Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations, 43646-43656 [2016-15659]
Download as PDF
43646
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 5, 2016 / Notices
regulations, and orders of the NRC now
or hereafter in effect. The facility
consists of two pressurized-water
reactors located in Mecklenburg County,
North Carolina.
II. Request/Action
The regulation in 10 CFR 74.19,
‘‘Recordkeeping,’’ identifies
recordkeeping requirements applicable
to special nuclear material (SNM), and
10 CFR 74.19(c) requires, in part, that,
‘‘each licensee who is authorized to
possess special nuclear material, at any
one time and site location, in a quantity
greater than 350 grams of contained
uranium-235, uranium-233, or
plutonium, or any combination thereof,
shall conduct a physical inventory of all
special nuclear material in its
possession under license at intervals not
to exceed 12 months.’’
The licensee requested an exemption
from certain recordkeeping
requirements in 10 CFR 74.19(c). The
exemption would allow the licensee to
seek relief from the physical inventory
requirements only for movable incore
nuclear detectors that have been
removed from service and stored in a
location that is not readily accessible
and is subject to security modifications.
The purpose of this request for
exemption is to allow an alternative to
the physical inventory-taking practices
for these non-fuel SNM incore detectors.
sradovich on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES
III. Discussion
Pursuant to 10 CFR 74.7, ‘‘Specific
exemptions,’’ the Commission may,
upon application of any interested
person or upon its own initiative, grant
exemptions from the requirements of 10
CFR part 74 when the exemptions are
authorized by law and will not endanger
life or property or the common defense
and security, and are otherwise in the
public interest.
The Exemption Is Authorized by Law
This exemption allows the licensee to
have an alternative to the physical
inventory requirements of 10 CFR
74.19(c) only for movable incore nuclear
detectors that have been removed from
service. The NRC staff has determined
that granting the licensee’s proposed
exemption pursuant to 10 CFR 74.7 will
not result in a violation of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or the
Commission’s regulations. Therefore,
the exemption is authorized by law.
theft, diversion, or loss. Based on the
information provided, no new accident
precursors are created by the
description of actions the licensee has
provided concerning the physical
inventory for the incore nuclear
detectors. Thus, the probability of
postulated accidents is not increased.
Also, the consequences of postulated
accidents are not increased. Therefore,
there is no undue risk to public health
and safety.
The Exemption Is Consistent With the
Common Defense and Security
The proposed exemption would allow
the licensee to address the physical
inventory of the non-fuel SNM. The
licensee indicated that the overall
alternative approach will continue to
meet the intent of the physical
inventory requirements of 10 CFR
74.19(c). Therefore, the common
defense and security are not impacted
by this exemption.
IV. Conclusion
Accordingly, the Commission has
determined that pursuant to 10 CFR
74.7, the exemption is authorized by
law, will not present an undue risk to
the public health and safety, and is
consistent with the common defense
and security. Therefore, the Commission
hereby grants Duke Energy Carolinas,
LLC an exemption from the physical
inventory requirements of 10 CFR
74.19(c) for McGuire.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, ‘‘Finding of
no significant impact,’’ the Commission
has determined that the granting of this
exemption will not have a significant
effect on the quality of the human
environment as published in the
Federal Register on March 8, 2016 (81
FR 12132).
The exemption is effective upon
issuance.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 23rd day
of June, 2016.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Anne T. Boland,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor
Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2016–15868 Filed 7–1–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
The Exemption Presents No Undue Risk
to Public Health and Safety
The underlying purpose of 10 CFR
74.19(c) is to ensure SNM is properly
accounted for, appropriately secured,
and that authorities are informed of any
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:27 Jul 01, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[NRC–2016–0127]
Biweekly Notice; Applications and
Amendments to Facility Operating
Licenses and Combined Licenses
Involving No Significant Hazards
Considerations
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Biweekly notice.
AGENCY:
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 June 7, 2016,
to June 20, 2016. The last biweekly
notice was published on June 21, 2016.
DATES: Comments must be filed by
August 4, 2016. A request for a hearing
must be filed by September 6, 2016.
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
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for Docket ID NRC–2016–0127. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol
Gallagher; telephone: 301–415–3463;
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:
OWFN–12–H08, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555–0001.
For additional direction on obtaining
information and submitting comments,
see ‘‘Obtaining Information and
Submitting Comments’’ in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Lynn Ronewicz, Office of Nuclear
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\05JYN1.SGM
05JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 5, 2016 / Notices
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington DC
20555–0001; telephone: 301–415–1927,
email: lynn.ronewicz@nrc.gov.
I. Obtaining Information and
Submitting Comments
A. Obtaining Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2016–
0127 when contacting the NRC about
the availability of information for this
action. You may obtain publiclyavailable information related to this
action by any of the following methods:
• Federal rulemaking Web site: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for Docket ID NRC–2016–0127.
• NRC’s Agencywide Documents
Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may obtain publiclyavailable documents online in the
ADAMS Public Documents collection at
https://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.
sradovich on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES
B. Submitting Comments
Please include Docket ID NRC–2016–
0127, facility name, unit number(s),
application date, and subject in your
comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include
identifying or contact information that
you do not want to be publicly
disclosed in your comment submission.
The NRC will post all comment
submissions at https://
www.regulations.gov as well as enter the
comment submissions into ADAMS.
The NRC does not routinely edit
comment submissions to remove
identifying or contact information.
If you are requesting or aggregating
comments from other persons for
submission to the NRC, then you should
inform those persons not to include
identifying or contact information that
they do not want to be publicly
disclosed in their comment submission.
Your request should state that the NRC
does not routinely edit comment
submissions to remove such information
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:27 Jul 01, 2016
Jkt 238001
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
§ 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 60day 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 if 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. If
the Commission takes 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. If the Commission makes 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
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
43647
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 https://
www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/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.
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 set forth 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
E:\FR\FM\05JYN1.SGM
05JYN1
sradovich on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES
43648
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 5, 2016 / Notices
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 with respect to resolution of
that person’s admitted contentions,
including the opportunity to present
evidence and to submit a crossexamination plan for cross-examination
of witnesses, consistent with NRC
regulations, policies and procedures.
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). If a hearing is
requested, and the Commission has not
made a final determination 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 unless the Commission
finds an imminent danger to the health
or safety of the public, in which case it
will issue an appropriate order or rule
under 10 CFR part 2.
A State, local governmental body,
federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:27 Jul 01, 2016
Jkt 238001
agency thereof, may submit a petition to
the Commission to participate as a party
under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition
should state the nature and extent of the
petitioner’s interest in the proceeding.
The petition should be submitted to the
Commission by September 6, 2016. The
petition must be filed in accordance
with the filing instructions in the
‘‘Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)’’
section of this document, and should
meet the requirements for petitions for
leave to intervene set forth in this
section, except that under § 2.309(h)(2)
a State, local governmental body, or
Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or
agency thereof does not need to address
the standing requirements in 10 CFR
2.309(d) if the facility is located within
its boundaries. A State, local
governmental body, Federallyrecognized Indian Tribe, or agency
thereof, may also have the opportunity
to participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c).
If a hearing is granted, any person
who does not wish, or is not qualified,
to become a party to the proceeding
may, in the discretion of the presiding
officer, be permitted to make a limited
appearance pursuant to the provisions
of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person making a
limited appearance may make an oral or
written statement of position on the
issues, but may not otherwise
participate in the proceeding. A limited
appearance may be made at any session
of the hearing or at any prehearing
conference, subject to the limits and
conditions as may be imposed by the
presiding officer. Persons desiring to
make a limited appearance are
requested to inform the Secretary of the
Commission by September 6, 2016.
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 EFiling process requires participants to
submit and serve all adjudicatory
documents over the internet, or in some
cases to mail copies on electronic
storage media. Participants may not
submit paper copies of their filings
unless they seek an exemption in
accordance with the procedures
described below.
To comply with the procedural
requirements of E-Filing, at least ten 10
days prior to the filing deadline, the
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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 NRCissued 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 https://
www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/
getting-started.html. System
requirements for accessing the ESubmittal server are detailed in the
NRC’s ‘‘Guidance for Electronic
Submission,’’ which is available on the
agency’s public Web site at https://
www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.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 Webbased submission form, including the
installation of the Web browser plug-in,
is available on the NRC’s public Web
site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.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 https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.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
E:\FR\FM\05JYN1.SGM
05JYN1
sradovich on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 5, 2016 / Notices
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 https://
www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html, by email to
MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a tollfree 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 firstclass 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:27 Jul 01, 2016
Jkt 238001
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 https://
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, in some
instances, a request to intervene will
require including information on local
residence in order to demonstrate a
proximity assertion of interest in the
proceeding. With respect to copyrighted
works, except for limited excerpts that
serve the purpose of the adjudicatory
filings and would constitute a Fair Use
application, participants are requested
not to include copyrighted materials in
their submission.
Petitions for leave to intervene must
be filed no later than 60 days from the
date of publication of this notice.
Requests for hearing, petitions for leave
to intervene, and motions for leave to
file new or amended contentions that
are filed after the 60-day deadline will
not be entertained absent a
determination by the presiding officer
that the filing demonstrates good cause
by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR
2.309(c)(1)(i)–(iii).
For further details with respect to
these license amendment applications,
see the application for amendment,
which is available for public inspection
in ADAMS and at the NRC’s PDR. For
additional direction on accessing
information related to this document,
see the ‘‘Obtaining Information and
Submitting Comments’’ section of this
document.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket
Nos. 50–369 and 50–370, McGuire
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2,
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Date of amendment request: May 5,
2016. A publicly available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No.
ML16134A068.
Description of amendment request:
The amendments would modify
Technical Specifications (TSs) by the
removal of Note (c), which is no longer
applicable from TS Table 3.3.2–1,
‘‘Engineered Safety Feature Actuation
System Instrumentation,’’ Function 6.f,
‘‘Auxiliary Feedwater Pump Suction
Transfer on Suction Pressure—Low,’’
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
43649
and the removal of an expired one-time
Note for Required Action to restore
Diesel Generator to OPERABLE status
for TS 3.8.1, ‘‘AC Sources—Operating.’’
Basis for proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination:
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
licensee has provided its analysis of the
issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented
below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
This LAR [license amendment request]
proposes administrative non-technical
changes only. These proposed changes do not
adversely affect accident initiators or
precursors nor alter the design assumptions,
conditions, or configurations of the facility.
The proposed changes do not alter or prevent
the ability of structures, systems and
components (SSCs) to perform their intended
function to mitigate the consequences of an
initiating event within the assumed
acceptance limits.
Given the above discussion, it is concluded
the proposed amendment does not
significantly increase the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create
the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
This LAR proposes administrative nontechnical changes only. The proposed
changes will not alter the design
requirements of any Structure, System or
Component (SSC) or its function during
accident conditions. No new or different
accidents result from the proposed changes.
The changes do not involve a physical
alteration of the plant or any changes in
methods governing normal plant operation.
The changes do not alter assumptions made
in the safety analysis.
Given the above discussion, it is concluded
the proposed amendment does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
This LAR proposes administrative nontechnical changes only. The proposed
changes do 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 these changes. The
proposed changes will not result in plant
operation in a configuration outside the
design basis. The proposed changes do not
adversely affect systems that respond to
safely shutdown the plant and to maintain
the plant in a safe shutdown condition.
Given the above discussion, it is concluded
the proposed amendment does not involve a
significant reduction in the margin of safety.
E:\FR\FM\05JYN1.SGM
05JYN1
43650
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 5, 2016 / Notices
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, 526 South Church Street—
EC07H, Charlotte, NC 28202.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T.
Markley.
sradovich on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket
Nos. 50–269, 50–270, and 50–287,
Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and
3, Oconee County, South Carolina
Date of amendment request: February
26, 2016. A publicly-available version is
in ADAMS under Accession No.
ML16064A020.
Description of amendment request:
The amendments would revise
Technical Specifications (TSs) for the
Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and
3 (Oconee). Specifically, the license
amendment request (LAR) would revise
TS 3.8.1, ‘‘AC [Alternating Current]
Sources—Operating,’’ Required Action
C.2.2.5, to allow each Keowee
Hydroelectric Unit to be taken out of
service for up to 55 days on a one-time
basis for the purpose of generator stator
replacement, subject to the
implementation of specified
contingency measures outlined in the
LAR.
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, with NRC edits in square
brackets:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
This change involves the temporary
addition of a 55-day Completion Time for
Technical Specification (TS) 3.8.1 Required
Action C.2.2.5 associated with restoring
compliance with TS Limiting Condition for
Operation (LCO) 3.8.1.C. During the time that
one Keowee Hydroelectric Unit (KHU) is
inoperable for [greater than] 72 hours, a Lee
Combustion Turbine (LCT) will be energizing
both standby buses, two offsite power
sources will be maintained available, and
maintenance on electrical distribution
systems will not be performed unless
necessary. In addition, risk significant
systems (Emergency Feedwater System,
Protected Service Water System, and Standby
Shutdown Facility) will be verified operable
(meeting LCO requirements) within 72 hours
of entering TS 3.8.1 Condition C (i.e., prior
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:27 Jul 01, 2016
Jkt 238001
to use of the 55-day Completion Time of
Required Action C.2.2.5). The temporary 55day Completion Time will decrease the
likelihood of an unplanned forced shutdown
of all three Oconee Units and the potential
safety consequences and operational risks
associated with that action. Avoiding this
risk offsets the risks associated with having
a design basis event during the temporary 55day completion time for having one KHU
inoperable.
The temporary addition of the 55-day
Completion Time does not involve: (1) A
physical alteration to the Oconee Units; (2)
the installation of new or different
equipment; (3) operating any installed
equipment in a new or different manner; or
(4) a change to any set points for parameters
which initiate protective or mitigation action.
There is no adverse impact on containment
integrity, radiological release pathways, fuel
design, filtration systems, main steam relief
valve set points, or radwaste systems. No
new radiological release pathways are
created.
The consequences of an event occurring
during the temporary 55-day Completion
Time are the same as those that would occur
during the existing Completion Time. Duke
Energy reviewed the Probabilistic Risk
Assessment (PRA) to gain additional insights
concerning the configuration of [Oconee]
with one KHU. The results of the risk
analysis show a risk improvement if no
maintenance is performed on the SSF, EFW
System and AC Power System. The results of
the risk analysis show a small risk increase
using the average nominal maintenance
unavailability values for the SSF, EFW
System and AC Power System.
By limiting maintenance, the risk results
are expected to be between these two
extremes (i.e., small risk impact).
Therefore, the probability or consequences
of an accident previously evaluated is not
significantly increased.
2. Does the proposed amendment create
the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
This change involves the temporary
addition of a 55-day Completion Time for TS
3.8.1 Required Action C.2.2.5 associated with
restoring compliance with TS LCO 3.8.1.
During the time period that one KHU is
inoperable, the redundancy requirement for
the emergency power source will be fulfilled
by an LCT. Compensatory measures
previously specified will be in place to
minimize electrical power system
vulnerabilities.
The temporary 55-day Completion Time
does not involve a physical effect on the
Oconee Units, nor is there any increased risk
of an Oconee Unit trip or reactivity
excursion. No new failure modes or credible
accident scenarios are postulated from this
activity.
Therefore, the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any kind of
accident previously evaluated is not created.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
This change involves the temporary
addition of a 55-day Completion Time for TS
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
3.8.1 Required Action C.2.2.5 associated with
restoring compliance with TS LCO 3.8.1.
During the time period that one KHU is
inoperable, the redundancy requirement for
the emergency power source will be fulfilled
by an LCT. Compensatory measures
previously specified will be in place to
minimize electrical power system
vulnerabilities.
The proposed TS change does not involve:
(1) a physical alteration of the Oconee Units;
(2) the installation of new or different
equipment; (3) operating any installed
equipment in a new or different manner; (4)
a change to any set points for parameters
which initiate protective or mitigation action;
or (5) any impact on the fission product
barriers or safety limits.
Therefore, this request 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, 526 S. Church St.—EC07H,
Charlotte, NC 28202.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T.
Markley.
Duke Energy Progress, Inc., Docket Nos.
50–325 and 50–324, Brunswick Steam
Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2 (BSEP),
Brunswick County, North Carolina
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket
Nos. 50–413 and 50–414, Catawba
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York
County, South Carolina
Duke Energy Progress, Inc., Docket No.
50–400, Shearon Harris Nuclear Power
Plant, Unit 1 (HNP), Wake County,
North Carolina
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket
Nos. 50–369 and 50–370, McGuire
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2,
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket
Nos. 50–269, 50–270, and 50–287,
Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and
3, Oconee County, South Carolina
Duke Energy Progress, Inc., Docket No.
50–261, H. B. Robinson Steam Electric
Plant, Unit No. 2 (RNP), Darlington
County, South Carolina
Date of amendment request: April 29,
2016. A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No.
ML16120A076.
Description of amendment request:
The amendments would (1) consolidate
the Emergency Operations Facilities
(EOFs) for BSEP, HNP, and RNP with
the Duke Energy Progress, Inc. (Duke
E:\FR\FM\05JYN1.SGM
05JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 5, 2016 / Notices
sradovich on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES
Energy) corporate EOF in Charlotte,
North Carolina; (2) change the BSEP,
HNP, and RNP augmentation times to be
consistent with those of the sites
currently supported by the Duke Energy
corporate EOF; and (3) decrease the
frequency of the unannounced
augmentation drill at BSEP from twice
per year to once per year.
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 changes relocate the BSEP,
HNP, and RNP EOFs from their present
onsite or near-site locations to the established
corporate EOF in Charlotte, North Carolina,
changes the required response times for
supplementing onsite personnel in response
to a radiological emergency, and decreases
the frequency of augmentation drills at BSEP.
The functions and capabilities of the
relocated EOFs will continue to meet the
applicable regulatory requirements. It has
been evaluated and determined that the
change in response time does not
significantly affect the ability to supplement
the onsite staff. In addition, analysis shows
that the onsite staff can acceptably respond
to an event for longer than the requested time
for augmented staff to arrive. The proposed
changes have no effect on normal plant
operation or on any accident initiator or
precursors, and do not impact the function of
plant structures, systems, or components
(SSCs). The proposed changes do not alter or
prevent the ability of the emergency response
organization to perform its intended
functions to mitigate the consequences of an
accident or event. 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 changes only impact the
implementation of the affected stations’
emergency plans by relocating their onsite or
near-site EOFs to the established corporate
EOF in Charlotte, North Carolina, changing
the required response time of responders
who supplement the onsite staff, and
decreasing the frequency of augmentation
drills at BSEP. The functions and capabilities
of the relocated EOFs will continue to meet
the applicable regulatory requirements. It has
been evaluated and determined that the
change in response time does not
significantly affect the ability to supplement
the onsite staff. In addition, analysis shows
that the onsite staff can acceptably respond
to an event for longer than the requested time
for augmented staff to arrive. The proposed
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:27 Jul 01, 2016
Jkt 238001
changes will not change the design function
or operation of SSCs. The changes do not
impact the accident analysis. The changes do
not involve a physical alteration of the plant,
a change in the method of plant operation,
or new operator actions. The proposed
changes do not introduce failure modes that
could result in a new accident, and the
changes do 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 accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes only impacts the
implementation of the affected stations’
emergency plans by relocating their onsite or
near-site EOFs to the established corporate
EOF in Charlotte, North Carolina, changing
the required response time of responders
who supplement the onsite staff, and
decreasing the frequency of augmentation
drills at BSEP. The functions and capabilities
of the relocated EOFs will continue to meet
the applicable regulatory requirements. It has
been evaluated and determined that the
change in response time does not
significantly affect the ability to supplement
the onsite staff. In addition, analysis shows
that the onsite staff can acceptably respond
to an event for longer than the requested time
for augmented staff to arrive. Margin of safety
is associated with confidence in the ability of
the fission product barriers (i.e., fuel
cladding, reactor coolant system pressure
boundary, and containment structure) to
limit the level of radiation dose to the public.
The proposed changes are associated with
the emergency plans and do not impact
operation of the plant or its response to
transients or accidents. The changes do not
affect the Technical Specifications. The
changes do not involve a change in the
method of plant operation, and no accident
analyses will be affected by the proposed
changes. Safety analysis acceptance criteria
are not affected. The emergency plans will
continue to provide the necessary response
staff for emergencies as demonstrated by
staffing and functional analyses including the
necessary timeliness of performing major
tasks for the functional areas of the
emergency plans.
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: Tracy J.
Orf.
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
43651
Duke Energy Progress, Inc., Docket No.
50–261, H. B. Robinson Steam Electric
Plant, Unit No. 2 (HBRSEP2), Darlington
County, South Carolina
Date of amendment request: April 24,
2016. A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No.
ML16116A033.
Description of amendment request:
The amendment would adopt Technical
Specifications Task Force (TSTF)
Traveler TSTF–339, Revision 2,
‘‘Relocated TS Parameters to COLR.’’
Based on TSTF–339, the proposed
amendment would relocate reactor
coolant system (RCS)-related cyclespecific parameters and core safety
limits from the technical specifications
(TSs) to the Core Operating Limits
Report (COLR).
Basis for proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination:
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
licensee has provided its analysis of the
issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented
below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The relocation of RCS-related cyclespecific parameter limits from the TS to the
COLR proposed by this amendment request
does not result in the alteration of the design,
material, or construction standards that were
applicable prior to the change. The proposed
change will not result in the modification of
any system interface that would increase the
likelihood of an accident since these events
are independent of the proposed change. The
proposed amendment will not change,
degrade, or prevent actions, or alter any
assumptions previously made in evaluating
the radiological consequences of an accident
described in the Updated Final Safety
Analysis Report (UFSAR). Therefore, the
proposed amendment does not result in an
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.
There are no new accident causal
mechanisms created as a result of NRC
approval of this amendment request. No
changes are being made to the facility which
would introduce any new accident causal
mechanisms. This amendment request does
not impact any plant systems that are
accident initiators. 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 margin of safety?
Response: No.
Implementation of this amendment would
not involve a significant reduction in the
E:\FR\FM\05JYN1.SGM
05JYN1
43652
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 5, 2016 / Notices
Florida Power & Light Company, Docket
Nos. 50–250 and 50–251, Turkey Point
Nuclear Generating, Unit Nos. 3 and 4,
Miami-Dade County, Florida
Date of amendment request: April 4,
2016. A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No.
ML16110A266.
Description of amendment request:
The amendments would revise the
Technical Specifications (TS)
requirements for snubbers. The licensee
proposed to revise the TSs to conform
to the licensee’s Snubber Testing
Program. The proposed changes include
additions to, deletions from, and
conforming administrative changes to
the TSs.
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:
examination, testing and service life
monitoring in compliance with 10 CFR
50.55a or authorized alternatives. The
proposed change to the TS 3.7.6 Action for
inoperable snubbers is administrative in
nature and is required for consistency with
the proposed change to TS SR 4.7.6. The
proposed change does not adversely affect
plant operations, design functions or
analyses that verify the capability of systems,
structures, and components to perform their
design functions therefore, the consequences
of accidents previously evaluated are not
significantly increased.
Therefore, it is concluded that this 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 changes do not involve any
physical alteration of plant equipment. The
proposed changes do not alter the method by
which any safety-related system performs its
function. As such, no new or different types
of equipment will be installed, and the basic
operation of installed equipment is
unchanged. The methods governing plant
operation and testing remain consistent with
current safety analysis assumptions.
Therefore, it is concluded that this 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 changes ensure snubber
examination, testing and service life
monitoring will continue to meet the
requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a(g). Snubbers
will continue to be demonstrated OPERABLE
by performance of a program for
examination, testing and service life
monitoring in compliance with 10 CFR
50.55a or authorized alternatives.
The proposed change to the TS 3.7.6
Action for inoperable snubbers is
administrative in nature and is required for
consistency with the proposed change to TS
SR 4.7.6.
Therefore, it is concluded that the
proposed change does not involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety.
1. Does the proposed change involve a
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes would revise TS SR
[Surveillance Requirement] 4.7.6 to conform
the TS to the revised surveillance program
for snubbers. Snubber examination, testing
and service life monitoring will continue to
meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a(g).
Snubber examination, testing and service
life monitoring is not an initiator of any
accident previously evaluated. Therefore, the
probability of an accident previously
evaluated is not significantly increased.
Snubbers will continue to be demonstrated
OPERABLE by performance of a program for
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: William S.
Blair, Managing Attorney—Nuclear,
Florida Power & Light Company, 700
Universe Blvd., MS LAW/JB, Juno
Beach, FL 33408–0420.
NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin G.
Beasley.
margin of safety. Previously approved
methodologies will continue to be used in
the determination of cycle-specific core
operating limits that are present in the COLR.
Additionally, previously approved RCS
minimum total flow rates for HBRSEP2 are
retained in the TS to assure that lower flow
rates will not be used without prior NRC
approval. Based on the above, it is concluded
that the proposed license amendment request
does not impact any safety margins and will
not result in a reduction in margin with
respect to plant safety.
sradovich on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES
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: Robert G.
Schaaf.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:27 Jul 01, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00083
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
South Carolina Electric and Gas
Company and South Carolina Public
Service Authority, Docket Nos. 52–027
and 52–028, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear
Station (VCSNS), Units 2 and 3,
Fairfield County, South Carolina
Date of amendment request: May 16,
2016. A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No.
ML16137A171.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed changes, if approved for
the VCSNS, involve departures from
incorporated plant-specific Tier 2
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report
(UFSAR) information and conforming
changes to the combined license
Appendix C, as well as conforming
changes to the plant-specific Tier 1
information, to ensure that the design
bases Tier 2 information conforms with
the originally certified design. The
licensee stated in its application that the
changes are editorial, and with one
exception, bring the plant-specific Tier
1 and Combined License (COL)
Appendix C into alignment with the
information contained in plant-specific
Tier 2. In addition, the licensee
requested a change to COL License
Condition 2.D(12)(f)1 to correct a
reference to a seismic interaction review
discussed in the AP1000 design
certification document, Revision 19,
Section 3.7.5.3.
Basis for proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination:
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
licensee has provided its analysis of the
issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented
below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed consistency and editorial
COL Appendix C (and plant-specific Tier 1)
and involved Tier 2 changes, along with one
COL paragraph 2.D change, do not involve a
technical change, (e.g., there is no design
parameter or requirement, calculation,
analysis, function or qualification change).
No structure, system, component design or
function would be affected. No design or
safety analysis would be affected. The
proposed changes do not affect any accident
initiating event or component failure, thus
the probabilities of the accidents previously
evaluated are not affected. No function used
to mitigate a radioactive material release and
no radioactive material release source term is
involved, thus the radiological releases in the
accident analyses are not affected.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not
involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create
the possibility of a new or different kind of
E:\FR\FM\05JYN1.SGM
05JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 5, 2016 / Notices
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed consistency and editorial
COL Appendix C (and plant-specific Tier 1)
and involved Tier 2 changes, along with one
COL paragraph 2.D change, would not affect
the design or function of any structure,
system, component (SSC), but will instead
provide consistency between the SSC designs
and functions currently presented in the
UFSAR and the Tier 1 information. The
proposed changes would not introduce a new
failure mode, fault or sequence of events that
could result in a radioactive material release.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not
create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed consistency and editorial
COL Appendix C (and plant-specific Tier 1)
and involved Tier 2 update, along with one
COL paragraph 2.D change, is non-technical,
thus would not affect any design parameter,
function or analysis. There would be no
change to an existing design basis, design
function, regulatory criterion, or analysis. No
safety analysis or design basis acceptance
limit/criterion is involved. Therefore, the
proposed amendment does not involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety.
sradovich on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES
The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee’s analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Ms. Kathryn M.
Sutton, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLC,
1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20004–2514.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Jennifer
Dixon-Herrity.
South Carolina Electric and Gas
Company, Docket Nos. 52–027 and 52–
028, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station
(VCSNS), Units 2 and 3, Fairfield
County, South Carolina
Date of amendment request: May 12,
2016. A publicly-available version is
available in ADAMS under Accession
No. ML16133A382.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed changes, if approved for
the VCSNS, involve departures from
incorporated plant-specific Tier 2
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report
(UFSAR) information and changes to the
combined license Appendix A
Technical Specifications to ensure that
the listed minimum volume of the
passive core cooling system core
makeup tanks are aligned with the
current inspections tests analyses and
acceptance criteria and the relevant
safety analysis.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:27 Jul 01, 2016
Jkt 238001
Basis for proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination:
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
licensee has provided its analysis of the
issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented
below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed activity would revise the
minimum CMT [Core Makeup Tank] volume
in the COL [combined operating license]
Appendix A (Technical Specifications) and
UFSAR information to be consistent with the
plant-specific Tier 1 and COL Appendix C
requirements. Because the new minimum
volume is bounded by the current analyses,
the proposed activity does not alter the
design of an accident initiating component or
system. Thus, the probabilities of an accident
previously evaluated are not affected. The
proposed activity does not involve other
safety-related equipment or radioactive
material barriers. Thus, the proposed activity
does not affect an accident mitigation
function.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not
involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create
the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed activity would revise the
minimum CMT volume in the COL Appendix
A (Technical Specifications) and UFSAR
information to be consistent with the plantspecific Tier 1 and COL Appendix C
requirements. No results or conclusions of
any design or safety analyses are affected. No
system or design function or equipment
qualification is affected by the changes. The
changes do not result in a new failure mode,
malfunction or sequence of events that could
affect safety or safety-related equipment. This
activity does not allow for a new fission
product release path, result in a new fission
product barrier failure mode, or create a new
sequence of events that results in significant
fuel cladding failures.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not
create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed activity would revise the
minimum CMT volume in the COL Appendix
A (Technical Specifications) and UFSAR
information to be consistent with the plantspecific Tier 1 and COL Appendix C
requirements. No results or conclusions of
any design or safety analyses are affected. No
system design function or equipment is
altered by this activity, and the proposed
changes do not alter any design code, safety
classification, or design margin. No safety
analysis or design basis limit is involved
with the requested change, and consequently,
no margin of safety is reduced.
PO 00000
Frm 00084
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
43653
Therefore, the proposed amendment does
not involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee’s analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Ms. Kathryn M.
Sutton, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLC,
1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20004–2514.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Jennifer
Dixon-Herrity.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company,
Docket Nos. 52–025 and 52–026, Vogtle
Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), Units
3 and 4, Burke County, Georgia
Date of amendment request: May 18,
2016. A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No.
ML16139A796.
Description of amendment request:
The amendment request proposes
changes to the technical specifications
(TS) and Updated Final Safety Analysis
Report (UFSAR) in the form of
departures from the incorporated plantspecific Design Control Document Tier
2 information. Specifically, the
proposed departures consist of changes
to the TS and UFSAR to revise the
minimum volume of the passive core
cooling system core makeup tanks.
Basis for proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination:
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
licensee has provided its analysis of the
issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented
below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed activity would revise the
minimum CMT [core makeup tank] volume
in the COL [combined operating license]
Appendix A (Technical Specifications) and
UFSAR information to be consistent with the
plant-specific Tier 1 and COL Appendix C
requirements. Because the new minimum
volume is bounded by the current analyses,
the proposed activity does not alter the
design of an accident initiating component or
system. Thus, the probabilities of an accident
previously evaluated are not affected. The
proposed activity does not involve other
safety-related equipment or radioactive
material barriers. Thus, the proposed activity
does not affect an accident mitigation
function.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does
not involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
E:\FR\FM\05JYN1.SGM
05JYN1
43654
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 5, 2016 / Notices
2. Does the proposed amendment create
the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed activity would revise the
minimum CMT volume in the COL Appendix
A (Technical Specifications) and UFSAR
information to be consistent with the plantspecific Tier 1 and COL Appendix C
requirements. No results or conclusions of
any design or safety analyses are affected. No
system or design function or equipment
qualification is affected by the changes. The
changes do not result in a new failure mode,
malfunction or sequence of events that could
affect safety or safety-related equipment. This
activity does not allow for a new fission
product release path, result in a new fission
product barrier failure mode, or create a new
sequence of events that results in significant
fuel cladding failures.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does
not create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed activity would revise the
minimum CMT volume in the COL Appendix
A (Technical Specifications) and UFSAR
information to be consistent with the plantspecific Tier 1 and COL Appendix C
requirements. No results or conclusions of
any design or safety analyses are affected. No
system design function or equipment is
altered by this activity, and the proposed
changes do not alter any design code, safety
classification, or design margin. No safety
analysis or design basis limit is involved
with the requested change, and consequently,
no margin of safety is reduced. Therefore, the
proposed amendment does not involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety.
sradovich on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES
The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee’s analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: M. Stanford
Blanton, Balch & Bingham LLP, 1710
Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL
35203–2015.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Jennifer
Dixon-Herrity.
III. Notice of Issuance of Amendments
to Facility Operating Licenses and
Combined Licenses
During the period since publication of
the last biweekly notice, the
Commission has issued the following
amendments. The Commission has
determined for each of these
amendments that the application
complies with the standards and
requirements of the Atomic Energy Act
of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the
Commission’s rules and regulations.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:27 Jul 01, 2016
Jkt 238001
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 amendments.
A notice of consideration of issuance
of amendment to facility operating
license or combined license, as
applicable, proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination,
and opportunity for a hearing in
connection with these actions, was
published in the Federal Register as
indicated.
Unless otherwise indicated, the
Commission has determined that these
amendments satisfy the criteria for
categorical exclusion in accordance
with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant
to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental
impact statement or environmental
assessment need be prepared for these
amendments. If the Commission has
prepared an environmental assessment
under the special circumstances
provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has
made a determination based on that
assessment, it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the
action, see (1) the applications for
amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3)
the Commission’s related letter, safety
evaluation, and/or environmental
assessment, as indicated. All of these
items can be accessed as described in
the ‘‘Obtaining Information and
Submitting Comments’’ section of this
document.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket
Nos. 50–269, 50–270, and 50–287,
Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and
3, Oconee County, South Carolina
Date of amendment request: July 17,
2015.
Brief description of amendments: The
amendments correct a usage problem
with recently issued Amendment Nos.
382, 384, and 383 (ADAMS Accession
No. ML13231A013), which precludes
Oconee Nuclear Station Technical
Specification (TS) 3.8.1, ‘‘AC
[Alternating Current] Sources—
Operating,’’ Condition H, from being
used as planned. The change revises the
note to TS 3.8.1, Required Actions L.1,
L.2, and L.3 to delete the 12-hour time
limitation when the second Keowee
Hydroelectric Unit (KHU) is made
inoperable for the purpose of restoring
the KHU undergoing maintenance to
OPERABLE status. Deletion of the 12hour time limitation allows the use of
the full 60-hour Completion Time of
Required Action H.2 when the unit(s)
have been in Condition C for greater
than 72 hours, and both units are made
inoperable for the purpose of restoring
PO 00000
Frm 00085
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
the KHU undergoing maintenance to
OPERABLE status.
Date of issuance: June 6, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 400 (Unit 1), 402
(Unit 2), and 401 (Unit 3). A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML16138A332;
documents related to these amendments
are listed in the Safety Evaluation
enclosed with the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License
Nos. DPR–38, DPR–47, and DPR–55: The
amendments revised the Renewed
Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: November 10, 2015 (80 FR
69710).
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendments is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated June 6, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.,
Docket No. 50–293, Pilgrim Nuclear
Power Station (PNPS), Plymouth
County, Massachusetts
Date of amendment request: July 15,
2015.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendment approved the revised
schedule for full implementation of the
Cyber Security Plan (CSP) for Milestone
8 by extending the date from June 30,
2016, to December 15, 2017, and revised
paragraphs 3.B and 3.G of Facility
Operating License No. DPR–35 for PNPS
to incorporate the revised CSP
implementation schedule.
Date of issuance: June 6, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days.
Amendment No.: 244. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML16082A460;
documents related to this amendment
are listed in the Safety Evaluation
enclosed with the amendment.
Facility Operating License No. DPR–
35: The amendment revised the
Renewed Facility Operating License.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: October 27, 2015 (80 FR
65812).
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated June 6, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
E:\FR\FM\05JYN1.SGM
05JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 5, 2016 / Notices
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating
Company, Docket Nos. 50–334 and 50–
412, Beaver Valley Power Station
(BVPS), Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Beaver
County, Pennsylvania Docket No. 50–
346, Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station
(DBNPS), Unit No. 1, Ottawa County,
Ohio
Date of application for amendments:
November 19, 2015, as supplemented by
letter dated March 22, 2016.
Brief description of amendments: The
amendments changed the BVPS and
DBNPS Technical Specifications (TSs).
Specifically, the license amendments
revised TS 5.3.1, ‘‘Unit Staff
Qualifications,’’ by incorporating an
exception to American National
Standards Institute (ANSI) Standard
N18.1–1971, ‘‘Selection and Training of
Nuclear Power Plant Personnel,’’ such
that licensed operators are only required
to comply with the requirements of 10
CFR part 55, ‘‘Operators’ Licenses.’’
Date of issuance: June 7, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days from the date of
issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 297 and 185 for
BVPS, Units 1 and 2, and 292 for
DBNPS, Unit 1. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession
No. ML16040A084. Documents related
to these amendments are listed in the
Safety Evaluation (SE) enclosed with the
amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License
Nos. DPR–66, NPF–73, and NPF–3: The
amendments revised the TSs and
Renewed Facility Operating Licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: January 19, 2016 (81 FR
2918). The supplemental letter dated
March 22, 2016, contained clarifying
information and did not change the NRC
staff’s initial proposed finding of no
significant hazards consideration.
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendments is contained in an
SE dated June 7, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
sradovich on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES
Luminant Generation Company LLC,
Docket Nos. 50–445 and 50–446,
Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant,
Unit Nos. 1 and 2 (CPNPP), Somervell
County, Texas
Date of amendment request: June 30,
2015, as supplemented by letters dated
January 27, 2016, and March 3, 2016.
Brief description of amendments: The
amendments revised the current
emergency action level scheme for
CPNPP to a scheme based on Nuclear
Energy Institute (NEI) 99–01, Revision 6,
‘‘Development of Emergency Action
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:27 Jul 01, 2016
Jkt 238001
Levels for Non-Passive Reactors,’’
November 2012.
Date of issuance: June 14, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 270 days from the date of
issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 166 (Unit 1) and
166 (Unit 2). A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession
No. ML16137A056; documents related
to these amendments are listed in the
Safety Evaluation enclosed with the
amendments.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF–
87 and NPF–89: The amendments
revised the Facility Operating Licenses
to authorize revision to the CPNPP
Emergency Plan.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: August 14, 2015 (80 FR
48923), and corrected on August 20,
2015 (80 FR 50663). The supplemental
letters dated January 27, 2016, and
March 3, 2016, provided additional
information that clarified the
application, did not expand the scope of
the application as originally noticed,
and did not change the staff’s original
proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination as
published in the Federal Register.
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendments is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated June 14, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Northern States Power Company—
Minnesota, Docket Nos. 50–282 and 50–
306, Prairie Island Nuclear Generating
Plant, Units 1 and 2, Goodhue County,
Minnesota
Date of amendment request: June 29,
2015, as supplemented by letters dated
December 30, 2015; January 25, 2016;
March 31, 2016; and April 14, 2016.
Brief description of amendments: The
amendments revised surveillance
requirements (SRs) related to gas
accumulation for the emergency core
cooling system and added new SRs
related to gas accumulation for the
residual heat removal and containment
spray systems, consistent with NRCapproved Technical Specifications Task
Force (TSTF) Standard Technical
Specifications Change Traveler TSTF–
523, Revision 2, ‘‘Generic Letter 2008–
01, Managing Gas Accumulation.’’
Date of issuance: June 16, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 217 (Unit 1) and
205 (Unit 2). A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession
No. ML16133A406; documents related
to these amendments are listed in the
PO 00000
Frm 00086
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
43655
Safety Evaluation enclosed with the
amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License
Nos. DPR–42 and DPR–60: The
amendments revised the Renewed
Facility Operating Licenses and
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: October 13, 2015 (80 FR
61484). The supplemental letters dated
December 30, 2015; January 25, 2016;
March 31, 2016; and April 14, 2016,
provided additional information that
clarified the application, did not expand
the scope of the application as originally
noticed, and did not change the staff’s
original proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination as
published in the Federal Register.
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendments is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated June 16, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Omaha Public Power District, Docket
No. 50–285, Fort Calhoun Station, Unit
No. 1, Washington County, Nebraska
Date of amendment request:
September 11, 2015.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendment revised the Technical
Specifications (TSs) to provide a short
Completion Time to restore an
inoperable system for conditions under
which the existing TSs require a plant
shutdown. The amendment is consistent
with NRC-approved Technical
Specifications Task Force (TSTF)
Traveler TSTF–426, Revision 5, ‘‘Revise
or Add Actions to Preclude Entry into
LCO [Limiting Condition for Operation]
3.0.3—RITSTF [Risk-Informed TSTF]
Initiatives 6b & 6c,’’ with certain plantspecific administrative variations.
Date of issuance: June 8, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days from the date of
issuance.
Amendment No.: 288. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML16139A804;
documents related to this amendment
are listed in the Safety Evaluation
enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License
No. DPR–40: The amendment revised
the Renewed Facility Operating License
and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: November 24, 2015 (80 FR
73239).
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated June 8, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
E:\FR\FM\05JYN1.SGM
05JYN1
43656
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 5, 2016 / Notices
Southern Nuclear Operating Company,
Inc., Docket Nos. 50–424 and 50–425,
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1
and 2, Burke County, Georgia
Date of amendment request: July 18,
2014, as supplemented by letters dated
February 27, 2015, and May 2, 2016.
Brief description of amendments: The
amendments revised 22 Technical
Specifications (TSs) by adopting
multiple previously NRC-approved
Technical Specifications Task Force
(TSTF) Travelers. One proposed change
is not included in this license
amendment and will be addressed by
further correspondence. Southern
Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC)
stated that these TSTF Travelers are
generic changes chosen to increase the
consistency between the Vogtle Electric
Generating Plant TSs, the Improved
Standard Technical Specifications for
Westinghouse plants (NUREG–1431),
and the TSs of the other plants in the
SNC fleet.
Date of issuance: June 9, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 120 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 180 (Unit 1) and
161 (Unit 2). A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession
No. ML15132A569; documents related
to these amendments are listed in the
Safety Evaluation enclosed with the
amendments.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF–
68 and NPF–81: Amendments revised
the Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: March 3, 2015 (80 FR 11480).
The supplemental letters dated February
27, 2015, and May 2, 2016, 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
proposal 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 9, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
sradovich on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES
Southern Nuclear Operating Company,
Docket Nos. 50–348 and 50–364, Joseph
M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2,
Houston County, Alabama
Date of amendment request: April 13,
2015, as supplemented by letters dated
September 17, 2015, and April 13, 2016.
Brief description of amendments: The
amendments consist of changes to the
Technical Specifications consistent with
the NRC-approved Technical
Specification Task Force Improved
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:27 Jul 01, 2016
Jkt 238001
Standard Technical Specifications
Change Traveler-432, Revision 1,
‘‘Change in Technical Specifications
End States (WCAP–16294),’’ dated
November 29, 2010.
Date of issuance: June 10, 2016.
Effective date: As of its date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 202 (Unit 1) and
198 (Unit 2). A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession
No. ML15289A227; documents related
to these amendments are listed in the
Safety Evaluation enclosed with the
amendments.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF–
2 and NPF–8: The amendments revised
the Renewed Facility Operating
Licenses and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: May 26, 2015 (80 FR 30102).
The supplemental letters dated
September 17, 2015, and April 13, 2016,
provided additional information that
clarified the application, did not expand
the scope of the application as originally
noticed, and did not change the staff’s
original proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination as
published in the Federal Register.
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendments is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated June 10, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd
day of June 2016.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Anne T. Boland,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor
Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2016–15659 Filed 7–1–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50–390; NRC–2016–0131]
Tennessee Valley Authority Watts Bar
Nuclear Plant, Unit 1
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Environmental assessment and
finding of no significant impact;
issuance.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) is considering the
issuance of an amendment to Facility
Operating License No. NFP–90, issued
February 7, 1996, and held by the
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA, the
licensee) for the operation of Watts Bar
Nuclear Plant (WBN), Unit 1. The
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00087
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
proposed amendment would revise
Technical Specification (TS) 4.2.1,
‘‘Fuel Assemblies’’; TS 3.5.1
‘‘Accumulators’’; Surveillance
Requirement (SR) 3.5.1.4; TS 3.5.4,
‘‘Refueling Water Storage Tank’’; and SR
3.5.4.3, to increase the maximum
number of tritium producing burnable
absorber rods (TPBARs) and to delete
outdated information related to the
tritium production program. The NRC
staff is issuing an environmental
assessment (EA) and finding of no
significant impact (FONSI) associated
with the proposed license amendment.
The Environmental assessment
referenced in this document is available
on July 5, 2016.
DATES:
Please refer to Docket ID
NRC–2016–0131 when contacting the
NRC about the availability of
information regarding this document.
You may obtain publicly-available
information related to this document
using any of the following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for Docket ID NRC–2016–0131. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol
Gallagher; telephone: 301–415–3463;
email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For
technical questions, contact the
individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
document.
• NRC’s Agencywide Documents
Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may obtain publiclyavailable documents online in the
ADAMS Public Documents collection at
https://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. For the
convenience of the reader, the ADAMS
accession numbers are provided in a
table in the AVAILABILITY OF
DOCUMENTS section of this document.
• 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.
ADDRESSES:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert Schaaf, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation, Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555–
0001; telephone: 301–415–6020, email:
Robert.Schaaf@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
E:\FR\FM\05JYN1.SGM
05JYN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 128 (Tuesday, July 5, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43646-43656]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-15659]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2016-0127]
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 June 7, 2016, to June 20, 2016. The last
biweekly notice was published on June 21, 2016.
DATES: Comments must be filed by August 4, 2016. A request for a
hearing must be filed by September 6, 2016.
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 https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2016-0127. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-
3463; 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: OWFN-12-H08, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555-0001.
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting
comments, see ``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lynn Ronewicz, Office of Nuclear
[[Page 43647]]
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1927, email: lynn.ronewicz@nrc.gov.
I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments
A. Obtaining Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0127 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 https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2016-0127.
NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the
ADAMS Public Documents collection at https://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-2016-0127, facility name, unit
number(s), application date, and subject in your comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact
information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your
comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at https://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into
ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove
identifying or contact information.
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons
for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to
include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be
publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should
state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to
remove such information before making the comment submissions available
to the public or entering the comment 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 if 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. If the Commission
takes 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. If the Commission makes 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 https://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.
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 set forth 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
[[Page 43648]]
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 with respect to resolution of that person's admitted
contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence and to
submit a cross-examination plan for cross-examination of witnesses,
consistent with NRC regulations, policies and procedures.
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). If a hearing is requested, and the Commission
has not made a final determination 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 unless the
Commission finds an imminent danger to the health or safety of the
public, in which case it will issue an appropriate order or rule under
10 CFR part 2.
A State, local governmental body, federally-recognized Indian
Tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to
participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition should
state the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the
proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission by
September 6, 2016. The petition must be filed in accordance with the
filing instructions in the ``Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)''
section of this document, and should meet the requirements for
petitions for leave to intervene set forth in this section, except that
under Sec. 2.309(h)(2) a State, local governmental body, or Federally-
recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof does not need to address the
standing requirements in 10 CFR 2.309(d) if the facility is located
within its boundaries. A State, local governmental body, Federally-
recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof, may also have the
opportunity to participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c).
If a hearing is granted, any person who does not wish, or is not
qualified, to become a party to the proceeding may, in the discretion
of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited appearance
pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person making a
limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of position on
the issues, but may not otherwise participate in the proceeding. A
limited appearance may be made at any session of the hearing or at any
prehearing conference, subject to the limits and conditions as may be
imposed by the presiding officer. Persons desiring to make a limited
appearance are requested to inform the Secretary of the Commission by
September 6, 2016.
B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a
request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or
other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a
request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by
interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c),
must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139;
August 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit
and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some
cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not
submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in
accordance with the procedures described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least
ten 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should
contact the Office of the Secretary by email at hearing.docket@nrc.gov,
or by telephone at 301-415-1677, to request (1) a digital
identification (ID) certificate, which allows the participant (or its
counsel or representative) to digitally sign documents and access the
E-Submittal server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and
(2) advise the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a
request or petition for hearing (even in instances in which the
participant, or its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-
issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the
Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the hearing in this
proceeding if the Secretary has not already established an electronic
docket.
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is
available on the NRC's public Web site at https://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 https://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 https://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 https://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
[[Page 43649]]
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 https://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
https://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, in some instances, a request to intervene will require
including information on local residence in order to demonstrate a
proximity assertion of interest in the proceeding. With respect to
copyrighted works, except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose
of the adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use
application, participants are requested not to include copyrighted
materials in their submission.
Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60
days from the date of publication of this notice. Requests for hearing,
petitions for leave to intervene, and motions for leave to file new or
amended contentions that are filed after the 60-day deadline will not
be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the
filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10
CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(iii).
For further details with respect to these license amendment
applications, see the application for amendment, which is available for
public inspection in ADAMS and at the NRC's PDR. For additional
direction on accessing information related to this document, see the
``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' section of this
document.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370, McGuire
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Date of amendment request: May 5, 2016. A publicly available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16134A068.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would modify
Technical Specifications (TSs) by the removal of Note (c), which is no
longer applicable from TS Table 3.3.2-1, ``Engineered Safety Feature
Actuation System Instrumentation,'' Function 6.f, ``Auxiliary Feedwater
Pump Suction Transfer on Suction Pressure--Low,'' and the removal of an
expired one-time Note for Required Action to restore Diesel Generator
to OPERABLE status for TS 3.8.1, ``AC Sources--Operating.''
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
This LAR [license amendment request] proposes administrative
non-technical changes only. These proposed changes do not adversely
affect accident initiators or precursors nor alter the design
assumptions, conditions, or configurations of the facility. The
proposed changes do not alter or prevent the ability of structures,
systems and components (SSCs) to perform their intended function to
mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within the assumed
acceptance limits.
Given the above discussion, it is concluded the proposed
amendment does not significantly increase the probability or
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
This LAR proposes administrative non-technical changes only. The
proposed changes will not alter the design requirements of any
Structure, System or Component (SSC) or its function during accident
conditions. No new or different accidents result from the proposed
changes. The changes do not involve a physical alteration of the
plant or any changes in methods governing normal plant operation.
The changes do not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis.
Given the above discussion, it is concluded the proposed
amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind
of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
This LAR proposes administrative non-technical changes only. The
proposed changes do 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 these changes. The proposed changes will not result in
plant operation in a configuration outside the design basis. The
proposed changes do not adversely affect systems that respond to
safely shutdown the plant and to maintain the plant in a safe
shutdown condition.
Given the above discussion, it is concluded the proposed
amendment does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of
safety.
[[Page 43650]]
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, 526 South Church Street--EC07H, Charlotte, NC
28202.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287,
Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, Oconee County, South
Carolina
Date of amendment request: February 26, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16064A020.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise
Technical Specifications (TSs) for the Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1,
2, and 3 (Oconee). Specifically, the license amendment request (LAR)
would revise TS 3.8.1, ``AC [Alternating Current] Sources--Operating,''
Required Action C.2.2.5, to allow each Keowee Hydroelectric Unit to be
taken out of service for up to 55 days on a one-time basis for the
purpose of generator stator replacement, subject to the implementation
of specified contingency measures outlined in the LAR.
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, with NRC edits in square
brackets:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
This change involves the temporary addition of a 55-day
Completion Time for Technical Specification (TS) 3.8.1 Required
Action C.2.2.5 associated with restoring compliance with TS Limiting
Condition for Operation (LCO) 3.8.1.C. During the time that one
Keowee Hydroelectric Unit (KHU) is inoperable for [greater than] 72
hours, a Lee Combustion Turbine (LCT) will be energizing both
standby buses, two offsite power sources will be maintained
available, and maintenance on electrical distribution systems will
not be performed unless necessary. In addition, risk significant
systems (Emergency Feedwater System, Protected Service Water System,
and Standby Shutdown Facility) will be verified operable (meeting
LCO requirements) within 72 hours of entering TS 3.8.1 Condition C
(i.e., prior to use of the 55-day Completion Time of Required Action
C.2.2.5). The temporary 55-day Completion Time will decrease the
likelihood of an unplanned forced shutdown of all three Oconee Units
and the potential safety consequences and operational risks
associated with that action. Avoiding this risk offsets the risks
associated with having a design basis event during the temporary 55-
day completion time for having one KHU inoperable.
The temporary addition of the 55-day Completion Time does not
involve: (1) A physical alteration to the Oconee Units; (2) the
installation of new or different equipment; (3) operating any
installed equipment in a new or different manner; or (4) a change to
any set points for parameters which initiate protective or
mitigation action.
There is no adverse impact on containment integrity,
radiological release pathways, fuel design, filtration systems, main
steam relief valve set points, or radwaste systems. No new
radiological release pathways are created.
The consequences of an event occurring during the temporary 55-
day Completion Time are the same as those that would occur during
the existing Completion Time. Duke Energy reviewed the Probabilistic
Risk Assessment (PRA) to gain additional insights concerning the
configuration of [Oconee] with one KHU. The results of the risk
analysis show a risk improvement if no maintenance is performed on
the SSF, EFW System and AC Power System. The results of the risk
analysis show a small risk increase using the average nominal
maintenance unavailability values for the SSF, EFW System and AC
Power System.
By limiting maintenance, the risk results are expected to be
between these two extremes (i.e., small risk impact).
Therefore, the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated is not significantly increased.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
This change involves the temporary addition of a 55-day
Completion Time for TS 3.8.1 Required Action C.2.2.5 associated with
restoring compliance with TS LCO 3.8.1. During the time period that
one KHU is inoperable, the redundancy requirement for the emergency
power source will be fulfilled by an LCT. Compensatory measures
previously specified will be in place to minimize electrical power
system vulnerabilities.
The temporary 55-day Completion Time does not involve a physical
effect on the Oconee Units, nor is there any increased risk of an
Oconee Unit trip or reactivity excursion. No new failure modes or
credible accident scenarios are postulated from this activity.
Therefore, the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any kind of accident previously evaluated is not
created.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
This change involves the temporary addition of a 55-day
Completion Time for TS 3.8.1 Required Action C.2.2.5 associated with
restoring compliance with TS LCO 3.8.1. During the time period that
one KHU is inoperable, the redundancy requirement for the emergency
power source will be fulfilled by an LCT. Compensatory measures
previously specified will be in place to minimize electrical power
system vulnerabilities.
The proposed TS change does not involve: (1) a physical
alteration of the Oconee Units; (2) the installation of new or
different equipment; (3) operating any installed equipment in a new
or different manner; (4) a change to any set points for parameters
which initiate protective or mitigation action; or (5) any impact on
the fission product barriers or safety limits.
Therefore, this request 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, 526 S. Church St.--EC07H, Charlotte, NC 28202.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Duke Energy Progress, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-325 and 50-324, Brunswick
Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2 (BSEP), Brunswick County, North
Carolina
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414, Catawba
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York County, South Carolina
Duke Energy Progress, Inc., Docket No. 50-400, Shearon Harris Nuclear
Power Plant, Unit 1 (HNP), Wake County, North Carolina
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370, McGuire
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287,
Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, Oconee County, South
Carolina
Duke Energy Progress, Inc., Docket No. 50-261, H. B. Robinson Steam
Electric Plant, Unit No. 2 (RNP), Darlington County, South Carolina
Date of amendment request: April 29, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16120A076.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would (1)
consolidate the Emergency Operations Facilities (EOFs) for BSEP, HNP,
and RNP with the Duke Energy Progress, Inc. (Duke
[[Page 43651]]
Energy) corporate EOF in Charlotte, North Carolina; (2) change the
BSEP, HNP, and RNP augmentation times to be consistent with those of
the sites currently supported by the Duke Energy corporate EOF; and (3)
decrease the frequency of the unannounced augmentation drill at BSEP
from twice per year to once per year.
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 changes relocate the BSEP, HNP, and RNP EOFs from
their present onsite or near-site locations to the established
corporate EOF in Charlotte, North Carolina, changes the required
response times for supplementing onsite personnel in response to a
radiological emergency, and decreases the frequency of augmentation
drills at BSEP. The functions and capabilities of the relocated EOFs
will continue to meet the applicable regulatory requirements. It has
been evaluated and determined that the change in response time does
not significantly affect the ability to supplement the onsite staff.
In addition, analysis shows that the onsite staff can acceptably
respond to an event for longer than the requested time for augmented
staff to arrive. The proposed changes have no effect on normal plant
operation or on any accident initiator or precursors, and do not
impact the function of plant structures, systems, or components
(SSCs). The proposed changes do not alter or prevent the ability of
the emergency response organization to perform its intended
functions to mitigate the consequences of an accident or event.
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 changes only impact the implementation of the
affected stations' emergency plans by relocating their onsite or
near-site EOFs to the established corporate EOF in Charlotte, North
Carolina, changing the required response time of responders who
supplement the onsite staff, and decreasing the frequency of
augmentation drills at BSEP. The functions and capabilities of the
relocated EOFs will continue to meet the applicable regulatory
requirements. It has been evaluated and determined that the change
in response time does not significantly affect the ability to
supplement the onsite staff. In addition, analysis shows that the
onsite staff can acceptably respond to an event for longer than the
requested time for augmented staff to arrive. The proposed changes
will not change the design function or operation of SSCs. The
changes do not impact the accident analysis. The changes do not
involve a physical alteration of the plant, a change in the method
of plant operation, or new operator actions. The proposed changes do
not introduce failure modes that could result in a new accident, and
the changes do 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 accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes only impacts the implementation of the
affected stations' emergency plans by relocating their onsite or
near-site EOFs to the established corporate EOF in Charlotte, North
Carolina, changing the required response time of responders who
supplement the onsite staff, and decreasing the frequency of
augmentation drills at BSEP. The functions and capabilities of the
relocated EOFs will continue to meet the applicable regulatory
requirements. It has been evaluated and determined that the change
in response time does not significantly affect the ability to
supplement the onsite staff. In addition, analysis shows that the
onsite staff can acceptably respond to an event for longer than the
requested time for augmented staff to arrive. Margin of safety is
associated with confidence in the ability of the fission product
barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, reactor coolant system pressure
boundary, and containment structure) to limit the level of radiation
dose to the public. The proposed changes are associated with the
emergency plans and do not impact operation of the plant or its
response to transients or accidents. The changes do not affect the
Technical Specifications. The changes do not involve a change in the
method of plant operation, and no accident analyses will be affected
by the proposed changes. Safety analysis acceptance criteria are not
affected. The emergency plans will continue to provide the necessary
response staff for emergencies as demonstrated by staffing and
functional analyses including the necessary timeliness of performing
major tasks for the functional areas of the emergency plans.
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: Tracy J. Orf.
Duke Energy Progress, Inc., Docket No. 50-261, H. B. Robinson Steam
Electric Plant, Unit No. 2 (HBRSEP2), Darlington County, South Carolina
Date of amendment request: April 24, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16116A033.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would adopt
Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-339, Revision
2, ``Relocated TS Parameters to COLR.'' Based on TSTF-339, the proposed
amendment would relocate reactor coolant system (RCS)-related cycle-
specific parameters and core safety limits from the technical
specifications (TSs) to the Core Operating Limits Report (COLR).
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The relocation of RCS-related cycle-specific parameter limits
from the TS to the COLR proposed by this amendment request does not
result in the alteration of the design, material, or construction
standards that were applicable prior to the change. The proposed
change will not result in the modification of any system interface
that would increase the likelihood of an accident since these events
are independent of the proposed change. The proposed amendment will
not change, degrade, or prevent actions, or alter any assumptions
previously made in evaluating the radiological consequences of an
accident described in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report
(UFSAR). Therefore, the proposed amendment does not result in an
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.
There are no new accident causal mechanisms created as a result
of NRC approval of this amendment request. No changes are being made
to the facility which would introduce any new accident causal
mechanisms. This amendment request does not impact any plant systems
that are accident initiators. 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
margin of safety?
Response: No.
Implementation of this amendment would not involve a significant
reduction in the
[[Page 43652]]
margin of safety. Previously approved methodologies will continue to
be used in the determination of cycle-specific core operating limits
that are present in the COLR. Additionally, previously approved RCS
minimum total flow rates for HBRSEP2 are retained in the TS to
assure that lower flow rates will not be used without prior NRC
approval. Based on the above, it is concluded that the proposed
license amendment request does not impact any safety margins and
will not result in a reduction in margin with respect to plant
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: Robert G. Schaaf.
Florida Power & Light Company, Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251, Turkey
Point Nuclear Generating, Unit Nos. 3 and 4, Miami-Dade County, Florida
Date of amendment request: April 4, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16110A266.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the
Technical Specifications (TS) requirements for snubbers. The licensee
proposed to revise the TSs to conform to the licensee's Snubber Testing
Program. The proposed changes include additions to, deletions from, and
conforming administrative changes to the TSs.
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 changes would revise TS SR [Surveillance
Requirement] 4.7.6 to conform the TS to the revised surveillance
program for snubbers. Snubber examination, testing and service life
monitoring will continue to meet the requirements of 10 CFR
50.55a(g).
Snubber examination, testing and service life monitoring is not
an initiator of any accident previously evaluated. Therefore, the
probability of an accident previously evaluated is not significantly
increased.
Snubbers will continue to be demonstrated OPERABLE by
performance of a program for examination, testing and service life
monitoring in compliance with 10 CFR 50.55a or authorized
alternatives. The proposed change to the TS 3.7.6 Action for
inoperable snubbers is administrative in nature and is required for
consistency with the proposed change to TS SR 4.7.6. The proposed
change does not adversely affect plant operations, design functions
or analyses that verify the capability of systems, structures, and
components to perform their design functions therefore, the
consequences of accidents previously evaluated are not significantly
increased.
Therefore, it is concluded that this 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 changes do not involve any physical alteration of
plant equipment. The proposed changes do not alter the method by
which any safety-related system performs its function. As such, no
new or different types of equipment will be installed, and the basic
operation of installed equipment is unchanged. The methods governing
plant operation and testing remain consistent with current safety
analysis assumptions.
Therefore, it is concluded that this 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 changes ensure snubber examination, testing and
service life monitoring will continue to meet the requirements of 10
CFR 50.55a(g). Snubbers will continue to be demonstrated OPERABLE by
performance of a program for examination, testing and service life
monitoring in compliance with 10 CFR 50.55a or authorized
alternatives.
The proposed change to the TS 3.7.6 Action for inoperable
snubbers is administrative in nature and is required for consistency
with the proposed change to TS SR 4.7.6.
Therefore, it is concluded that 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: William S. Blair, Managing Attorney--
Nuclear, Florida Power & Light Company, 700 Universe Blvd., MS LAW/JB,
Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420.
NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin G. Beasley.
South Carolina Electric and Gas Company and South Carolina Public
Service Authority, Docket Nos. 52-027 and 52-028, Virgil C. Summer
Nuclear Station (VCSNS), Units 2 and 3, Fairfield County, South
Carolina
Date of amendment request: May 16, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16137A171.
Description of amendment request: The proposed changes, if approved
for the VCSNS, involve departures from incorporated plant-specific Tier
2 Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) information and
conforming changes to the combined license Appendix C, as well as
conforming changes to the plant-specific Tier 1 information, to ensure
that the design bases Tier 2 information conforms with the originally
certified design. The licensee stated in its application that the
changes are editorial, and with one exception, bring the plant-specific
Tier 1 and Combined License (COL) Appendix C into alignment with the
information contained in plant-specific Tier 2. In addition, the
licensee requested a change to COL License Condition 2.D(12)(f)1 to
correct a reference to a seismic interaction review discussed in the
AP1000 design certification document, Revision 19, Section 3.7.5.3.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed consistency and editorial COL Appendix C (and
plant-specific Tier 1) and involved Tier 2 changes, along with one
COL paragraph 2.D change, do not involve a technical change, (e.g.,
there is no design parameter or requirement, calculation, analysis,
function or qualification change). No structure, system, component
design or function would be affected. No design or safety analysis
would be affected. The proposed changes do not affect any accident
initiating event or component failure, thus the probabilities of the
accidents previously evaluated are not affected. No function used to
mitigate a radioactive material release and no radioactive material
release source term is involved, thus the radiological releases in
the accident analyses are not affected.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of
[[Page 43653]]
accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed consistency and editorial COL Appendix C (and
plant-specific Tier 1) and involved Tier 2 changes, along with one
COL paragraph 2.D change, would not affect the design or function of
any structure, system, component (SSC), but will instead provide
consistency between the SSC designs and functions currently
presented in the UFSAR and the Tier 1 information. The proposed
changes would not introduce a new failure mode, fault or sequence of
events that could result in a radioactive material release.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a
new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed consistency and editorial COL Appendix C (and
plant-specific Tier 1) and involved Tier 2 update, along with one
COL paragraph 2.D change, is non-technical, thus would not affect
any design parameter, function or analysis. There would be no change
to an existing design basis, design function, regulatory criterion,
or analysis. No safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/
criterion is involved. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Ms. Kathryn M. Sutton, Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius LLC, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004-2514.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Jennifer Dixon-Herrity.
South Carolina Electric and Gas Company, Docket Nos. 52-027 and 52-028,
Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS), Units 2 and 3, Fairfield
County, South Carolina
Date of amendment request: May 12, 2016. A publicly-available
version is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16133A382.
Description of amendment request: The proposed changes, if approved
for the VCSNS, involve departures from incorporated plant-specific Tier
2 Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) information and changes
to the combined license Appendix A Technical Specifications to ensure
that the listed minimum volume of the passive core cooling system core
makeup tanks are aligned with the current inspections tests analyses
and acceptance criteria and the relevant 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 is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed activity would revise the minimum CMT [Core Makeup
Tank] volume in the COL [combined operating license] Appendix A
(Technical Specifications) and UFSAR information to be consistent
with the plant-specific Tier 1 and COL Appendix C requirements.
Because the new minimum volume is bounded by the current analyses,
the proposed activity does not alter the design of an accident
initiating component or system. Thus, the probabilities of an
accident previously evaluated are not affected. The proposed
activity does not involve other safety-related equipment or
radioactive material barriers. Thus, the proposed activity does not
affect an accident mitigation function.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed activity would revise the minimum CMT volume in the
COL Appendix A (Technical Specifications) and UFSAR information to
be consistent with the plant-specific Tier 1 and COL Appendix C
requirements. No results or conclusions of any design or safety
analyses are affected. No system or design function or equipment
qualification is affected by the changes. The changes do not result
in a new failure mode, malfunction or sequence of events that could
affect safety or safety-related equipment. This activity does not
allow for a new fission product release path, result in a new
fission product barrier failure mode, or create a new sequence of
events that results in significant fuel cladding failures.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed activity would revise the minimum CMT volume in the
COL Appendix A (Technical Specifications) and UFSAR information to
be consistent with the plant-specific Tier 1 and COL Appendix C
requirements. No results or conclusions of any design or safety
analyses are affected. No system design function or equipment is
altered by this activity, and the proposed changes do not alter any
design code, safety classification, or design margin. No safety
analysis or design basis limit is involved with the requested
change, and consequently, no margin of safety is reduced.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Ms. Kathryn M. Sutton, Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius LLC, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004-2514.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Jennifer Dixon-Herrity.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026,
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), Units 3 and 4, Burke County,
Georgia
Date of amendment request: May 18, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16139A796.
Description of amendment request: The amendment request proposes
changes to the technical specifications (TS) and Updated Final Safety
Analysis Report (UFSAR) in the form of departures from the incorporated
plant-specific Design Control Document Tier 2 information.
Specifically, the proposed departures consist of changes to the TS and
UFSAR to revise the minimum volume of the passive core cooling system
core makeup tanks.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed activity would revise the minimum CMT [core makeup
tank] volume in the COL [combined operating license] Appendix A
(Technical Specifications) and UFSAR information to be consistent
with the plant-specific Tier 1 and COL Appendix C requirements.
Because the new minimum volume is bounded by the current analyses,
the proposed activity does not alter the design of an accident
initiating component or system. Thus, the probabilities of an
accident previously evaluated are not affected. The proposed
activity does not involve other safety-related equipment or
radioactive material barriers. Thus, the proposed activity does not
affect an accident mitigation function.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
[[Page 43654]]
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed activity would revise the minimum CMT volume in the
COL Appendix A (Technical Specifications) and UFSAR information to
be consistent with the plant-specific Tier 1 and COL Appendix C
requirements. No results or conclusions of any design or safety
analyses are affected. No system or design function or equipment
qualification is affected by the changes. The changes do not result
in a new failure mode, malfunction or sequence of events that could
affect safety or safety-related equipment. This activity does not
allow for a new fission product release path, result in a new
fission product barrier failure mode, or create a new sequence of
events that results in significant fuel cladding failures.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed activity would revise the minimum CMT volume in the
COL Appendix A (Technical Specifications) and UFSAR information to
be consistent with the plant-specific Tier 1 and COL Appendix C
requirements. No results or conclusions of any design or safety
analyses are affected. No system design function or equipment is
altered by this activity, and the proposed changes do not alter any
design code, safety classification, or design margin. No safety
analysis or design basis limit is involved with the requested
change, and consequently, no margin of safety is reduced. Therefore,
the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: M. Stanford Blanton, Balch & Bingham LLP,
1710 Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 35203-2015.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Jennifer Dixon-Herrity.
III. Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses
and Combined Licenses
During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice,
the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has
determined for each of these amendments that the application complies
with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,
as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The
Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the
Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set
forth in the license amendments.
A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility
operating license or combined license, as applicable, proposed no
significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a
hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the Federal
Register as indicated.
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that
these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in
accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b),
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be
prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an
environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in
10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment,
it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the action, see (1) the
applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's
related letter, safety evaluation, and/or environmental assessment, as
indicated. All of these items can be accessed as described in the
``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' section of this
document.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287,
Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, Oconee County, South
Carolina
Date of amendment request: July 17, 2015.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments correct a usage
problem with recently issued Amendment Nos. 382, 384, and 383 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML13231A013), which precludes Oconee Nuclear Station
Technical Specification (TS) 3.8.1, ``AC [Alternating Current]
Sources--Operating,'' Condition H, from being used as planned. The
change revises the note to TS 3.8.1, Required Actions L.1, L.2, and L.3
to delete the 12-hour time limitation when the second Keowee
Hydroelectric Unit (KHU) is made inoperable for the purpose of
restoring the KHU undergoing maintenance to OPERABLE status. Deletion
of the 12-hour time limitation allows the use of the full 60-hour
Completion Time of Required Action H.2 when the unit(s) have been in
Condition C for greater than 72 hours, and both units are made
inoperable for the purpose of restoring the KHU undergoing maintenance
to OPERABLE status.
Date of issuance: June 6, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 400 (Unit 1), 402 (Unit 2), and 401 (Unit 3). A
publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16138A332;
documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety
Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-38, DPR-47, and DPR-55:
The amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 10, 2015 (80
FR 69710).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 6, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-293, Pilgrim Nuclear
Power Station (PNPS), Plymouth County, Massachusetts
Date of amendment request: July 15, 2015.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment approved the revised
schedule for full implementation of the Cyber Security Plan (CSP) for
Milestone 8 by extending the date from June 30, 2016, to December 15,
2017, and revised paragraphs 3.B and 3.G of Facility Operating License
No. DPR-35 for PNPS to incorporate the revised CSP implementation
schedule.
Date of issuance: June 6, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days.
Amendment No.: 244. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML16082A460; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Facility Operating License No. DPR-35: The amendment revised the
Renewed Facility Operating License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 27, 2015 (80 FR
65812).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 6, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
[[Page 43655]]
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 50-334 and 50-412,
Beaver Valley Power Station (BVPS), Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Beaver County,
Pennsylvania Docket No. 50-346, Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station
(DBNPS), Unit No. 1, Ottawa County, Ohio
Date of application for amendments: November 19, 2015, as
supplemented by letter dated March 22, 2016.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments changed the BVPS
and DBNPS Technical Specifications (TSs). Specifically, the license
amendments revised TS 5.3.1, ``Unit Staff Qualifications,'' by
incorporating an exception to American National Standards Institute
(ANSI) Standard N18.1-1971, ``Selection and Training of Nuclear Power
Plant Personnel,'' such that licensed operators are only required to
comply with the requirements of 10 CFR part 55, ``Operators'
Licenses.''
Date of issuance: June 7, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 297 and 185 for BVPS, Units 1 and 2, and 292 for
DBNPS, Unit 1. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession
No. ML16040A084. Documents related to these amendments are listed in
the Safety Evaluation (SE) enclosed with the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-66, NPF-73, and NPF-3:
The amendments revised the TSs and Renewed Facility Operating Licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 19, 2016 (81 FR
2918). The supplemental letter dated March 22, 2016, contained
clarifying information and did not change the NRC staff's initial
proposed finding of no significant hazards consideration.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in an SE dated June 7, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Luminant Generation Company LLC, Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446,
Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 (CPNPP), Somervell
County, Texas
Date of amendment request: June 30, 2015, as supplemented by
letters dated January 27, 2016, and March 3, 2016.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the current
emergency action level scheme for CPNPP to a scheme based on Nuclear
Energy Institute (NEI) 99-01, Revision 6, ``Development of Emergency
Action Levels for Non-Passive Reactors,'' November 2012.
Date of issuance: June 14, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 270 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 166 (Unit 1) and 166 (Unit 2). A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16137A056; documents related
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with
the amendments.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-87 and NPF-89: The amendments
revised the Facility Operating Licenses to authorize revision to the
CPNPP Emergency Plan.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 14, 2015 (80 FR
48923), and corrected on August 20, 2015 (80 FR 50663). The
supplemental letters dated January 27, 2016, and March 3, 2016,
provided additional information that clarified the application, did not
expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not
change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 14, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Northern States Power Company--Minnesota, Docket Nos. 50-282 and 50-
306, Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, Goodhue
County, Minnesota
Date of amendment request: June 29, 2015, as supplemented by
letters dated December 30, 2015; January 25, 2016; March 31, 2016; and
April 14, 2016.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised
surveillance requirements (SRs) related to gas accumulation for the
emergency core cooling system and added new SRs related to gas
accumulation for the residual heat removal and containment spray
systems, consistent with NRC-approved Technical Specifications Task
Force (TSTF) Standard Technical Specifications Change Traveler TSTF-
523, Revision 2, ``Generic Letter 2008-01, Managing Gas Accumulation.''
Date of issuance: June 16, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 217 (Unit 1) and 205 (Unit 2). A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16133A406; documents related
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with
the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-42 and DPR-60: The
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 13, 2015 (80 FR
61484). The supplemental letters dated December 30, 2015; January 25,
2016; March 31, 2016; and April 14, 2016, provided additional
information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of
the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's
original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as
published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 16, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Omaha Public Power District, Docket No. 50-285, Fort Calhoun Station,
Unit No. 1, Washington County, Nebraska
Date of amendment request: September 11, 2015.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical
Specifications (TSs) to provide a short Completion Time to restore an
inoperable system for conditions under which the existing TSs require a
plant shutdown. The amendment is consistent with NRC-approved Technical
Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-426, Revision 5,
``Revise or Add Actions to Preclude Entry into LCO [Limiting Condition
for Operation] 3.0.3--RITSTF [Risk-Informed TSTF] Initiatives 6b &
6c,'' with certain plant-specific administrative variations.
Date of issuance: June 8, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 288. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML16139A804; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-40: The amendment
revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 24, 2015 (80
FR 73239).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 8, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
[[Page 43656]]
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-
425, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, Burke County,
Georgia
Date of amendment request: July 18, 2014, as supplemented by
letters dated February 27, 2015, and May 2, 2016.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised 22
Technical Specifications (TSs) by adopting multiple previously NRC-
approved Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Travelers. One
proposed change is not included in this license amendment and will be
addressed by further correspondence. Southern Nuclear Operating
Company, Inc. (SNC) stated that these TSTF Travelers are generic
changes chosen to increase the consistency between the Vogtle Electric
Generating Plant TSs, the Improved Standard Technical Specifications
for Westinghouse plants (NUREG-1431), and the TSs of the other plants
in the SNC fleet.
Date of issuance: June 9, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 120 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 180 (Unit 1) and 161 (Unit 2). A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15132A569; documents related
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with
the amendments.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-68 and NPF-81: Amendments
revised the Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 3, 2015 (80 FR
11480). The supplemental letters dated February 27, 2015, and May 2,
2016, 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 proposal 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 9, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-364,
Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Houston County, Alabama
Date of amendment request: April 13, 2015, as supplemented by
letters dated September 17, 2015, and April 13, 2016.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments consist of changes
to the Technical Specifications consistent with the NRC-approved
Technical Specification Task Force Improved Standard Technical
Specifications Change Traveler-432, Revision 1, ``Change in Technical
Specifications End States (WCAP-16294),'' dated November 29, 2010.
Date of issuance: June 10, 2016.
Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 202 (Unit 1) and 198 (Unit 2). A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15289A227; documents related
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with
the amendments.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-2 and NPF-8: The amendments
revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and Technical
Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 26, 2015 (80 FR
30102). The supplemental letters dated September 17, 2015, and April
13, 2016, provided additional information that clarified the
application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally
noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no
significant hazards consideration determination as published in the
Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 10, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd day of June 2016.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Anne T. Boland,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2016-15659 Filed 7-1-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P