or any
analysis that verifies the capability of a
structure, system, or component (SSC) to
perform a design function. There are no
changes or modifications to the RHR system.
The RHR system will continue to function as
designed in all modes of operation, including the Containment Spray function. There are
no significant changes to procedures or
training related to the operation of the
Containment Spray function. Primary
containment integrity is not adversely
impacted and radiological consequences
from the accidents analyzed in the Updated
Safety Analysis Report (USAR) are not
increased. Containment parameters are not
increased beyond those previously evaluated
and the potential for failure of the
containment is not increased.
There is no adverse impact on systems designed to mitigate the consequences of
accidents. The proposed change does not
increase system or component pressures, temperatures, and flowrates for systems
designed to prevent accidents or mitigate the
consequences of an accident. Since these
conditions do not change, the likelihood of
failure of SSC is not increased.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
- 2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change to establish the RHR Containment Spray requirement in TS does
not alter the design function or operation of
any SSC. The Containment system will
continue to function as designed in all modes
of operation, including RHR Containment Spray function. There is no new system component being installed, no new
construction, and no performance of a new
test or maintenance function. The proposed
TS change does not create the possibility of
a new credible failure mechanism or
malfunction. The proposed change does not
modify the design function or operation of
any SSC. The proposed change does not
introduce new accident initiators. Primary
containment integrity is not adversely
impacted and radiological consequences
from the accident analyzed in the USAR are
not increased. Containment parameters are
not increased beyond those previously
evaluated and the potential for failure of the
containment is not increased. The proposed
change does not increase system or
component pressures, temperatures, and
flowrates for systems designed to prevent
accidents or mitigate the consequences of an
accident. Since these conditions do not
change, the likelihood of failure of an SSC is
not increased.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
- 3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not increase system or component pressures, temperatures, and flowrates for systems
designed to prevent accidents or mitigate the
consequences of an accident. Containment
parameters are not increased beyond those
previously evaluated and the potential for
failure of the containment is not increased.
The proposed change to establish the RHR Containment Spray requirement in TS is
needed in order to reflect the current safety
function of Containment Spray related to the
small steam line break accident. The
proposed change does not exceed or alter a
design basis or a safety limit parameter that
is described in the USAR.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee:
Mr. John C.
McClure, Nebraska Public Power
District, Post Office Box 499, Columbus, NE 68602-0499.
Acting NRC Branch Chief:
Eric R. Oesterle.
Northern States Power Company-Minnesota, Docket Nos. 50-282 and 50-
306, Prairie Island Nuclear Generating
Plant, Units 1 and 2, Goodhue County, Minnesota Date of amendment request:
February 20, 2013, as supplemented by letters
dated June 25, 2013; September 15, VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015Jkt 235001PO 00000Frm 00089Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM17MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 13911 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 51/Tuesday, March 17, 2015/Notices 2014; and February 26, 2015. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS under
Accession Nos. ML13053A199, ML13178A024, ML14258A089, and
ML15057A480, respectively.
Brief description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would remove the technical
specification (TS) 3.5.3 ECCS
[Emergency Core Cooling System]-
Shutdown, Limiting Condition for
Operation (LCO) Note 1 to eliminate
information to the plant operators that
could cause non-conservative operation, and would revise the LCO Applicability
statement to apply to all of Mode 4.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
licensee provided its analysis of the
issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which the Commission
previously issued in the Federal Register on August 20, 2013 (78 FR 51229). The licensee revised its analysis
of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented
below, to consider expansion of the
scope of the amendments by revising
the LCO Applicability statement to
include all of Mode 4.
- 1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
This license amendment request proposes to revise the Technical Specification for
ECCS operability requirements in Mode 4 by
removing the LCO Note which allows the
RHR [residual heat removal] subsystem to be
considered operable for ECCS when aligned
for shutdown cooling and revising the
Applicability statement to include all of
Mode 4. These changes will require one train
of RHR to be aligned for ECCS operation
throughout Mode 4.
The proposed changes do not affect the ECCS and RHR subsystem design, the
interfaces between the RHR subsystem and
other plant systems' operating functions, or
the reliability of the RHR subsystem. The
proposed changes do not change or impact
the initiators and assumptions of the
analyzed accidents. Therefore, the ECCS and
RHR subsystems will be capable of
performing their accident mitigation
functions, and the proposed TS changes do
not involve an increase in the probability of
an accident.
The proposed TS changes will require that one train of RHR is aligned for ECCS
operation during Mode 4 which assures that
one train of ECCS is operable to mitigate the
consequences of a loss of coolant accident.
Thus the proposed TS changes do not
involve a significant increase in the
consequences of an accident.
Therefore, the proposed Technical Specification changes do 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.
This license amendment request proposes to revise the Technical Specification for
ECCS operability requirements in Mode 4 by
removing the LCO Note which allows the
RHR subsystem to be considered operable for
ECCS when aligned for shutdown cooling
and revising the Applicability statement to
include all of Mode 4. These changes will
require one train of RHR to be aligned for
ECCS operation throughout Mode 4.
The proposed Technical Specification changes involve changes to when system
trains are operated, but they do not change
any system functions or maintenance
activities. The changes do not involve
physical alteration of the plant, that is, no
new or different type of equipment will be
installed. The changes do not alter
assumptions made in the safety analyses but
ensure that one train of ECCS is operable to
mitigate the consequences of a loss of coolant
accident. These changes do not create new
failure modes or mechanisms which are not
identifiable during testing and no new
accident precursors are generated.
Therefore, the proposed Technical Specification changes do 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.
This license amendment request proposes to revise the Technical Specification [TS] for
ECCS operability requirements in Mode 4 by
removing the LCO Note which allows the
RHR subsystem to be considered operable for
ECCS when aligned for shutdown cooling
and revising the Applicability statement to
include all of Mode 4. These changes will
require one train of RHR to be aligned for
ECCS operation throughout Mode 4.
This license amendment proposes Technical Specification changes which
assure that the ECCS-Shutdown TS LCO
requirements are met if a Mode 4 LOCA were
to occur. With these changes, other TS
requirements for shutdown cooling in Mode
4 will continue to be met. Based on review
of plant operating experience, there is no
discernable change in cooldown rates when
utilizing a single train of RHR for shutdown
cooling. Thus, no margin of safety is reduced
as part of this change.
