[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 82 (Tuesday, April 29, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24021-24027]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-09489]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2014-0095]


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 April 3, 2014 to April 16, 2014. The last 
biweekly notice was published on April 15, 2014.

DATES: Comments must be filed by May 29, 2014. A request for a hearing 
must be filed by June 30, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods 
(unless this document describes a different method for submitting 
comments on a specific subject):
     Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2014-0095. Address 
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-287-
3422; email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov.
     Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Office of Administration, 
Mail Stop: 3WFN-06-44M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, 
DC 20555-0001.
    For additional direction on accessing information and submitting 
comments, see ``Accessing Information and Submitting Comments'' in the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 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.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Accessing Information and Submitting Comments

A. Accessing Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2014-0095 when contacting the NRC 
about the availability of information regarding this document. You may 
access publicly-available information related to this document by any 
of the following methods:
     Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2014-0095.
     NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 
(ADAMS): You may access 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. 
Documents may be viewed in ADAMS by performing a search on the document 
date and docket number.
     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-2014-0095 in the subject line of your 
comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make 
your comment submission available to the public in this docket.
    The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact 
information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in you 
comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into 
ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit

[[Page 24022]]

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 Sec.  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 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.

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

[[Page 24023]]

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 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 
``Accessing Information and Submitting Comments'' section of this 
document.

[[Page 24024]]

South Carolina Electric and Gas Company, Docket Nos.: 52-027 and 52-
028, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS), Units 2 and 3, Fairfield 
County, South Carolina

    Date of amendment request: February 27, 2014. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14065A021.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed change would amend 
Combined License Nos. NPF-93 and NPF-94 for VCSNS, Units 2 and 3, 
respectively, by revising Tier 2* and associated Tier 2 information 
related to the construction of Module CA03. Some of these changes 
include the clarification of various materials in the design, 
increasing anchoring supports, and allowing the use of anchor bars with 
hooks.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The design functions of the nuclear island structures are to 
provide support, protection, and separation for the seismic Category 
I mechanical and electrical equipment located in the nuclear island. 
The nuclear island structures are structurally designed to meet 
seismic Category I requirements as defined in Regulatory Guide 1.29 
(ADAMS Accession No. ML070310052).
    The change to the design details for the in-containment 
refueling water storage tank (IRWST) west wall does not have an 
adverse impact on the response of the nuclear island structures to 
safe shutdown earthquake ground motions or loads due to anticipated 
transients or postulated accident conditions, nor does it change the 
seismic Category I classification. The change to the design details 
for the IRWST west wall does not impact the support, design, or 
operation of mechanical and fluid systems. There is no change to 
plant systems or the response of systems to postulated accident 
conditions. There is no change to the predicted radioactive releases 
due to postulated accident conditions. The plant response to 
previously evaluated accidents or external events is not adversely 
affected, nor does the change described create any new accident 
precursors.
    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 change is to revise design details for the IRWST 
west wall. The change of the design details for the IRWST west wall 
does not change the design requirements of the nuclear island 
structures, nor the seismic Category I classification. The change of 
the design details for the IRWST west wall does not change the 
design function, support, design, or operation of mechanical and 
fluid systems. The change of the design details for the IRWST west 
wall does not result in a new failure mechanism for the nuclear 
island structures or introduce any new accident precursors. As a 
result, the design function of the nuclear island structures is not 
adversely affected by the proposed 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.
    No safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is 
involved by the requested changes, thus, no margin of safety is 
reduced.
    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: Kathryn M. Sutton, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius 
LLC, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004-2514.
    NRC Branch Chief: Lawrence J. Burkhart.

South Carolina Electric and Gas Company, Docket Nos. 52-027 and 52-028, 
Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS), Units 2 and 3, Fairfield 
County, South Carolina

