Source: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2014/02/27/2014-04302/applications-and-amendments-to-facility-operating-licenses-and-combined-licenses-involving-proposed
Timestamp: 2018-10-21 22:56:17
Document Index: 673681716

Matched Legal Cases: ['§\u20092', 'art 2', '§\u200950', 'art 50', 'art 50', 'art 50', 'art 50', 'art 50', 'art 2']

A Notice by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on 02/27/2014
Comments must be filed by March 31, 2014. A request for a hearing must be filed by April 28, 2014. Any potential party, as defined in Sec. 2.4 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), who believes access to SUNSI is necessary to respond to this notice must request document access by March 10, 2014.
11143-11151 (9 pages)
Arizona Public Service Company, et al., Docket No. 50-528, 50-529, and 50-530, Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, Maricopa County, Arizona
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414, Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York County, South Carolina; and Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370, McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-03, 50-247, and 50-286, Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Units 1, 2, and 3, Westchester County, New York
Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information for Contention Preparation; Arizona Public Service Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-528, 50-529, and 50-530, Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, Maricopa County, Arizona; Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414, Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York County, South Carolina; and Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370, McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina; Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-03, 50-247, and 50-286, Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Units 1, 2, and 3, Westchester County, New York; Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-255, Palisades Nuclear Plant, Van Buren County, Michigan; Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC. and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-271, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, Vernon, Vermont
https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2014-04302 https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2014-04302
Comments must be filed by March 31, 2014. A request for a hearing must be filed by April 28, 2014. Any potential party, as defined in § 2.4 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), who believes access to SUNSI is necessary to respond to this notice must request document access by March 10, 2014.
Federal rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2014-0029. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-287-3422; email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2014-0029 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may access publicly-available information related to this action by the following methods:
Please include Docket ID NRC-2014-0029 in the subject line of your Start Printed Page 11144comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make your comment submission available to the public in this docket.
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 petitions 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 within 60 days, 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.
If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final Start Printed Page 11145determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, 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.
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/​apply-certificates.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 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.
Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with the NRC guidance available on the 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 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.
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 Start Printed Page 11146constitute a Fair Use application, participants are requested not to include copyrighted materials in their submission.
Date of amendment request: November 20, 2013, which is publicly available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML13329A036, as supplemented by letter dated November 20, 2013, portions of which are publicly available in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML13329A700 and ML13365A207.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed amendment would modify the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, moderator temperature coefficient (MTC) technical specification (TS) surveillance requirements (SR) associated with implementation of WCAP-16011-P-A, “Startup Test Activity Reduction Program,” February 2005, as described in Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) change traveler TSTF-486, Revision 2, “Revise MTC Surveillance for Startup Test Activity Reduction (STAR) Program (WCAP-16011).” The NRC staff published a notice of opportunity for comment in the Federal Register on July 27, 2007 (72 FR 41360), on possible amendments adopting TSTF-486, Revision 2, including a model safety evaluation and model no significant hazards consideration (NSHC) determination, using the consolidated line item improvement process (CLIIP). The NRC staff subsequently issued a notice of availability of the models for referencing in license amendment applications in the Federal Register on September 6, 2007 (72 FR 51259). The licensee affirmed the applicability of the model NSHC determination in its application dated November 20, 2013.
Additionally, the proposed amendment would eliminate the measurement of an end-of-cycle (EOC) MTC if the beginning-of-cycle (BOC) measurements are within a given tolerance to the predicted value as described in TSTF-406, Revision 2, “Predicting End-of-Cycle MTC and Deleting Need for End-of-Cycle MTC Verification.” Regarding TSTF-406, Revision 2, the licensee included a proposed NSHC in the license amendment request.
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. Each of the two items described above is addressed individually under each of the three standards, as presented below:
The proposed change generically implements MTC SR changes associated with implementation of WCAP-16011-P-A, STAR Program. WCAP-16011-P-A describes methods to reduce the time required for startup testing. The consequences of an accident after adopting TSTF-486 are no different than the consequences of an accident prior to adoption.
A change is proposed to eliminate the measurement of end-of-cycle (EOC) moderator temperature coefficient (MTC) if the beginning-of-cycle (BOC) measurements are within a given tolerance to the predicted value. MTC is not an initiator of any accident previously evaluated. Consequently, the probability of an accident previously evaluated is not significantly increased.
The EOC MTC value is an important assumption in determining the consequences of accidents previously evaluated. The analysis presented in the Topical Report determined that the EOC MTC will be within limits if the BOC measured MTC values are within a given tolerance of the measured values. Therefore, the EOC MTC will continue to be within limits and the consequences of accidents will continue to be as previously evaluated. Therefore, the consequences of an accident previously evaluated are not significantly increased by this change.
A change is proposed to eliminate the measurement of EOC MTC if the BOC measurements are within a given tolerance to the predicted value. 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.
TSTF-486 provides the means and standardized wording for [Combustion Engineering (CE) Standard Technical Specification (STS)] plants implementing the previously approved WCAP-16011-P-A alternate MTC verification at startup. MTC is a parameter controlled in the licensee's TS, including surveillance requirements. As stated previously WCAP-16011-P-A describes methods to reduce the time required for startup testing. The changes to NUREG-1432 proposed by TSTF-486 have been reviewed for and found to be consistent with the current NUREG-1432 and WCAP-16011-P-A.
Therefore, the proposed changes are acceptable and do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Response: No.Start Printed Page 11147
A change is proposed to eliminate the measurement of EOC MTC if the BOC measurements are within a given tolerance to the predicted value. The Topical Report concluded that the risk of not measuring the EOC MTC is acceptably small provided that the BOC measured values are within a specific tolerance of the predicted values.
Attorney for licensee: Michael G. Green, Associate General Counsel—Nuclear and Environmental, Pinnacle West Capital Corporation, P.O. Box 52034, Mail Stop 7602, Phoenix, Arizona, 85072-2034.
Date of amendment request: November 14, 2013. A publicly available version is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML13325B142.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The amendments would revise Methodology Report DPC-NE-3001-P, Revision 1, “Multidimensional Reactor Transients and Safety Analysis Physics Parameters Methodology.”
The proposed amendments involving methodology report DPC-NE-3001-P, Multidimensional Reactor Transients and Safety Analysis Physics Parameters Methodology, support the use of revised methodologies for simulating the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) Chapter 15 events characterized by multidimensional reactor transients, and for systematically confirming that reload physics parameters important to UFSAR Chapter 15 transients and accidents are bounded by values assumed in the licensing analyses. The methodology report revision will be approved by the NRC prior to implementation. The proposed amendments will have no impact upon the probability of occurrence of any design basis accident. The proposed amendments will not affect the performance of any plant equipment used to mitigate the consequences of an analyzed accident. There will be no significant impact on the source term or pathways assumed in accidents previously evaluated. No analysis assumptions will be violated and there will be no adverse effects on offsite or onsite dose as the result of an accident.
The proposed amendments do not change the methods governing normal plant operation; nor are the methods utilized to respond to plant transients altered. In addition, the proposed methodology changes will not create the potential for any new initiating events or transients to occur in the actual physical plant.
Margin of safety is related to the confidence in the ability of the fission product barriers to perform their design functions during and following an accident. These barriers include the fuel cladding, the reactor coolant system, and the containment system. The proposed methodology revision will assure the acceptability of analytical limits under normal, transient, and accident conditions. The use of the proposed methodology revision once it has been approved by the NRC will ensure that all applicable design and safety limits are satisfied such that the fission product barriers will continue to perform their design functions.
Based on the preceding discussion, Duke Energy concludes that the proposed amendments do not involve a significant hazards consideration under the standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and, accordingly, a finding of “no significant hazards consideration” is justified.
Date of amendment request: August 20, 2013. A publicly available version is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML13239A447.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The amendment would modify the operating license, pursuant to Section 161A of the Atomic Energy Act, to permit the licensee's security personnel to possess and use weapons, devices, ammunition, or other firearms, notwithstanding state, local, and certain federal firearms laws that may prohibit such use. The NRC refers to this authority as “stand-alone preemption authority.” The licensee is seeking stand-alone preemption authority for standard weapons presently in use at the Indian Point facility in accordance with the Indian Point security plans, namely semi-automatic assault rifles and extended magazines. The weapons that are the subject of this amendment request do not include enhanced weapons.
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an[y] accident previously evaluated?
The proposed change adds a sentence to the IPEC [Indian Point Energy Center] licenses to reflect the Section 161A preemption authority granted by the Commission. The change is administrative and has no impact on the probability or consequences of an[y] accident previously evaluated.
Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an[y] accident previously evaluated.Start Printed Page 11148
The proposed change adds a sentence to the IPEC licenses to reflect the Section 161A preemption authority granted by the Commission. The change is administrative and has no impact on the possibility or [of] a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
Plant safety margins are established through Limiting Conditions for Operation, Limiting Safety System Settings and Safety limits specified in the Technical Specifications. Because there is no change to these established safety margins, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The proposed change adds a sentence to the IPEC licenses to reflect the Section 161A preemption authority granted by the Commission. The change is administrative and does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Date of amendment request: December 12, 2012, supplemented by letters dated February 21, September 30, October 24, and December 2, 2013; the publicly-available version of each letter are available in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML12348A455, ML13079A090, ML13273A469, ML13298A044, and ML13336A649.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed amendment would provide the NRC's approval for adoption of a new fire protection licensing basis which complies with the requirements in §§ 50.48(a) and 50.48(c); and the guidance in Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.205, Revision 1, “Risk-Informed, Performance Based Fire Protection for Existing Light-Water Nuclear Power Plants.” This amendment request also follows the guidance in Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 04-02, Revision 2, “Guidance for Implementing a Risk-Informed, Performance-Based Fire Protection Program Under 10 CFR 50.48(c).” Upon approval, the PNP's fire protection program will transition to a new Risk-Informed, Performance-Based (RI-PB) alternative in accordance with 10 CFR 50.48(c), which incorporates by reference the National Fire Protection Association Standard 805 (NFPA 805). The NFPA 805 fire protection program will supersede the current fire protection program licensing basis in accordance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R. 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:
Operation of PNP in accordance with the proposed amendment does not result in a significant increase the probability or consequences of accidents previously evaluated. The proposed amendment does not affect accident initiators or precursors as described in the PNP Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR), nor does it adversely alter design assumptions, conditions, or configurations of the facility, and it does not adversely impact the ability of structures, systems, or components (SSCs) to perform their intended function to mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits. The proposed changes do not affect the way in which safety related systems perform their functions as required by the accident analysis. The SSCs required to safely shut down the reactor and to maintain it in a safe shutdown condition will remain capable of performing their design functions.
The purpose of the proposed amendment is to permit PNP to adopt a new risk-informed, performance based fire protection licensing basis that complies with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.48(a) and (c), as well as the guidance in RG 1.205. The NRC considers that NFPA 805 provides an acceptable methodology and performance criteria for licensees to identify fire protection requirements that are an acceptable alternative to the 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R, fire protection features (69 FR 33536; June 16, 2004). Engineering analyses, including engineering evaluations, probabilistic safety assessments, and fire modeling calculations, have been performed to demonstrate that the performance based requirements of NFPA 805 have been met.
The NFPA 805, taken as a whole, provides an acceptable alternative for satisfying General Design Criterion 3 (GDC 3) of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50, meets the underlying intent of the NRC's existing fire protection regulations and guidance, and achieves defense-in-depth along with the goals, performance objectives, and performance criteria specified in NFPA 805, Chapter 1. In addition, if there are any increases in core damage frequency (CDF) or risk as a result of the transition to NFPA 805, the increase will be small, governed by the delta risk requirements of NFPA 805, and consistent with the intent of the Commission's Safety Goal Policy.
Based on the above, the implementation of the proposed amendment to transition the fire protection plan at PNP to one based on NFPA 805, in accordance with 10 CFR 50.48(c), does not result in a significant increase in the probability of any accident previously evaluated. In addition, equipment required to mitigate an accident remains capable of performing the assumed function.
Operation of PNP in accordance with the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. Any scenario or previously analyzed accident with offsite dose was included in the evaluation of DBAs documented in the UFSAR. The proposed change does not alter the requirements or function for systems required during accident conditions. Implementation of the new fire protection licensing basis which complies with the requirements in 10 CFR 50.48(a) and (c) and the guidance in RG 1.205, Revision 1 will not result in new or different accidents. The proposed amendment does not adversely affect accident initiators nor alter design assumptions, conditions, or configurations of the facility. The proposed amendment does not adversely affect the ability of SSCs to perform their design function. SSCs required to safely shut down the reactor and maintain it in a safe shutdown condition remain capable of performing their design functions.Start Printed Page 11149
The purpose of this amendment is to permit ENO to adopt a new fire protection licensing basis which complies with the requirements in 10 CFR 50.48(a) and (c) and the guidance in RG 1.205, Revision 1. The NRC considers that NFPA 805 provides an acceptable methodology and performance criteria for licensees to identify fire protection systems and features that are an acceptable alternative to the 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R fire protection features (69 FR 33536; June 16, 2004).
Operation of PNP in accordance with the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety. The proposed amendment does not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system settings or limiting conditions for operation are determined. The safety analysis acceptance criteria are not affected by this change. The proposed amendment does not adversely affect existing plant safety margins or the reliability of equipment assumed to mitigate accidents in the UFSAR. The proposed amendment does not adversely affect the ability of SSCs to perform their design function. SSCs required to safely shut down the reactor and to maintain it in a safe shutdown condition remain capable of performing their design function.
The purpose of this amendment is to permit ENO to adopt a new fire protection licensing basis which complies with the requirements in 10 CFR 50.48(a) and (c) and the guidance in RG 1.205, Revision 1. The NRC considers that NFPA 805 provides an acceptable methodology and performance criteria for licensees to identify fire protection systems and features that are an acceptable alternative to the 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R fire protection features (69 FR 33536; June 16, 2004). Engineering analyses, including engineering evaluations, probabilistic safety assessments, and fire modeling calculations, have been performed to demonstrate that the performance-based methods do not result in a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
Attorney for licensee: Mr. William Dennis, Assistant General Counsel, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 440 Hamilton Ave., White Plains, New York 10601.
Date of amendment request: December 19, 2013. A publicly-available version is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML13358A338.
Description of amendment request: This amendment request contains sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). The proposed amendment would change the Vermont Yankee Cyber Security Plan Implementation Schedule Milestone 8 full implementation date from December 15, 2014, to June 30, 2016. The proposed amendment would also revise the existing operating license Security Plan license condition.
The proposed change to the CSP [Cyber Security Plan] Implementation Schedule is administrative in nature. This change does not alter accident analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the function of plant systems or the manner in which systems are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed change does not require any plant modifications which affect the performance capability of the structures, systems, and components relied upon to mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents and has no impact on the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed change to the CSP Implementation Schedule is administrative in nature. This change does not alter accident analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the function of plant systems or the manner in which systems are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed change does not require any plant modifications which affect the performance capability of the structures, systems, and components relied upon to mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents and does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident previously evaluated.
Attorney for licensee: Ms. Jeanne Cho, Assistant General Counsel, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 440 Hamilton Avenue, White Plains, New York, 10601.
NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin G. Beasley.Start Printed Page 11150
I. The Commission expects that the NRC staff and presiding officers (and any other reviewing officers) will consider and resolve requests for access to SUNSI, and motions for protective orders, in a timely fashion in order to minimize any unnecessary delays in identifying those petitioners who have Start Printed Page 11151standing and who have propounded contentions meeting the specificity and basis requirements in 10 CFR Part 2. Attachment 1 to this Order summarizes the general target schedule for processing and resolving requests under these procedures.
3. Requestors should note that the filing requirements of the NRC's E-Filing Rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007), apply to appeals of NRC staff determinations (because they must be served on a presiding officer or the Commission, as applicable), but not to the initial SUNSI request submitted to the NRC staff under these procedures.