Therefore, the proposed Technical Specification changes do not involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
amendment requests involve no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee:
Peter M. Glass, Assistant General Counsel, Xcel Energy
Services, Inc., 414 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, MN 55401.
NRC Branch Chief:
David L. Pelton.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC), Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-
366, Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Appling County, GA Date of amendment request:
January 13, 2015. A publicly-available version is
in ADAMS under Accession No.
Description of amendment request:
The licensee proposes to adopt
Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) change number 523, revision 2,
Generic Letter 2008-01, Managing Gas
Accumulation, for the Hatch Nuclear
Plant, Unit 1 and 2, technical
specifications (TS). The proposed
change would revise or add
Surveillance Requirements to verify that
the system locations susceptible to gas
accumulation are sufficiently filled with
water and to provide allowances which
permit performance of the verification.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
licensee has provided its analysis of the
issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented
below: 1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises or adds Surveillance Requirement(s) (SRs) that
require verification that the Emergency Core
Cooling System (ECCS), the Residual Heat
Removal (RHR) System, the RHR Shutdown
Cooling (SDC) System, the Containment
Spray (CS) System, and the Reactor Core
Isolation Cooling (RCIC) System are not
rendered inoperable due to accumulated gas
and to provide allowances which permit
performance of the revised verification. Gas
accumulation in the subject systems is not an
initiator of any accident previously
evaluated. As a result, the probability of any
accident previously evaluated is not
significantly increased. The proposed SRs
ensure that the subject systems continue to
be capable to perform their assumed safety
function and are not rendered inoperable due
to gas accumulation. Thus, the consequences
of any accident previously evaluated are not
significantly increased.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
- 2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises or adds SRs that require verification that the ECCS, the
RHR, the RHR SDC System, the CS System, and the RCIC System are not rendered
inoperable due to accumulated gas and to VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015Jkt 235001PO 00000Frm 00090Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM17MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 13912 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 51/Tuesday, March 17, 2015/Notices provide allowances which permit performance of the revised verification. The
proposed change does not involve a physical
alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be installed)
or a change in the methods governing normal
plant operation. In addition, the proposed
change does not impose any new or different
requirements that could initiate an accident.
The proposed change does not alter
assumptions made in the safety analysis and
is consistent with the safety analysis
assumptions.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
- 3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises or adds SRs that require verification that the ECCS, the
RHR, RHR SDC System, the CS System, and
the RCIC System are not rendered inoperable
due to accumulated gas and to provide
allowances which permit performance of the
revised verification. The proposed change
adds new requirements to manage gas
accumulation in order to ensure the subject
systems are capable of performing their
assumed safety functions. The proposed SRs
are more comprehensive than the current SRs
and will ensure that the assumptions of the
safety analysis are protected. The proposed
change does not adversely affect any current
plant safety margins or the reliability of the
equipment assumed in the safety analysis.
Therefore, there are no changes being made
to any safety analysis assumptions, safety
limits or limiting safety system settings that
would adversely affect plant safety as a result
of the proposed change.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety. Based on the above, SNC concludes that the proposed change 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 licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee:
Jennifer M.
Buettner, Associate General Counsel, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 40 Inverness Center Parkway, Birmingham, AL 35201.
NRC Branch Chief:
Robert J.
Pascarelli.
South Carolina Electric and Gas Company, Docket Nos.: 52-027 and 52-
028, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3, Fairfield County, South
Carolina Date of amendment request:
January 27, 2015. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed change, if approved, would revise, in part, the description
and scope of human factors engineering (HFE) operational sequence analysis (OSA) task and delete a reference to
document WCAP-15847, which are
both identified as Tier 2* information in
the Updated Final Safety Analysis
Report (UFSAR).
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 deletion of WCAP-15847 removes obsolete and superseded procedures
from the licensing basis. The amendment of
the operational sequence analysis (OSA) task
alters the automatic depressurization system (ADS) testing from Mode 1 to Mode 5. The
proposed changes to the procedures do not
involve any accident initiating component/
system failure or event, and the change to the
ADS testing mode helps prevent accidents
that would occur if the tests were performed
in Mode 1. Thus, the probabilities of the
accidents previously evaluated are not
affected. The affected procedures and
requirements do not adversely affect or
interact with safety-related equipment or a
radioactive material barrier, and this activity
does not involve the containment of
radioactive material. Thus, the proposed
changes would not affect any safety-related
accident mitigating function. The radioactive
material source terms and release paths used
in the safety analyses are unchanged, thus
the radiological releases in the Updated Final
Safety Analysis Report accident analyses are
not affected.
Therefore, the proposed amendment 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.
Removing WCAP-15847 from the UFSAR and amending the OSA task regarding ADS
valve testing does not adversely affect the
design or operation of safety-related
equipment or equipment whose failure could
initiate an accident other than what is
already described in the licensing basis.
These changes do not adversely affect safety-
related equipment or fission product barriers.
No safety analysis or design basis acceptance
limit/criterion is challenged or exceeded by
the requested change.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
- 3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to remove WCAP-15847 from the UFSAR and amend the OSA
task do not adversely affect any safety-related
equipment, design code compliance, design
function, design analysis, safety analysis
input or result, or design/safety margin
because NQA-1 requirements are maintained
in other Westinghouse procedures and
testing of the ADS valves is still performed.
No safety analysis or design basis acceptance
limit/criterion is challenged or exceeded by
the proposed changes, thus no margin of
safety is reduced.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee:
Ms. Kathryn M.
Sutton, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLC, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004-2514.
NRC Branch Chief:
Lawrence J.
Burkhart.
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:
January 30, 2015. A publicly-available version is
in ADAMS under Accession No.
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.
The requested amendment proposes
changes to Tier 2* information
contained within the Human Factors
Engineering Design Verification, Task
Support Verification and Integrated
System Validation (ISV) plans. These
documents are incorporated by
reference into the VEGP Units 3 and 4
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report, and will additionally require changes to
be made to affected Tier 2 information.
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? VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015Jkt 235001PO 00000Frm 00091Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM17MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 13913 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 51/Tuesday, March 17, 2015/Notices Response: No.
