[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 121 (Tuesday, June 24, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35801-35816]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-14606]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2014-0146]


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 May 29, 2014 to June 11, 2014. The last 
biweekly notice was published on June 6, 2014.

DATES: Comments must be filed by July 24, 2014. A request for a hearing 
must be filed by August 25, 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-2014-0146. 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 obtaining information and submitting 
comments, see ``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' in the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kay K. Goldstein, NRR/DORL/LPLI-1, 
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; 
telephone: 301-415-1506 email: Kay.Goldstein@nrc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments

A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2014-0146 when contacting the NRC 
about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain 
publicly-available information related to this action by any of the 
following methods:
     Federal rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2014-0146.
     NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the 
ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select ``ADAMS Public Documents'' and 
then select ``Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.'' For problems with ADAMS, 
please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 
1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The 
ADAMS accession number for each document referenced (if it is available 
in ADAMS) is provided the first time that it is mentioned in the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.
     NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public 
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

B. Submitting Comments

    Please include Docket ID NRC-2014-0146 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 in comment submissions 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, and 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

[[Page 35802]]

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 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 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

[[Page 35803]]

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 obtaining information related to this document, see the 
``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' section of this 
document.

Duke Energy Progress Inc., Docket No. 50-261, H. B. Robinson Steam 
Electric Plant, Unit No. 2, Darlington County, South Carolina

    Date of amendment request: September 10, 2013, as supplemented by 
letter dated April 8, 2014. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS 
under Accession Nos. ML13262A008 and ML14106A370, respectively.

[[Page 35804]]

    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise 
Surveillance Requirement 3.4.12.6, of Technical Specification (TS) 
3.4.12, Low Temperature Overpressure Protection (LTOP) System, with a 
Note that does not require that the surveillance be performed until 12 
hours after decreasing the Reactor Coolant System (RCS) cold leg 
temperature to less than or equal to (<=) 350 degrees Fahrenheit 
([deg]F), which is the temperature when LTOP operability controlled by 
TS 3.4.12 is credited. In addition, the FREQUENCY requirement is 
modified to 31 days after the initial testing has been proven to be 
acceptable. The changes are in accordance with NUREG-1431, Revision 3, 
``Standard Technical Specifications--Westinghouse Plants,'' dated June 
2004.
    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.
    This license amendment request proposes allowing up to a 12 hour 
delay in performing the COT [channel operational test] testing used 
to verify the LTOP lift setpoint following the RCS reaching the 
maximum temperature at which the LTOP is required to be operable. 
The pressurizer power operated relief valves (PORVs) are utilized to 
protect against exceeding safe pressure limits under low temperature 
conditions. The system is in service whenever the plant is in Modes 
4, 5 and 6 with the reactor head on and the RCS cold leg temperature 
is at <= 350 [deg]F. The proposed change does not affect the 
function of the LTOP or when that function is applicable for 
protection of the plant. The change only adjusts the required 
frequency of the initial surveillance testing after the LTOP has 
been put into service per plant procedures. The affected 
surveillance testing is not assumed to be an accident initiator and 
has no adverse effect on the operation of the LTOP system.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    This proposed change does not alter the design, function, or 
operation of any plant component and does not install any new or 
different equipment. The malfunction of safety related equipment, 
assumed to be operable in the accident analyses, would not be caused 
as a result of the proposed technical specification change. No new 
failure mode has been created and no new equipment performance 
burdens are imposed.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The pressurizer power operated relief valves (PORV) are utilized 
to protect against exceeding safe pressure limits under low 
temperature conditions. The system is in service whenever the plant 
is in Modes 4, 5 and 6 with the reactor head on and the RCS cold leg 
temperature at <= 350 [deg]F. The proposed change does not affect 
the function of the LTOP or when that function is applicable for 
protection of the plant. The change only adjusts the required 
frequency of the initial surveillance testing after the LTOP has 
been put into service per plant procedures. In addition, these 
proposed changes may enhance plant safety and reliability because 
the delay in the required testing will allow the operators to focus 
on other critical transition activities during entry into Mode 4 
operation.
    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: Lara S. Nichols, Deputy General Counsel, 
Duke Energy Corporation, 550 South Tyron Street, Mail Code DEC45A, 
Charlotte, NC 28202.
    NRC Acting Branch Chief: Lisa M. Regner.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. STN 50-456 and STN 50-457, 
Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, Will County, Illinois, Docket Nos. 
STN 50-454 and STN 50-455, Byron Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Ogle 
County, Illinois

    Date of amendment request: March 18, 2014. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14077A582.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
revise Technical Specifications (TS) 3.4.15, ``RCS Leakage Detection 
Instrumentation,'' to define a new time limit for restoring inoperable 
Reactor Coolant System (RCS) leakage detection instrumentation to 
operable status and establish alternate methods of monitoring RCS 
leakage when one or more required monitors are inoperable. The changes 
are consistent with NRC-approved Revision 3 to Technical Specification 
Task Force (TSTF) Improved Standard Technical Specification (STS) 
Change Traveler TSTF-513, ``Revise PWR Operability Requirements and 
Actions for RCS Leakage Instrumentation.''
    The availability of this TS improvement was announced in the 
Federal Register on January 3, 2011 (76 FR 189), as part of the 
consolidated line item improvement process.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the Proposed Change Involve a Significant Increase in 
the Probability or Consequences of an Accident Previously Evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change clarifies the operability requirements for 
the RCS leakage detection instrumentation, and prescribes the time 
allowed for the plant to operate when the only TS-required operable 
RCS leakage detection instrumentation monitor is the containment 
atmosphere gaseous radioactivity monitor. The monitoring of RCS 
leakage is not a precursor to any accident previously evaluated. The 
monitoring of RCS leakage is not used to mitigate the consequences 
of any accident previously evaluated.
    Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed change does not 
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of 
an accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the Proposed Change Create the Possibility of a New or 
Different Kind of Accident from any Accident Previously Evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change clarifies the operability requirements for 
the RCS leakage detection instrumentation and prescribes the time 
allowed for the plant to operate when the only TS-required operable 
RCS leakage detection instrumentation monitor is the containment 
atmosphere gaseous radioactivity monitor. The proposed change does 
not involve a physical alteration of the plant (no new or different 
type of equipment will be installed) or a change in the methods 
governing normal plant operation. The proposed change maintains 
sufficient continuity and diversity of leak detection capability 
that the probability of piping evaluated and approved for Leak-
Before-Break progressing to pipe rupture remains extremely low.
    Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed change does not 
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from 
any previously evaluated.
    3. Does the Proposed Change Involve a Significant Reduction in a 
Margin of Safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change reintroduces the containment atmosphere 
gaseous radioactivity monitor as an option for

[[Page 35805]]

meeting the operability requirement for TS 3.4.15 LCO [Limiting 
Condition for Operation], clarifies the operability requirements for 
the RCS leakage detection instrumentation and prescribes the time 
allowed for the plant to operate when the only TS-required operable 
RCS leakage detection instrumentation monitor is the containment 
atmosphere gaseous radiation monitor.
    The proposed change reintroduces the containment atmosphere 
gaseous radioactivity monitor as an option for meeting the 
operability requirement for TS 3. 4.15 LCO, since industry 
experience has shown that the containment atmosphere gaseous 
radiation monitor is useful to detect an increase in RCS leak rate 
and provides a diverse means to confirm an RCS leak exists when 
other monitors detect an increase in RCS leak rate.
    The amount of time the plant is allowed to operate with only the 
containment atmosphere gaseous radioactivity monitor operable does 
not result in a reduction in the margin of safety since an increase 
in RCS leakage will be detected before it potentially results in a 
gross failure.
    Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed change does not 
involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
    Based upon the above analysis, EGC [Exelon Generation Company, 
LLC] concludes that the requested change does not involve a 
significant hazards consideration, as set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), 
``Issuance of Amendment.''

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
requested amendments involve no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Mr. Bradley J. Fewell, Associate General 
Counsel, Exelon Nuclear, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555.
    NRC Branch Chief: Travis L. Tate.

