Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations, 46958-46970 [2016-16925]
Download as PDF
46958
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 19, 2016 / Notices
Dated: July 8, 2016.
Miguel J. L’Heureux,
SBA Committee Management Officer.
NATIONAL WOMEN’S BUSINESS
COUNCIL
Quarterly Public Meeting
AGENCY:
[FR Doc. 2016–16983 Filed 7–18–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
National Women’s Business
Council.
ACTION:
Notice of open public meeting.
The Public Meeting will be held
on Tuesday, August 2nd, 2016 from 9:30
a.m. to 11:30 a.m. EST.
DATES:
The meeting will be held in
Atlanta, GA. Location details will be
provided upon RSVP, as will
information about teleconferencing and
livestream options.
ADDRESSES:
Pursuant
to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C.,
Appendix 2), the U.S. Small Business
Administration (SBA) announces the
meeting of the National Women’s
Business Council. The National
Women’s Business Council conducts
research on issues of importance and
impact to women entrepreneurs and
makes policy recommendations to the
SBA, Congress, and the White House on
how to improve the business climate for
women.
This meeting is the 4th quarter
meeting for Fiscal Year 2016. The
program will include remarks from the
Council Chair, Carla Harris; updates on
research projects in progress, including:
Women’s participation in corporate
supplier diversity programs, women’s
participation in accelerators and
incubators, entrepreneurial ecosystems,
and an upcoming report on the
entrepreneurship amongst black women
project; a recap of the Council’s recent
engagement efforts; and an
announcement of the Council’s FY2017
research portfolio. Time will be reserved
at the end for audience participants to
address Council Members directly with
questions, comments, or feedback.
Additional speakers will be promoted
upon confirmation.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The
meeting is open to the public however
advance notice of attendance is
requested. To RSVP and confirm
attendance, the general public should
email info@nwbc.gov with subject line—
‘‘RSVP for 8/02 Public Meeting’’.
Anyone wishing to make a presentation
to the NWBC at this meeting must either
email their interest to info@nwbc.gov or
call the main office number at 202–205–
3850.
For more information, please visit the
National Women’s Business Council
Web site at www.nwbc.gov.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:39 Jul 18, 2016
Jkt 238001
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[NRC–2016–0141]
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 21,
2016, to July 1, 2016. The last biweekly
notice was published on July 5, 2016 (81
FR 43646).
DATES: Comments must be filed by
August 18, 2016. A request for a hearing
must be filed by September 19, 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–2016–0141. 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.
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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
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–
0141 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–2016–0141.
• 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.
B. Submitting Comments
Please include Docket ID NRC–2016–
0141, 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
E:\FR\FM\19JYN1.SGM
19JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 19, 2016 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
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
§ 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:39 Jul 18, 2016
Jkt 238001
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/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
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
46959
provide a brief explanation of the bases
for the contention and a concise
statement of the alleged facts or expert
opinion which support the contention
and on which the requestor/petitioner
intends to rely in proving the contention
at the hearing. The requestor/petitioner
must also provide references to those
specific sources and documents of
which the petitioner is aware and on
which the requestor/petitioner intends
to rely to establish those facts or expert
opinion. The petition must include
sufficient information to show that a
genuine dispute exists with the
applicant on a material issue of law or
fact. Contentions shall be limited to
matters within the scope of the
amendment under consideration. The
contention must be one which, if
proven, would entitle the requestor/
petitioner to relief. A requestor/
petitioner who fails to satisfy these
requirements with respect to at least one
contention will not be permitted to
participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become
parties to the proceeding, subject to any
limitations in the order granting leave to
intervene, and have the opportunity to
participate fully in the conduct of the
hearing 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
E:\FR\FM\19JYN1.SGM
19JYN1
46960
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 19, 2016 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
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 19, 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 19, 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:39 Jul 18, 2016
Jkt 238001
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 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
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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
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 first-
E:\FR\FM\19JYN1.SGM
19JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 19, 2016 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
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.
For further details with respect 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 Florida, Inc., et al., Docket
No. 50–302, Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear
Generating Plant (CR–3), Citrus County,
Florida
Date of amendment request: May 25,
2016. A publicly available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No.
ML16146A639.
Description of amendment request:
The amendment would replace the CR–
3 Permanently Defueled Emergency
Plan and its associated Emergency
Action Level (EAL) Bases Manual with
the Independent Spent Fuel Storage
Installation (ISFSI)-Only Emergency
Plan (IOEP) and its associated EAL
Bases Manual. This IOEP will be used
at CR–3 after all spent fuel has been
transferred to the CR–3 ISFSI.
Basis for proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:39 Jul 18, 2016
Jkt 238001
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?
The proposed amendment would modify
the CR–3 facility operating license by
revising the emergency plan and revising the
EAL scheme. CR–3 has permanently ceased
operation and is permanently defueled. The
proposed amendment is conditioned on all
spent nuclear fuel being removed from wet
storage in the spent fuel pools and placed in
dry storage within the ISFSI. Occurrence of
postulated accidents associated with spent
fuel stored in a spent fuel pool is no longer
credible in a spent fuel pool devoid of such
fuel. The proposed amendment has no effect
on plant systems, structures, or components
(SSC) and no effect on the capability of any
plant SSC to perform its design function. The
proposed amendment would not increase the
likelihood of the malfunction of any plant
SSC. The proposed amendment would have
no effect on any of the previously evaluated
accidents in the CR–3 Final Safety Analysis
Report.
Since CR–3 has permanently ceased
operation, the generation of fission products
has ceased and the remaining source term
continues to decay. This continues to
significantly reduce the consequences of
previously evaluated postulated accidents.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not
involve a significant increase in the
consequences of a previously evaluated
accident.
2. Does the proposed change create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
The proposed amendment constitutes a
revision of the emergency planning function
commensurate with the ongoing and
anticipated reduction in radiological source
term at CR–3.
The proposed amendment does not involve
a physical alteration of the plant. No new or
different types of equipment will be installed
and there are no physical modifications to
existing equipment as a result of the
proposed amendment. Similarly, the
proposed amendment would not physically
change any SSC involved in the mitigation of
any postulated accidents. Thus, no new
initiators or precursors of a new or different
kind of accident are created. Furthermore,
the proposed amendment does not create the
possibility of a new failure mode associated
with any equipment or personnel failures.
The credible events for the ISFSI remain
unchanged.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does
not create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Because the 10 CFR part 50 license for CR–
3 no longer authorizes operation of the
reactor or emplacement or retention of fuel
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
46961
into the reactor vessel, as specified in 10 CFR
50.82(a)(2), the occurrence of postulated
accidents associated with reactor operation is
no longer credible. With all spent nuclear
fuel transferred out of wet storage from the
spent fuel pools and placed in dry storage
within the ISFSI, a fuel handling accident is
no longer credible. There are no longer
credible events that would result in
radiological releases beyond the site
boundary exceeding the EPA [Environmental
Protection Agency] Protective Action Guide
exposure levels, as detailed in the EPA’s
‘‘Protective Action Guide and Planning
Guidance for Radiological Incidents,’’ Draft
for Interim Use and Public Comment dated
March 2013 (PAG [Protective Action Guide]
Manual).
The proposed amendment does not involve
a change in the plant’s design, configuration,
or operation. The proposed amendment does
not affect either the way in which the plant
structures, systems, and components perform
their safety function or their design margins.
Because there is no change to the physical
design of the plant, there is no change to
these margins.
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: Lara S. Nichols,
550 South Tryon Street, Charlotte, NC
28202.
NRC Branch Chief: Bruce A. Watson.
Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50–397,
Columbia Generating Station, Benton
County, Washington
Date of amendment request: May 10,
2016, as supplemented by letter dated
May 18, 2016. Publicly-available
versions are in ADAMS under
Accession Nos. ML16131A891 and
ML16139A161, respectively.
Description of amendment request:
The amendment would revise the safety
function lift and lower setpoint
tolerances of the safety/relief valves
(SRVs) that are listed in Surveillance
Requirements 3.4.3.1 and 3.4.4.1 of the
Technical Specifications (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 amendment involve
a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
E:\FR\FM\19JYN1.SGM
19JYN1
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
46962
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 19, 2016 / Notices
This proposed amendment has no
influence on the probability or consequences
of any accident previously evaluated. The
lower safety setpoint tolerance change does
not affect the operation of the SRVs and it
does not affect the as-left setpoint tolerance
band which is unchanged at ±3% of the lift
setpoint of the SRVs. The change only affects
the lower tolerance for opening of the SRVs.
The proposed amendment does not affect the
upper tolerance for SRVs safety setpoints,
which is the limit that protects from
overpressurization.
The proposed amendment does not involve
any physical changes to the SRVs, nor does
it change the safety function of the SRVs. The
proposed TS revision involves no significant
changes to the operation of any systems or
components in normal or accident operating
conditions as discussed in the technical
evaluation for this [license amendment
request]. Additionally, the proposed change
does not involve any significant changes to
existing structures, systems, or components.
The proposed amendment does not change
any other behavior or operation of the SRVs,
and, therefore, has no significant impact on
reactor operation. It also has no significant
impact on response to any perturbation of
reactor operation including transients and
accidents previously analyzed in the [Final
Safety Analysis Report (FSAR)].
Therefore, the proposed amendment does
not result in a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of any
previously evaluated accident.
2. Does the proposed amendment create
the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change from ¥3% to ¥5%
for the SRV safety setpoint lower tolerance
only affects the criteria to determine when an
as-found SRV test is considered acceptable.
The proposed change does not affect the
criteria for the setpoint upper tolerance for
the SRVs.
The proposed change from ¥3% to ¥5%
for the SRV safety setpoint lower tolerance
does not adversely affect the operation of any
safety-related components or equipment.
Since the proposed amendment does not
involve any hardware changes, significant
changes to the operation of any systems or
components, nor change to existing
structures, systems, or components, there is
no possibility that a new or different kind of
accident is created.
The proposed change from ¥3% to ¥5%
for the SRV safety setpoint lower tolerance
does not involve any physical changes to the
SRVs, nor does it change the safety function
of the SRVs. The proposed change does not
require any physical change or alteration of
any existing plant equipment. No new or
different equipment is being installed. No
installed equipment is being operated in a
new or different manner. There is no
alteration to the parameters within which the
plant is normally operated. This change does
not alter the manner in which equipment
operation is initiated, nor will the functional
demands on credited equipment be changed.
No alterations in the procedures that ensure
the plant remains within analyzed limits are
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:39 Jul 18, 2016
Jkt 238001
being proposed. No changes are being made
to the procedures relied upon to respond to
off-normal events as described in the FSAR
are being proposed by this change. The
proposed change does not alter assumptions
made in the safety analysis and licensing
basis.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does
not create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change from ¥3% to ¥5%
for the SRV safety setpoint lower tolerance
only affects the criteria to determine when an
as-found SRV test is considered acceptable.
This change does not affect the criteria for
the SRV safety setpoint upper tolerance. The
TS setpoints for the SRVs are not changed.
The as-left setpoint tolerances are not
changed by the proposed amendment and
remain at ±3%.
The margin of safety is established through
the design of the plant structures, systems,
and components, the parameters within
which the plant is operated, and the
establishment of the setpoints for the
actuation of equipment relied upon to
respond to an event. The proposed change
from ¥3% to ¥5% for the SRV safety
setpoint lower tolerance does not
significantly impact the condition or
performance of structures, systems, and
components relied upon for accident
mitigation.