The proposed amendment includes changes to Integrated System Validation (ISV) activities, which are performed on the
AP1000 plant simulator to validate the
adequacy of the AP1000 human system
interface design and confirm that it meets
human factors engineering principles. The
proposed changes involve administrative
details related to performance of the ISV, and
no plant hardware or equipment is affected
whose failure could initiate an accident, or
that interfaces with a component that could
initiate an accident, or that contains
radioactive material. Therefore, these
changes have no effect on any accident
initiator in the Updated Final Safety Analysis
Report (UFSAR), nor do they affect the
radioactive material releases in the UFSAR
accident analysis.
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 includes changes to ISV activities, which are
performed on the AP1000 plant simulator to
validate the adequacy of the AP1000 human
system interface design and confirm that it
meets human factors engineering principles.
The proposed changes involve administrative
details related to performance of the ISV, and
no plant hardware or equipment is affected
whose failure could initiate an accident, or
that interfaces with a component that could
initiate an accident, or that contains
radioactive material. Although the ISV may
identify a need to initiate changes to add, modify, or remove plant structures, systems, or components, these changes will not be
made directly as part of the ISV.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
- 3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment includes changes to ISV activities, which are
performed on the AP1000 plant simulator to
validate the adequacy of the AP1000 human
system interface design and confirm that it
meets human factors engineering principles.
The proposed changes involve administrative
details related to performance of the ISV, and
do not affect any safety-related equipment, design code compliance, design function, design analysis, safety analysis input or
result, or design/safety margin. No safety
analysis or design basis acceptance limit/
criterion is challenged or exceeded by the
proposed changes, thus no margin of safety
is reduced.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee:
Mr. M. Stanford Blanton, Balch & Bingham LLP, 1710
Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL
35203-2015.
NRC Branch Chief:
Lawrence J.
Burkhart.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-425, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1
and 2, Burke County, Georgia Date of amendment request:
September 13, 2012, as supplemented
August 2, 2013, July 3, July 17, November 11, and December 12, 2014.
Publicly-available versions are in
ADAMS under Accession Nos.
ML12258A055, ML13217A072, ML14189A554, ML14198A574, ML14315A051 and ML14346A643, respectively.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed amendment would
modify certain Technical Specification (TS) requirements related to Completion
Times for Required Actions to provide
the option to calculate a longer, risk-
informed Completion Time. The
allowance will be described in a new
program, Risk Informed Completion
Time Program (RICT), to be approved
by NRC and to be added to Chapter 5,
Administrative Controls, of the
Technical Specifications. The
methodology for using the RICT
Program is described in an industry
document NEI 06-09, Risk-Informed
Technical Specifications Initiative 4b, Risk-Managed Technical Specifications (RMTS) Guidelines, which was
approved by the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) on May 17, 2007.
Adherence to NEI 06-09 is required by
the proposed RICT Program. The
proposed amendment is also consistent
with the methodologies presented in an industry initiative identified as TSTF-
505, Revision 1, Provide Risk-Informed
Extended Completion Times-RITSTF
Initiative 4b. Although the proposed
amendment is consistent with TSTF-
505, the licensee is not proposing
adoption of TSTF-505 with this
proposed amendment; the proposed
amendment is a site-specific action.
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 permits the extension of Completion Times provided risk
is assessed and managed within the Risk
Informed Completion Time Program. The
proposed change does not involve a
significant increase in the probability of an
accident previously evaluated because the
changes involve no change to the plant or its
modes of operation. This proposed change
does not increase the consequences of an
accident because the design-basis mitigation
function of the affected systems is not
changed and the consequences of an accident
during the extended Completion Time are no
different from those during the existing
Completion Time.
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 does not change the design, configuration, or method of operation
of the plant. The proposed change does not
involve a physical alteration of the plant (no
new or different kind of equipment will be
installed).
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
- 3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety[?]
Response: No.
The proposed change permits the extension of Completion Times provided risk
is assessed and managed within the Risk
Informed Completion Time Program. The
proposed change implements a risk-informed
configuration management program to assure
that adequate margins of safety are
maintained. Application of these new
specifications and the configuration
management program considers cumulative
effects of multiple systems or components
being out of service and does so more
effectively than the current TS.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
requested amendment involve no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee:
Jennifer M.
Buettner, Associate General Counsel, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 40 Inverness Center Parkway, Birmingham, AL 35242.
NRC Branch Chief:
Robert J.
Pascarelli. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015Jkt 235001PO 00000Frm 00092Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM17MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 13914 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 51/Tuesday, March 17, 2015/Notices Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), Docket Nos. 50-327 and 50-328, Sequoyah Nuclear Plant (SQN), Units 1
and 2, Hamilton County, Tennessee Date of amendment request:
December 2, 2014. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession
No. ML14339A539.
Description of amendment request:
The amendments would revise
Technical Specification (TS) 6.8.4.h,
Containment Leakage Rate Testing
Program, by adopting Nuclear Energy
Institute (NEI) 94-01, Revision 3-A,
Industry Guideline for Implementing
Performance-Based Option of 10 CFR
part 50, Appendix J, as the
implementation document for the
performance-based Option B of 10 CFR
part 50, Appendix J. The proposed
changes would permanently extend the
Type A containment integrated leak rate
testing (ILRT) interval from 10 years to
15 years, and the Type C local leakage
rate testing (LLRT) intervals from 60
months to 75 months.
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 consequence of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed revision to TS 6.8.4.h changes the testing period to a permanent 15-year interval for Type A testing (10 CFR part
50, Appendix J, Option B, ILRT) and a 75-
month interval for Type C testing (10 CFR
part 50, Appendix J, Option B, LLRT). The
current type A test interval of 10 years would
be extended to 15 years from the last Type
A test. The proposed extension to Type A
testing does not involve a significant increase
in the consequences of an accident because
research documented in NUREG-1493,
Performance-Based Containment System
Leakage Testing Requirements [sic]
[Performance-Based Containment Leak-Test
Program], September 1995, has found that, generically, very few potential containment
leakage paths are not identified by Type B
and C tests. NUREG-1493 concluded that
reducing the Type A testing frequency to one
per twenty years was found to lead to an
imperceptible increase in risk. A high degree
of assurance is provided through testing and
inspection that the containment will not
degrade in a manner detectable only by Type
A testing. The last Type A test (performed
October 27, 2007 for SQN, Unit 1 and
December 30, 2006 for SQN, Unit 2) shows
leakage to be below acceptance criteria, indicating a very leak tight containment.