Northern States Power Company--Minnesota, Docket No. 50-263, Monticello 
Nuclear Generating Plant (MNGP), Wright County, Minnesota

    Date of amendment request: October 30, 2012, as supplemented by 
letters dated May 16, 2013, June 7, 2013, March 13, 2014, and May 30, 
2014. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS under Accession Nos. 
ML123070544, ML13136A145, ML13158A269, ML14072A390, and ML14150A271, 
respectively).
    Description of amendment request: The amendment proposes to revise 
the MNGP technical specification (TS) 4.3.1, ``Fuel Storage 
Criticality,'' and TS 4.3.3, ``Fuel Storage Capacity,'' to reflect fuel 
storage system changes; a revised criticality safety analysis that 
addresses legacy fuel types, in addition to the planned use of AREVA 
Atrium\TM\ 10XM fuel design; and adds a new TS 5.5.15, ``Spent Fuel 
Pool Boral Monitoring Program,'' for assuring that the spent fuel pool 
storage rack neutron absorber material (Boral) meets the minimum 
requirements assumed in the criticality safety analysis.
    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 the Commission issued in the Federal Register on 
June 11, 2013 (78 FR 35063). The Commission is issuing a revised no 
significant hazards consideration to consider the aspects of the new 
program TS 5.5.15.

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment does not change the fuel handling 
processes, fuel storage racks, decay heat generation rate, or the 
SFP [spent fuel pool] cooling and cleanup system. The proposed 
amendment was evaluated for impact on the following previously-
evaluated events and accidents: (1) Fuel handling accident (FHA), 
(2) fuel assembly misleading, (3) seismically-induced movement of 
spent fuel storage racks, and (4) loss of spent fuel pool cooling.
    Whereas fuel handling procedures will not be changed materially 
for the new fuel type or the revised criticality methods, the 
probability of a FHA is not increased because the implementation of 
the proposed amendment will employ the same equipment and procedures 
to handle fuel assemblies that are currently used. Therefore, the 
proposed amendment does not increase the probability or occurrence 
of a FHA. In that the proposed amendment does not increase the 
mechanistic damage to a fuel assembly or the radiological source 
term of any fuel assembly, the amendment would not increase the 
radiological consequences of a FHA. With regard to the potential 
criticality consequences of a dropped assembly coming to rest 
adjacent to a storage rack or on top of a storage rack, the results 
are bounded by the current analysis involving a potential missing 
neutron poison plate in the storage rack. The fuel configuration 
caused by a dropped assembly resting on top of loaded storage racks 
is inherently bounded by the assembly misloaded in the storage rack 
because the misloaded assembly is in closer proximity to other 
assemblies along its entire fuel length.
    Operation in accordance with the proposed amendment will not 
change the probability of a fuel assembly misloading because fuel 
movement will continue to be controlled by approved fuel selection 
and fuel handling procedures. The consequences of a fuel misloading 
event (fuel assembly loaded into an unapproved location) are not 
changed because the reactivity analysis demonstrates that the same 
subcriticality criteria and requirements continue to be met for the 
worst-case fuel misloading event.
    Operation in accordance with the proposed amendment will not 
change the probability of occurrence of a seismic event, which is 
considered an Act of God. Also, the consequences of a seismic event 
are not changed because the proposed amendment involves no 
significant change to the types of material stored in SFP storage 
racks or their mass. In this manner, the forcing functions for 
seismic excitation and the resulting forces are not changed. Also, 
particular to criticality, the supporting criticality analysis takes 
no credit for gaps between high-density rack modules so any 
seismically-induced movement between high-density racks that puts 
them in closer proximity would not result in an unanalyzed condition 
with consequences worse than those analyzed. Also, the small 
displacement of the high-density rack closest to the fixed location 
of the low-density rack will not put those racks in a closer 
proximity than that analyzed. In summary, the proposed amendment 
will not increase the probability or consequence of a seismic event.
    Operation in accordance with the proposed amendment will not 
change the probability of a loss of spent fuel pool cooling because 
the changes in fuel criticality limits and introduction of the 
ATRIUM 10XM fuel design have no bearing on the systems, structures, 
and components involved in initiating such an event. The proposed 
amendment does not change the heat load imposed by spent fuel 
assemblies nor does it change the flow paths in the spent fuel pool. 
Therefore, the accident consequences are not increased for the 
proposed amendment.
    The proposed amendment would establish a TS requirement to 
provide and maintain a monitoring program for SFP storage rack 
Boral. In that regard, the proposed TS does not change the fuel 
handling processes, fuel storage racks, the character of the nuclear 
fuel, or the SFP cooling and cleanup systems that might affect the 
probability or consequences of an accident associated with the SFP.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment involves no new SFP loading 
configurations for current and legacy fuel designs of the nuclear 
plant. The proposed amendment does not change or modify the fuel 
handling processes, fuel storage racks, decay heat generation rate, 
or the spent fuel pool cooling and cleanup system. Further, the new 
fuel type does not introduce any incompatible materials to the spent 
fuel pool environment.
    As such, the proposed changes introduce no new material 
interactions, man-machine interfaces, or processes that could create 
the potential for an accident of a new or different type.
    Operation with the proposed amendment will not create a new or 
different kind of

[[Page 35806]]

accident because fuel movement will continue to be controlled by 
approved fuel handling procedures. There are no changes in the 
criteria or design requirements pertaining to fuel storage safety, 
including subcriticality requirements, and analyses demonstrate that 
the proposed storage arrays meet these requirements and criteria 
with adequate margins. Thus, the proposed storage arrays cannot 
cause a new or different kind of accident.
    The proposed amendment would establish a TS requirement to 
provide and maintain a monitoring program for SFP storage rack 
Boral. As such, the proposed changes introduce no new material 
interactions, man-machine interfaces, or processes that could create 
the potential for an accident of a new or difference type.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
    3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment was evaluated for its effect on current 
margins of safety for criticality. Although the amendment involves 
changing the subcriticality acceptance limit for the low-density 
storage rack from a value of 0.90 to 0.95, the margin of safety for 
subcriticality is not significantly reduced in that the limit is 
consistent with that of the other storage racks and the regulation 
described by 10 CFR 50.68 (b)(4). The new criticality analysis 
confirms that operation in accordance with the proposed amendment 
continues to meet the required subcriticality margin.
    The proposed amendment would establish a TS requirement to 
provide and maintain a monitoring program for SFP storage rack 
Boral. The proposed TS expressly establishes an acceptance criterion 
that relates directly to the minimum neutron attenuation capability 
assumed in the criticality safety analysis. Thus, it is expressly 
created to maintain the safety margin established in the analysis. 
As such, the proposed changes introduce no change to plant system 
operation or nuclear fuel characteristics that would affect the 
margin of safety for plant systems.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do 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: Peter M. Glass, Assistant General Counsel, 
Xcel Energy Services, Inc., 414 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, MN 55401.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert D. Carlson.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Georgia Power Company, 
Oglethorpe Power Corporation, Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, 
City of Dalton, Georgia, Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366, Edwin I. Hatch 
Nuclear Plant (HNP), Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Appling County, Georgia

    Date of amendment request: March 24, 2014. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML14084A201.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would 
modify Technical Specification (TS) Reactor Core Safety Limits 2.1.1.1 
and 2.1.1.2 to reduce the reactor steam dome pressure from 785 to 685 
psig. The licensee states that this revision will resolve a concern 
reported pursuant to 10 CFR Part 21, ``Reporting of Defects and 
Noncompliance'' regarding the potential to violate Reactor Core Safety 
Limit 2.1.1.1 during a pressure regulator failure open (PRFO) 
transient.
    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 is presented below:

    SNC has evaluated the proposed amendment in accordance with 10 
CFR 50.91 against the standards in 10 CFR 50.92 and has determined 
that the operation of the HNP Units 1 and 2 in accordance with the 
proposed amendment presents no significant hazards. SNC's evaluation 
against each of the criteria in 10 CFR 50.92 follows.
    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change to the reactor steam dome pressure in 
Reactor Core Safety Limits 2.1.1.1 and 2.1.1.2 does not alter the 
use of the analytical methods used to determine the safety limits 
that have been previously reviewed and approved by the NRC. The 
proposed change is in accordance with an NRC approved critical power 
correlation methodology, and as such, maintains required safety 
margins. The proposed change does not adversely affect accident 
initiators or precursors, nor does it alter the design assumptions, 
conditions, or configuration of the facility or the manner in which 
the plant is operated and maintained.
    The proposed change does not alter or prevent the ability of 
structures, systems, and components (SSCs) from performing their 
intended function to mitigate the consequences of an initiating 
event within the assumed acceptance limits. The proposed change does 
not require any physical change to any plant SSCs nor does it 
require any change in systems or plant operations. The proposed 
change is consistent with the safety analysis assumptions and 
resultant consequences.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    There are no hardware changes nor are there any changes in the 
method by which any plant systems perform a safety function. No new 
accident scenarios, failure mechanisms, or limiting single failures 
are introduced as a result of the proposed change.
    The proposed change does not introduce any new accident 
precursors, nor does it involve any physical plant alterations or 
changes in the methods governing normal plant operation. Also, the 
change does not impose any new or different requirements or 
eliminate any existing requirements. The change does not alter 
assumptions made in the safety analysis.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    Margin of safety is related to confidence in the ability of the 
fission product barriers (fuel cladding, reactor coolant system, and 
primary containment) to perform their design functions during and 
following postulated accidents. Evaluation of the 10 CFR Part 21 
condition by General Electric determined that since the Minimum 
Critical Power Ratio improves during the PRFO transient, there is no 
decrease in the safety margin and therefore there is not a threat to 
fuel cladding integrity.
    The proposed change to Reactor Core Safety Limits 2.1.1.1 and 
2.1.1.2 is consistent with and within the capabilities of the 
applicable NRC approved critical power correlation for the fuel 
designs in use at HNP Units 1 and 2. No setpoints at which 
protective actions are initiated are altered by the proposed change. 
The proposed change does not alter the manner in which the safety 
limits are determined. This change is consistent with plant design 
and does not change the TS operability requirements; thus, 
previously evaluated accidents are not affected by this proposed 
change.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.
    Based on the above, SNC has determined that operation of the 
facility in accordance with the proposed change does not involve a 
significant hazards consideration as defined in 10 CFR 50.92(c), in 
that it does 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 NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three

[[Page 35807]]

standards of 10 CFR 50.59(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 
proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no 
significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Ernest L. Blake, Jr., Esquire, Shaw, 
Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge, 2300 N Street NW., Washington, DC 20037
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert Pascarelli.

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-327 and 50-328, Sequoyah 
Nuclear Plant (SQN), Units 1 and 2, Hamilton County, Tennessee

    Date of amendment request: November 22, 2013. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML13329A717.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the 
current Technical Specifications (CTS) to Standard Technical 
Specifications (STS) consistent with the Improved Standard Technical 
Specifications (ITS) described in NUREG-1431, ``Standard Technical 
Specifications--Westinghouse Plants,'' Revision 4. Licensees are 
encouraged to upgrade their plant-specific technical specifications to 
the ITS to achieve a high degree of standardization and consistency as 
described in NUREG-1431 Rev. 4 (ADAMS Accession No. ML12100A222). A 
number of changes and revisions have been made to those STS, which 
includes the adoption of some recent Technical Specification Task Force 
(TSTF) travelers. The LAR also includes changes that are beyond the 
scope of the ITS as described in NUREG-1431, Revision 4.
    Enclosure 1 of the LAR contains ``Contents of the Sequoyah Nuclear 
Plant, Units 1 and 2, ITS Submittal,'' which describes the organization 
and content of the submittal, including each of the volumes in 
Enclosure 2.
    Enclosure 2 of the LAR contains 16 volumes and the bases for the 
proposed ITS. These bases, however, are not part of the technical 
specifications and are not part of the staff's review, but are 
maintained consistent with the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report 
(UFSAR). Volumes 1-14 provide a detailed description of the proposed 
changes to the following ITS Chapters and Sections:

 
 
 
Volume 1..........................  Application of Selection Criteria.
Volume 2..........................  No Significant Hazard Consideration
                                     and Environmental Assessment.
Volume 3..........................  ITS Chapter 1.0, Use and
                                     Application.
Volume 4..........................  ITS Chapter 2.0, Safety Limits.
Volume 5..........................  ITS Section 3.0, Limiting Condition
                                     for Operation (LCO) Applicability
                                     and Surveillance Requirement (SR)
                                     Applicability.
Volume 6..........................  ITS Section 3.1, Reactivity Control
                                     Systems.
Volume 7..........................  ITS Section 3.2, Power Distribution
                                     Limits.
Volume 8..........................  ITS Section 3.3, Instrumentation.
Volume 9..........................  ITS Section 3.4, Reactor Coolant
                                     System (RCS).
Volume 10.........................  ITS Section 3.5, Emergency Core
                                     Cooling Systems (ECCS).
Volume 11.........................  ITS Section 3.6, Containment
                                     Systems.
Volume 12.........................  ITS Section 3.7, Plant Systems.
Volume 13.........................  ITS Section 3.8, Electrical Power
                                     Systems.
Volume 14.........................  ITS Section 3.9, Refueling
                                     Operations.
Volume 15.........................  ITS Chapter 4.0, Design Features.
Volume 16.........................  ITS Chapter 5.0, Administrative
                                     Controls.
 

    Enclosure 3 of the LAR provides a description of the 15 beyond 
scope changes and 7 TSTF travelers that are likely to need a formal 
Technical Branch review. Enclosure 4 provides evaluations that justify 
adoption of changes to the Reactor Trip and Engineered Safety Features 
Actuation Systems. Enclosure 5 provides evaluations that justify 
adoption of changes to the extension of containment isolation valve 
completion times. Enclosure 6 provides information on the disposition 
of other LARs as they related to the SQN ITS conversion. Enclosure 7 
lists the NRC-approved changes to NUREG-1431, Revision 4, as of March 
6, 2011, and summarizes TVA's disposition of these changes in the SQN 
ITS conversion. Enclosure 8 lists the regulatory commitments made in 
TVA's ITS conversion LAR. Enclosure 9 provides a summary of the UFSAR 
descriptions required as part of the adoption of TSTF-500, ``DC [direct 
current] Electrical Rewrite--Update to TSTF-360'' (ADAMS Accession No. 
ML111751792). Enclosure 10 provides documentation of TVA's 
Probabilistic Risk Assessment technical adequacy required as part of 
the adoption of TSTF-425, ``Relocate Surveillance Frequencies to 
Licensee Control--RITSTF Initiative 5b'' (ADAMS Package Accession No. 
ML090850642).
    This notice is based on the November 22, 2013, request, and the 
information provided to the NRC through the Sequoyah ITS Conversion Web 
page hosted by Excel Services Corporation at http://www.excelservices.com. To expedite the review of the application, the 
NRC staff has issued and will issue its requests for additional 
information (RAIs) using the ITS Conversion Web page. The licensee has 
addressed and will address the NRC staff's RAIs through the ITS 
Conversion Web page. Entry into the database is protected so that only 
NRC reviewers can enter information into the database to add RAIs and 
only the licensee can enter the database to provide responses to the 
RAIs; however, the public can enter the database to read the questions 
asked and the responses provided. To be in compliance with the 
regulations for written communications for LARs and to have the 
database on the SQN dockets before the amendments would be issued, the 
licensee will provide a copy of the database in a submittal to the NRC 
after the staff has no further RAIs and before the NRC staff's 
decisions on the amendments are made. The RAIs and responses to RAIs 
are organized by ITS Section.
    The licensee has classified each proposed change to the SQN CTS 
into one of the following five categories (with its letter designator 
within brackets):
     Administrative changes (A)--Changes to the CTS that do not 
result in new requirements or change operational restrictions or 
flexibility. These changes are supported in aggregate by a single 
generic no significant hazards consideration (NSHC).
     More restrictive changes (M)--Changes to the CTS that 
result in added restrictions or reduced flexibility. These changes are 
supported in aggregate by a single generic NSHC.
     Relocated specifications (R)--Changes to the CTS that 
relocate specifications that do not meet the selection criteria of 
Sec.  50.36(c)(2)(ii) of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 
(10 CFR). These changes are