    Date of amendment request: April 3, 2014. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14093B258.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed change would amend 
Combined License Nos. NPF-93 and NPF-94 for the VCSNS, Units 2 and 3 by 
departing from the plant-specific Design Control Document (DCD) Tier 2* 
to identify design details of the floors of the auxiliary building that 
may vary due to design and loading conditions, in accordance with code 
requirements.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The design functions of the auxiliary building floors are to 
provide support, protection, and separation for the seismic Category 
I mechanical and electrical equipment located in the auxiliary 
building. The auxiliary building is a seismic Category I structure 
and is designed for dead, live, thermal, pressure, safe shutdown 
earthquake loads, and loads due to postulated pipe breaks. The 
proposed changes to [Updated Final Safety Analysis Report] UFSAR 
descriptions and figures are intended to address changes in the 
detail design of floors in the auxiliary building. The proposed 
changes also incorporate requirements for development and anchoring 
of headed reinforcement. The properties of the concrete and 
reinforcement included in the auxiliary building structure are not 
altered. As a result, the design function of the auxiliary building 
structure is not adversely affected by the proposed changes. There 
is no change to plant systems or the response of systems to 
postulated accident conditions. There is no change to the predicted 
radioactive releases due to postulated accident conditions. The 
plant response to previously evaluated accidents or external events 
is not adversely affected, nor do the changes described create any 
new accident precursors.
    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 changes to UFSAR descriptions and figures are 
proposed to address changes in the detail design of floors in the 
auxiliary building. The proposed changes also incorporate the 
requirements for development and anchoring of headed reinforcement 
which were previously approved. The thickness, geometry, and 
strength of the structures are not adversely altered. The concrete 
and reinforcement materials are not altered. The properties of the 
concrete are not altered. The changes to the design details of the 
auxiliary building structure do not create any new accident 
precursors. As a result, the design function of the auxiliary 
building structure is not adversely affected by the proposed 
changes.
    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 criteria and requirements of American Concrete institute 
(ACI) 349 and American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) N690 
provide a margin of safety to structural failure. The design of the 
auxiliary building structure conforms to applicable criteria and 
requirements in ACI 349 and AISC N690 and therefore maintains the 
margin of safety. The

[[Page 24025]]

proposed changes to the UFSAR address changes in the detail design 
of floors in the auxiliary building. The proposed changes also 
incorporate the requirements for development and anchoring of headed 
reinforcement which were previously approved. There is no change to 
design requirements of the auxiliary building structure. There is no 
change to the method of evaluation from that used in the design 
basis calculations. There is not a significant change to the in 
structure response spectra.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not result in 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: Kathryn M. Sutton, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius 
LLC, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004-2514.
    NRC Branch Chief: Lawrence Burkhart.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026, 
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), Units 3 and 4, Burke County, 
Georgia

    Date of amendment request: April 4, 2014. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14094A348.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed change would amend 
Combined License Nos. NPF-91 and NPF-92 for the VEGP, Units 3 and 4 by 
departing from the plant-specific Design Control Document (DCD) Tier 2* 
to identify design details of the floors of the auxiliary building that 
may vary due to design and loading conditions, in accordance with code 
requirements.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No
    The design functions of the auxiliary building floors are to 
provide support, protection, and separation for the seismic Category 
I mechanical and electrical equipment located in the auxiliary 
building. The auxiliary building is a seismic Category I structure 
and is designed for dead, live, thermal, pressure, safe shutdown 
earthquake loads, and loads due to postulated pipe breaks. The 
proposed changes to [Updated Final Safety Analysis Report] UFSAR 
descriptions and figures are intended to address changes in the 
detail design of floors in the auxiliary building. The proposed 
changes also incorporate requirements for development and anchoring 
of headed reinforcement. The properties of the concrete and 
reinforcement included in the auxiliary building structure are not 
altered. As a result, the design function of the auxiliary building 
structure is not adversely affected by the proposed changes. There 
is no change to plant systems or the response of systems to 
postulated accident conditions. There is no change to the predicted 
radioactive releases due to postulated accident conditions. The 
plant response to previously evaluated accidents or external events 
is not adversely affected, nor do the changes described create any 
new accident precursors.
    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 changes to UFSAR descriptions and figures are 
proposed to address changes in the detail design of floors in the 
auxiliary building. The proposed changes also incorporate the 
requirements for development and anchoring of headed reinforcement 
which were previously approved. The thickness, geometry, and 
strength of the structures are not adversely altered. The concrete 
and reinforcement materials are not altered. The properties of the 
concrete are not altered. The changes to the design details of the 
auxiliary building structure do not create any new accident 
precursors. As a result, the design function of the auxiliary 
building structure is not adversely affected by the proposed 
changes.
    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 criteria and requirements of American Concrete institute 
(ACI) 349 and American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) N690 
provide a margin of safety to structural failure. The design of the 
auxiliary building structure conforms to applicable criteria and 
requirements in ACI 349 and AISC N690 and therefore maintains the 
margin of safety. The proposed changes to the UFSAR address changes 
in the detail design of floors in the auxiliary building. The 
proposed changes also incorporate the requirements for development 
and anchoring of headed reinforcement which were previously 
approved. There is no change to design requirements of the auxiliary 
building structure. There is no change to the method of evaluation 
from that used in the design basis calculations. There is not a 
significant change to the in structure response spectra.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not result in 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: M. Stanford Blanton, Blach & Bingham LLP, 
1710 Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 35203-2015.
    NRC Branch Chief: Lawrence J. Burkhart.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-
026, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), Units 3 and 4, Burke 
County, Georgia