Inspections required by the ASME [American
Society of Mechanical Engineers] Code
section Xl (subsections IWE and IWL) and
Maintenance Rule monitoring (10 CFR 50.65, Requirements for Monitoring the
Effectiveness of Maintenance at Nuclear
Power Plants), are performed in order to
identify indications of containment
degradation that could affect that leak
tightness. Types B and C testing required by
TSs will identify any containment opening
such as valves that would otherwise be
detected by the Type A tests. These factors
show that a Type A test interval extension
will not represent a significant increase in
the consequences of an accident.
The proposed amendment involves changes to the SQN, Units 1 and 2, 10 CFR
50 Appendix J Testing Program Plan. The
proposed amendment does not involve a
physical change to the plant or a change in
the manner in which the units are operated
or controlled. The primary containment
function is to provide an essentially leak
tight barrier against the uncontrolled release of radioactivity to the environment for
postulated accidents. As such, the
containment itself and the testing
requirements to periodically demonstrate the
integrity of the containment exist to ensure
the plant's ability to mitigate the
consequences of an accident, and do not
involve any accident precursors or initiators.
Therefore, the probability of occurrence of an accident previously evaluated is not
significantly increased by the proposed
amendment.
The proposed amendment adopts the NRC-accepted guidelines of NEI 94-01, Revision
3-A, for development of the SQN, Units 1
and 2, performance-based leakage testing
program. Implementation of these guidelines
continues to provide adequate assurance that
during design basis accidents, the primary
containment and its components will limit
leakage rates to less than the values assumed
in the plant safety analyses. The potential
consequences of extending the ILRT interval
from 10 years to 15 years have been
evaluated by analyzing the resulting changes
in risk. The increase in risk in terms of
person-rem per year resulting from design
basis accidents was estimated to be very
small, and the increase in the LERF [large
early release frequency] resulting from the
proposed change was determined to be
within the guidelines published in NRC RG
[Regulatory Guide] 1.174. Additionally, the
proposed change maintains defense-in-depth
by preserving a reasonable balance among
prevention of core damage, prevention of
containment failure, and consequence
mitigation. TVA has determined that the
increase in CCFP [conditional containment
failure probability] due to the proposed
change would be very small.
Based on the above discussions, the proposed changes do 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 revision to TS 6.8.4.h changes the testing period to a permanent 15-
year interval for Type A testing (10 CFR part
50, Appendix J, Option B, ILRT) and a 75-
month interval for Type C testing (10 CFR part 50, Appendix J, Option B, LLRT). The current test interval of 10 years, based on
past performance, would be extended to 15
years from the last Type A test (performed
October 27, 2007 for SQN, Unit 1 and
December 30, 2006 for SQN, Unit 2). The
proposed extension to Type A and Type C
test intervals does not create the possibility
of a new or different type of accident because
there are no physical changes being made to
the plant and there are no changes to the
operation of the plant that could introduce a
new failure mode creating an accident or
affecting the mitigation of an accident.
Therefore, the proposed changes do 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.
The proposed revision to TS 6.8.4.h changes the testing period to a permanent 15-
year interval for Type A testing (10 CFR part
50, Appendix J, Option B, ILRT) and a 75-
month interval for Type C testing (10 CFR
part 50, Appendix J, Option B, LLRT). The
current test interval of 10 years, based on
past performance, would be extended to 15
years from the last Type A test (performed
October 27, 2007 for SQN, Unit 1 and
December 30, 2006 for SQN, Unit 2). The
proposed extension to Type A testing will
not significantly reduce the margin of safety.
NUREG-1493, Performance-Based
Containment System Leakage Testing
Requirements [sic] [Performance-Based
Containment Leak-Test Program],
September 1995, generic study of the effects
of extending containment leakage testing, found that a 20-year extension to Type A
leakage testing resulted in an imperceptible
increase in risk to the public. NUREG-1493
found that, generically, the design
containment leakage rate contributes about
0.1% to the individual risk and that the
decrease in Type A testing frequency would
have a minimal effect on this risk since 95%
of the potential leakage paths are detected by
Type C testing. Regular inspections required
by the ASME Code section Xl (subsections
IWE and IWL) and maintenance rule
monitoring (10 CFR 50.65, Requirements for
Monitoring the Effectiveness of Maintenance
at Nuclear Power Plants) will further reduce
the risk of a containment leakage path going
undetected.
The proposed amendment adopts the NRC-accepted guidelines of NEI 94-01, Revision
3-A, for development of the SQN, Units 1
and 2, performance-based leakage testing
program, and establishes a 15-year interval
for the performance of the primary
containment ILRT and a 75-month interval
for Type C testing. The amendment does not
alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system setpoints, or limiting
conditions for operation are determined. The
specific requirements and conditions of the
10 CFR part 50, Appendix J Testing Program
Plan, as defined in the TS, ensure that the
degree of primary containment structural
integrity and leak-tightness that is considered
in the plant safety analyses is maintained.
The overall containment leakage rate limit
specified by the TS is maintained, and the VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015Jkt 235001PO 00000Frm 00093Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM17MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 13915 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 51/Tuesday, March 17, 2015/Notices Type A, B, and C containment leakage tests will continue to be performed at the
frequencies established in accordance with
the NRC-accepted guidelines of NEI 94-01, Revision 3-A.
Containment inspections performed in accordance with other plant programs serve
to provide a high degree of assurance that the
containment will not degrade in a manner
that is detectable only by an ILRT. This
ensures that evidence of containment
structural degradation is identified in a
timely manner. Furthermore, a risk assessment using the current SQN, Units 1
and 2, PRA model concluded that extending
the ILRT test interval from 10 years to 15
years results in a very small change to the
SQN, Units 1 and 2, risk profile.
Accordingly, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee:
General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, 6A West
Tower, Knoxville, TN 37902.
NRC Branch Chief:
Shana R. Helton.
III. Previously Published Notices of
Consideration of Issuance of
Amendments to Facility Operating
Licenses and Combined Licenses, Proposed No Significant Hazards
Consideration Determination, and
Opportunity for a Hearing The following notices were previously published as separate individual
notices. The notice content was the
same as above. They were published as
individual notices either because time
did not allow the Commission to wait
for this biweekly notice or because the
action involved exigent circumstances.