[[Page 35808]]

supported in aggregate by a single generic NSHC.
     Removed detail changes (LA)--Changes to the CTS that 
eliminate detail and relocate the detail to a licensee-controlled 
document. Typically, this involves details of system design and 
function, or procedural detail on methods of conducting a Surveillance 
Requirement (SR). These changes are supported in aggregate by a single 
generic NSHC.
     Less restrictive changes (L)--Changes to the CTS that 
result in reduced restrictions or added flexibility. These changes are 
supported either in aggregate by a generic NSHC that addresses a 
particular category of less restrictive change, or by a specific NSHC 
if the change does not fall into one of the nine categories of less 
restrictive changes. The nine categories of less restrictive changes 
are designated as:

Category 1: Relaxation of LCO Requirements
Category 2: Relaxation of Applicability
Category 3: Relaxation of Completion Time
Category 4: Relaxation of Required Action
Category 5: Deletion of Surveillance Requirement
Category 6: Relaxation of Surveillance Requirement Acceptance Criteria
Category 7: Relaxation of Surveillance Frequency
Category 8: Deletion of Surveillance Requirement Shutdown Performance 
Requirements
Category 9: Allowed Outage Time, Surveillance Frequency, and Bypass 
Time Extensions Based on Generic Topical Reports

    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination (NSHC): As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of NSHC, by classification of 
change, which is presented below. The generic proposed NSHC, by 
classification of change, are listed first, followed by the specific 
proposed NSHC related to less restrictive changes.
    For those less restrictive changes that do not fall into one of the 
generic ``Less Restrictive Change'' categories, or those changes that 
are in the ``More Restrictive Change'' categories, specific NSHC 
evaluations have been provided:

 ITS Chapter 1.0, ``Use and Applications,'' Less Restrictive 
Change L01
 ITS Section 3.0, ``LCO and SR Applicability,'' Less 
Restrictive Change L01
 ITS Section 3.0, ``LCO and SR Applicability,'' Less 
Restrictive Change L02
 ITS Section 3.3.1, ``Reactor Trip System (RTS) 
Instrumentation,'' Less Restrictive Change L11 and L12
 ITS Section 3.3.1, ``Reactor Trip System (RTS) 
Instrumentation,'' More Restrictive Change M24
Generic Proposed NSHC

Administrative Changes

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change involves reformatting, renumbering, and 
rewording the CTS. The reformatting, renumbering, and rewording 
process involves no technical changes to the CTS. As such, this 
change is administrative in nature and does not affect initiators of 
analyzed events or assumed mitigation of accident or transient 
events.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of 
the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed) 
or changes in methods governing normal plant operation. The proposed 
change will not impose any new or eliminate any old requirements.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change will not reduce a margin of safety because 
it has no effect on any safety analyses assumptions. This change is 
administrative in nature.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

More Restrictive Changes

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change provides more stringent Technical 
Specification requirements for the facility. These more stringent 
requirements do not result in operations that significantly increase 
the probability of initiating an analyzed event, and do not alter 
assumptions relative to mitigation of an accident or transient 
event. The more restrictive requirements continue to ensure process 
variables, structures, systems, and components are maintained 
consistent with the safety analyses and licensing basis.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of 
the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed) 
or changes in methods governing normal plant operation. The proposed 
change does impose different Technical Specification requirements. 
However, these changes are consistent with the assumptions in the 
safety analyses and licensing basis.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The imposition of more restrictive requirements either has no 
effect on or increases the margin of plant safety. As provided in 
the discussion of change, each change in this category is, by 
definition, providing additional restrictions to enhance plant 
safety. The change maintains requirements within the safety analyses 
and licensing basis.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

Relocated Specifications

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change relocates requirements and Surveillances for 
structures, systems, components, or variables that do not meet the 
criteria of 10 CFR 50.36(c)(2)(ii) for inclusion in Technical 
Specifications as identified in the Application of Selection 
Criteria to the SQN Technical Specifications. The affected 
structures, systems, components or variables are not assumed to be 
initiators of analyzed events and are not assumed to mitigate 
accident or transient events. The requirements and Surveillances for 
these affected structures, systems, components, or variables will be 
relocated from the CTS to the TRM [Technical Requirements Manual], 
which is currently incorporated by reference into the UFSAR, thus it 
will be maintained pursuant to 10 CFR 50.59. The UFSAR is subject to 
the change control provisions of 10 CFR 50.59 and 10 CFR 50.71(e). 
In addition, the affected structures, systems, components, or 
variables are addressed in existing surveillance procedures which 
are also controlled by 10 CFR 50.59, and are subject to the change 
control provisions imposed by plant administrative procedures, which 
endorse applicable regulations and standards.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?

[[Page 35809]]

    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of 
the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed) 
or change in the methods governing normal plant operation. The 
proposed change will not impose or eliminate any requirements, and 
adequate control of existing requirements will be maintained.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change will not reduce a margin of safety because 
it has no significant effect on any safety analyses assumptions, as 
indicated by the fact that the requirements do not meet the 10 CFR 
50.36 criteria for retention. In addition, the relocated 
requirements are moved without change, and any future changes to 
these requirements will be evaluated per 10 CFR 50.59.
    NRC prior review and approval of changes to these relocated 
requirements, in accordance with 10 CFR 50.92, will no longer be 
required. This review and approval does not provide a specific 
margin of safety that can be evaluated. However, the proposed change 
is consistent with NUREG-1431, issued by the NRC, which allows 
revising the CTS to relocate these requirements and Surveillances to 
a licensee controlled document.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in the margin of safety.

Removed Detail Changes

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change relocates certain details from the CTS to 
other documents under regulatory control. The Technical 
Specification Bases and the TRM, which is currently incorporated by 
reference into the UFSAR, will be maintained in accordance with 10 
CFR 50.59. In addition to 10 CFR 50.59 provisions, the Technical 
Specification Bases are subject to the change control provisions in 
the Administrative Controls Chapter of the ITS. The UFSAR is subject 
to the change control provisions of 10 CFR 50.59 and 10 CFR 
50.71(e). Other documents are subject to controls imposed by the ITS 
or other regulations. Since any changes to these documents will be 
evaluated, no significant increase in the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated will be allowed.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of 
the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed) 
or changes in methods governing normal plant operation. The proposed 
change will not impose or eliminate any requirements, and adequate 
control of the information will be maintained.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change will not reduce a margin of safety because 
it has no effect on any safety analyses assumptions. In addition, 
the details to be moved from the CTS to other documents are not 
being changed. Since any future changes to these details will be 
evaluated under the applicable regulatory change control mechanism, 
no significant reduction in a margin of safety will be allowed. A 
significant reduction in the margin of safety is not associated with 
the elimination of the 10 CFR 50.90 requirement for NRC review and 
approval of future changes to the relocated details. Not including 
these details in the Technical Specifications is consistent with 
NUREG-1431, issued by the NRC, which allows revising the Technical 
Specifications to relocate these requirements and Surveillances to a 
licensee controlled document controlled by 10 CFR 50.59, 10 CFR 
50.71(e), or other Technical Specification controlled or regulation 
controlled documents.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in the margin of safety.

Less Restrictive Changes--Category 1--Relaxation of LCO Requirements

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change provides less restrictive LCO requirements 
for operation of the facility. These less restrictive LCO 
requirements do not result in operation that will significantly 
increase the probability of initiating an analyzed event and do not 
alter assumptions relative to mitigation of an accident or transient 
event in that the requirements continue to ensure process variables, 
structures, systems, and components are maintained consistent with 
the current safety analyses and licensing basis.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of 
the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed) 
or a change in the methods governing normal plant operation. The 
proposed change does impose different requirements. However, the 
change is consistent with the assumptions in the current safety 
analyses and licensing basis.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The imposition of less restrictive LCO requirements does not 
involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety. As provided 
in the discussion of change, this change has been evaluated to 
ensure that the current safety analyses and licensing basis 
requirements are maintained.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

Less Restrictive Changes--Category 2--Relaxation of Applicability

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change relaxes the conditions under which the LCO 
requirements for operation of the facility must be met. These less 
restrictive applicability requirements for the LCOs do not result in 
operation that will significantly increase the probability of 
initiating an analyzed event and do not alter assumptions relative 
to mitigation of an accident or transient event in that the 
requirements continue to ensure that process variables, structures, 
systems, and components are maintained in the MODES and other 
specified conditions assumed in the safety analyses and licensing 
basis.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of 
the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed) 
or a change in the methods governing normal plant operation. The 
proposed change does impose different requirements. However, the 
requirements are consistent with the assumptions in the safety 
analyses and licensing basis.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The relaxed applicability of LCO requirements does not involve a 
significant reduction in the margin of safety. As provided in the 
discussion of change, this change has been evaluated to ensure that 
the LCO requirements are applied in the MODES and specified 
conditions assumed in the safety analyses and licensing basis.

