[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 101 (Tuesday, May 27, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30184-30191]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-12018]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2014-0122]


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

[[Page 30185]]

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 31, 2014 to May 14, 2014. The last 
biweekly notice was published on May 13, 2014.

DATES: Comments must be filed by June 26, 2014. A request for a hearing 
must be filed by July 28, 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-2014-0122. Address 
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-287-
3422; email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For technical questions, contact 
the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of 
this document.
     Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Office of Administration, 
Mail Stop: 3WFN-06-A44M, 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: Shirley Rohrer, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-5411, email: Shirley.Rohrer@nrc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Accessing Information and Submitting Comments

A. Accessing Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2014-0122 when contacting the NRC 
about the availability of information regarding this document. You may 
access 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-2014-0122.
     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-2014-0122 in the subject line of your 
comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make 
your comment submission available to the public in this docket.
    The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact 
information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your 
comment submission. The NRC 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 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.

I. 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

[[Page 30186]]

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 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

[[Page 30187]]

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.
Florida Power and Light Company, et al. (FPL), 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. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14077A265.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise 
technical specification (TS) requirements for mode change limitations 
in Limited Condition for Operation (LCO) 3.0.4 and Surveillance 
Requirements 4.0.4. The proposed changes would be consistent with the 
NRC approved Industry Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) 
Standard TS change TSTF-359, ``Increase Flexibility in Mode 
Restraints,'' Revision 9.
    The NRC issued a notice of opportunity for comment in the Federal 
Register (FR) on August 2, 2002 (67 FR 50475), on possible amendments 
concerning TSTF-359, including a model safety evaluation and model no 
significant hazards consideration (NSHC) determination, using the 
consolidated line item improvement process (CLIIP). Subsequently, on 
April 4, 2003, the NRC published the Notice of Availability for TSTF-
359, Revision 8 in the Federal Register (68 FR 16579). That Notice 
announced the availability of this TS improvement through the CLIIP. 
The NRC subsequently made two modifications in response to comments, as 
well as one editorial change, which have been incorporated into TSTF-
359, Revision 9. The changes proposed in the licensee's submittal are, 
therefore, based on TSTF-359, Revision 9. FPL affirmed the 
applicability of the following NSHC determination in its application 
dated February 26, 2014.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an analysis of the issue 
of no significant hazards consideration, as was published in the 
Federal Register is presented below:

    Criterion 1--The proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    The proposed change allows entry into a mode or other specified 
condition in the applicability of a TS, while in a TS condition 
statement and the associated required actions of the TS. Being in a 
TS condition and the associated required actions is not an initiator 
of any accident previously evaluated. Therefore, the probability of 
an accident previously evaluated is not significantly increased. The 
consequences of an accident while relying on required actions as 
allowed by proposed LCO 3.0.4, are no different than the 
consequences of an accident while entering and relying on the 
required actions while starting in a condition of applicability of 
the TS. Therefore, the consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated are not significantly affected by this change. The 
addition of a requirement to assess and manage the risk introduced 
by this change will further minimize possible concerns.
    Therefore, this change does not involve a significant increase 
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated.
    Criterion 2--The proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of 
the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed). 
Entering into a mode or other specified condition in the 
applicability of a TS, while in a TS condition statement and the 
associated required actions of the TS, will not introduce new 
failure modes or effects and will not, in the absence of other 
unrelated failures, lead to an accident whose consequences exceed 
the consequences of accidents previously evaluated. The addition of 
a requirement to assess and manage the risk introduced by this 
change will further minimize possible concerns.
    Thus, this change does not create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from an accident previously evaluated.
    Criterion 3--The proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in the margin of safety.
    The proposed change allows entry into a mode or other specified 
condition in the applicability of a TS, while in a TS condition