They are repeated here because the
biweekly notice lists all amendments
issued or proposed to be issued
involving no significant hazards
consideration.
For details, see the individual notice in the Federal Register on the day and
page cited. This notice does not extend
the notice period of the original notice.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-247, Indian Point
Nuclear Generating Unit 2, Westchester
County, New York Date of amendment request:
February 12, 2015. A publicly-available version is
in ADAMS under Accession No.
Brief description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would allow a revision to the acceptance criteria for the Surveillance
Requirement 3.1.4.2 for Control Rod G-
- 3. During the last two performances of
this Surveillance on September 18, 2014, and December 11, 2014, Control
Rod G-3 misalignment occurred with
Shutdown Bank B group movement as
displayed by Individual Rod Position
Indication and Plant Instrument
Computer System. The proposed change
is to defer subsequent testing of the
Control Rod G-3 until repaired during
the next refuel outage (March 2016) or
forced outage long enough to repair the
Date of publication of individual notice in Federal Register:
March 2, 2015 (80 FR 11236).
Expiration date of individual notice:
April 1, 2015 (public comments); May 1, 2015 (hearing requests).
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323 for
Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant (DCPP), Units 1 and 2, Docket No. 72-
26 for Diablo Canyon Independent
Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI),
San Luis Obispo County, California Date of amendment request:
September 24, 2013, as supplemented
by letters dated December 18, 2013 (security-related), and May 15, 2014.
Publicly-available versions of the letters
dated September 24, 2013, and May 15, 2014, are in ADAMS under Accession
Nos. ML13268A398 and ML14135A379, respectively.
Brief description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would modify the licenses to reflect a
grant of section 161A of the Atomic
Energy Act, to authorize the licensee the
authority to possess and use certain
firearms, ammunition, and other devices
such as large-capacity ammunition
feeding devices, to implement the NRC-
approved security plan for DCPP, Unit
Nos. 1 and 2, and the Diablo Canyon
ISFSI. Date of publication of individual notice in Federal Register:
February 18, 2015 (80 FR 8706).
Expiration date of individual notice:
March 20, 2015 (public comments);
April 19, 2015 (hearing requests).
Southern California Edison Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-361, 50-362, and
72-41, San Onofre Nuclear Generating
Station, Units 2 and 3, and Independent
Spent Fuel Storage Installation, San
Diego County, California Date of amendment request:
August 28, 2013, as supplemented by letters
dated December 31, 2013, May 15, 2014, and February 10, 2015. Publicly-
available versions are in ADAMS under
Accession Nos. ML13242A277, ML14007A496, ML14139A424, and ML15044A047, respectively.
Brief description of amendment request: The licensee is requesting that the Commission grant it preemption
authority consistent with the
Commission's authority under section
161A of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, to authorize the security
personnel of designated classes of
licensees to possess, use, and access
covered weapons for the physical
security of SONGS, Units 2 and 3, and
the Independent Spent Fuel Storage
Installation, notwithstanding Federal, State, or local laws prohibiting such
possession or use. If the amendment
request is granted, the licenses would be
modified to reflect the Commission's
granting of section 161A preemption
authority.
Date of publication of individual notice in Federal Register:
February 18, 2015 (80 FR 8701).
Expiration date of individual notice:
March 20, 2015 (public comments);
April 20, 2015 (hearing requests).
IV. 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 Commission's rules
and regulations. The Commission has
made appropriate findings as required
by the Act and the Commission's rules
and regulations in 10 CFR chapter I, which are set forth in the license
amendment.
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 licensee's facility
of the licensee's application and of the VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015Jkt 235001PO 00000Frm 00094Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM17MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 13916 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 51/Tuesday, March 17, 2015/Notices Commission's 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
plant's 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
Commission's related letter, Safety
Evaluation and/or Environmental
Assessment, as indicated. All of these
items can be accessed as described in
the Obtaining Information and
Submitting Comments section of this
document.
A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing and Petition for Leave To Intervene 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 Commission's
Agency Rules of Practice and
Procedure in 10 CFR part 2. Interested
person(s) should consult a current copy
of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at
the NRC's PDR, located at One White
Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852, and electronically on
the Internet at the NRC's Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-
collections/cfr/.
If there are problems in accessing the document, contact the
PDR's Reference staff at 1-800-397-
4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to
pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene
is filed by the above date, the
Commission or a presiding officer
designated by the Commission or by the
Chief Administrative Judge of the
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
Panel, will rule on the request and/or
petition; and the Secretary or the Chief
Administrative Judge of the Atomic
Safety and Licensing Board will issue a
notice of a hearing or an appropriate
order. As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene shall set
forth with particularity the interest of
the petitioner in the proceeding, and
how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition
should specifically explain the reasons
why intervention should be permitted
with particular reference to the
following general requirements: (1) the
name, address, and telephone number of
the requestor or petitioner; (2) the
nature of the requestor's/petitioner's
right under the Act to be made a party
to the proceeding; (3) the nature and
extent of the requestor's/petitioner's
property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which
may be entered in the proceeding on the
requestor's/petitioner's interest. The
petition must also identify the specific
contentions which the requestor/
petitioner seeks to have litigated at the
proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or
fact to be raised or controverted. In
addition, the requestor/petitioner shall
provide a brief explanation of the bases
for the contention and a concise
statement of the alleged facts or expert
opinion which support the contention
and on which the 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.
B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing, a petition for leave
to intervene, any motion or other
document filed in the proceeding prior
to the submission of a request for
hearing or petition to intervene, and
documents filed by interested
governmental entities participating
under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in
accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule
(72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007). The E-
Filing process requires participants to
submit and serve all adjudicatory
documents over the internet, or in some
cases to mail copies on electronic
storage media. Participants may not VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015Jkt 235001PO 00000Frm 00095Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM17MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 13917 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 51/Tuesday, March 17, 2015/Notices submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in
accordance with the procedures
described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least ten 10
days prior to the filing deadline, the
participant should contact the Office of
the Secretary by email at
hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by telephone at 301-415-1677, to request (1) a digital
identification (ID) certificate, which
allows the participant (or its counsel or
representative) to digitally sign
documents and access the E-Submittal
server for any proceeding in which it is
participating; and (2) advise the
Secretary that the participant will be
submitting a request or petition for
hearing (even in instances in which the
participant, or its counsel or
representative, already holds an NRC-
issued digital ID certificate). Based upon
this information, the Secretary will
establish an electronic docket for the
hearing in this proceeding if the
Secretary has not already established an
electronic docket.