[[Page 35810]]

    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

Less Restrictive Changes--Category 3--Relaxation of Completion Time

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change relaxes the Completion Time for a Required 
Action. Required Actions and their associated Completion Times are 
not initiating conditions for any accident previously evaluated, and 
the accident analyses do not assume that required equipment is out 
of service prior to the analyzed event. Consequently, the relaxed 
Completion Time does not significantly increase the probability of 
any accident previously evaluated. The consequences of an analyzed 
accident during the relaxed Completion Time are the same as the 
consequences during the existing Completion Time. As a result, the 
consequences of any accident previously evaluated are not 
significantly increased.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of 
the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed) 
or a change in the method governing normal plant operation. The 
Required Actions and associated Completion Times in the ITS have 
been evaluated to ensure that no new accident initiators are 
introduced.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The relaxed Completion Time for a Required Action does not 
involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety. As provided 
in the discussion of change, the change has been evaluated to ensure 
that the allowed Completion Time is consistent with safe operation 
under the specified Condition, considering the OPERABILITY status of 
the redundant systems of required features, the capacity and 
capability of remaining features, a reasonable time for repairs or 
replacement of required features, and the low probability of a DBA 
[design basis accident] occurring during the repair period.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

Less Restrictive Changes--Category 4--Relaxation of Required Action

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change relaxes Required Actions. Required Actions 
and their associated Completion Times are not initiating conditions 
for any accident previously evaluated, and the accident analyses do 
not assume that required equipment is out of service prior to the 
analyzed event. Consequently, the relaxed Required Actions do not 
significantly increase the probability of any accident previously 
evaluated. The Required Actions in the ITS have been developed to 
provide appropriate remedial actions to be taken in response to the 
degraded condition considering the OPERABILITY status of the 
redundant systems of required features, and the capacity and 
capability of remaining features while minimizing the risk 
associated with continued operation. As a result, the consequences 
of any accident previously evaluated are not significantly 
increased.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of 
the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed) 
or a change in the methods governing normal plant operation. The 
Required Actions and associated Completion Times in the ITS have 
been evaluated to ensure that no new accident initiators are 
introduced.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The relaxed Required Actions do not involve a significant 
reduction in the margin of safety. As provided in the discussion of 
change, this change has been evaluated to minimize the risk of 
continued operation under the specified Condition, considering the 
OPERABILITY status of the redundant systems of required features, 
the capacity and capability of remaining features, a reasonable time 
for repairs or replacement of required features, and the low 
probability of a Design Basis Accident (DBA) occurring during the 
repair period.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

Less Restrictive Changes--Category 5--Deletion of Surveillance 
Requirement

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change deletes Surveillance Requirements. 
Surveillances are not initiators to any accident previously 
evaluated. Consequently, the probability of an accident previously 
evaluated is not significantly increased. The equipment being tested 
is still required to be OPERABLE and capable of performing the 
accident mitigation functions assumed in the accident analyses. As a 
result, the consequences of any accident previously evaluated are 
not significantly affected.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of 
the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed) 
or a change in the methods governing normal plant operation. The 
remaining Surveillance Requirements are consistent with industry 
practice, and are considered sufficient to prevent the removal of 
the subject Surveillances from creating a new or different type of 
accident.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The deleted Surveillance Requirements do not result in a 
significant reduction in the margin of safety. As provided in the 
discussion of change, the change has been evaluated to ensure that 
the deleted Surveillance Requirements are not necessary for 
verification that the equipment used to meet the LCO can perform its 
required functions. Thus, appropriate equipment continues to be 
tested in a manner and at a frequency necessary to give confidence 
that the equipment can perform its assumed safety function.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

Less Restrictive Changes--Category 6--Relaxation of Surveillance 
Requirement Acceptance Criteria

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change relaxes the acceptance criteria of 
Surveillance Requirements. Surveillances are not initiators to any 
accident previously evaluated. Consequently, the probability of an 
accident previously evaluated is not significantly increased. The 
equipment being tested is still required to be OPERABLE and capable 
of performing the accident mitigation functions assumed in the 
accident analyses. As a result, the consequences of any accident 
previously evaluated are not significantly affected.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of 
the plant (no new or

[[Page 35811]]

different type of equipment will be installed) or a change in the 
methods governing normal plant operation.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The relaxed acceptance criteria for Surveillance Requirements do 
not result in a significant reduction in the margin of safety. As 
provided in the discussion of change, the relaxed Surveillance 
Requirement acceptance criteria have been evaluated to ensure that 
they are sufficient to verify that the equipment used to meet the 
LCO can perform its required functions. Thus, appropriate equipment 
continues to be tested in a manner that gives confidence that the 
equipment can perform its assumed safety function.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

Less Restrictive Changes--Category 7--Relaxation of Surveillance 
Frequency

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change relaxes Surveillance Frequencies. The 
relaxed Surveillance Frequencies have been established based on 
achieving acceptable levels of equipment reliability. Consequently, 
equipment that could initiate an accident previously evaluated will 
continue to operate as expected, and the probability of the 
initiation of any accident previously evaluated will not be 
significantly increased. The equipment being tested is still 
required to be OPERABLE and capable of performing any accident 
mitigation functions assumed in the accident analyses. As a result, 
the consequences of any accident previously evaluated are not 
significantly affected.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of 
the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed) 
or a change in the methods governing normal plant operation.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The relaxed Surveillance Frequencies do not result in a 
significant reduction in the margin of safety. As provided in the 
discussion of change, the relaxation in the Surveillance Frequency 
has been evaluated to ensure that it provides an acceptable level of 
equipment reliability. Thus, appropriate equipment continues to be 
tested at a Frequency that gives confidence that the equipment can 
perform its assumed safety function when required.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

Less Restrictive Changes--Category 8--Deletion of Surveillance 
Requirement Shutdown Performance Requirements

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change involves the deletion of the requirement to 
perform Surveillance Requirements while in a shutdown condition. 
Surveillances are not initiators to any accident previously 
evaluated. Consequently, the probability of an accident previously 
evaluated is not significantly increased. The appropriate plant 
conditions for performance of the Surveillance will continue to be 
controlled in plant procedures to assure the potential consequences 
are not significantly increased. This control method has been 
previously determined to be acceptable as indicated in NRC Generic 
Letter No. 91-04. The proposed change does not affect the 
availability of equipment or systems required to mitigate the 
consequences of an accident because of the availability of redundant 
systems or equipment.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change involves the deletion of the requirement to 
perform Surveillance Requirements while in a shutdown condition, but 
does not change the method of performance. The appropriate plant 
conditions for performance of the Surveillance will continue to be 
controlled in plant procedures to assure the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident is not created. The control method has 
been previously determined to be acceptable as indicated in NRC 
Generic Letter No. 91-04.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change involves the deletion of the requirement to 
perform Surveillance Requirements while in a shutdown condition. 
However, the appropriate plant conditions for performance of the 
Surveillance will continue to be controlled in plant procedures. The 
control method has been previously determined to be acceptable as 
indicated in NRC Generic Letter No. 91-04.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

Less Restrictive Changes--Category 9--Allowed Outage Time, Surveillance 
Frequency, and Bypass Time Extensions Based on Generic Topical Reports