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: William A.
Horin, Esq., Winston & Strawn, 1700 K
Street NW., Washington, DC 20006–
3817.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J.
Pascarelli.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC and
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50–277
and 50–278, Peach Bottom Atomic
Power Station, Units 2 and 3, York and
Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: June 20,
2016. A publicly available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No.
ML16173A371.
Description of amendment request:
The amendments would revise the
Technical Specification (TS)
requirements associated with the storage
inventory of lube oil for the emergency
diesel generators (EDGs). Specifically,
the TS volume requirements for stored
EDG lube oil (currently specified in
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
number of gallons) would be replaced
with volume requirements based on
EDG operating time (specified in
number of days). The volume
requirements, specified in number of
gallons, along with the equivalent
number of days of EDG operating time,
would be included in the TS Bases. As
such, the amendments would allow the
licensee to make changes to the number
of gallons using the provisions of 10
CFR 50.59, consistent with the TS Bases
Control Program specified in TS 5.5.10.
The proposed changes are based on
Revision 1 to Technical Specification
Task Force (TSTF) Improved Standard
Technical Specifications Change
Traveler TSTF–501, ‘‘Relocate Stored
Fuel Oil and Lube Oil Volume Values to
Licensee Control.’’
Basis for proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination:
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
licensee has provided its analysis of the
issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented
below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change relocates the volume
of diesel lube oil required to support 7-day
operation of each onsite diesel generator, and
the volume equivalent to a 6-day supply, to
licensee control. The specific volume of lube
oil equivalent to a 7-day and 6-day supply is
based on the diesel generator manufacturer’s
consumption values for the run time of the
diesel generator. Because the requirement to
maintain a 7-day supply of diesel lube oil is
not changed and is consistent with the
assumptions in the accident analyses, and
the actions taken when the volume of lube
oil is less than a 6-day supply have not
changed, neither the probability nor the
consequences of any accident previously
evaluated will be affected.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The change does not involve a physical
alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or
different type of equipment will be installed)
or a change in the methods governing normal
plant operation. The change does not alter
assumptions made in the safety analysis but
ensures that each diesel generator operates as
assumed in the accident analysis. The
proposed change is consistent with the safety
analysis assumptions. Therefore, the
proposed change does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
E:\FR\FM\19JYN1.SGM
19JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 19, 2016 / Notices
3. Does the proposed change involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change relocates the volume
of diesel lube oil required to support 7-day
operation of each onsite diesel generator, and
the volume equivalent to a 6-day supply, to
licensee control. As the bases for the existing
limits on diesel lube oil are not changed, no
change is made to the accident analysis
assumptions and no margin of safety is
reduced as part of this change.
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: Tamra Domeyer,
Associate General Counsel, Exelon
Generation Company, LLC, 4300
Winfield Rd., Warrenville, IL 60555.
NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A.
Broaddus.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
Exelon Generation Company, LLC,
Docket No. 50–219, Oyster Creek
Nuclear Generating Station (OCNGS),
Ocean County, New Jersey
Date of amendment request: May 17,
2016. A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No.
ML16138A129.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed amendment would revise
OCNGS’s Technical Specification (TS)
Section 6.0, ‘‘Administrative Controls.’’
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, with NRC edits in
[brackets], 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 changes would not take
effect until OCNGS has permanently ceased
operation and entered a permanently
defueled condition. The proposed changes
would revise the OCNGS TS by deleting or
modifying certain portions of the TS
administrative controls described in Section
6.0 of the TS that are no longer applicable to
a permanently shutdown and defueled
facility.
The proposed changes do not involve any
physical changes to plant Structures,
Systems, and Components (SSCs) or the
manner in which SSCs are operated,
maintained, modified, tested, or inspected.
The proposed changes do not involve a
change to any safety limits, limiting safety
system settings, limiting control settings,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:39 Jul 18, 2016
Jkt 238001
limiting conditions for operation,
surveillance requirements, or design features.
The deletion and modification of
provisions of the administrative controls do
not directly affect the design of SSCs
necessary for safe storage of spent irradiated
fuel or the methods used for handling and
storage of such fuel in the Spent Fuel Pool
(SFP). The proposed changes are
administrative in nature and do not affect
any accidents applicable to the safe
management of spent irradiated fuel or the
permanently shutdown and defueled
condition of the reactor.
In a permanently defueled condition, the
only credible accidents are the Fuel Handling
Accident (FHA), Radioactive Liquid Waste
System Leak, and Postulated Radioactive
Releases Due to Liquid Tank Failures. Other
accidents such as Loss of Coolant Accident,
Loss of Feedwater, and Reactivity and Power
Distribution Anomalies will no longer be
applicable to a permanently defueled reactor
plant.
The probability of occurrence of previously
evaluated accidents is not increased, since
extended operation in a permanently
defueled condition will be the only operation
allowed, and therefore, bounded by the
existing analyses. Additionally, the
occurrence of postulated accidents associated
with reactor operation is no longer credible
in a permanently defueled reactor. This
significantly reduces the scope of applicable
accidents.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not
involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequence of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create
the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to delete and/or
modify certain TS administrative controls
have no impact on facility SSCs affecting the
safe storage of spent irradiated fuel, or on the
methods of operation of such SSCs, or on the
handling and storage of spent irradiated fuel
itself. The proposed changes do not result in
different or more adverse failure modes or
accidents than previously evaluated because
the reactor will be permanently shut down
and defueled and OCNGS will no longer be
authorized to operate the reactor.
The proposed changes do not affect
systems credited in the accident analysis for
the FHA, Radioactive Liquid Waste System
Leak, and Postulated Radioactive Releases
Due to Liquid Tank Failures at OCNGS. The
proposed changes will continue to require
proper control and monitoring of safety
significant parameters and activities. The
proposed changes do not result in any new
mechanisms that could initiate damage to the
remaining relevant safety barriers in support
of maintaining the plant in a permanently
shutdown and defueled condition (e.g., fuel
cladding and SFP cooling). Since extended
operation in a defueled condition will be the
only operation allowed, and therefore
bounded by the existing analyses, such a
condition does not create the possibility of a
new or different kind of accident.
The proposed changes do not alter the
protection system design, create new failure
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
46963
modes, or change any modes of operation.
The proposed changes do not involve a
physical alteration of the plant, and no new
or different kind of equipment will be
installed. Consequently, there are no new
initiators that could result in a new or
different kind of accident.
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 changes involve deleting
and/or modifying certain TS administrative
controls once the OCNGS facility has been
permanently shutdown and defueled. As
specified in 10 CFR 50.82(a)(2), the 10 CFR
50 license for OCNGS will no longer
authorize operation of the reactor or
emplacement or retention of fuel into the
reactor vessel following submittal of the
certifications required by 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1).
As a result, the occurrence of certain design
basis postulated accidents are no longer
considered credible when the reactor is
permanently defueled.
The only remaining credible accident is a
fuel handling accident (FHA). The proposed
changes do not adversely affect the inputs or
assumptions of any of the design basis
analyses that impact the FHA.
The proposed changes are limited to those
portions of the TS administrative controls
that are related to the safe storage and
maintenance of spent irradiated fuel. The
requirements that are proposed to be revised
and/or deleted from the OCNGS TS are not
credited in the existing accident analysis for
the remaining applicable postulated accident
(i.e., FHA); therefore, they do not contribute
to the margin of safety associated with the
accident analysis. Certain postulated DBAs
[design-basis accidents] involving the reactor
are no longer possible because the reactor
will be permanently shut down and defueled
and OCNGS will no longer be authorized to
operate the reactor.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not
involve a significant reduction in the margin
of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee’s analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer,
Associate General Counsel, Exelon
Generation Company, LLC, 4300
Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Shaun M.
Anderson.
Luminant Generation Company LLC,
Docket Nos. 50–445 and 50–446,
Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant,
Units 1 and 2, Somervell County, Texas
Date of amendment request: April 27,
2016. A publicly available version is in
E:\FR\FM\19JYN1.SGM
19JYN1
46964
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 19, 2016 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
ADAMS under Accession No.
ML16120A432.
Description of amendment request:
The amendments would revise the
Technical Specifications (TSs) by
eliminating Section 5.5.8, ‘‘Inservice
Testing Program,’’ and adding a new
defined term, ‘‘Inservice Testing
Program,’’ to the TS Definitions section.
The proposed amendments are
consistent with Technical Specification
Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF–545,
Revision 3, ‘‘TS Inservice Testing
Program Removal & Clarify SR
[Surveillance Requirement] Usage Rule
Application to Section 5.5 Testing,’’
dated October 21, 2015 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML15294A555).
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 change revises TS Chapter 5,
‘‘Administrative Controls,’’ Section 5.5,
‘‘Programs and Manuals,’’ by eliminating the
‘‘Inservice Testing Program’’ specification.
Most requirements in the Inservice Testing
Program are removed, as they are duplicative
of requirements in the [American Society of
Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Operations
and Maintenance (OM) Code], as clarified by
Code Case OMN–20, ‘‘Inservice Test
Frequency.’’ The remaining requirements in
the Section 5.5.8 [Inservice Testing (IST)]
Program are eliminated because the NRC has
determined their inclusion in the TS is
contrary to regulations. A new defined term,
‘‘Inservice Testing Program,’’ is added to the
TS, which references the requirements of 10
CFR 50.55a(f).
Performance of inservice testing is not an
initiator to any accident previously
evaluated. As a result, the probability of
occurrence of an accident is not significantly
affected by the proposed change. Inservice
test frequencies under Code Case OMN–20
are equivalent to the current testing period
allowed by the TS with the exception that
testing frequencies greater than 2 years may
be extended by up to 6 months to facilitate
test scheduling and consideration of plant
operating conditions that may not be suitable
for performance of the required testing. The
testing frequency extension will not affect the
ability of the components to mitigate any
accident previously evaluated as the
components are required to be operable
during the testing period extension.
Performance of inservice tests utilizing
allowances in OMN–20 will not significantly
affect the reliability of the tested
components. As a result, the availability of
the affected components, as well as their
ability to mitigate the consequences of
accidents previously evaluated, is not
affected.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:39 Jul 18, 2016
Jkt 238001
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create
the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not alter the
design or configuration of the plant. The
proposed change does not involve a physical
alteration of the plant; no new or different
kind of equipment will be installed. The
proposed change does not alter the types of
inservice testing performed. In most cases,
the frequency of inservice testing is
unchanged. However, the frequency of
testing would not result in a new or different
kind of accident from any previously
evaluated since the testing methods are not
altered.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change eliminates some
requirements from the TS in lieu of
requirements in the ASME Code, as modified
by use of Code Case OMN–20. Compliance
with the ASME Code is required by 10 CFR
50.55a. The proposed change also allows
inservice tests with frequencies greater than
2 years to be extended by 6 months to
facilitate test scheduling and consideration of
plant operating conditions that may not be
suitable for performance of the required
testing. The testing frequency extension will
not affect the ability of the components to
respond to an accident as the components are
required to be operable during the testing
period extension. The proposed change will
eliminate existing TS SR 3.0.3 allowance to
defer performance of missed inservice tests
up to the duration of the specified testing
frequency, and instead will require an
assessment of the missed test on equipment
operability. This assessment will consider
the effect on a margin of safety (equipment
operability). Should the component be
inoperable, the Technical Specifications
provide actions to ensure that the margin of
safety is protected. The proposed change also
eliminates a statement that nothing in the
ASME Code should be construed to
supersede the requirements of any TS. The
NRC has determined that statement to be
incorrect. However, elimination of the
statement will have no effect on plant
operation or safety.