    Date of amendment request: March 17, 2014. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14076A173.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed change would amend 
Combined License Nos. NPF-91 and NPF-92 for the VEGP, Units 3 and 4. 
The requested amendment proposes changes to revise the VEGP Updated 
Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) by clarifying how human diversity 
was applied during the design process for the Component Interface 
Module (CIM) and Diverse Actuation System (DAS). This license amendment 
request (LAR) proposes the addition of Appendix 7A to VEGP, Units 3 and 
4 UFSAR Chapter 7 to modify information related to human diversity, as 
presented in a Tier 2* document, WCAP-17179-NP, ``AP1000 Component 
Interface Module Technical Report,'' Revision 2 (ADAMS Accession No. 
ML102170259), and two Tier 2 documents, WCAP-15775, ``AP1000 
Instrumentation and Control Defense-in-Depth and Diversity Report,'' 
Revision 4 (ADAMS Accession No. ML101530048) and WCAP-17184-NP, 
``AP1000 Diverse Actuation System Planning and Functional Design 
Summary Technical Report,'' Revision 2 (ADAMS Accession No. 
ML102170263) that are incorporated by reference in the VEGP, Units 3 
and 4 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 requested amendment proposes changes to licensing basis 
documents to clarify the position on the human diversity

[[Page 24026]]

aspects of design diversity as related to the Component Interface 
Module (CIM) and Diverse Actuation System (DAS) design processes. A 
review confirmed that the clarified position on human diversity 
would not change the CIM or DAS design. The requested changes to 
information presented in the Tier 2* and Tier 2 supporting 
documentation clarify the level of human diversity applied. The 
change continues to comply with the regulatory guidance in NUREG/CR-
6303 [``Method for Performing Diversity and Defense-in-Depth 
Analyses of Reactor Protection Systems,'' (ADAMS Accession No. 
ML071790509)] regarding credible defenses against a postulated 
Common Cause Failure (CCF) of the Plant Monitoring and Safety 
System. The proposed change does not affect the plant itself. The 
change does not affect prevention and mitigation of abnormal events, 
e.g., accidents, anticipated operational occurrences, earthquakes, 
floods and turbine missiles, or their safety or design analyses. No 
safety-related structure, system, or component (SSC) or function is 
adversely affected. The change does not involve nor interface with 
any SSC accident initiator or initiating sequence of events, and 
thus, the probabilities of the accidents evaluated in the Updated 
Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) are not affected. This activity 
will not allow for a new fission product release path, nor will it 
result in a new fission product barrier failure mode, nor create a 
new sequence of events that would result in significant fuel 
cladding failures. Because the proposed changes do not change any 
safety related SSC or function credited in the mitigation of an 
accident, the consequences of the accidents evaluated in the UFSAR 
are not affected.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve an increase 
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes clarify the position on human diversity and 
show that the CIM/DAS diversity meets the regulatory guidance in 
NUREG/CR-6303. The clarified descriptions do not affect the plant 
itself. Therefore, the proposed changes do not affect any safety-
related equipment itself, nor do they affect equipment whose failure 
could initiate an accident or a failure of a fission product 
barrier. No analysis is adversely affected by the proposed changes. 
No system or design function or equipment qualification would be 
adversely affected by the proposed changes. Furthermore, the 
proposed changes do not result in a new failure mode, malfunction or 
sequence of events that could affect safety or safety-related 
equipment.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes to information presented in referenced 
licensing basis documents clarify the position regarding human 
diversity and do not affect the plant itself. The proposed changes 
do not adversely affect the design, construction, or operation of 
any plant SSCs, including any equipment whose failure could initiate 
an accident or a failure of a fission product barrier. No analysis 
is adversely affected by the proposed changes. Furthermore, no 
system function, design function, or equipment qualification will be 
adversely affected by the changes.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not reduce the 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: M. Stanford Blanton, Balch & Bingham LLP, 
1710 Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 35203-2015.
    NRC Branch Chief: Lawrence J. Burkhart.

III. 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 
``Accessing Information and Submitting Comments'' section of this 
document.

Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., et al., Docket No. 50-423, 
Millstone Power Station, Unit 3, New London County, Connecticut

    Date of application for amendment: April 25, 2013, as supplemented 
by letters dated September 19, and December 11, 2013.
    Brief description of amendment: The Amendment revises the Technical 
Specifications Section 6.8.4.f, ``Containment Leakage Rate Testing 
Program'' to increase the value of the calculated peak containment 
internal pressure, Pa, from 41.4 pounds per square inch gage 
(psig) to 41.9 psig. This increase is needed to address an increase in 
the calculated mass and energy (M&E) release during the blowdown phase 
of the design basis Loss-of-Coolant Accident (LOCA).
    Date of issuance: April 8, 2014.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 259. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML14073A055; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-49: Amendment revised 
the License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 25, 2013 (78 FR 
38081). The supplements dated September 19 and December 11, 2013, 
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 April 8, 2014.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-333, James A. 
FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant, Oswego County, New York

    Date of amendment request: June 7, 2012.

[[Page 24027]]

    Brief description of amendment: The amendment adopts the NRC's-
approved Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Standard Technical 
Specifications Change Traveler TSTF-535, ``Revise Shutdown Margin 
Definition to Address Advanced Fuel Designs,'' ADAMS Accession No. 
ML112200436 dated August 8, 2011; to modify the TS definition of 
``Shutdown Margin'' (SDM).
    The change requires the calculation of the SDM at a reactor 
moderator temperature of 68[emsp14][deg]F or higher, to a temperature 
that represents the most reactive state of the core throughout the 
reactor operating cycle. This change is needed to address new Boiling 
Water Reactor fuel designs which may be more reactive at shutdown 
temperatures above 68[emsp14][deg]F.
    Date of issuance: April 14, 2014.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be 
implemented within 60 days.
    Amendment No.: 305. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML14085A446; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-59: The amendment 
revised the License and the Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 26, 2013 (78 
FR 70592).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated April 14, 2014.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 50-390, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, 
Unit 1, Rhea County, Tennessee

    Date of application for amendment: April 12, 2013.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment revised Technical 
Specification (TS) 5.9.2. ``Annual Radiological Environmental Operating 
Report,'' to delete the reference to collocated dosimeters in relation 
to the NRC thermoluminescent dosimeters program. This change is 
consistent with the NRC's-approved Technical Specification Task Force 
(TSTF) change TSTF-348. In addition, it would correct a cross-reference 
error in TS 5.9.8, ``PAMS Post Accident Monitoring System Report.''
    Date of issuance: April 7, 2014.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
no later than 30 days from date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 96. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML14071A339; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-90: Amendment revised the 
License and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 20, 2013 (78 FR 
51230).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated April 7, 2014.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: None.

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 50-390, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, 
Unit 1, Rhea County, Tennessee

    Date of application for amendment: July 30, 2013.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical 
Specification (TS) 4.3.1.1, ``Criticality,'' to clarify the 
requirements for storage of new and spent fuel assemblies in the spent 
fuel racks. This change updated the current Unit 1 TS to ensure 
consistency with the proposed TS 4.3.1.1 for Unit 2. In addition, 
editorial changes are being made to TS 4.3.1.
    Date of issuance: April 7, 2014.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
no later than 60 days from date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 95. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML14071A290; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-90: Amendment revised the 
License and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 10, 2013 (78 
FR 74185).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated April 7, 2014.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: None.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 18th day of April 2014.
    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
A. Louise Lund,
Deputy Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of 
Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2014-09489 Filed 4-28-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P