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes to completion times, bypass times, the 
Surveillance Test Intervals (STIs) and the RTB [reactor trip 
breaker] Completion Time (CT) reduce the potential for inadvertent 
reactor trips and spurious actuations, and therefore, do not 
increase the probability of an accident previously evaluated.
    The proposed changes will not result in a significant increase 
in the risk of plant operation as demonstrated in the NRC approved 
WCAPs [Westinghouse Commercial Atomic Power (Reports)]. The impact 
of plant safety as measured by core damage frequency (CDF) is less 
than 1.0E-06 per year and the impact of large early release 
frequency (LERF) is less than 1.0E-07 per year. These changes meet 
the acceptance criteria in Regulatory Guides 1.174 and 1.177. 
Therefore, there will not be a significant increase in the 
probability of an accident.
    The proposed changes did not include any hardware changes, and 
therefore, all structures, systems, and components will continue to 
perform their intended function to mitigate the consequences of an 
event within the assumed acceptance limits. The proposed changes do 
not affect source term, containment isolation, or the radiological 
release assumptions used in evaluating radiological consequences of 
previously analyzed accidents.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not 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 changes do not involve any hardware changes, any 
setpoint changes, any addition of safety related equipment, or any 
changes in the manner in which the systems provide plant protection.
    Additionally, all operator actions credited in accident analyses 
remain the same. There are no new or different accident initiators 
or new accidents scenarios created by the proposed changes.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The safety analyses acceptance criteria in the Updated Final 
Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) are not impacted by these changes. 
The proposed changes do not alter the manner in which safety limits, 
limiting safety system settings, or limiting conditions for 
operation are determined.
    All signals and operator actions credited in the UFSAR accident 
analyses will remain the same. Redundant RPS [reactor protection

[[Page 35812]]

system] and ESFAS [engineered safety feature actuation system] 
trains are maintained and diversity with regard to the signals that 
provide reactor trip and engineered safety features actuation is 
also maintained. The calculated impact on risk continues to meet the 
acceptance criteria contained in Regulatory Guides 1.174 and 1.177.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
reduction in the margin of safety.
Specific Proposed NSHC (Change Does Not Fall Into One of Eight 
Categories of Less Restrictive Changes)
    ITS Chapter 1.0, ``Use and Applications,'' Less Restrictive Change 
L01 (LAR, Enclosure 2, Volume 3; Revision 0, page 116 of 117):

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change adds an allowance that an actual as well as 
a simulated signal can be credited during the COT [Channel 
Operational Test]. This change allows taking credit for unplanned 
actuations if sufficient information is collected to satisfy the 
surveillance test requirements. This change is acceptable because 
the channel itself cannot discriminate between an ``actual'' or 
``simulated'' signal, and the proposed requirement does not change 
the technical content or validity of the test. This change will not 
affect the probability of an accident. The source of the signal sent 
to components during a Surveillance is not assumed to be an 
initiator of any analyzed event. The consequence of an accident is 
not affected by this change. The results of the testing, and, 
therefore, the likelihood of discovering an inoperable component, 
are unaffected. As a result, the assurance that equipment will be 
available to mitigate the consequences of an accident is unaffected.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change adds an allowance that an actual as well as 
a simulated signal can be credited during the COT. This change will 
not physically alter the plant (no new or different type of 
equipment will be installed). The change does not require any new or 
revised operator actions.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change adds an allowance that an actual as well as 
a simulated signal can be credited during the COT. The margin of 
safety is not affected by this change. This change allows taking 
credit for unplanned actuations if sufficient information is 
collected to satisfy the surveillance test requirements. This change 
is acceptable because the channel itself cannot discriminate between 
an ``actual'' or ``simulated'' signal. As a result, the proposed 
requirement does not change the technical content or validity of the 
test.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.
    ITS Section 3.0, ``LCO and SR Applicability,'' Less Restrictive 
Change L01 (LAR, Enclosure 2, Volume 5, Revision 0, page 86 of 90):
    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    Barriers are not an initiator to any accident previously 
evaluated. The probability of an accident previously evaluated is 
not significantly increased. Barriers support the operation of 
equipment assumed to mitigate the effects of accidents previously 
evaluated. The proposed relaxation may only be applied to a single 
train or subsystem of a multiple train or subsystem Technical 
Specification system at a given time for a given category of 
initiating event, or to multiple trains or subsystems of a multiple 
train or subsystem Technical Specification system provided the 
affected barriers protect against different categories of initiating 
events. Therefore, for any given category of initiating event, the 
ability to perform the assumed safety function is preserved. The 
consequences of an accident occurring during the time allowed when 
barriers are not capable of performing their related support 
function are no different from the consequences of the same accident 
while relying on the Actions of the supported Technical 
Specification systems.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    No new or different accidents result from using the proposed 
change. The changes do not involve a physical alteration of the 
plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be 
installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant 
operation. In addition, the changes do not impose any new or 
different requirements or eliminate any existing requirements. The 
changes do not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis. The 
proposed changes are consistent with the safety analysis assumptions 
and current plant operating practice.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change allows for a limited period of time in which 
barriers may be unable to perform their related support function 
without declaring the supported systems inoperable. A risk analysis 
has shown that this provision will not have a significant effect on 
plant risk. In addition, regulatory requirements in 10 CFR 
50.65(a)(4) require risk assessment and risk management, which will 
ensure that plant risk is not significantly increased.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.
    ITS Section 3.0, ``LCO and SR Applicability,'' Less Restrictive 
Change L02 (LAR, Enclosure 2, Volume 5, Revision 0, page 89 of 90):
    1. Does the change involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change allows the Completion Time for periodic 
actions to be extended by 25 percent. This change does not 
significantly affect the probability of an accident. The length of 
time between performance of Required Actions is not an initiator to 
any accident previously evaluated. The consequences of any accident 
previously evaluated are the same during the Completion Time or 
during any extension of the Completion Time. As a result, the 
consequences of any accident previously evaluated are not 
significantly increased.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the change create the possibility of a new or different 
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change allows the Completion Time for periodic 
actions to be extended by 25 percent. This change will not involve 
physically altering the plant (i.e., no new or different type of 
equipment will be installed). In addition, the change does not 
involve any new or revised operator actions.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does this change involve a significant reduction in a margin 
of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change allows the Completion Time for periodic 
actions to be extended by 25 percent. The 25 percent extension 
allowance is provided for scheduling convenience and is not expected 
to have significant effect on the average time between Required 
Actions. As a result, the Required Action will continue to provide 
appropriate compensatory measures for the subject Condition.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.
    ITS Section 3.3.1, ``Reactor Trip System (RTS) 
Instrumentation,'' Less Restrictive Change L11 and L12 (LAR, 
Enclosure 2, Volume 8, Revision 0, page 323 of 1148):
    1. Does the change involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?

[[Page 35813]]