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Attorney for licensee: Timothy P.
Matthews, Esq., Morgan, Lewis and
Bockius, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue
NW., Washington, DC 20004.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J.
Pascarelli.
NextEra Energy Seabrook LLC, Docket
No. 50–443, Seabrook Station, Unit No.
1, Rockingham County, New Hampshire
Date of amendment request: March
31, 2016, as supplemented by letter
dated May 31, 2016. Publicly-available
versions are in ADAMS under
Accession Nos. ML16095A278 and
ML16159A194, respectively.
Description of amendment request:
The amendment would revise Technical
Specification (TS) 6.15, ‘‘Containment
Leakage Rate Testing Program,’’ to
require a program that is in accordance
with Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI)
Topical Report NEI 94–01, Revision 3–
A, ‘‘Industry Guideline for
Implementing Performance-Based
Option of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix J’’
(ADAMS Accession No. ML12221A202).
The proposed change would allow
extension of the Type A test interval up
to one test in 15 years, and extension of
the Type C test interval up to 75
months, based on acceptable
performance history as defined in NEI
94–01, Revision 3–A.
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 amendment adopts the NRCaccepted guidelines of NEI 94–01, Revision
3–A, ‘‘Industry Guideline for Implementing
Performance-Based Option of 10 CFR part 50,
Appendix J,’’ for development of the
Seabrook performance-based containment
testing program. NEI 94–01 allows, based on
risk and performance, an extension of Type
A and Type C containment leak test intervals.
Implementation of these guidelines continues
to provide adequate assurance that during
design basis accidents, the primary
containment and its components will limit
leakage rates to less than the values assumed
in the plant safety analyses.
The findings of the Seabrook risk
assessment confirm the general findings of
previous studies that the risk impact with
extending the containment leak rate is small.
Per the guidance provided in Regulatory
Guide 1.174, an extension of the leak test
interval in accordance with NEI 94–01,
Revision 3–A results in an estimated change
within the small change region.
Since the change is implementing a
performance-based containment testing
E:\FR\FM\19JYN1.SGM
19JYN1
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 19, 2016 / Notices
program, the proposed amendment does not
involve either a physical change to the plant
or a change in the manner in which the plant
is operated or controlled. The requirement
for containment leakage rate acceptance will
not be changed by this amendment.
Therefore, the containment will continue to
perform its design function as a barrier to
fission product releases.
Therefore, the proposed changes do 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 previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change to implement a
performance-based containment testing
program, associated with integrated leakage
rate test frequency, does not change the
design or operation of structures, systems, or
components of the plant.
The proposed changes would continue to
ensure containment integrity and would
ensure operation within the bounds of
existing accident analyses. There are no
accident initiators created or affected by
these changes. Therefore, the proposed
changes will not create the possibility of a
new or different kind of accident from any
accident previously evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not
create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a
significant reduction in the margin of safety?
Response: No.
Margin of safety is related to confidence in
the ability of the fission product barriers (fuel
cladding, reactor coolant system, and
primary containment) to perform their design
functions during and following postulated
accidents. The proposed change to
implement a performance-based containment
testing program, associated with integrated
leakage rate test frequency, does not affect
plant operations, design functions, or any
analysis that verifies the capability of a
structure, system, or component of the plant
to perform a design function. In addition, this
change does not affect safety limits, limiting
safety system setpoints, or limiting
conditions for operation.
The specific requirements and conditions
of the TS Containment Leakage Rate Testing
Program exist to ensure that the degree of
containment structural integrity and leaktightness that is considered in the plant
safety analysis is maintained. The overall
containment leak rate limit specified by TS
is maintained. This ensures that the margin
of safety in the plant safety analysis is
maintained. The design, operation, testing
methods and acceptance criteria for Type A,
B, and C containment leakage tests specified
in applicable codes and standards would
continue to be met, with the acceptance of
this proposed change, since these are not
affected by implementation of a performancebased containment testing program.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:39 Jul 18, 2016
Jkt 238001
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 Blair,
Managing Attorney—Nuclear, Florida
Power & Light Company, P.O. Box
14000, Juno Beach, FL 33408–0420.
NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A.
Broaddus.
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50–354,
Hope Creek Generating Station, Salem
County, New Jersey
Date of amendment request: May 11,
2016. A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No.
ML16132A374.
Description of amendment request:
The amendment would revise Technical
Specification (TS) requirements by
deleting TS Action Statement 3.4.2.1.b
concerning stuck open safety/relief
valves.
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 TS change deletes Action
Statement 3.4.2.1.b concerning safety/relief
valves. The two (2) minute action represents
detailed methods of responding to an event,
and therefore, if eliminated, would not result
in increasing the probability of the event, nor
act as an initiator of an event. Limiting
condition for operation 3.6.2.1,
‘‘Depressurization Systems—Suppression
Chamber,’’ and plant procedures provide
operators with appropriate direction for
response to a suppression pool high
temperature (which could be caused by a
stuck open relief valve). Providing specific
direction to close the valve within two (2)
minutes does not provide additional plant
protection beyond what is provided for in
plant procedures and TS 3.6.2.1.
Therefore, this action can be eliminated,
and will 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 TS change deletes Action
Statement 3.4.2.1.b concerning safety/relief
valves. This change does not change the
design or configuration of the plant. No new
operation or failure modes are created, nor is
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
46965
a system-level failure mode created that is
different than those that already exist.
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. Do the proposed changes involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety,
nor does it affect any analytical limits. There
are no changes to accident or transient core
thermal hydraulic conditions, or fuel or
reactor coolant boundary design limits, as a
result of the proposed change. The proposed
change will not alter the assumptions or
results of the analysis contained in the
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report
(UFSAR).
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: Jeffrie J. Keenan,
PSEG Nuclear LLC–N21, P.O. Box 236,
Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038.
NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A.
Broaddus.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company,
Docket Nos. 52–025 and 52–026, Vogtle
Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4,
Burke County, Georgia
Date of amendment request: May 17,
2016. A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No.
ML16138A431.
Description of amendment request:
The amendment request proposes
changes to the Updated Final Safety
Analysis Report (UFSAR) in the form of
departures from the incorporated plantspecific Design Control Document
(DCD) Tier 2 information and involves
changes to related Tier 1 information,
with corresponding changes to the
associated Combined License (COL)
Appendix C information. Pursuant to
the provisions of 10 CFR 52.63(b)(1), an
exemption from elements of the design
as certified in the 10 CFR part 52,
Appendix D, ‘‘Design Certification Rule
for the AP1000 Design,’’ is also
requested for the plant-specific DCD
Tier 1 material departures. Specifically,
the requested amendment proposes
changes to the concrete wall thickness
tolerance for the column line N wall,
from column lines 2 to 4 from elevation
100′–0″ to 135′–3″, from plus or minus
1 inch to plus 4 inches.
Basis for proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination:
E:\FR\FM\19JYN1.SGM
19JYN1
46966
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 19, 2016 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
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.
As indicated in the UFSAR Subsection
3.8.4.1.2, the auxiliary building contains
structural modules in the south side of the
building that include the spent fuel pool, fuel
transfer canal, and cask loading and
washdown pits. The increase in tolerance
associated with the concrete thickness of the
concrete wall for the column line N from
column line 2 to 4 and the deviation from
ACI 349–01 does not involve any accident
initiating components or events, thus leaving
the probabilities of an accident unaltered.
The increased tolerance does not adversely
affect any safety-related structures or
equipment nor does the increased tolerance
reduce the effectiveness of a radioactive
material barrier. Thus, the proposed changes
would not affect any safety-related accident
mitigating function served by the
containment internal structures.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does
not involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create
the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed tolerance increase and code
deviation from ACI 349–01 does not change
the performance of the affected radiologically
controlled portion of the auxiliary building.
As demonstrated by the continued
conformance to the other applicable codes
and standards governing the design of the
structures, and in conjunction with the
analysis of a special system of construction
in accordance with ACI 349–01 Section 1.4,
the wall with an increased concrete thickness
tolerance continues to withstand the same
effects as previously evaluated. There is no
change to the design function of the affected
module and wall, and no new failure
mechanisms are identified as the same types
of accidents are presented to the wall before
and after the change.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does
not create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change to increase the
concrete thickness tolerance for the column
line N wall from column line 2 to 4 identified
in COL Appendix C Table 3.3–1 does not
alter any design function, design analysis, or
safety analysis input or result, and sufficient
margin exists to justify departure from the
ACI 349–01 requirements for the wall. As
such, because the system continues to
respond to design basis accidents in the same
manner as before without any changes to the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:39 Jul 18, 2016
Jkt 238001
expected response of the structure, no safety
analysis or design basis acceptance limit/
criterion is challenged or exceeded by the
proposed changes. Accordingly, no safety
margin is reduced by the increase of the wall
concrete thickness tolerance.
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.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company,
Docket Nos. 52–025 and 52–026, Vogtle
Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4,
Burke County, Georgia
Date of amendment request: May 5,
2016. A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No.
ML16126A276.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed changes would revise the
Combined Licenses (COLs) concerning
the design details of the safety-related
passive core cooling system (PXS), the
nonsafety-related normal residual heat
removal system (RNS), and the
nonsafety-related containment air
filtration system (VFS). The amendment
request proposes changes to the
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report
(UFSAR) in the form of departures from
the plant-specific Design Control
Document (DCD) Tier 2 information and
involves changes to related plantspecific DCD Tier 1 information, with
corresponding changes to the associated
COL Appendix C information. Because
this proposed change would require a
departure from Tier 1 information in the
Westinghouse Advanced Passive 1000
DCD, the licensee also requests an
exemption from the requirements of the
Generic DCD Tier 1 in accordance with
10 CFR 52.63(b)(1).
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
The proposed changes do not affect the
operation of any systems or equipment that
initiate an analyzed accident or alter any
structures, systems, and components (SSCs)
accident initiator or initiating sequence of
events. The proposed changes result from
identifying PSX, RNS, and VFS piping lines
required to be described in the licensing
basis as ASME [American Society of
Mechanical Engineers] Code Section III,
evaluated to meet the LBB [leak-before-break]
design criteria, or designed to withstand
combined normal and seismic design basis
loads without a loss of functional capability.
Neither planned or inadvertent operation nor
failure of the PXS, RNS, or VFS is an
accident initiator or part of an initiating
sequence of events for an accident previously
evaluated. Therefore, the probabilities of the
accidents evaluated in the UFSAR are not
affected.
The proposed changes do not have an
adverse impact on the ability of the PXS,
RNS, or VFS to perform their design
functions. The design of the PXS, RNS, and
VFS continues to meet the same regulatory
acceptance criteria, codes, and standards as
required by the UFSAR. In addition, the
changes ensure that the capabilities of the
PXS, RNS, and VFS to mitigate the
consequences of an accident meet the
applicable regulatory acceptance criteria, and
there is no adverse effect on any safetyrelated SSC or function used to mitigate an
accident. The changes do not affect the
prevention and mitigation of other abnormal
events, e.g., anticipated operational
occurrences, earthquakes, floods and turbine
missiles, or their safety or design analyses.