[[Page 30188]]

statement and the associated required actions of the TS. The TS 
allow operation of the plant without the full complement of 
equipment through the conditions for not meeting the TS Limiting 
Conditions for Operation (LCO). The risk associated with this 
allowance is managed by the imposition of required actions that must 
be performed within the prescribed completion times. The net effect 
of being in a TS condition on the margin of safety is not considered 
significant. The proposed change does not alter the required actions 
or completion times of the TS. The proposed change allows TS 
conditions to be entered, and the associated required actions and 
completion times to be used in new circumstances. This use is 
predicated upon the licensee's performance of a risk assessment and 
the management of plant risk. The change also eliminates current 
allowances for utilizing required actions and completion times in 
similar circumstances, without assessing and managing risk. The net 
change to the margin of safety is insignificant.
    Therefore, this change does not involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety.
    Based upon the reasoning presented above and the previous 
discussion of the amendment request, the requested change does not 
involve a significant hazards consideration.

    The NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request 
involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: William S. Blair, Managing Attorney--
Nuclear, Florida Power & Light, 700 Universe Blvd., MS LAW/JB, Juno 
Beach, FL 33408-0420.
    Acting NRC Branch Chief: Lisa M. Regner.
Indiana Michigan Power Company (I&M), Docket Nos. 50-315 and 50-316, 
Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Berrien County, Michigan
    Date of amendment request: March 7, 2014. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14071A435.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
revise the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Technical 
Specification 5.5.14, ``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'' (ADAMS Accession No. ML12221A202), as the implementing 
document for the performance-based Option B of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix 
J.
    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 revision to TS 5.5.14 changes the testing period to 
a permanent 15-year interval for Type A testing (10 CFR Part 50, 
Appendix J, Option B, ILRT). The current 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 since research 
documented in NUREG-1493, ``Performance-Based Containment System 
Leakage Testing Requirements,'' 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 (November 2006) shows leakage to be 
below acceptance criteria, indicating a very leak tight containment. 
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['']) are performed in order to identify 
indications of containment degradation that could affect that leak 
tightness. Types B and C testing required by [technical 
specifications (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 [Donald C. Cook 
Nuclear Plant (CNP)] Units 1 and 2 10 CFR Part 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 [U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission (NRC)]-accepted guidelines of [Nuclear Energy Institute 
(NEI)] 94-01, Revision 3-A, for development of the CNP 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 [integrated 
leak rate testing (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 acceptably small, and the 
increase in the [large early release frequency (LERF)] resulting 
from the proposed change was determined to be within the guidelines 
published in NRC [Regulatory Guide (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. [Indiana Michigan 
Power Company (I&M)] has determined that the increase in 
[conditional containment failure probability (CCFP)] 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.
    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 revision to TS 5.5.14 changes the testing period to 
a permanent 15-year interval for Type A testing (10 CFR Part 50, 
Appendix J, Option B, ILRT[)]. The current test interval of 10 
years, based on past performance, would be extended to 15 years from 
the last Type A test (November 2006). The proposed extension to Type 
A testing does not create the possibility of a new or different type 
of accident since 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 amendment 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 revision to TS 5.5.14 changes the testing period to 
a permanent 15-year interval for Type A testing (10 CFR Part 50, 
Appendix J, Option B, ILRT[)]. The current test interval of 10 
years, based on past performance, would be extended to 15 years from 
the last Type A test (November 2006). The proposed extension to Type 
A testing will not significantly reduce the margin of safety. NUREG-
1493, ``Performance-Based Containment System Leakage Testing 
Requirements,'' 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

[[Page 30189]]