    Response: No.
    The proposed change relaxes the Required Actions for the 
Engineered Safety Feature Actuation System (ESFAS) Instrumentation, 
Auxiliary Feedwater Main Steam Generator Water Level-Low-Low, when 
an RCS Loop [Delta]T [change in temperature] or a Containment 
Pressure (EAM [Environmental Allowance Modifier]) channel is 
inoperable. Placing the affected Auxiliary Feedwater Main Steam 
Generator Water Level-Low-Low channels in trip uses installed 
equipment designed specifically for placing the channels in trip. 
This change will not affect the probability of an accident, because 
the OPERABLE Auxiliary Feedwater Main Steam Generator Water Level-
Low-Low channels will continue to perform the safety function the 
instrumentation is required to perform. The Auxiliary Feedwater Main 
Steam Generator Water Level-Low-Low channels are not initiators of 
any accident sequence analyzed in the Updated Final Safety Analysis 
Report (UFSAR). Rather, Auxiliary Feedwater Main Steam Generator 
Water Level-Low-Low channels are used to mitigate accidents. The 
consequences of an analyzed accident will not be significantly 
increased since the minimum requirements for Auxiliary Feedwater 
Main Steam Generator Water Level-Low-Low channels will be maintained 
to ensure the availability of the required instrumentation to 
mitigate accidents assumed in the UFSAR. Operation in accordance 
with the proposed TS [technical specifications] will ensure that 
sufficient Auxiliary Feedwater Main Steam Generator Water Level-Low-
Low channels are OPERABLE as required to support the unit's required 
features. Therefore, the mitigating functions supported by the 
Auxiliary Feedwater Main Steam Generator Water Level-Low-Low 
instrumentation will continue to provide the protection assumed by 
the accident analysis. The integrity of fission product barriers, 
plant configuration, and operating procedures as described in the 
UFSAR will not be affected by the proposed changes. Thus, the 
consequences of previously analyzed accidents will not be 
significantly increased by implementing these changes.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the change create the possibility of a new or different 
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change relaxes the Required Actions for the ESFAS 
Auxiliary Feedwater Main Steam Generator Water Level-Low-Low 
channels. The remaining Auxiliary Feedwater Main Steam Generator 
Water Level-Low-Low channels are required to be OPERABLE to support 
the associated unit's required features. This change will not 
physically alter the plant (no new or different type of equipment 
will be installed). The proposed changes will maintain the minimum 
requirements for Auxiliary Feedwater Main Steam Generator Water 
Level-Low-Low channels to ensure the availability of the equipment 
required to mitigate accidents assumed in the UFSAR.
    Therefore, operation of the facility in accordance with this 
proposed change will not create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
    3. Does this change involve a significant reduction in a margin 
of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change relaxes the Required Actions for the ESFAS 
Auxiliary Feedwater Main Steam Generator Water Level-Low-Low 
channels. The remaining Auxiliary Feedwater Main Steam Generator 
Water Level-Low-Low channels are required to be OPERABLE to support 
the associated unit's required features. The margin of safety is not 
affected by this change because the minimum requirements for 
Auxiliary Feedwater Main Steam Generator Water Level-Low-Low 
channels will be maintained to ensure the availability of the 
required Auxiliary Feedwater Main Steam Generator Water Level-Low-
Low instrumentation to shutdown the reactor and maintain it in a 
safe shutdown condition after an abnormal operational transient or 
postulated design basis accident.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.
    ITS Section 3.3.1, ``Reactor Trip System (RTS) 
Instrumentation,'' More Restrictive Change M24 (LAR, Enclosure 2, 
Volume 8, Revision 0, page 327 of 1148):
    1. Does the change involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change affects the setpoint limits and the nominal 
setpoint for the RCP [reactor coolant pump] underfrequency reactor 
trip. Once the setpoint is exceeded, the RCP underfrequency reactor 
trip performs its design function in the same manner as before the 
proposed change. Maintenance and operation of the instrumentation is 
unchanged, except for a change in CTS setpoint, thus there is no 
increase in the likelihood of a malfunction of the instrument. The 
revision of the RCP underfrequency has been evaluated and the 
results are documented in approved calculations. These calculations 
verify that the revised values are acceptable in accordance with 
appropriate calculation methodologies and that they will continue to 
support the accident analysis. Although, this proposed change 
revised the settings listed in CTS, these revisions will not require 
changes to the instrumentation settings currently being used or the 
methods for maintaining them.
    Therefore, the proposed revision of these values will not 
significantly increase the probability or consequences of an 
accident.
    2. Does the change create the possibility of a new or different 
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The revised setpoints and the proposed operability limits will 
continue to provide acceptable initiation of safety functions for 
the mitigation of postulated accidents as required by the design 
basis. The primary function of the reactor protection system is to 
initiate accident mitigation functions. These functions are not 
considered initiators of postulated accidents. The proposed changes 
do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident 
because the design functions are not altered and the proposed values 
meet the accident analysis requirements for accident mitigation.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does this change involve a significant reduction in a margin 
of safety?
    Response: No.
    The NTSP [nominal trip setpoint] and AV [allowable value] 
revisions proposed in this request were evaluated and found to be 
acceptable without impact to the safety limits required for the 
associated functions. Plant systems will continue to be actuated for 
those plant conditions that require the initiation of accident 
mitigation functions. The margin of safety is not reduced because 
the proposed conservative changes to the AV and NTSP will not change 
design functions and the initiation of accident mitigation functions 
for appropriate plant conditions is ensured. Operational margin is 
reduced by increasing the NTSP and AV, maintaining the margin of 
safety.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in the margin of safety.
    ITS Section 3.3.2, ``Engineered Safety Feature Actuation System 
(ESFAS) Instrumentation,'' Less Restrictive Change L12 and L13 (LAR, 
Enclosure 2, Volume 8, Revision 0, page 677 of 1148):
    1. Does the change involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change relaxes the Required Actions for the 
Engineered Safety Feature Actuation System (ESFAS) Instrumentation, 
Auxiliary Feedwater Main Steam Generator Water Level-Low-Low, when 
an RCS Loop [Delta]T or a Containment Pressure (EAM) channel is 
inoperable. Placing the affected Auxiliary Feedwater Main Steam 
Generator Water Level-Low-Low channels in trip uses installed 
equipment designed specifically for placing the channels in trip. 
This change will not affect the probability of an accident, because 
the OPERABLE Auxiliary Feedwater Main Steam Generator Water Level-
Low-Low channels will continue to perform the safety function the 
instrumentation is required to perform. The Auxiliary Feedwater Main 
Steam Generator Water Level-Low-Low channels are not initiators of 
any accident sequence analyzed in the Updated Final Safety Analysis 
Report (UFSAR). Rather, Auxiliary Feedwater Main Steam Generator 
Water Level-Low-Low channels are used to mitigate accidents. The 
consequences of an analyzed accident will not be significantly 
increased since the minimum requirements for Auxiliary Feedwater 
Main Steam Generator Water Level-Low-Low channels will be maintained 
to ensure the availability of the required instrumentation to 
mitigate accidents assumed in the UFSAR. Operation in accordance 
with the proposed TS will ensure that sufficient Auxiliary Feedwater 
Main Steam Generator Water Level-Low-Low

[[Page 35814]]