Therefore, the consequences of the accidents
evaluated in the UFSAR are not affected.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does
not involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create
the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not affect the
operation of any systems or equipment that
may initiate a new or different kind of
accident, or alter any SSC such that a new
accident initiator or initiating sequence of
events is created. The proposed changes
result from identifying PXS, RNS, and VFS
piping lines required to be described in the
licensing basis as ASME Code Section III,
evaluated to meet the LBB design criteria, or
designed to withstand combined normal and
seismic design basis loads without a loss of
functional capability. These proposed
changes do not adversely affect any other
PXS, RNS, VFS, or SSC design functions or
methods of operation in a manner that results
in a new failure mode, malfunction, or
sequence of events that affect safety-related
or nonsafety-related equipment. Therefore,
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 requested amendment does
not create the possibility of a new or different
E:\FR\FM\19JYN1.SGM
19JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 19, 2016 / Notices
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 changes maintain existing
safety margins. The proposed changes ensure
that PXS, RNS, and VFS design requirements
and design functions are met. The proposed
changes maintain existing safety margin
through continued application of the existing
requirements of the UFSAR, while adding
additional design features to ensure the PXS,
RNS, and VFS perform the design functions
required to meet the existing safety margins.
Therefore, the proposed changes satisfy the
same design functions in accordance with the
same codes and standards as stated in the
UFSAR. These changes do not adversely
affect any design code, function, design
analysis, safety analysis input or result, or
design/safety margin. Because no safety
analysis or design basis acceptance limit/
criterion is challenged or exceeded by the
proposed changes, no margin of safety is
reduced.
Therefore, the requested 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.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
STP Nuclear Operating Company
(STPNOC), Docket No. 50–498, South
Texas Project (STP), Unit 1, Matagorda
County, Texas
Date of amendment request: April 7,
2016, as supplemented by letter dated
May 25, 2016. Publicly-available
versions are in ADAMS under
Accession Nos. ML16110A297 and
ML16162A196, respectively.
Description of amendment request:
The amendment would revise Technical
Specification 5.3.2 for STP, Unit 1, to
allow permanent operation with 56 fulllength control rods with no control rod
assembly in core location D–6.
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?
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:39 Jul 18, 2016
Jkt 238001
Response: No.
STPNOC has performed a multi-cycle
assessment on previous Unit 1 reactor cores
and evaluated the consequences associated
with removal of Control Rod D–6. The
assessment indicates that removal of Control
Rod D–6 does impact reactivity parameters
(e.g., shutdown margin and trip reactivity);
however, sufficient margin exists to ensure
the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report
(UFSAR) accident analysis limits continue to
be met. The physical changes associated with
the removal of Control Rod D–6 do not
impact the probability of occurrence of a
previously evaluated accident. 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.
Operation of STP Unit 1 with Control Rod
D–6 removed will not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from
any accident previously evaluated. To
preserve the reactor coolant system flow
characteristics in the reactor core, a flow
restrictor will be installed at the top of the
D–6 guide tube housing. Installation of this
component will not prevent the remaining 56
control rods from performing the required
design function of providing adequate
shutdown margin. No new operator actions
are created as a result of the proposed
change. 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.
Operation of STP Unit 1 with Control Rod
D–6 removed will not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety. The margin
of safety is established by setting safety limits
and operating within those limits. The
proposed change does not alter a UFSAR
design basis or safety limit and does not
change any setpoint at which automatic
actuations are initiated. STPNOC will
continue to confirm all safety analysis limits
remain bounding on a cycle-specific basis
using an NRC-approved Westinghouse core
reload evaluation methodology. 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 standards of
10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore,
the NRC staff proposes to determine that
the request for amendment involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Kym Harshaw,
General Counsel, STP Nuclear
Operating Company, P.O. Box 289,
Wadsworth, TX 77483.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J.
Pascarelli.
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
46967
III. Notice of Issuance of Amendments
to Facility Operating Licenses and
Combined Licenses
During the period since publication of
the last biweekly notice, the
Commission has issued the following
amendments. The Commission has
determined for each of these
amendments that the application
complies with the standards and
requirements of the Atomic Energy Act
of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the
Commission’s rules and regulations.
The Commission has made appropriate
findings as required by the Act and the
Commission’s rules and regulations in
10 CFR chapter I, which are set forth in
the license amendment.
A notice of consideration of issuance
of amendment to facility operating
license or combined license, as
applicable, proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination,
and opportunity for a hearing in
connection with these actions, was
published in the Federal Register as
indicated.
Unless otherwise indicated, the
Commission has determined that these
amendments satisfy the criteria for
categorical exclusion in accordance
with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant
to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental
impact statement or environmental
assessment need be prepared for these
amendments. If the Commission has
prepared an environmental assessment
under the special circumstances
provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has
made a determination based on that
assessment, it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the
action see (1) the applications for
amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3)
the Commission’s related letter, Safety
Evaluation, and/or Environmental
Assessment as indicated. All of these
items can be accessed as described in
the ‘‘Obtaining Information and
Submitting Comments’’ section of this
document.
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc.,
Docket No. 50–336, Millstone Power
Station, Unit No. 2 (MPS2), New London
County, Connecticut
Date of amendment request:
December 17, 2012, as supplemented by
letters dated February 25, 2013; May 28,
2013; July 21, 2015; December 18, 2015;
and June 1, 2016.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendment revised the MPS2 Technical
Specifications (TSs) to reflect the results
and constraints of a new criticality
safety analysis for fuel assembly storage
in the MPS2 fuel storage racks.
Date of issuance: June 23, 2016.
E:\FR\FM\19JYN1.SGM
19JYN1
46968
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 19, 2016 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 120 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 327. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML16003A008;
documents related to this amendment
are listed in the Safety Evaluation
enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License
No. DPR–65: Amendment revised the
Renewed Facility Operating License and
TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: June 11, 2013 (78 FR 35060).
The supplemental letters dated May 28,
2013; July 21, 2015; December 18, 2015;
and June 1, 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 amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated June 23, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket
Nos. 50–369, 50–370, 50–413, and 50–
414, McGuire Nuclear Station
(McGuire), Units 1 and 2, Mecklenburg
County, North Carolina, and Catawba
Nuclear Station (Catawba), Units 1 and
2, York County, South Carolina
Date of amendment request: August
20, 2015.
Brief description of amendments: The
amendments revised the Technical
Specifications (TSs) to allow the use of
Optimized ZirloTM. Specifically, the
proposed changes modify TS 4.2.1 to
add Optimized ZirloTM as an allowable
cladding and TS 5.6.5.b to add
associated methodologies for
determining the core operating limits
report.
Date of issuance: June 21, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 120 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: McGuire—288
(Unit 1) and 267 (Unit 2); Catawba—284
(Unit 1) and 280 (Unit 2). A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML16105A326;
documents related to these amendments
are listed in the Safety Evaluation
enclosed with the amendments.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF–
9, NPF–17, NPF–35, and NPF–52:
Amendments revised the Facility
Operating Licenses and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: November 24, 2015 (80 FR
73236).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:39 Jul 18, 2016
Jkt 238001
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendments is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated June 21, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
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: July 9,
2015, as supplemented by letter dated
January 7, 2016.
Brief description of amendments: The
amendments revised Technical
Specification (TS) 3.3.1, ‘‘Reactor Trip
System (RTS) Instrumentation,’’ to
resolve an operable but degraded nonconforming issue associated with the
reactor coolant pump under-frequency
trip setpoint allowable value for the
McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2.
Date of issuance: June 21, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 287 (Unit 1) and
266 (Unit 2). A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession
No. ML16109A084; documents related
to these amendments are listed in the
Safety Evaluation enclosed with the
amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License
Nos. NPF–9 and NPF–17: Amendments
revised the Renewed Facility Operating
Licenses and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: October 13, 2015 (80 FR
61479). The supplemental letter dated
January 7, 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 21, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Entergy Louisiana, LLC, and Entergy
Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50–458,
River Bend Station, Unit 1 (RBS), West
Feliciana Parish, Louisiana
Date of amendment request: June 29,
2015, as supplemented by letter dated
December 3, 2015.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendment revised the full
implementation date (Milestone 8) of
the RBS Cyber Security Plan and revised
the associated license condition for the
Facility Operating License. The license
was also revised, in part, to include
administrative and editorial corrections.
PO 00000
Frm 00083
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Date of issuance: June 21, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 190. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML16124A688;
documents related to this amendment
are listed in the Safety Evaluation
enclosed with the amendment.
Facility Operating License No. NPF–
47: The amendment revised the Facility
Operating License.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: April 5, 2016 (81 FR 19647).
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated June 21, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50–
382, Waterford Steam Electric Station,
Unit 3 (Waterford 3), St. Charles Parish,
Louisiana
Date of amendment request:
November 17, 2011, as supplemented by
letters dated January 26, September 27
and October 16, 2012; May 16, June 26,
and December 18, 2013; June 11, 2014;
March 12, April 10, May 14, August 27,
September 8, September 24, and
October 13, 2015; and January 18, 2016.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendment permits the licensee to
adopt a new risk-informed,
performance-based fire protection
licensing basis for Waterford 3, in
accordance with the requirements in 10
CFR 50.48(a) and (c) and the guidance
in NRC Regulatory Guide 1.205, ‘‘RiskInformed, Performance-Based Fire
Protection for Existing Light-Water
Nuclear Power Plants,’’ December 2009;
National Fire Protection Association
(NFPA) 805, ‘‘Performance-Based
Standard for Fire Protection for Light
Water Reactor Electric Generating
Plants’’ (2001 Edition); and Nuclear
Energy Institute 04–02, ‘‘Guidance for
Implementing a Risk-Informed,
Performance-Based Fire Protection
Program under 10 CFR 50.48(c),’’
Revision 2.
Date of issuance: June 27, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented as
described in the transition license
conditions.
Amendment No.: 248. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML16126A033;
documents related to this amendment
are listed in the Safety Evaluation
enclosed with the amendment.
Facility Operating License No. NPF–
38: The amendment revised the Facility
Operating License and Technical
Specifications.
E:\FR\FM\19JYN1.SGM
19JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 19, 2016 / Notices
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: April 10, 2012 (77 FR 21597).
The supplements dated September 27
and October 16, 2012; May 16, June 26,
and December 18, 2013; June 11, 2014;
March 12, April 10, May 14, August 27,
September 8, September 24, and
October 13, 2015; and January 18, 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 amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated June 27, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
Exelon Generation Company, LLC,
Docket No. 50–244, R. E. Ginna Nuclear
Power Plant, Wayne County, New York
Date of amendment request: June 4,
2015, as supplemented by letters dated
February 3, 2016; March 29, 2016; and
June 16, 2016.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendment relocated specific technical
specification surveillance frequencies to
a licensee-controlled program with the
adoption of Technical Specification
Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF–425,
Revision 3, ‘‘Relocate Surveillance
Frequencies to Licensee Control—Risk
Informed Technical Specification Task
Force Initiative 5b’’. Additionally, the
change added a new program, the
Surveillance Frequency Control
Program, to Technical Specification
Section 5, Administrative Controls.
Date of issuance: June 28, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 120 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 122. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML16125A485;
documents related to this amendment
are listed in the Safety Evaluation
enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License
No. DPR–18: Amendment revised the
Renewed Facility Operating License and
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: October 13, 2015 (80 FR
61482). The supplemental letters dated
February 3, 2016; March 29, 2016; and
June 16, 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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:39 Jul 18, 2016
Jkt 238001
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated June 28, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
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: October
6, 2015, as supplemented by letter dated
March 25, 2016.
Brief description of amendments: The
amendments revised the Technical
Specifications (TSs) related to
moderator temperature coefficient
requirements.
Date of issuance: June 20, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos: 271 (Unit No. 3)
and 266 (Unit No. 4). A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML16120A473;
documents related to these amendments
are listed in the Safety Evaluation
enclosed with the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License
Nos. DPR–31 and DPR–41: Amendments
revised the Renewed Facility Operating
Licenses and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: March 8, 2016 (81 FR 12141).
The supplemental letter dated March
25, 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 20, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Northern States Power Company—
Minnesota (NSPM), Docket No. 50–263,
Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant,
Wright County, Minnesota
Date of amendment request: July 15,
2015.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendment adopts the 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 21, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
prior to the startup from the 2017
refueling outage.
Amendment No.: 189. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under
PO 00000
Frm 00084
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
46969
Accession No. ML16125A165;
documents related to this amendment
are listed in the Safety Evaluation
enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License
No. DPR–22: Amendment revised the
Renewed Facility Operating License and
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: October 13, 2015 (80 FR
61484).
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated June 21, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50–272
and 50–311, Salem Nuclear Generating
Station (Salem), Unit Nos. 1 and 2,
Salem County, New Jersey
Date of amendment request: May 10,
2016.
Brief description of amendments: The
amendments extend the implementation
period for the Salem, Unit No. 1,
License Amendment No. 311, and the
Salem, Unit No. 2, License Amendment
No. 292, which were effective as of the
date of issuance (i.e., March 7, 2016).
Specifically, the implementation period
for the above amendments has been
extended from July 5, 2016 (i.e., 120
days from the date of issuance), to prior
to entry into Mode 6 for the Salem, Unit
No. 1, Fall 2017 refueling outage (1R25),
and prior to entry into Mode 6 for the
Salem, Unit No. 2, Spring 2017 refueling
outage (2R22), to align with the outages
for which the replacement of the source
range and intermediate range detectors
is scheduled.
Date of issuance: June 29, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented by
July 5, 2016.
Amendment Nos.: 314 (Unit No. 1)
and 295 (Unit No. 2). A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML16137A579;
documents related to these amendments
are listed in the Safety Evaluation
enclosed with the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License
Nos. DPR–70 and DPR–75: The
amendments revised the Renewed
Facility Operating Licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: May 23, 2016 (81 FR 32351).
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendments and final no
significant hazards consideration
determination are contained in a Safety
Evaluation dated June 29, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
E:\FR\FM\19JYN1.SGM
19JYN1
46970
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 19, 2016 / Notices
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No.
50–390, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 1,
Rhea County, Tennessee
Date of amendment request: March 4,
2016.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendment revised the date of the
Cyber Security Plan implementation
schedule Milestone 8 and paragraph 2.E
in the Facility Operating License.
Date of issuance: June 23, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 14 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 106. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML16146A745;
documents related to this amendment
are listed in the Safety Evaluation
enclosed with the amendment.
Facility Operating License No. NPF–
90: Amendment revised the Facility
Operating License.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: April 19, 2016 (81 FR 23011).
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated June 23, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 8th day
of July 2016.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Anne T. Boland,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor
Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2016–16925 Filed 7–18–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[NRC–2016–0001]
Sunshine Act Meeting Notice
DATES:
July 18, 25, August 1, 8, 15, 22,
2016.
Commissioners’ Conference
Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland.
STATUS: Public and Closed.
PLACE:
Week of July 18, 2016
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
Thursday, July 21, 2016
9:30 a.m.—Briefing on Project Aim
(Public Meeting) (Contact: Janelle
Jessie: 301–415–6775)
This meeting will be webcast live at
the Web address—https://www.nrc.gov/.
Week of July 25, 2016—Tentative
Tuesday, July 26, 2016
9:00 a.m.—Meeting with NRC
Stakeholders (Public Meeting)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:39 Jul 18, 2016
Jkt 238001
(Contact: Denise McGovern: 301–
415–0681)
This meeting will be webcast live at
the Web address—https://www.nrc.gov/.
Dated: July 15, 2016.
Denise L. McGovern,
Policy Coordinator, Office of the Secretary.
Thursday, July 28, 2016
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
9:00 a.m. Hearing on Combined
Licenses for Levy Nuclear Plant, Units
1 and 2: Section 189a. of the Atomic
Energy Act Proceeding (Public Meeting)
(Contact: Donald Habib: 301–415–1035)
This meeting will be webcast live at
the Web address—https://www.nrc.gov/.
Week of August 1, 2016—Tentative
There are no meetings scheduled for
the week of August 1, 2016.
Week of August 8, 2016—Tentative
There are no meetings scheduled for
the week of August 8, 2016.
Week of August 15, 2016—Tentative
There are no meetings scheduled for
the week of August 15, 2016.
Week of August 22, 2016—Tentative
There are no meetings scheduled for
the week of August 22, 2016.
*
*
*
*
*
The schedule for Commission
meetings is subject to change on short
notice. For more information or to verify
the status of meetings, contact Denise
McGovern at 301–415–0681 or via email
at Denise.McGovern@nrc.gov.
*
*
*
*
*
The NRC Commission Meeting
Schedule can be found on the Internet
at: https://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/
public-meetings/schedule.html.
*
*
*
*
*
The NRC provides reasonable
accommodation to individuals with
disabilities where appropriate. If you
need a reasonable accommodation to
participate in these public meetings, or
need this meeting notice or the
transcript or other information from the
public meetings in another format (e.g.,
braille, large print), please notify
Kimberly Meyer, NRC Disability
Program Manager, at 301–287–0739, by
videophone at 240–428–3217, or by
email at Kimberly.Meyer-Chambers@
nrc.gov. Determinations on requests for
reasonable accommodation will be
made on a case-by-case basis.
*
*
*
*
*
Members of the public may request to
receive this information electronically.
If you would like to be added to the
distribution, please contact the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Office of the
Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301–
415–1969), or email
Brenda.Akstulewicz@nrc.gov or
Patricia.Jimenez@nrc.gov.
PO 00000
Frm 00085
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
[FR Doc. 2016–17140 Filed 7–15–16; 4:15 pm]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[NRC–2016–0084]
Guidance for Closure of Activities
Related to Recommendation 2.1,
Flooding Hazard Reevaluation
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Interim staff guidance; issuance.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) is issuing the final
Japan Lessons-Learned Division Interim
Staff Guidance (JLD–ISG), JLD–ISG–
2016–01, ‘‘Guidance for Activities
Related to Near-Term Task Force
Recommendation 2.1, Flooding Hazard
Reevaluation; Focused Evaluation and
Integrated Assessment.’’ The JLD–ISG
provides guidance and clarification to
assist operating power reactor licensees
and holders of construction permits
under the NRC’s regulations with the
performance of the focused evaluations
and revised integrated assessments for
external flooding.
DATES: This guidance is effective on July
19, 2016.
ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID
NRC–2016–0084 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–2016–0084. 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 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. For the
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\19JYN1.SGM
19JYN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 138 (Tuesday, July 19, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46958-46970]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-16925]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2016-0141]
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 21, 2016, to July 1, 2016. The last
biweekly notice was published on July 5, 2016 (81 FR 43646).
DATES: Comments must be filed by August 18, 2016. A request for a
hearing must be filed by September 19, 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-2016-0141. 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
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-2016-0141 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-2016-0141.
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-2016-0141, 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
[[Page 46959]]
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 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
[[Page 46960]]
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 19, 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 19, 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 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-
[[Page 46961]]
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.
For further details with respect 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 Florida, Inc., et al., Docket No. 50-302, Crystal River
Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant (CR-3), Citrus County, Florida
Date of amendment request: May 25, 2016. A publicly available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16146A639.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would replace the
CR-3 Permanently Defueled Emergency Plan and its associated Emergency
Action Level (EAL) Bases Manual with the Independent Spent Fuel Storage
Installation (ISFSI)-Only Emergency Plan (IOEP) and its associated EAL
Bases Manual. This IOEP will be used at CR-3 after all spent fuel has
been transferred to the CR-3 ISFSI.
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?
The proposed amendment would modify the CR-3 facility operating
license by revising the emergency plan and revising the EAL scheme.
CR-3 has permanently ceased operation and is permanently defueled.
The proposed amendment is conditioned on all spent nuclear fuel
being removed from wet storage in the spent fuel pools and placed in
dry storage within the ISFSI. Occurrence of postulated accidents
associated with spent fuel stored in a spent fuel pool is no longer
credible in a spent fuel pool devoid of such fuel. The proposed
amendment has no effect on plant systems, structures, or components
(SSC) and no effect on the capability of any plant SSC to perform
its design function. The proposed amendment would not increase the
likelihood of the malfunction of any plant SSC. The proposed
amendment would have no effect on any of the previously evaluated
accidents in the CR-3 Final Safety Analysis Report.
Since CR-3 has permanently ceased operation, the generation of
fission products has ceased and the remaining source term continues
to decay. This continues to significantly reduce the consequences of
previously evaluated postulated accidents. Therefore, the proposed
amendment does not involve a significant increase in the
consequences of a previously evaluated accident.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
The proposed amendment constitutes a revision of the emergency
planning function commensurate with the ongoing and anticipated
reduction in radiological source term at CR-3.
The proposed amendment does not involve a physical alteration of
the plant. No new or different types of equipment will be installed
and there are no physical modifications to existing equipment as a
result of the proposed amendment. Similarly, the proposed amendment
would not physically change any SSC involved in the mitigation of
any postulated accidents. Thus, no new initiators or precursors of a
new or different kind of accident are created. Furthermore, the
proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new failure
mode associated with any equipment or personnel failures. The
credible events for the ISFSI remain unchanged.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Because the 10 CFR part 50 license for CR-3 no longer authorizes
operation of the reactor or emplacement or retention of fuel into
the reactor vessel, as specified in 10 CFR 50.82(a)(2), the
occurrence of postulated accidents associated with reactor operation
is no longer credible. With all spent nuclear fuel transferred out
of wet storage from the spent fuel pools and placed in dry storage
within the ISFSI, a fuel handling accident is no longer credible.
There are no longer credible events that would result in
radiological releases beyond the site boundary exceeding the EPA
[Environmental Protection Agency] Protective Action Guide exposure
levels, as detailed in the EPA's ``Protective Action Guide and
Planning Guidance for Radiological Incidents,'' Draft for Interim
Use and Public Comment dated March 2013 (PAG [Protective Action
Guide] Manual).
The proposed amendment does not involve a change in the plant's
design, configuration, or operation. The proposed amendment does not
affect either the way in which the plant structures, systems, and
components perform their safety function or their design margins.
Because there is no change to the physical design of the plant,
there is no change to these margins.
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: Lara S. Nichols, 550 South Tryon Street,
Charlotte, NC 28202.
NRC Branch Chief: Bruce A. Watson.
Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50-397, Columbia Generating Station,
Benton County, Washington
Date of amendment request: May 10, 2016, as supplemented by letter
dated May 18, 2016. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS under
Accession Nos. ML16131A891 and ML16139A161, respectively.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the
safety function lift and lower setpoint tolerances of the safety/relief
valves (SRVs) that are listed in Surveillance Requirements 3.4.3.1 and
3.4.4.1 of the Technical Specifications (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 amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
[[Page 46962]]
This proposed amendment has no influence on the probability or
consequences of any accident previously evaluated. The lower safety
setpoint tolerance change does not affect the operation of the SRVs
and it does not affect the as-left setpoint tolerance band which is
unchanged at 3% of the lift setpoint of the SRVs. The
change only affects the lower tolerance for opening of the SRVs. The
proposed amendment does not affect the upper tolerance for SRVs
safety setpoints, which is the limit that protects from
overpressurization.
The proposed amendment does not involve any physical changes to
the SRVs, nor does it change the safety function of the SRVs. The
proposed TS revision involves no significant changes to the
operation of any systems or components in normal or accident
operating conditions as discussed in the technical evaluation for
this [license amendment request]. Additionally, the proposed change
does not involve any significant changes to existing structures,
systems, or components.
The proposed amendment does not change any other behavior or
operation of the SRVs, and, therefore, has no significant impact on
reactor operation. It also has no significant impact on response to
any perturbation of reactor operation including transients and
accidents previously analyzed in the [Final Safety Analysis Report
(FSAR)].
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not result in a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of any
previously evaluated accident.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change from -3% to -5% for the SRV safety setpoint
lower tolerance only affects the criteria to determine when an as-
found SRV test is considered acceptable. The proposed change does
not affect the criteria for the setpoint upper tolerance for the
SRVs.
The proposed change from -3% to -5% for the SRV safety setpoint
lower tolerance does not adversely affect the operation of any
safety-related components or equipment. Since the proposed amendment
does not involve any hardware changes, significant changes to the
operation of any systems or components, nor change to existing
structures, systems, or components, there is no possibility that a
new or different kind of accident is created.
The proposed change from -3% to -5% for the SRV safety setpoint
lower tolerance does not involve any physical changes to the SRVs,
nor does it change the safety function of the SRVs. The proposed
change does not require any physical change or alteration of any
existing plant equipment. No new or different equipment is being
installed. No installed equipment is being operated in a new or
different manner. There is no alteration to the parameters within
which the plant is normally operated. This change does not alter the
manner in which equipment operation is initiated, nor will the
functional demands on credited equipment be changed. No alterations
in the procedures that ensure the plant remains within analyzed
limits are being proposed. No changes are being made to the
procedures relied upon to respond to off-normal events as described
in the FSAR are being proposed by this change. The proposed change
does not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis and licensing
basis.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change from -3% to -5% for the SRV safety setpoint
lower tolerance only affects the criteria to determine when an as-
found SRV test is considered acceptable. This change does not affect
the criteria for the SRV safety setpoint upper tolerance. The TS
setpoints for the SRVs are not changed. The as-left setpoint
tolerances are not changed by the proposed amendment and remain at
3%.
The margin of safety is established through the design of the
plant structures, systems, and components, the parameters within
which the plant is operated, and the establishment of the setpoints
for the actuation of equipment relied upon to respond to an event.
The proposed change from -3% to -5% for the SRV safety setpoint
lower tolerance does not significantly impact the condition or
performance of structures, systems, and components relied upon for
accident mitigation.
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: William A. Horin, Esq., Winston & Strawn,
1700 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20006-3817.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC and PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-277
and 50-278, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3, York and
Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: June 20, 2016. A publicly available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16173A371.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the
Technical Specification (TS) requirements associated with the storage
inventory of lube oil for the emergency diesel generators (EDGs).
Specifically, the TS volume requirements for stored EDG lube oil
(currently specified in number of gallons) would be replaced with
volume requirements based on EDG operating time (specified in number of
days). The volume requirements, specified in number of gallons, along
with the equivalent number of days of EDG operating time, would be
included in the TS Bases. As such, the amendments would allow the
licensee to make changes to the number of gallons using the provisions
of 10 CFR 50.59, consistent with the TS Bases Control Program specified
in TS 5.5.10. The proposed changes are based on Revision 1 to Technical
Specification Task Force (TSTF) Improved Standard Technical
Specifications Change Traveler TSTF-501, ``Relocate Stored Fuel Oil and
Lube Oil Volume Values to Licensee Control.''
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change relocates the volume of diesel lube oil
required to support 7-day operation of each onsite diesel generator,
and the volume equivalent to a 6-day supply, to licensee control.
The specific volume of lube oil equivalent to a 7-day and 6-day
supply is based on the diesel generator manufacturer's consumption
values for the run time of the diesel generator. Because the
requirement to maintain a 7-day supply of diesel lube oil is not
changed and is consistent with the assumptions in the accident
analyses, and the actions taken when the volume of lube oil is less
than a 6-day supply have not changed, neither the probability nor
the consequences of any accident previously evaluated will be
affected.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant
(i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a
change in the methods governing normal plant operation. The change
does not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis but ensures
that each diesel generator operates as assumed in the accident
analysis. The proposed change is consistent with the safety analysis
assumptions. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
[[Page 46963]]
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change relocates the volume of diesel lube oil
required to support 7-day operation of each onsite diesel generator,
and the volume equivalent to a 6-day supply, to licensee control. As
the bases for the existing limits on diesel lube oil are not
changed, no change is made to the accident analysis assumptions and
no margin of safety is reduced as part of this change.
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: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel,
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Rd., Warrenville, IL
60555.
NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-219, Oyster Creek Nuclear
Generating Station (OCNGS), Ocean County, New Jersey
Date of amendment request: May 17, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16138A129.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise OCNGS's Technical Specification (TS) Section 6.0,
``Administrative Controls.''
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, with NRC edits in [brackets], 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 changes would not take effect until OCNGS has
permanently ceased operation and entered a permanently defueled
condition. The proposed changes would revise the OCNGS TS by
deleting or modifying certain portions of the TS administrative
controls described in Section 6.0 of the TS that are no longer
applicable to a permanently shutdown and defueled facility.
The proposed changes do not involve any physical changes to
plant Structures, Systems, and Components (SSCs) or the manner in
which SSCs are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected.
The proposed changes do not involve a change to any safety limits,
limiting safety system settings, limiting control settings, limiting
conditions for operation, surveillance requirements, or design
features.
The deletion and modification of provisions of the
administrative controls do not directly affect the design of SSCs
necessary for safe storage of spent irradiated fuel or the methods
used for handling and storage of such fuel in the Spent Fuel Pool
(SFP). The proposed changes are administrative in nature and do not
affect any accidents applicable to the safe management of spent
irradiated fuel or the permanently shutdown and defueled condition
of the reactor.
In a permanently defueled condition, the only credible accidents
are the Fuel Handling Accident (FHA), Radioactive Liquid Waste
System Leak, and Postulated Radioactive Releases Due to Liquid Tank
Failures. Other accidents such as Loss of Coolant Accident, Loss of
Feedwater, and Reactivity and Power Distribution Anomalies will no
longer be applicable to a permanently defueled reactor plant.
The probability of occurrence of previously evaluated accidents
is not increased, since extended operation in a permanently defueled
condition will be the only operation allowed, and therefore, bounded
by the existing analyses. Additionally, the occurrence of postulated
accidents associated with reactor operation is no longer credible in
a permanently defueled reactor. This significantly reduces the scope
of applicable accidents.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequence of an accident previously
evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to delete and/or modify certain TS
administrative controls have no impact on facility SSCs affecting
the safe storage of spent irradiated fuel, or on the methods of
operation of such SSCs, or on the handling and storage of spent
irradiated fuel itself. The proposed changes do not result in
different or more adverse failure modes or accidents than previously
evaluated because the reactor will be permanently shut down and
defueled and OCNGS will no longer be authorized to operate the
reactor.
The proposed changes do not affect systems credited in the
accident analysis for the FHA, Radioactive Liquid Waste System Leak,
and Postulated Radioactive Releases Due to Liquid Tank Failures at
OCNGS. The proposed changes will continue to require proper control
and monitoring of safety significant parameters and activities. The
proposed changes do not result in any new mechanisms that could
initiate damage to the remaining relevant safety barriers in support
of maintaining the plant in a permanently shutdown and defueled
condition (e.g., fuel cladding and SFP cooling). Since extended
operation in a defueled condition will be the only operation
allowed, and therefore bounded by the existing analyses, such a
condition does not create the possibility of a new or different kind
of accident.
The proposed changes do not alter the protection system design,
create new failure modes, or change any modes of operation. The
proposed changes do not involve a physical alteration of the plant,
and no new or different kind of equipment will be installed.
Consequently, there are no new initiators that could result in a new
or different kind of accident.
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 changes involve deleting and/or modifying certain
TS administrative controls once the OCNGS facility has been
permanently shutdown and defueled. As specified in 10 CFR
50.82(a)(2), the 10 CFR 50 license for OCNGS will no longer
authorize operation of the reactor or emplacement or retention of
fuel into the reactor vessel following submittal of the
certifications required by 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1). As a result, the
occurrence of certain design basis postulated accidents are no
longer considered credible when the reactor is permanently defueled.
The only remaining credible accident is a fuel handling accident
(FHA). The proposed changes do not adversely affect the inputs or
assumptions of any of the design basis analyses that impact the FHA.
The proposed changes are limited to those portions of the TS
administrative controls that are related to the safe storage and
maintenance of spent irradiated fuel. The requirements that are
proposed to be revised and/or deleted from the OCNGS TS are not
credited in the existing accident analysis for the remaining
applicable postulated accident (i.e., FHA); therefore, they do not
contribute to the margin of safety associated with the accident
analysis. Certain postulated DBAs [design-basis accidents] involving
the reactor are no longer possible because the reactor will be
permanently shut down and defueled and OCNGS will no longer be
authorized to operate the reactor.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
reduction in the margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel,
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL
60555.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Shaun M. Anderson.
Luminant Generation Company LLC, Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446,
Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, Somervell County,
Texas
Date of amendment request: April 27, 2016. A publicly available
version is in
[[Page 46964]]
ADAMS under Accession No. ML16120A432.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the
Technical Specifications (TSs) by eliminating Section 5.5.8,
``Inservice Testing Program,'' and adding a new defined term,
``Inservice Testing Program,'' to the TS Definitions section. The
proposed amendments are consistent with Technical Specification Task
Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-545, Revision 3, ``TS Inservice Testing
Program Removal & Clarify SR [Surveillance Requirement] Usage Rule
Application to Section 5.5 Testing,'' dated October 21, 2015 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML15294A555).
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 change revises TS Chapter 5, ``Administrative
Controls,'' Section 5.5, ``Programs and Manuals,'' by eliminating
the ``Inservice Testing Program'' specification. Most requirements
in the Inservice Testing Program are removed, as they are
duplicative of requirements in the [American Society of Mechanical
Engineers (ASME) Operations and Maintenance (OM) Code], as clarified
by Code Case OMN-20, ``Inservice Test Frequency.'' The remaining
requirements in the Section 5.5.8 [Inservice Testing (IST)] Program
are eliminated because the NRC has determined their inclusion in the
TS is contrary to regulations. A new defined term, ``Inservice
Testing Program,'' is added to the TS, which references the
requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a(f).
Performance of inservice testing is not an initiator to any
accident previously evaluated. As a result, the probability of
occurrence of an accident is not significantly affected by the
proposed change. Inservice test frequencies under Code Case OMN-20
are equivalent to the current testing period allowed by the TS with
the exception that testing frequencies greater than 2 years may be
extended by up to 6 months to facilitate test scheduling and
consideration of plant operating conditions that may not be suitable
for performance of the required testing. The testing frequency
extension will not affect the ability of the components to mitigate
any accident previously evaluated as the components are required to
be operable during the testing period extension. Performance of
inservice tests utilizing allowances in OMN-20 will not
significantly affect the reliability of the tested components. As a
result, the availability of the affected components, as well as
their ability to mitigate the consequences of accidents previously
evaluated, is not affected.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not alter the design or configuration
of the plant. The proposed change does not involve a physical
alteration of the plant; no new or different kind of equipment will
be installed. The proposed change does not alter the types of
inservice testing performed. In most cases, the frequency of
inservice testing is unchanged. However, the frequency of testing
would not result in a new or different kind of accident from any
previously evaluated since the testing methods are not altered.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change eliminates some requirements from the TS in
lieu of requirements in the ASME Code, as modified by use of Code
Case OMN-20. Compliance with the ASME Code is required by 10 CFR
50.55a. The proposed change also allows inservice tests with
frequencies greater than 2 years to be extended by 6 months to
facilitate test scheduling and consideration of plant operating
conditions that may not be suitable for performance of the required
testing. The testing frequency extension will not affect the ability
of the components to respond to an accident as the components are
required to be operable during the testing period extension. The
proposed change will eliminate existing TS SR 3.0.3 allowance to
defer performance of missed inservice tests up to the duration of
the specified testing frequency, and instead will require an
assessment of the missed test on equipment operability. This
assessment will consider the effect on a margin of safety (equipment
operability). Should the component be inoperable, the Technical
Specifications provide actions to ensure that the margin of safety
is protected. The proposed change also eliminates a statement that
nothing in the ASME Code should be construed to supersede the
requirements of any TS. The NRC has determined that statement to be
incorrect. However, elimination of the statement will have no effect
on plant operation or safety.
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: Timothy P. Matthews, Esq., Morgan, Lewis and
Bockius, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
NextEra Energy Seabrook LLC, Docket No. 50-443, Seabrook Station, Unit
No. 1, Rockingham County, New Hampshire
Date of amendment request: March 31, 2016, as supplemented by
letter dated May 31, 2016. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS
under Accession Nos. ML16095A278 and ML16159A194, respectively.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise
Technical Specification (TS) 6.15, ``Containment Leakage Rate Testing
Program,'' to require a program that is in accordance with Nuclear
Energy Institute (NEI) Topical Report NEI 94-01, Revision 3-A,
``Industry Guideline for Implementing Performance-Based Option of 10
CFR part 50, Appendix J'' (ADAMS Accession No. ML12221A202). The
proposed change would allow extension of the Type A test interval up to
one test in 15 years, and extension of the Type C test interval up to
75 months, based on acceptable performance history as defined in NEI
94-01, Revision 3-A.
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 amendment adopts the NRC-accepted guidelines of NEI
94-01, Revision 3-A, ``Industry Guideline for Implementing
Performance-Based Option of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix J,'' for
development of the Seabrook performance-based containment testing
program. NEI 94-01 allows, based on risk and performance, an
extension of Type A and Type C containment leak test intervals.
Implementation of these guidelines continues to provide adequate
assurance that during design basis accidents, the primary
containment and its components will limit leakage rates to less than
the values assumed in the plant safety analyses.
The findings of the Seabrook risk assessment confirm the general
findings of previous studies that the risk impact with extending the
containment leak rate is small. Per the guidance provided in
Regulatory Guide 1.174, an extension of the leak test interval in
accordance with NEI 94-01, Revision 3-A results in an estimated
change within the small change region.
Since the change is implementing a performance-based containment
testing
[[Page 46965]]
program, the proposed amendment does not involve either a physical
change to the plant or a change in the manner in which the plant is
operated or controlled. The requirement for containment leakage rate
acceptance will not be changed by this amendment. Therefore, the
containment will continue to perform its design function as a
barrier to fission product releases.
Therefore, the proposed changes do 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 previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change to implement a performance-based containment
testing program, associated with integrated leakage rate test
frequency, does not change the design or operation of structures,
systems, or components of the plant.
The proposed changes would continue to ensure containment
integrity and would ensure operation within the bounds of existing
accident analyses. There are no accident initiators created or
affected by these changes. Therefore, the proposed changes will not
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from
any accident previously evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in
the margin of safety?
Response: No.
Margin of safety is related to confidence in the ability of the
fission product barriers (fuel cladding, reactor coolant system, and
primary containment) to perform their design functions during and
following postulated accidents. The proposed change to implement a
performance-based containment testing program, associated with
integrated leakage rate test frequency, does not affect plant
operations, design functions, or any analysis that verifies the
capability of a structure, system, or component of the plant to
perform a design function. In addition, this change does not affect
safety limits, limiting safety system setpoints, or limiting
conditions for operation.
The specific requirements and conditions of the TS Containment
Leakage Rate Testing Program exist to ensure that the degree of
containment structural integrity and leak-tightness that is
considered in the plant safety analysis is maintained. The overall
containment leak rate limit specified by TS is maintained. This
ensures that the margin of safety in the plant safety analysis is
maintained. The design, operation, testing methods and acceptance
criteria for Type A, B, and C containment leakage tests specified in
applicable codes and standards would continue to be met, with the
acceptance of this proposed change, since these are not affected by
implementation of a performance-based containment testing program.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: William Blair, Managing Attorney--Nuclear,
Florida Power & Light Company, P.O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, FL 33408-
0420.
NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50-354, Hope Creek Generating Station,
Salem County, New Jersey
Date of amendment request: May 11, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16132A374.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise
Technical Specification (TS) requirements by deleting TS Action
Statement 3.4.2.1.b concerning stuck open safety/relief valves.
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 TS change deletes Action Statement 3.4.2.1.b
concerning safety/relief valves. The two (2) minute action
represents detailed methods of responding to an event, and
therefore, if eliminated, would not result in increasing the
probability of the event, nor act as an initiator of an event.
Limiting condition for operation 3.6.2.1, ``Depressurization
Systems--Suppression Chamber,'' and plant procedures provide
operators with appropriate direction for response to a suppression
pool high temperature (which could be caused by a stuck open relief
valve). Providing specific direction to close the valve within two
(2) minutes does not provide additional plant protection beyond what
is provided for in plant procedures and TS 3.6.2.1.
Therefore, this action can be eliminated, and will 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 TS change deletes Action Statement 3.4.2.1.b
concerning safety/relief valves. This change does not change the
design or configuration of the plant. No new operation or failure
modes are created, nor is a system-level failure mode created that
is different than those that already exist.
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. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in
a margin of safety, nor does it affect any analytical limits. There
are no changes to accident or transient core thermal hydraulic
conditions, or fuel or reactor coolant boundary design limits, as a
result of the proposed change. The proposed change will not alter
the assumptions or results of the analysis contained in the Updated
Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR).
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: Jeffrie J. Keenan, PSEG Nuclear LLC-N21,
P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038.
NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026,
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4, Burke County, Georgia
Date of amendment request: May 17, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16138A431.
Description of amendment request: The amendment request proposes
changes to the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) in the form
of departures from the incorporated plant-specific Design Control
Document (DCD) Tier 2 information and involves changes to related Tier
1 information, with corresponding changes to the associated Combined
License (COL) Appendix C information. Pursuant to the provisions of 10
CFR 52.63(b)(1), an exemption from elements of the design as certified
in the 10 CFR part 52, Appendix D, ``Design Certification Rule for the
AP1000 Design,'' is also requested for the plant-specific DCD Tier 1
material departures. Specifically, the requested amendment proposes
changes to the concrete wall thickness tolerance for the column line N
wall, from column lines 2 to 4 from elevation 100'-0'' to 135'-3'',
from plus or minus 1 inch to plus 4 inches.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination:
[[Page 46966]]
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.
As indicated in the UFSAR Subsection 3.8.4.1.2, the auxiliary
building contains structural modules in the south side of the
building that include the spent fuel pool, fuel transfer canal, and
cask loading and washdown pits. The increase in tolerance associated
with the concrete thickness of the concrete wall for the column line
N from column line 2 to 4 and the deviation from ACI 349-01 does not
involve any accident initiating components or events, thus leaving
the probabilities of an accident unaltered. The increased tolerance
does not adversely affect any safety-related structures or equipment
nor does the increased tolerance reduce the effectiveness of a
radioactive material barrier. Thus, the proposed changes would not
affect any safety-related accident mitigating function served by the
containment internal structures.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed tolerance increase and code deviation from ACI 349-
01 does not change the performance of the affected radiologically
controlled portion of the auxiliary building. As demonstrated by the
continued conformance to the other applicable codes and standards
governing the design of the structures, and in conjunction with the
analysis of a special system of construction in accordance with ACI
349-01 Section 1.4, the wall with an increased concrete thickness
tolerance continues to withstand the same effects as previously
evaluated. There is no change to the design function of the affected
module and wall, and no new failure mechanisms are identified as the
same types of accidents are presented to the wall before and after
the change.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change to increase the concrete thickness tolerance
for the column line N wall from column line 2 to 4 identified in COL
Appendix C Table 3.3-1 does not alter any design function, design
analysis, or safety analysis input or result, and sufficient margin
exists to justify departure from the ACI 349-01 requirements for the
wall. As such, because the system continues to respond to design
basis accidents in the same manner as before without any changes to
the expected response of the structure, no safety analysis or design
basis acceptance limit/criterion is challenged or exceeded by the
proposed changes. Accordingly, no safety margin is reduced by the
increase of the wall concrete thickness tolerance.
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.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026,
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4, Burke County, Georgia
Date of amendment request: May 5, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16126A276.
Description of amendment request: The proposed changes would revise
the Combined Licenses (COLs) concerning the design details of the
safety-related passive core cooling system (PXS), the nonsafety-related
normal residual heat removal system (RNS), and the nonsafety-related
containment air filtration system (VFS). The amendment request proposes
changes to the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) in the form
of departures from the plant-specific Design Control Document (DCD)
Tier 2 information and involves changes to related plant-specific DCD
Tier 1 information, with corresponding changes to the associated COL
Appendix C information. Because this proposed change would require a
departure from Tier 1 information in the Westinghouse Advanced Passive
1000 DCD, the licensee also requests an exemption from the requirements
of the Generic DCD Tier 1 in accordance with 10 CFR 52.63(b)(1).
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 changes do not affect the operation of any systems
or equipment that initiate an analyzed accident or alter any
structures, systems, and components (SSCs) accident initiator or
initiating sequence of events. The proposed changes result from
identifying PSX, RNS, and VFS piping lines required to be described
in the licensing basis as ASME [American Society of Mechanical
Engineers] Code Section III, evaluated to meet the LBB [leak-before-
break] design criteria, or designed to withstand combined normal and
seismic design basis loads without a loss of functional capability.
Neither planned or inadvertent operation nor failure of the PXS,
RNS, or VFS is an accident initiator or part of an initiating
sequence of events for an accident previously evaluated. Therefore,
the probabilities of the accidents evaluated in the UFSAR are not
affected.
The proposed changes do not have an adverse impact on the
ability of the PXS, RNS, or VFS to perform their design functions.
The design of the PXS, RNS, and VFS continues to meet the same
regulatory acceptance criteria, codes, and standards as required by
the UFSAR. In addition, the changes ensure that the capabilities of
the PXS, RNS, and VFS to mitigate the consequences of an accident
meet the applicable regulatory acceptance criteria, and there is no
adverse effect on any safety-related SSC or function used to
mitigate an accident. The changes do not affect the prevention and
mitigation of other abnormal events, e.g., anticipated operational
occurrences, earthquakes, floods and turbine missiles, or their
safety or design analyses. Therefore, the consequences of the
accidents evaluated in the UFSAR are not affected.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not affect the operation of any systems
or equipment that may initiate a new or different kind of accident,
or alter any SSC such that a new accident initiator or initiating
sequence of events is created. The proposed changes result from
identifying PXS, RNS, and VFS piping lines required to be described
in the licensing basis as ASME Code Section III, evaluated to meet
the LBB design criteria, or designed to withstand combined normal
and seismic design basis loads without a loss of functional
capability. These proposed changes do not adversely affect any other
PXS, RNS, VFS, or SSC design functions or methods of operation in a
manner that results in a new failure mode, malfunction, or sequence
of events that affect safety-related or nonsafety-related equipment.
Therefore, 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 requested amendment does not create the
possibility of a new or different
[[Page 46967]]
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 changes maintain existing safety margins. The
proposed changes ensure that PXS, RNS, and VFS design requirements
and design functions are met. The proposed changes maintain existing
safety margin through continued application of the existing
requirements of the UFSAR, while adding additional design features
to ensure the PXS, RNS, and VFS perform the design functions
required to meet the existing safety margins. Therefore, the
proposed changes satisfy the same design functions in accordance
with the same codes and standards as stated in the UFSAR. These
changes do not adversely affect any design code, function, design
analysis, safety analysis input or result, or design/safety margin.
Because no safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/
criterion is challenged or exceeded by the proposed changes, no
margin of safety is reduced.
Therefore, the requested 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.
STP Nuclear Operating Company (STPNOC), Docket No. 50-498, South Texas
Project (STP), Unit 1, Matagorda County, Texas
Date of amendment request: April 7, 2016, as supplemented by letter
dated May 25, 2016. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS under
Accession Nos. ML16110A297 and ML16162A196, respectively.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise
Technical Specification 5.3.2 for STP, Unit 1, to allow permanent
operation with 56 full-length control rods with no control rod assembly
in core location D-6.
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.
STPNOC has performed a multi-cycle assessment on previous Unit 1
reactor cores and evaluated the consequences associated with removal
of Control Rod D-6. The assessment indicates that removal of Control
Rod D-6 does impact reactivity parameters (e.g., shutdown margin and
trip reactivity); however, sufficient margin exists to ensure the
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) accident analysis
limits continue to be met. The physical changes associated with the
removal of Control Rod D-6 do not impact the probability of
occurrence of a previously evaluated accident. 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.
Operation of STP Unit 1 with Control Rod D-6 removed will not
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from
any accident previously evaluated. To preserve the reactor coolant
system flow characteristics in the reactor core, a flow restrictor
will be installed at the top of the D-6 guide tube housing.
Installation of this component will not prevent the remaining 56
control rods from performing the required design function of
providing adequate shutdown margin. No new operator actions are
created as a result of the proposed change. 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.
Operation of STP Unit 1 with Control Rod D-6 removed will not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The margin of
safety is established by setting safety limits and operating within
those limits. The proposed change does not alter a UFSAR design
basis or safety limit and does not change any setpoint at which
automatic actuations are initiated. STPNOC will continue to confirm
all safety analysis limits remain bounding on a cycle-specific basis
using an NRC-approved Westinghouse core reload evaluation
methodology. 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 standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
request for amendment involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Kym Harshaw, General Counsel, STP Nuclear
Operating Company, P.O. Box 289, Wadsworth, TX 77483.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
III. Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses
and Combined Licenses
During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice,
the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has
determined for each of these amendments that the application complies
with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,
as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The
Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the
Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR chapter I, which are set
forth in the license amendment.
A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility
operating license or combined license, as applicable, proposed no
significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a
hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the Federal
Register as indicated.
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that
these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in
accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b),
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be
prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an
environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in
10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment,
it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the action see (1) the
applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's
related letter, Safety Evaluation, and/or Environmental Assessment as
indicated. All of these items can be accessed as described in the
``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' section of this
document.
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Docket No. 50-336, Millstone Power
Station, Unit No. 2 (MPS2), New London County, Connecticut
Date of amendment request: December 17, 2012, as supplemented by
letters dated February 25, 2013; May 28, 2013; July 21, 2015; December
18, 2015; and June 1, 2016.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the MPS2
Technical Specifications (TSs) to reflect the results and constraints
of a new criticality safety analysis for fuel assembly storage in the
MPS2 fuel storage racks.
Date of issuance: June 23, 2016.
[[Page 46968]]
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 120 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 327. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML16003A008; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-65: Amendment revised
the Renewed Facility Operating License and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 11, 2013 (78 FR
35060). The supplemental letters dated May 28, 2013; July 21, 2015;
December 18, 2015; and June 1, 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 amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 23, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-369, 50-370, 50-413, and 50-
414, McGuire Nuclear Station (McGuire), Units 1 and 2, Mecklenburg
County, North Carolina, and Catawba Nuclear Station (Catawba), Units 1
and 2, York County, South Carolina
Date of amendment request: August 20, 2015.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the
Technical Specifications (TSs) to allow the use of Optimized Zirlo\TM\.
Specifically, the proposed changes modify TS 4.2.1 to add Optimized
Zirlo\TM\ as an allowable cladding and TS 5.6.5.b to add associated
methodologies for determining the core operating limits report.
Date of issuance: June 21, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 120 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: McGuire--288 (Unit 1) and 267 (Unit 2); Catawba--
284 (Unit 1) and 280 (Unit 2). A publicly-available version is in ADAMS
under Accession No. ML16105A326; documents related to these amendments
are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-9, NPF-17, NPF-35, and NPF-52:
Amendments revised the Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 24, 2015 (80
FR 73236).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 21, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
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: July 9, 2015, as supplemented by letter
dated January 7, 2016.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical
Specification (TS) 3.3.1, ``Reactor Trip System (RTS)
Instrumentation,'' to resolve an operable but degraded non-conforming
issue associated with the reactor coolant pump under-frequency trip
setpoint allowable value for the McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and
2.
Date of issuance: June 21, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 287 (Unit 1) and 266 (Unit 2). A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16109A084; documents related
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with
the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-9 and NPF-17:
Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 13, 2015 (80 FR
61479). The supplemental letter dated January 7, 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 21, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Louisiana, LLC, and Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-
458, River Bend Station, Unit 1 (RBS), West Feliciana Parish, Louisiana
Date of amendment request: June 29, 2015, as supplemented by letter
dated December 3, 2015.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the full
implementation date (Milestone 8) of the RBS Cyber Security Plan and
revised the associated license condition for the Facility Operating
License. The license was also revised, in part, to include
administrative and editorial corrections.
Date of issuance: June 21, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 190. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML16124A688; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-47: The amendment revised the
Facility Operating License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 5, 2016 (81 FR
19647).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 21, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-382, Waterford Steam Electric
Station, Unit 3 (Waterford 3), St. Charles Parish, Louisiana
Date of amendment request: November 17, 2011, as supplemented by
letters dated January 26, September 27 and October 16, 2012; May 16,
June 26, and December 18, 2013; June 11, 2014; March 12, April 10, May
14, August 27, September 8, September 24, and October 13, 2015; and
January 18, 2016.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment permits the licensee
to adopt a new risk-informed, performance-based fire protection
licensing basis for Waterford 3, in accordance with the requirements in
10 CFR 50.48(a) and (c) and the guidance in NRC Regulatory Guide 1.205,
``Risk-Informed, Performance-Based Fire Protection for Existing Light-
Water Nuclear Power Plants,'' December 2009; National Fire Protection
Association (NFPA) 805, ``Performance-Based Standard for Fire
Protection for Light Water Reactor Electric Generating Plants'' (2001
Edition); and Nuclear Energy Institute 04-02, ``Guidance for
Implementing a Risk-Informed, Performance-Based Fire Protection Program
under 10 CFR 50.48(c),'' Revision 2.
Date of issuance: June 27, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
as described in the transition license conditions.
Amendment No.: 248. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML16126A033; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-38: The amendment revised the
Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
[[Page 46969]]
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 10, 2012 (77 FR
21597). The supplements dated September 27 and October 16, 2012; May
16, June 26, and December 18, 2013; June 11, 2014; March 12, April 10,
May 14, August 27, September 8, September 24, and October 13, 2015; and
January 18, 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 amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 27, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-244, R. E. Ginna Nuclear
Power Plant, Wayne County, New York
Date of amendment request: June 4, 2015, as supplemented by letters
dated February 3, 2016; March 29, 2016; and June 16, 2016.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment relocated specific
technical specification surveillance frequencies to a licensee-
controlled program with the adoption of Technical Specification Task
Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-425, Revision 3, ``Relocate Surveillance
Frequencies to Licensee Control--Risk Informed Technical Specification
Task Force Initiative 5b''. Additionally, the change added a new
program, the Surveillance Frequency Control Program, to Technical
Specification Section 5, Administrative Controls.
Date of issuance: June 28, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 120 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 122. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML16125A485; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-18: Amendment revised
the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 13, 2015 (80 FR
61482). The supplemental letters dated February 3, 2016; March 29,
2016; and June 16, 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 amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 28, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
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: October 6, 2015, as supplemented by
letter dated March 25, 2016.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the
Technical Specifications (TSs) related to moderator temperature
coefficient requirements.
Date of issuance: June 20, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos: 271 (Unit No. 3) and 266 (Unit No. 4). A publicly-
available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16120A473;
documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety
Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-31 and DPR-41:
Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 8, 2016 (81 FR
12141). The supplemental letter dated March 25, 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 20, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Northern States Power Company--Minnesota (NSPM), Docket No. 50-263,
Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, Wright County, Minnesota
Date of amendment request: July 15, 2015.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment adopts the 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 21, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
prior to the startup from the 2017 refueling outage.
Amendment No.: 189. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML16125A165; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-22: Amendment revised
the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 13, 2015 (80 FR
61484).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 21, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-272 and 50-311, Salem Nuclear
Generating Station (Salem), Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Salem County, New Jersey
Date of amendment request: May 10, 2016.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments extend the
implementation period for the Salem, Unit No. 1, License Amendment No.
311, and the Salem, Unit No. 2, License Amendment No. 292, which were
effective as of the date of issuance (i.e., March 7, 2016).
Specifically, the implementation period for the above amendments has
been extended from July 5, 2016 (i.e., 120 days from the date of
issuance), to prior to entry into Mode 6 for the Salem, Unit No. 1,
Fall 2017 refueling outage (1R25), and prior to entry into Mode 6 for
the Salem, Unit No. 2, Spring 2017 refueling outage (2R22), to align
with the outages for which the replacement of the source range and
intermediate range detectors is scheduled.
Date of issuance: June 29, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
by July 5, 2016.
Amendment Nos.: 314 (Unit No. 1) and 295 (Unit No. 2). A publicly-
available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16137A579;
documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety
Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-70 and DPR-75: The
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 23, 2016 (81 FR
32351).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments and final no
significant hazards consideration determination are contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated June 29, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
[[Page 46970]]
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 50-390, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant,
Unit 1, Rhea County, Tennessee
Date of amendment request: March 4, 2016.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the date of
the Cyber Security Plan implementation schedule Milestone 8 and
paragraph 2.E in the Facility Operating License.
Date of issuance: June 23, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 14 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 106. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML16146A745; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-90: Amendment revised the
Facility Operating License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 19, 2016 (81 FR
23011).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 23, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 8th day of July 2016.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Anne T. Boland,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2016-16925 Filed 7-18-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P