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the
NRC's public Web site at http://
www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/
getting-started.html.
System requirements for accessing the E-
Submittal server are detailed in the
NRC's Guidance for Electronic
Submission, which is available on the
agency's public Web site at http://
www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-
submittals.html.
Participants may attempt to use other software not listed
on the Web site, but should note that the
NRC's E-Filing system does not support
unlisted software, and the NRC Meta
System Help Desk will not be able to
offer assistance in using unlisted
software.
If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC in
accordance with the E-Filing rule, the
participant must file the document
using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to serve
documents through the Electronic
Information Exchange System, users
will be required to install a Web
browser plug-in from the NRC's Web
site. Further information on the Web-
based submission form, including the
installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on the NRC's public Web
site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-
submittals.html.
Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a docket has
been created, the participant can then
submit a request for hearing or petition
for leave to intervene. Submissions
should be in Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance available on the NRC's public Web site
at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html.
A filing is considered complete at the time the documents are
submitted through the NRC's E-Filing
system. To be timely, an electronic
filing must be submitted to the E-Filing
system no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern
Time on the due date. Upon receipt of
a transmission, the E-Filing system
time-stamps the document and sends
the submitter an email notice
confirming receipt of the document. The
E-Filing system also distributes an email
notice that provides access to the
document to the NRC's Office of the
General Counsel and any others who
have advised the Office of the Secretary
that they wish to participate in the
proceeding, so that the filer need not
serve the documents on those
participants separately. Therefore, applicants and other participants (or
their counsel or representative) must
apply for and receive a digital ID
certificate before a hearing request/
petition to intervene is filed so that they
can obtain access to the document via
the E-Filing system.
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system
may seek assistance by contacting the
NRC Meta System Help Desk through
the Contact Us link located on the
NRC's public Web site at http://
www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-
submittals.html, by email to MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-7640. The NRC
Meta System Help Desk is available
between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern
Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays.
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting
documents electronically must file an
exemption request, in accordance with
10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper
filing requesting authorization to
continue to submit documents in paper
format. Such filings must be submitted
by: (1) first class mail addressed to the
Office of the Secretary of the
Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-
0001, Attention: Rulemaking and
Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery
service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking
and Adjudications Staff. Participants
filing a document in this manner are
responsible for serving the document on
all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail
as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited
delivery service upon depositing the
document with the provider of the
service. A presiding officer, having
granted an exemption request from
using E-Filing, may require a participant
or party to use E-Filing if the presiding
officer subsequently determines that the
reason for granting the exemption from
use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's
electronic hearing docket which is
available to the public at http://
ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the Commission, or the presiding officer. Participants are
requested not to include personal
privacy information, such as social
security numbers, home addresses, or
home phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC regulation or other law
requires submission of such
information. However, 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.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-353, Limerick Generating
Station, Unit 2, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania Date of amendment request:
February 12, 2015.
Description of amendment request:
The amendment extends the
implementation period for Amendment
No. 174, Leak Detection System
Setpoint and Allowable Value
Changes, which was issued on
December 29, 2014. Amendment No.
174 was effective as of the date of
issuance (i.e., on December 29, 2014) and was required to be implemented
within 60 days (i.e., by February 27, 2015). Amendment No. 177 extends the
implementation period for Amendment
No. 174 from 60 days to prior to startup
from the spring 2015 refueling outage.
Date of issuance:
February 25, 2015.
Effective date:
As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented prior to startup from the Spring 2015
Unit 2 Refueling Outage.
Amendment No.:
177. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML15049A084;
documents related to this amendment
are listed in the Safety Evaluation
enclosed with the amendment. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015Jkt 235001PO 00000Frm 00096Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM17MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 13918 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 51/Tuesday, March 17, 2015/Notices Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-85:
Amendment revised the Renewed Facility Operating License to
extend the implementation date of
Amendment No. 174, issued on
December 29, 2014, to prior to startup
from the Spring 2015 Unit 2 Refueling
Outage. Public comments requested as to proposed no significant hazards
consideration (NSHC):
Yes. Public
notice of the proposed amendment was
published in The Pottstown Mercury, located in in Pottstown, Pennsylvania, on February 15, and February 16, 2015.
The notice provided an opportunity to
submit comments on the Commission's
proposed NSHC determination.
Comments were received.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment, finding of exigent
circumstances, state consultation, public comments, and final NSHC
determination are contained in a safety
evaluation dated February 25, 2015.
Attorney for licensee:
J. Bradley Fewell, Esquire, Vice President and
Deputy General Counsel, Exelon
Generation Company, LLC, 200 Exelon
Way, Kennett Square, PA 19348.
NRC Branch Chief:
Douglas A.
Broaddus.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-259, 50-260, and 50-296, Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN),
Units 1, 2, and 3, Respectively, Limestone County, Alabama Date of amendment request:
February 12, 2015.
Brief description of amendment request: The amendments revised Technical Specification (TS) 5.6.5,
Core Operating Limits Report (COLR),
to add the date of a previously issued
NRC safety evaluation (SE) that stated it
was acceptable for the licensee to use
new analytical methods supporting the
use of ATRIUM 10XM (10XM) fuel. In
its letter dated February 12, 2015, the
licensee stated BFN, Unit 2, is entering
an outage on March 14, 2015, and is
scheduled to commence loading 10XM
fuel on March 17, 2015. Because the TSs
do not reference the aforementioned
NRC evaluation, the licensee would not
be able to issue a COLR for the Unit 2
transition cycle unless the notation to
the latest NRC SE is added. Therefore, the licensee requested that NRC process
the license amendment request under
exigent circumstances in accordance
with 10 CFR 50.91(a)(6). The NRC staff
determined that the provisions of 10
CFR 50.91(a)(6) were applicable for
processing the licensee's request under
exigent circumstances.
Date of issuance:
February 26, 2015.