channels are OPERABLE as required to support the unit's required 
features. Therefore, the mitigating functions supported by the 
Auxiliary Feedwater Main Steam Generator Water Level-Low-Low 
instrumentation will continue to provide the protection assumed by 
the accident analysis. The integrity of fission product barriers, 
plant configuration, and operating procedures as described in the 
UFSAR will not be affected by the proposed changes. Thus, the 
consequences of previously analyzed accidents will not be 
significantly increased by implementing these changes.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the change create the possibility of a new or different 
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change relaxes the Required Actions for the ESFAS 
Auxiliary Feedwater Main Steam Generator Water Level-Low-Low 
channels. The remaining Auxiliary Feedwater Main Steam Generator 
Water Level-Low-Low channels are required to be OPERABLE to support 
the associated unit's required features. This change will not 
physically alter the plant (no new or different type of equipment 
will be installed). The proposed changes will maintain the minimum 
requirements for Auxiliary Feedwater Main Steam Generator Water 
Level-Low-Low channels to ensure the availability of the equipment 
required to mitigate accidents assumed in the UFSAR.
    Therefore, operation of the facility in accordance with this 
proposed change will not create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
    3. Does this change involve a significant reduction in a margin 
of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change relaxes the Required Actions for the ESFAS 
Auxiliary Feedwater Main Steam Generator Water Level-Low-Low 
channels. The remaining Auxiliary Feedwater Main Steam Generator 
Water Level-Low-Low channels are required to be OPERABLE to support 
the associated unit's required features. The margin of safety is not 
affected by this change because the minimum requirements for 
Auxiliary Feedwater Main Steam Generator Water Level-Low-Low 
channels will be maintained to ensure the availability of the 
required Auxiliary Feedwater Main Steam Generator Water Level-Low-
Low instrumentation to shutdown the reactor and maintain it in a 
safe shutdown condition after an abnormal operational transient or 
postulated design basis accident.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.
    ITS Section 3.8.1, ``AC [Alternating Current] Sources--
Operating,'' Less Restrictive Change L01 (LAR, Enclosure 2, Volume 
13, Revision 0, page 200 of 638):
    1. Does the change involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change relaxes the Required Actions for the 
opposite unit's offsite AC power sources and DGs [diesel 
generators]. The opposite unit's offsite AC power sources and DGs 
are required to be OPERABLE to support the associated unit's 
required features. This change will not affect the probability of an 
accident, since the offsite AC circuits and DGs are not initiators 
of any accident sequence analyzed in the Updated Final Safety 
Analysis Report (UFSAR). Rather, offsite AC power sources and DGs 
support equipment used to mitigate accidents. The consequences of an 
analyzed accident will not be significantly increased since the 
minimum requirements for AC power sources will be maintained to 
ensure the availability of the required power to mitigate accidents 
assumed in the UFSAR. Operation in accordance with the proposed TS 
will ensure that sufficient onsite and offsite AC power sources are 
OPERABLE as required to support the unit's required features. 
Therefore, the mitigating functions supported by the onsite and 
offsite AC power sources will continue to provide the protection 
assumed by the accident analysis. The integrity of fission product 
barriers, plant configuration, and operating procedures as described 
in the UFSAR will not be affected by the proposed changes. Thus, the 
consequences of previously analyzed accidents will not increase by 
implementing these changes.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the change create the possibility of a new or different 
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change relaxes the Required Actions for the 
opposite unit's offsite AC power sources and DGs. The opposite 
unit's offsite AC power sources and DGs are required to be OPERABLE 
to support the associated unit's required features. This change will 
not physically alter the plant (no new or different type of 
equipment will be installed). The proposed changes will maintain the 
minimum requirements for AC power sources to ensure the availability 
of the equipment required to mitigate accidents assumed in the 
UFSAR.
    Therefore, operation of the facility in accordance with this 
proposed change will not create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
    3. Does this change involve a significant reduction in a margin 
of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change relaxes the Required Actions for the 
opposite unit's offsite AC power sources and DGs. The opposite 
unit's offsite AC power sources and DGs are required to be OPERABLE 
to support the associated unit's required features. The margin of 
safety is not affected by this change because the minimum 
requirements for AC power sources will be maintained to ensure the 
availability of the required power to shutdown the reactor and 
maintain it in a safe shutdown condition after an AOO [anticipated 
operational occurrence] or a postulated DBA.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.
    ITS Section 3.8.9, ``Distribution Systems--Operating,'' Less 
Restrictive Change L01 (LAR, Enclosure 2, Volume 13, Revision 0, 
page 359 of 638):
    1. Does the change involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change relaxes the Required Actions for the 
opposite unit's distribution system. This change will not affect the 
probability of an accident, since the distribution system[s] are not 
initiators of any accident sequence analyzed in the Updated Final 
Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). Rather, the opposite unit's 
distribution system support equipment used to mitigate accidents. 
The consequences of an analyzed accident will not be significantly 
increased since the minimum requirements for distribution systems 
will be maintained to ensure the availability of the required power 
to mitigate accidents assumed in the UFSAR. Operation in accordance 
with the proposed TS will ensure that sufficient onsite electrical 
distribution systems are OPERABLE as required to support the unit's 
required features. Therefore, the mitigating functions supported by 
the onsite electrical distribution systems will continue to provide 
the protection assumed by the accident analysis. The integrity of 
fission product barriers, plant configuration, and operating 
procedures as described in the UFSAR will not be affected by the 
proposed changes. Thus, the consequences of previously analyzed 
accidents will not increase by implementing these changes.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the change create the possibility of a new or different 
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change relaxes the Required Actions for the 
opposite unit's onsite electrical distribution systems. This change 
will not physically alter the plant (no new or different type of 
equipment will be installed). The proposed changes will maintain the 
minimum requirements for onsite electrical distribution systems to 
ensure the availability of the equipment required to mitigate 
accidents assumed in the UFSAR.
    Therefore, operation of the facility in accordance with this 
proposed change will not create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
    3. Does this change involve a significant reduction in a margin 
of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change relaxes the Required Actions for the 
opposite unit's onsite electrical distribution system. The margin of 
safety is not affected by this change because the minimum 
requirements for onsite electrical distribution systems will be 
maintained to ensure the availability of the required power to 
shutdown the reactor and maintain it in a safe shutdown condition 
after an AOO or a postulated DBA.

[[Page 35815]]

    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 
400 West Summit Hill Drive, ET 11A, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902.
    NRC Acting Branch Chief: Lisa M. Regner.

II. 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 obtained as described in the 
``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' section of this 
document.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-219, Oyster Creek Nuclear 
Generating Station, Ocean County, New Jersey

    Date of application for amendment: December 12, 2013.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Oyster 
Creek Nuclear Generating Station technical specifications. The 
amendment modifies Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Traveler 
TSTF-522, Revision 0, ``Revise Ventilation System Surveillance 
Requirements to Operate for 10 Hours per Month,'' to 15 continuous 
minutes.
    Date of Issuance: May 27, 2014.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days.
    Amendment No.: 282. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML14008A350; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-16: The amendment 
revised the license and technical specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 4, 2014 (79 FR 
6643).
    The Commission's related evaluation of this amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated May 27, 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: July 18, 2012, as supplemented 
by letters dated January 17, 2013, April 23, 2013, April 8, 2014, and 
April 28, 2014.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revise the 
Technical Specifications (TSs) to change the operability requirements 
for the normal heat sink.
    Date of issuance: June 5, 2014.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance, to be implemented 
within 30 days.
    Amendments Nos.: 291 and 294. A publicly-available version is in 
ADAMS under Accession No. ML14136A485; 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 Facility Operating Licenses and the TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 4, 2012 (77 
FR 53928). The letters dated January 17, 2013, April 23, 2013, April 8, 
2014, and April 28, 2014, provided additional information that 
clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application 
as originally noticed, and did not change the NRC staff's original 
proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as 
published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 5, 2014.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC, Docket No. 50-410, Nine Mile 
Point Nuclear Station, Unit 2, Oswego County, New York

    Date of application for amendment: November 21, 2012, as 
supplemented by letters dated March 25, July 31, September 6, November 
4, December 13, 2013, and February 25, 2014.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Nine Mile 
Point Nuclear Station, Unit 2 Technical Specification (TS) Section 
3.4.11, ``RCS [reactor coolant system] Pressure and Temperature (P/T) 
Limits,'' by replacing the existing reactor vessel heatup and cooldown 
rate limits and the pressure and temperature (P-T) limit curves with 
references to the Pressure and Temperature Limits Report (PTLR). In 
addition, a new definition for the PTLR was added to TS Section 1.1, 
``Definitions,'' and a new section addressing administrative 
requirements for the PTLR was added to TS Section 5.0, ``Administrative 
Controls.'' Relocation of the P-T limit curves to the PTLR is 
consistent with the guidance provided in NRC approved General Electric 
Hitachi Nuclear Engineering Licensing Topical Report, NEDC-33178P-A, 
Revision 1, ``General Electric Methodology for Development of Reactor 
Pressure Vessel Pressure-Temperature Curves.'' This topical report uses 
the guidelines provided in NRC Generic Letter (GL) 96-03, ``Relocation 
of the Pressure Temperature Limit Curves and Low Temperature 
Overpressure Protection System Limits.'' The proposed TS changes are 
consistent with the guidance provided in GL 96-03 as supplemented by 
Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) traveler TSTF-419-A, ``Revise 
PTLR Definition and References in ISTS [Improved Standard Technical 
Specifications] 5.6.6, RCS PTLR.''
    Date of issuance: May 28, 2014.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and to be implemented no 
later than July 18, 2014.
    Amendment No.: 145. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under

[[Page 35816]]

Accession No. ML14057A554; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-69: Amendment revised 
the License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 12, 2013 (78 FR 
15749). The supplements dated March 25, July 31, September 6, November 
4, December 13, 2013, and February 25, 2014, provided additional 
information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of 
the application as originally noticed, and did not change the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff's initial proposed no significant 
hazards consideration determination noticed in the Federal Register.
    The staff's related safety evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated May 28, 2014.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, South Carolina Public Service 
Authority, Docket No. 50-395, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 1, 
Fairfield County, South Carolina

    Date of amendment request: October 3, 2013, as supplemented by 
letter dated December 20, 2013.
    Date of issuance: May 29, 2014.
    Effective date: This license amendment is effective as of the date 
of its issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 198. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML14122A309; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-12: Amendment revised 
the Facility Operating License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 26, 2013 (78 
FR 70595). The supplemental letter dated December 20, 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 29, 2014.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 16th day of June 2014.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Michele G. Evans,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2014-14606 Filed 6-23-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P