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 CNP performance-based 
leakage testing program, and establishes a 15-year interval for the 
performance of the primary containment ILRT. 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 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. In addition, CNP has a containment monitoring capability 
for the detection of gross containment leakage that may develop 
during power operation. This combination of factors ensures that 
evidence of containment structural degradation is identified in a 
timely manner. Furthermore, a risk assessment using the current CNP 
PRA model concluded that extending the ILRT test interval from 10 
years to 15 years results in a very small change to the CNP risk 
profile.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
reduction in 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: Robert B. Haemer, Senior Nuclear Counsel, 
One Cook Place, Bridgman, MI 49106.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert D. Carlson.
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 18, 2014. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14108A196.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed license amendment 
request would revise the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) 
in regard to Tier 2* information related to fire area boundaries. These 
changes add three new fire zones in the middle annulus to provide 
enclosures for the Class 1E electrical containment penetrations in 
accordance with UFSAR Appendix 9A, Subsection 9A.3.1.1.15. The addition 
of the three new fire zones extended the fire area boundaries for three 
existing fire areas and therefore constitutes a change to Tier 2* 
information. Additionally, the licensee proposed changes that require 
revisions to UFSAR Tier 2 information involving changes to plant-
specific 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?
    Response: No.
    The proposed middle annulus fire barrier reconfiguration for the 
electrical penetrations would not adversely affect any safety-
related equipment or function. The modified configuration for the 
Class 1E electrical containment penetration enclosures will maintain 
the fire protection function (i.e., barrier) as evaluated in Updated 
Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR), thus, the probability of a 
Class 1E electrical containment penetration failure is not 
significantly increased. The safe shutdown fire analysis is not 
affected, and the fire protection analysis results are not adversely 
affected. The proposed changes do not involve any accident, 
initiating event or component failure; thus, the probabilities of 
previously evaluated accidents are not affected. The maximum 
allowable leakage rate specified in the Technical Specifications is 
unchanged, and radiological material release source terms are not 
affected; thus, the radiological releases in the 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.
    The addition of enclosures constructed of three-hour rated fire 
barriers to separate the fire zones in the middle annulus for the 
Class 1E electrical penetration assemblies will maintain the fire 
protection function as evaluated in the UFSAR. The addition of the 
fire barriers does not affect the function of the Class 1E 
electrical containment penetrations or electrical penetration 
assemblies, and thus, does not introduce a new failure mode. The 
addition of the fire barriers does not create a new fault or 
sequence of events that could result in a radioactive material 
release.
    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 use of enclosures constructed of three-hour rated fire 
barriers to separate the fire zones in the middle annulus for the 
Class 1E electrical penetration assemblies will maintain the fire 
protection function as evaluated in the UFSAR. The use of the fire 
barriers does not affect the ability of the Class 1E electrical 
containment penetrations, electrical penetration assemblies, or the 
containment to perform their design function. The Class 1E 
electrical containment penetrations and electrical penetration 
assemblies within the enclosures continue to comply with the 
existing design codes and regulatory criteria, and do not affect any 
safety limit. The use of fire barriers and enclosures to separate 
the Class 1E electrical penetration assemblies does not adversely 
affect any margin of safety.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
reduction in 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, Blach & 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,

[[Page 30190]]

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.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270 and 50-287, 
Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 and 3, Oconee County, South Carolina
    Date of application for amendments: October 30, 2012, as 
supplemented on January 21, June 11, September 3, October 21, and 
December 2, 2013.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments create new 
Technical Specification (TS) 3.7.19, ``Spent Fuel Pool Cooling (SFPC) 
Purification System Isolation from Borated Water Storage Tank (BWST),'' 
and 3.9.8, ``Reverse Osmosis (RO) System Operating Restrictions for 
Spent Fuel Pool (SFP),'' for the operation of an RO system to remove 
silica from the BWSTs and SFPs.
    Date of Issuance: April 30, 2014.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 385, 387, and 386. A publicly-available version is 
in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14106A418; documents related to these 
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 
amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-38, DPR-47, and DPR-55: 
Amendments revised the license and the TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 26, 2013, 78 
FR 70591.
    The supplemental letters dated January 21, June 11, September 3, 
October 21, and December 2, 2013, provided additional information that 
clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application 
as noticed, and did not change the staff's 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 April 30, 2014.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-
277 and 50-278, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3, York 
and Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania
    Date of application for amendments: June 10, 2013, as supplemented 
by letter dated November 6, 2013.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments modify the 
Technical Specifications (TSs) and Facility Operating Licenses (FOLs) 
to: (1) Increase the allowable as-found safety relief valve (SRV) and 
safety valve (SV) lift setpoint tolerance from 1% to 3%; (2) increase the required number of operable SRVs and SVs 
from 11 to 12; and (3) increase the Standby Liquid Control System pump 
discharge pressure from 1255 pounds per square inch gauge (psig) to 
1275 psig.
    Date of issuance: May 5, 2014.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance, to be implemented 
within 60 days.
    Amendments Nos.: 290 and 293. A publicly-available version is in 
ADAMS under Accession No. ML14079A102; documents related to these 
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 
amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-44 and DPR-56: The 
amendments revised the FOLs and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 26, 2013 (78 
FR 78406). The letter dated November 6, 2013, provided clarifying 
information that did not change the initial proposed no significant 
hazards consideration determination or expand the application beyond 
the scope of the original Federal Register notice.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated May 5, 2014.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
NextEra Energy Point Beach, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-266 and 50-301, Point 
Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Town of Two Creeks, Manitowac 
County, Wisconsin
    Date of amendment request: June 4, 2013.
    Description of amendment: The license amendment revised Technical 
Specifications 5.3.1 and 6.9.1.7 to allow the use of Optimized 
ZIRLO\TM\ as an approved fuel rod cladding material at the Point Beach 
Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2; added two approved analytical methods; 
and made minor corrections to the titles of two approved topical 
reports.
    Date of issuance: May 9, 2014.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
with 120 days.
    Amendment Nos.: 249 and 253. A publicly-available version is in 
ADAMS under Accession No. ML14058B029; documents related to these 
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 
amendments.
    Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-24 and DPR-27: The amendment 
revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and the Technical 
Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 29, 2013 (78 FR 
64545).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated May 9, 2014.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Northern States Power Company--Minnesota, Docket No. 50-263, Monticello 
Nuclear Generating Plant, Wright County, Minnesota
    Date of application for amendment: January 4, 2013.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises the Technical 
Specification (TS) Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.6.4.3.1 and SR 
3.7.4.1 which currently require operating the standby gas treatment 
(SGT) and control room emergency filtration (CREF) systems for at least 
10 continuous hours with the heaters operating every 31 days. The SRs 
are changed to require at least 15 continuous minutes of ventilation 
system operation without heaters operating every 31 days, and include 
TS Bases changes summarizing and clarifying the purpose of the TSs in 
accordance with TS Task Force (TSTF) Standard Technical Specifications 
Change Traveler TSTF-522, Revision 0, ``Revise Ventilation System 
Surveillance Requirements to Operate for 10 hours

[[Page 30191]]

per Month'' (ADAMS Accession No. ML100890316). The amendment also 
removes the electric heater output testing requirement from TS 5.5.6, 
``Ventilation Filter Testing Program (VFTP).''
    Date of issuance: May 2, 2014.
    Effective date: This amendment is effective as of its date of 
issuance and shall be implemented within 120 days from the date of 
issuance.
    Amendment No.: 181. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML14058A825; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Facility Operating License No. DPR-22: This amendment revises the 
Renewed Facility Operating License and the Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 4, 2013 (78 FR 
14134). The supplemental letter dated December 27, 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 May 2, 2014.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
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 25, 2013, as supplemented by the 
letter dated November 21, 2013.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises Tier 2* and 
associated Tier 2 information, incorporated into the VEGP Units 3 and 4 
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). Specifically, the 
amendment revises the following information related to fire area 
boundaries: (1) Various Annex Building and Turbine Building layout 
changes, (2) Turbine Building Stairwell S08 changes to support egress 
functions, and (3) an Annex Building Heating, Ventilation and Air 
Conditioning shaft UFSAR figure clarification.
    Date of issuance: May 1, 2014.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 19. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML14050A445; documents related to these amendments are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
    Facility Combined Licenses No. NPF-91 and NPF-92: Amendment revised 
the Facility Combined Licenses.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 9, 2013, 2013 (78 
FR 41118).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated May 1, 2014.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19th day of May 2014.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Michele G. Evans,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2014-12018 Filed 5-23-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P