Effective date:
As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
during the refueling outages in fall of
2016 for Unit 1, in spring of 2015 for
Unit 2, and in spring of 2016 for Unit
- 3. Amendment Nos.:
288, 313, and 272, which are available in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML15051A337.
Documents related to these amendments
are listed in the SE enclosed with the
amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-33, DPR-52, and DPR-68:
Amendments revised the TSs.
Public comments requested as to proposed no significant hazards
consideration (NSHC):
The public
notice was published in The
Huntsville Times, located in
Huntsville, Alabama, on February 18
and 20, 2015. The notice provided an
opportunity to submit comments on the
Commission's proposed NSHC
determination. No comments have been
received.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment, finding of exigent
circumstances, state consultation, and
final NSHC determination are contained
in a safety evaluation dated February 26, 2015. Attorney for licensee:
General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, ET 11A, Knoxville, TN 37902.
NRC Branch Chief:
Shana R. Helton.
V. Notice of Issuance of Amendments to
Facility Operating Licenses and
Combined Licenses During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, the
Commission has issued the following
amendments. The Commission has
determined for each of these
amendments that the application
complies with the standards and
requirements of the Atomic Energy Act
of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the
Commission's rules and regulations.
The Commission has made appropriate
findings as required by the Act and the
Commission's rules and regulations in
10 CFR chapter I, which are set forth in
the license amendment.
A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility operating
license or combined license, as
applicable, proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a hearing in
connection with these actions, was
published in the Federal Register as indicated.
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that these
amendments satisfy the criteria for
categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental
impact statement or environmental
assessment need be prepared for these
amendments. If the Commission has prepared an environmental assessment
under the special circumstances
provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has
made a determination based on that
assessment, it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the action see (1) the applications for
amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3)
the Commission's related letter, Safety
Evaluation and/or Environmental
Assessment as indicated. All of these
items can be accessed as described in
the Obtaining Information and
Submitting Comments section of this
document.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-255, Palisades Nuclear
Plant, Van Buren County, Michigan Date of application for amendment:
December 12, 2012, as supplemented by
letters dated February 21, September 30, October 24, and December 2, 2013;
April 2, May 7, June 17, August 14, November 4, and December 18, 2014.
Brief description of amendment:
The amendment authorizes the transition of
the Palisades Nuclear Plant fire
protection program to a risk-informed, performance-based program based on
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 805, in accordance with 10 CFR
50.48(c). NFPA 805 allows the use of
performance-based methods such as fire
modeling and risk-informed methods
such as fire probabilistic risk assessment
to demonstrate compliance with the
nuclear safety performance criteria.
Date of issuance:
February 27, 2015.
Effective date:
As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented by six months from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.:
254. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML15007A191;
documents related to this amendment
are listed in the Safety Evaluation
enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-20:
Amendment revised the
Renewed Facility Operating License and
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register:
February 27, 2014 (79 FR 11148). The supplements dated April 2, May 7, June 17, August 14, November 4, and December 18, 2014, provided
additional information that clarified the
application, did not expand the scope of
the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original
proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination as
published in the Federal Register. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015Jkt 235001PO 00000Frm 00097Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM17MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 13919 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 51/Tuesday, March 17, 2015/Notices The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated February 27, 2015. No significant hazards consideration comments received:
No. Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-313, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1, Pope County, Arkansas Date of amendment request:
March 26, 2013, as supplemented by letters
dated November 14, 2013, and August
18, October 22, and December 5, 2014.
Brief description of amendment:
The amendment revised the Technical
Specification (TS) requirements for end
states associated with the
implementation of the NRC-approved
Topical Report BAW-2441-A, Revision
2, Risk-Informed Justification for LCO
End-State Changes, as well as Required
Actions revised by a specific Note in TS
Task Force (TSTF) change traveler
TSTF-431, Revision 3, Change in
Technical Specifications End States (BAW-2441).
Date of issuance:
March 3, 2015.
Effective date:
As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 90 days from the date of
issuance.
Amendment No.:
253. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML15023A147;
documents related to this amendment
are listed in the Safety Evaluation
enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-51:
Amendment revised the
TSs/license.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register:
July 23, 2013 (78 FR 44170).
The supplemental letters dated
November 14, 2013, and August 19, October 22, and December 5, 2014, provided additional information that
clarified the application, did not expand
the scope of the application as originally
noticed, and did not change the staff's
original proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination as
published in the Federal Register. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated March 3, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration comments received:
No. Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-382, Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3, St. Charles Parish, Louisiana Date of amendment request:
December 9, 2013, as supplemented by
letters dated October 1, 2014, and
December 17, 2014.
Brief description of amendment:
The amendment revised the Technical
Specifications for the Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3 to improve
clarity, correct administrative and
typographical errors, or establish
consistency with NUREG-1432,
Standard Technical Specifications-
Combustion Engineering Plants,
Revision 4.0.
Date of issuance:
February 23, 2015.
Effective date:
As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 90 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.:
242. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML15005A126;
documents related to this amendment
are listed in the Safety Evaluation
enclosed with the amendment.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-38: The amendment revised the Facility Operating License and Technical
Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register:
August 5, 2014 (79 FR 45475).
The supplements dated October 1, 2014, and December 17, 2014, provided
additional information that clarified the
application, did not expand the scope of
the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original
proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination as
published in the Federal Register. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated February 23, 2015. No significant hazards consideration comments received:
No. Florida Power and Light Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389, St.
Lucie Plant, Units 1 and 2, St. Lucie
County, Florida Date of amendment request:
February 26, 2014, as supplemented by letters
dated May 29 and July 25, 2014.
Brief description of amendment:
The amendments revised the Technical
Specifications (TSs), modifying
requirements for mode change
limitations in Limiting Condition for
Operation 3.0.4 and Surveillance
Requirement (SR) 4.0.4 to adopt the
provisions of Industry/TS Task Force (TSTF)-359, Rev. 9, Increase
Flexibility in MODE Restraints. The
language of SR 4.0.1 is revised to
conform to the language of NUREG-
1432, Standard Technical
Specifications for Combustion
Engineering Plants, to resolve language
incongruences and ensure conservative
implementation of the TSTF-359, Rev.
9, changes.
Date of issuance:
February 27, 2015.
Effective date:
As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.:
220 and 170. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS
under Accession No. ML14343A918;
documents related to these amendments
are listed in the Safety Evaluation (SE)
enclosed with the amendments.
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-67 and NPF-16: Amendments revised
the Renewed Facility Operating
Licenses and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register:
May 27, 2014 (79 FR 30187).
The supplements dated May 29 and July
25, 2014, provided additional
information that clarified the
application, did not expand the scope of
the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original
proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination as
published in the Federal Register. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a SE
dated February 27, 2015.
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, Somervell County, Texas Date of amendment request:
July 1, 2014. Brief description of amendment:
The amendments revised Technical
Specification 3.8.1, AC [Alternating
Current] Sources-Operating, to extend
on a one-time basis the Completion
Time (CT) of Required Action A.3,
Restore required offsite circuit to
OPERABLE status, from 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> to 14
days. The CT extension from 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />
to 14 days will be used while
completing the plant modification to
install alternate startup transformer
XST1A and will expire on March 31, 2017. Date of issuance:
February 24, 2015.
Effective date:
As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within [licensee requested number] days
from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.:
Unit 1-164; Unit 2-164. A publicly-available version is
in ADAMS under Accession No.
ML15008A133; documents related to
these amendments are listed in the
Safety Evaluation enclosed with the
amendments.
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 28, 2014 (79 FR 64226). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015Jkt 235001PO 00000Frm 00098Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM17MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 13920 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 51/Tuesday, March 17, 2015/Notices Safety Evaluation dated February 24, 2015. No significant hazards consideration comments received:
No. Omaha Public Power District, Docket No. 50-285, Fort Calhoun Station, Unit
1, Washington County, Nebraska Date of amendment request:
April 30, 2014, as supplemented by letter dated
January 27, 2015.
Brief description of amendment:
The amendment revised Technical
Specification section 3.2, Table 3-5, for
Fort Calhoun Station, Unit No. 1, to add
a new surveillance requirement to verify
the correct position of the valves
required to restrict flow in the high
pressure safety injection system.
Date of issuance:
February 20, 2015.
Effective date:
As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 120 days from the date of
issuance.
Amendment No.:
280. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML15015A413;
documents related to this amendment
are listed in the Safety Evaluation
enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-40:
The amendment revised
the license and Technical
Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register:
August 19, 2014 (79 FR 49108). The supplemental letter dated
January 27, 2015, provided additional
information that clarified the
application, did not expand the scope of
the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original
proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination as
published in the Federal Register. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a
safety evaluation dated February 20, 2015. No significant hazards consideration comments received:
No. STP Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 50-498 and 50-499, South
Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, Matagorda
County, Texas Date of amendment request:
August 14, 2014, as supplemented by letter
dated December 18, 2014.
Brief description of amendments:
The amendments revised Administrative
Controls Technical Specification (TS)
6.9.1.6, Core Operating Limits Report (COLR), with respect to the analytical
methods used to determine the core
operating limits.
Date of issuance:
February 27, 2015.
Effective date:
As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 90 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.:
Unit 1-204; Unit 2-192. A publicly-available version is
in ADAMS under Accession No.
ML15049A129; documents related to
these amendments are listed in the
Safety Evaluation enclosed with the
amendments.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-76 and NPF-80:
The amendments
revised the Facility Operating Licenses
and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register:
December 2, 2014 (79 FR 71455). The supplemental letter dated
December 18, 2014, provided additional
information that clarified the
application, did not expand the scope of
the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original
proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination as
published in the Federal Register. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated February 27, 2015. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day of March 2015.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Michele G. Evans, Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2015-05994 Filed 3-16-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD Agency Forms Submitted for OMB Review, Request for Comments
SUMMARY
- In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Railroad
Retirement Board (RRB) is forwarding
an Information Collection Request (ICR)
to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Office of
Management and Budget (OMB). Our
ICR describes the information we seek
to collect from the public. Review and
approval by OIRA ensures that we
impose appropriate paperwork burdens.
The RRB invites comments on the proposed collection of information to
determine (1) the practical utility of the
collection; (2) the accuracy of the
estimated burden of the collection; (3)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information that is the
subject of collection; and (4) ways to
minimize the burden of collections on
respondents, including the use of
automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
Comments to the RRB or OIRA must contain the OMB control number of the
ICR. For proper consideration of your
comments, it is best if the RRB and
OIRA receive them within 30 days of
the publication date.
Title and Purpose of information collection:
Evidence for Application of Overall Minimum; OMB 3220-0083.
Under Section 3(f)(3) of the Railroad Retirement Act (RRA), the total monthly
benefits payable to a railroad employee
and his/her family are guaranteed to be
no less than the amount which would
be payable if the employee's railroad
service had been covered by the Social
Security Act. This is referred to as the
Social Security Overall Minimum
Guarantee, which is prescribed in 20
CFR 229. To administer this provision, the Railroad Retirement Board (RRB)
requires information about a retired
employee's spouse and child(ren) who
would not be eligible for benefits under
the RRA but would be eligible for
benefits under the Social Security Act if
the employee's railroad service had
been covered by that Act. The RRB
obtains the required information by the
use of Forms G-319, Statement
Regarding Family and Earnings for
Special Guaranty Computation, and G-
320, Student Questionnaire for Special
Guaranty Computation. One response is
required of each respondent.
Completion is required to obtain or
retain benefits.
Previous Requests for Comments:
The RRB has already published the initial
60-day notice (80 FR 1679 on January
13, 2015) required by 44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(2). That request elicited no
comments.
Information Collection Request (ICR)
Title: Statement Regarding Contributions and Support of Children.
Title: Evidence for Application of Overall Minimum.
OMB Control Number:
3220-0083.
Forms submitted:
G-319 and G-320.
Type of request:
Extension without change of a currently approved collection.
Affected public:
Individuals or Households.
Abstract:
Under Section 3(f)(3) of the Railroad Retirement Act, the total
monthly benefits payable to a railroad
employee and his/her family are
guaranteed to be no less than the
amount which would be payable if the
employee's railroad service had been
covered by the Social Security Act.
Changes proposed:
The RRB proposes non-burden impacting editorial changes
to Forms G-319 and G-320.
The burden estimate for the ICR is as follows: VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:09 Mar 16, 2015Jkt 235001PO 00000Frm 00099Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM17MRN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES