Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations, 92863-92880 [2016-30438]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 20, 2016 / Notices
III. License Amendment Request
By letter dated August 14, 2014, and
supplemented by letter dated January
16, 2015, the licensee requested that the
NRC amend the COLs for VEGP, Units
3 and 4, COLs NPF–91 and NPF–92. The
proposed amendment is described in
Section I of this Federal Register notice.
The Commission has determined for
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 COL, as applicable, proposed
no significant hazards consideration
determination, and opportunity for a
hearing in connection with these
actions, was published in the Federal
Register on November 12, 2014 (79 FR
67204). No comments were received
during the 30-day comment period.
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.
IV. Conclusion
Using the reasons set forth in the
combined safety evaluation, the staff
granted the exemption and issued the
amendment that the licensee requested
on August 14, 2014, and supplemented
by letter dated January 16, 2015.
The exemption and amendment were
issued on February 25, 2016, as part of
a combined package to the licensee
(ADAMS Accession No. ML16019A374).
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 13th day
of December 2016.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Jennifer Dixon-Herrity,
Chief, Licensing Branch 4, Division of New
Reactor Licensing, Office of New Reactors.
[FR Doc. 2016–30607 Filed 12–19–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:36 Dec 19, 2016
Jkt 241001
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[NRC–2016–0256]
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 November
22, 2016, to December 5, 2016. The last
biweekly notice was published on
December 6, 2016.
DATES: Comments must be filed by
January 19, 2017. A request for a hearing
must be filed by February 21, 2017.
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–2016–0256. 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:
Shirley Rohrer, Office of Nuclear
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00094
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
92863
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555–0001; telephone: 301–415–
5411, email: Shirley.Rohrer@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Obtaining Information and
Submitting Comments
A. Obtaining Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2016–
0256, facility name, unit number(s),
plant docket number, application date,
and subject 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–2016–0256.
• 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 this document.
• NRC’s PDR: You may examine and
purchase copies of public documents at
the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville
Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
B. Submitting Comments
Please include Docket ID NRC–2016–
0256, facility name, unit number(s),
plant docket number, application date,
and subject in your comment
submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include
identifying or contact information that
you do not want to be publicly
disclosed in your comment submission.
The NRC will post all comment
submissions at https://
www.regulations.gov as well as enter the
comment submissions into ADAMS.
The NRC does not routinely edit
comment submissions to remove
identifying or contact information.
If you are requesting or aggregating
comments from other persons for
submission to the NRC, then you should
inform those persons not to include
identifying or contact information that
they do not want to be publicly
disclosed in their comment submission.
E:\FR\FM\20DEN1.SGM
20DEN1
92864
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 20, 2016 / Notices
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.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
II. Notice of Consideration of Issuance
of Amendments to Facility Operating
Licenses and Combined Licenses and
Proposed No Significant Hazards
Consideration Determination
The Commission has made a
proposed determination that the
following amendment requests involve
no significant hazards consideration.
Under the Commission’s regulations in
§ 50.92 of title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR), this means that
operation of the facility in accordance
with the proposed amendment would
not (1) involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated, or (2)
create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any
accident previously evaluated; or (3)
involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety. The basis for this
proposed determination for each
amendment request is shown below.
The Commission is seeking public
comments on this proposed
determination. Any comments received
within 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice will be
considered in making any final
determination.
Normally, the Commission will not
issue the amendment until the
expiration of 60 days after the date of
publication of this notice. The
Commission may issue the license
amendment before expiration of the 60day period provided that its final
determination is that the amendment
involves no significant hazards
consideration. In addition, the
Commission may issue the amendment
prior to the expiration of the 30-day
comment period if circumstances
change during the 30-day comment
period such that failure to act in a
timely way would result, for example in
derating or shutdown of the facility. If
the Commission takes action prior to the
expiration of either the comment period
or the notice period, it will publish in
the Federal Register a notice of
issuance. If the Commission makes a
final no significant hazards
consideration determination, any
hearing will take place after issuance.
The Commission expects that the need
to take this action will occur very
infrequently.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:36 Dec 19, 2016
Jkt 241001
A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing
and Petition for Leave To Intervene
Within 60 days after the date of
publication of this notice, any persons
(petitioner) whose interest may be
affected by this action may file a request
for a hearing and a petition to intervene
(petition) with respect to the action.
Petitions shall be filed in accordance
with the Commission’s ‘‘Agency Rules
of Practice and Procedure’’ in 10 CFR
part 2. Interested persons 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 petition 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 petition; and the Secretary
or the Chief Administrative Judge of the
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
Panel will issue a notice of a hearing or
an appropriate order.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a
petition 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
petitioner; (2) the nature of the
petitioner’s right under the Act to be
made a party to the proceeding; (3) the
nature and extent of the 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
petitioner’s interest. The petition must
also set forth the specific contentions
which the 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 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 petitioner intends to rely in
proving the contention at the hearing.
The petitioner must also provide
references to those specific sources and
documents of which the petitioner is
PO 00000
Frm 00095
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
aware and on which the petitioner
intends to rely to establish those facts or
expert opinion to support its position on
the issue. 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
proceeding. The contention must be one
which, if proven, would entitle the
petitioner to relief. A 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
consistent with the NRC’s 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) through (iii).
If a hearing is requested, and the
Commission has not made a final
determination on the issue of no
significant hazards consideration, the
Commission will make a final
determination on the issue of no
significant hazards consideration. The
final determination will serve to decide
when the hearing is held. If the final
determination is that the amendment
request involves no significant hazards
consideration, the Commission may
issue the amendment and make it
immediately effective, notwithstanding
the request for a hearing. Any hearing
held would take place after issuance of
the amendment. If the final
determination is that the amendment
request involves a significant hazards
consideration, then any hearing held
would take place before the issuance of
any amendment unless the Commission
finds an imminent danger to the health
or safety of the public, in which case it
will issue an appropriate order or rule
under 10 CFR part 2.
A State, local governmental body,
Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or
agency thereof, may submit a petition to
the Commission to participate as a party
under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1).
E:\FR\FM\20DEN1.SGM
20DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 20, 2016 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
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
February 21, 2017. 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 set forth in
this section, except that under 10 CFR
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. Details regarding the
opportunity to make a limited
appearance will be provided by the
presiding officer if such sessions are
scheduled.
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
(hereinafter ‘‘petition’’), 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, as amended at 77 FR
46562, August 3, 2012). 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 10
days prior to the filing deadline, the
participant should contact the Office of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:36 Dec 19, 2016
Jkt 241001
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 ESubmittal server for any proceeding in
which it is participating; and (2) advise
the Secretary that the participant will be
submitting a petition (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 available on the
NRC’s public Web site at https://
www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/
adjudicatory-sub.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
Electronic Filing Help Desk will not be
able to offer assistance in using unlisted
software.
Once a participant has obtained a
digital ID certificate and a docket has
been created, the participant can then
submit a petition. Submissions should
be in Portable Document Format (PDF).
Additional guidance on PDF
submissions is available on the NRC’s
public Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/
site-help/electronic-sub-ref-mat.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 EFiling 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 petition to
intervene is filed so that they can obtain
PO 00000
Frm 00096
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
92865
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 Electronic Filing 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
Electronic Filing Help Desk is available
between 9 a.m. and 7 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 stating why there is good cause for
not filing electronically and 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, 11555 Rockville Pike,
Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention:
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff.
Participants filing a document in this
manner are responsible for serving the
document on all other participants.
Filing is considered complete by firstclass mail as of the time of deposit in
the mail, or by courier, express mail, or
expedited delivery service upon
depositing the document with the
provider of the service. A presiding
officer, having granted an exemption
request from using E-Filing, may require
a participant or party to use E-Filing if
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 petition will require
including information on local
residence in order to demonstrate a
E:\FR\FM\20DEN1.SGM
20DEN1
92866
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 20, 2016 / Notices
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.
The Commission will issue a notice or
order granting or denying a hearing
request or intervention petition,
designating the issues for any hearing
that will be held and designating the
Presiding Officer. A notice granting a
hearing will be published in the Federal
Register and served on the parties to the
hearing.
For further details with respect to
these license amendment applications,
see the application for amendment
which is available for public inspection
in ADAMS and at the NRC’s PDR. For
additional direction on accessing
information related to this document,
see the ‘‘Obtaining Information and
Submitting Comments’’ section of this
document.
Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Docket Nos.
50–325 and 50–324, Brunswick Steam
Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, Brunswick
County, North Carolina
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
Date of amendment request:
September 26, 2016. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML16287A421.
Description of amendment request:
The amendment would revise the Safety
Limit Minimum Critical Power Ratio
(SLMCPR) values contained in the
Technical Specifications (TSs) for two
recirculation loop operation and for
single loop recirculation operation.
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 SLMCPR values have been
determined using NRC-approved methods
discussed in AREVA Topical Report ANP–
10307PA, Revision 0, AREVA MCPR Safety
Limit Methodology for Boiling Water
Reactors, June 2011, as augmented by the
associated TS Appendix B Additional
Condition related to channel bow model
uncertainty. Establishing a two recirculation
loop SLMCPR value of ≥1.07 and a single
recirculation loop SLMCPR value of ≥1.09
ensures that the acceptance criteria continues
to be met (i.e., at least 99.9 percent of all fuel
rods in the core do not experience transition
boiling).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:36 Dec 19, 2016
Jkt 241001
The probability of an evaluated accident is
derived from the probabilities of the
individual precursors to that accident. The
proposed license amendments do not involve
any plant modifications or operational
changes that could affect system reliability or
performance, or that could affect the
probability of operator error. As such, the
proposed changes do not affect any
postulated accident precursors. Since no
individual precursors of an accident are
affected, the proposed license amendments
do not involve a significant increase in the
probability of a previously analyzed event.
The consequences of an evaluated accident
are determined by the operability of plant
systems designed to mitigate those
consequences. The basis for the SLMCPR
calculation is to ensure that during normal
operation and during anticipated operational
occurrences, at least 99.9 percent of all fuel
rods in the core do not experience transition
boiling if the safety limit is not exceeded.
Based on these considerations, the
proposed changes do not involve a
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of previously analyzed
accident.
2. Does the proposed amendment create
the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
Creation of the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident requires creating
one or more new accident precursors. New
accident precursors may be created by
modifications of plant configuration,
including changes in allowable modes of
operation. The SLMCPR is a TS numerical
value calculated for two recirculation loop
operation and single recirculation loop
operation to ensure at least 99.9 percent of
all fuel rods in the core do not experience
transition boiling if the safety limit is not
exceeded. SLMCPR values are calculated
using NRC-approved methodology identified
in the TS. The proposed SLMCPR values do
not involve any new modes of plant
operation or any plant modifications and do
not directly or indirectly affect the failure
modes of any plant systems or components.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not
create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The SLMCPR provides a margin of safety
by ensuring that at least 99.9 percent of the
fuel rods do not experience transition boiling
during normal operation and anticipated
operational occurrences if the MCPR Safety
Limit is not exceeded. Revision of the
SLMCPR values in Technical Specification
2.1.1.2, using NRC-approved methodology,
will ensure that the current level of fuel
protection is maintained by continuing to
ensure that the fuel design safety criterion is
met (i.e., that no more than 0.1 percent of the
rods are expected to be in boiling transition
if the MCPR Safety Limit is not exceeded).
Therefore, the proposed amendments do not
result in a significant reduction in the margin
of safety.
PO 00000
Frm 00097
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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: Kathryn B.
Nolan, Deputy General Counsel, 550
South Tryon St., M/C DEC45A,
Charlotte, NC 28202.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Jeanne A.
Dion.
Entergy Operations, Inc., System Energy
Resources, Inc., South Mississippi
Electric Power Association, and Entergy
Mississippi, Inc., Docket No. 50–416,
Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1,
Claiborne County, Mississippi
Date of amendment request: October
26, 2016. A publicly-available version is
in ADAMS, under Accession No.
ML16301A150.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed amendment would
change the Technical Specifications
(TS) to revise requirements for
unavailable barriers by adding new
Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO)
3.0.9. This LCO establishes conditions
under which systems would remain
operable when required physical
barriers are not capable of providing
their related support function. This
proposed amendment is consistent with
NRC-approved Technical Specification
Task Force (TSTF) Improved Standard
Technical Specifications Change
Traveler, TSTF–427, Revision 2,
‘‘Allowance for Non-Technical
Specification Barrier Degradation on
Supported System OPERABILITLY.’’
The Notice of Availability of this TS
improvement and the model application
was published in the Federal Register
on October 3, 2006 (71 FR 58444), as
part of the consolidated line item
improvement process.
Basis for proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination:
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
licensee provided an analysis of the
issue of no significant hazards
consideration (NSHC) by citing the
proposed NSHC determination
published by the NRC staff in the
Federal Register notice referenced
above. The proposed NSHC is
reproduced below:
Criterion 1—The Proposed Change Does
Not Involve a Significant Increase in the
Probability or Consequences of an Accident
Previously Evaluated.
The proposed change allows a delay time
for entering a supported system technical
specification (TS) when the inoperability is
due solely to an unavailable barrier if risk is
E:\FR\FM\20DEN1.SGM
20DEN1
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 20, 2016 / Notices
assessed and managed. The postulated
initiating events which may require a
functional barrier are limited to those with
low frequencies of occurrence, and the
overall TS system safety function would still
be available for the majority of anticipated
challenges. Therefore, the probability of an
accident previously evaluated is not
significantly increased, if at all. The
consequences of an accident while relying on
the allowance provided by proposed LCO
3.0.9 are no different than the consequences
of an accident while relying on the TS
required actions in effect without the
allowance provided by proposed LCO 3.0.9.
Therefore, the consequences of an accident
previously evaluated are not significantly
affected by this change. The addition of a
requirement to assess and manage the risk
introduced by this change will further
minimize possible concerns. Therefore, this
change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences
of an accident previously evaluated.
Criterion 2—The Proposed Change Does
Not Create the Possibility of a New or
Different Kind of Accident from any
Accident Previously Evaluated.
The proposed change does not involve a
physical alteration of the plant (no new or
different type of equipment will be installed).
Allowing delay times for entering supported
system TS when inoperability is due solely
to an unavailable barrier, if risk is assessed
and managed, will not introduce new failure
modes or effects and will not, in the absence
of other unrelated failures, lead to an
accident whose consequences exceed the
consequences of accidents previously
evaluated. The addition of a requirement to
assess and manage the risk introduced by this
change will further minimize possible
concerns. Thus, this change does not create
the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from an accident previously
evaluated.
Criterion 3—The Proposed Change Does
Not Involve a Significant Reduction in the
Margin of Safety.
The proposed change allows a delay time
for entering a supported system TS when the
inoperability is due solely to an unavailable
barrier, if risk is assessed and managed. The
postulated initiating events which may
require a functional barrier are limited to
those with low frequencies of occurrence,
and the overall TS system safety function
would still be available for the majority of
anticipated challenges. The risk impact of the
proposed TS changes was assessed following
the three-tiered approach recommended in
RG [Regulatory Guide] 1.177. A bounding
risk assessment was performed to justify the
proposed TS changes. This application of
LCO 3.0.9 is predicated upon the licensee’s
performance of a risk assessment and the
management of plant risk. The net change to
the margin of safety is insignificant as
indicated by the anticipated low levels of
associated risk (ICCDP [incremental
conditional core damage probability] and
ICLERP [incremental conditional large early
release probability]) as shown in Table 1 of
Section 3.1.1 in the Safety Evaluation.
Therefore, this change does not involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:36 Dec 19, 2016
Jkt 241001
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 B.
Glew, Jr., Associate General Counsel—
Entergy Services, Inc., 440 Hamilton
Avenue, White Plains, New York 10601.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Douglas A.
Broaddus.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC,
Docket Nos. 50–254 and 50–265, Quad
Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1
and 2, Rock Island County, Illinois
Date of amendment request:
September 12, 2016. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML16258A146.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed amendment would revise
the setpoint for detecting a loss of
voltage on the 4.16 kilovolt essential
service system (ESS) buses.
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 to the 4.16 kV
Essential Service System (ESS) bus loss of
voltage allowable values allows the
protection scheme to function as originally
designed. This change will involve alteration
of nominal trip setpoints in the field and will
also be reflected in revisions to the
calibration procedures. The proposed change
does not affect the probability or
consequences of any accident. Analysis was
conducted and demonstrates that the
proposed allowable values will allow the
normally operating safety related motors to
continue to operate without sustaining
damage or tripping during the worst-case,
non-accident degraded voltage condition for
the maximum possible time-delay of 332.3
seconds. Thus, these safety related loads will
be available to perform their safety function
if a loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA)
concurrent with a loss-of offsite power
(LOOP) occurs following the degraded
voltage condition.
The proposed change does not adversely
affect accident initiators or precursors, and
do not alter the design assumptions,
conditions, or configuration or the plant or
the manner in which the plant is operated or
maintained. The proposed allowable values
ensure that the 4.16 kV distribution system
remains connected to the offsite power
system when adequate offsite voltage is
PO 00000
Frm 00098
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
92867
available and motor starting transients are
considered. The emergency diesel generator
(EDG) start due to a LOCA signal is not
adversely affected by this change. During an
actual loss of voltage condition, the loss of
voltage time delay will continue to isolate the
4.16 kV distribution system from offsite
power before the EDG is ready to assume the
emergency loads, which is the limiting time
basis for mitigating system responses to the
accident. For this reason, the existing loss of
power LOCA analysis continues to be valid.
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 involves the revision
of 4.16 kV ESS bus loss of voltage allowable
values to satisfy existing design
requirements. The proposed change does not
introduce any changes or mechanisms that
create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident. The proposed change does
not install any new or different type of
equipment, and installed equipment is not
being operated in a new or different manner.
No new effects on existing equipment are
created nor are any new malfunctions
introduced.
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 amendment involve
a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed protection voltage allowable
values are low enough to prevent inadvertent
power supply transfer, but high enough to
ensure that sufficient power is available to
the required equipment. The EDG start due
to a LOCA signal is not adversely affected by
this change. During an actual loss of voltage
condition, the loss of voltage time delays will
continue to isolate the 4.16 kV distribution
system from offsite power before the EDG is
ready to assume the emergency loads.
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
requested amendments involve no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer,
Associate General Counsel, Exelon
Nuclear, 4300 Winfield Road,
Warrenville, IL 60555.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: G. Edward
Miller.
E:\FR\FM\20DEN1.SGM
20DEN1
92868
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 20, 2016 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating
Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50–334
and 50–412, Beaver Valley Power
Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 (BVPS–1 and
BVPS–2), Beaver County, Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request:
September 28, 2016. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under
Package Accession No. ML16277A194.
Description of amendment request:
The amendments would revise the
BVPS–1 and BVPS–2 Emergency Plan
by revising the emergency action level
(EAL) schemes to one based on Nuclear
Energy Institute (NEI) 99–01, Revision 6,
‘‘Development of Emergency Action
Levels for Non-Passive Reactors,’’
November 2012 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML12326A805). NEI 99–01, Revision 6,
was endorsed by the NRC by letter dated
March 28, 2013 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML12346A463).
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 to BVPS’s EAL
scheme to adopt the NRC-endorsed guidance
of NEI 99–01, Revision 6, do not involve any
physical changes to plant systems or
equipment. The proposed changes do not
alter any of the requirements of the technical
specifications. The proposed changes do not
modify any plant equipment and do not
impact any failure modes that could lead to
an accident. Additionally, the proposed
changes do not impact the ability of
structures, systems, or components (SSCs) to
perform their intended safety functions in
mitigating the consequences of an initiating
event within the assumed acceptance limits.
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 changes to BVPS’s EAL
scheme to adopt the NRC-endorsed guidance
of NEI 99–01, Revision 6, do not involve any
physical changes to plant systems or
equipment. The proposed changes do not
involve the addition of any new plant
equipment. The proposed changes will not
alter the design configuration, or method of
operation of plant equipment beyond its
normal functional capabilities. BVPS
functions will continue to be performed as
required. The proposed changes do not create
any new credible failure mechanisms,
malfunctions, or accident initiators.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:36 Dec 19, 2016
Jkt 241001
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 changes to BVPS’s EAL
scheme to adopt the NRC-endorsed guidance
of NEI 99–01, Revision 6, do not involve any
physical changes to plant systems or
equipment. Margins of safety are unaffected
by the proposed changes. There are no
changes being made to safety analysis
assumptions, safety limits, or limiting safety
system settings that would adversely affect
plant safety as a result of the proposed EAL
scheme change. The proposed change does
not affect the technical specifications. There
are no changes to environmental conditions
of any of the SSC or the manner in which any
SSC is operated. The applicable requirements
of 10 CFR 50.47 and 10 CFR 50, Appendix
E will continue to be met.
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: David W.
Jenkins, FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating
Company, FirstEnergy Corporation, 76
South Main Street, Mail Stop A–GO–15,
Akron, OH 44308.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Stephen S.
Koenick.
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating
Company, Docket No. 50–440, Perry
Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No. 1, Lake
County, Ohio
Date of amendment request:
November 1, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession
No. ML16307A029.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed amendment would revise
Technical Specification 2.1.1, ‘‘Reactor
Core [Safety Limits] SLs,’’ to reduce the
reactor steam dome pressure value.
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.
Decreasing the reactor steam dome
pressure limit in Technical Specification
Safety Limits 2.1.1 expands the range of use
PO 00000
Frm 00099
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
of the GEXL14 and GEXL17 correlations
(applicable to GE14 and GNF2 fuel
respectively) and the calculation of the
minimum critical power ratio (CPR). The
CPR increases during the pressure reduction
that occurs during the [Pressure Regulator
Failure-Maximum Demand (Open)] PRFO
event, so that the initial CPR is the limiting
CPR condition during the entire transient.
CPR increases during the event relative to the
initial CPR value, so fuel cladding integrity
is not threatened. Since the change does not
involve a modification of any plant
hardware, the probability and consequence of
the PRFO transient are essentially
unchanged.
The proposed change will continue to
support the application range of the GEXL
correlations applied at PNPP and the
calculation of the minimum CPR. The
proposed TS revision involves no significant
changes to the operation of any systems or
components in normal, accident or transient
operating conditions.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed reduction in the reactor
steam dome pressure limit in Technical
Specification Safety Limits 2.1.1 from 785
psig to 686 psig is a change based on NRC
approved documents that permit a wider
range of applicability for the GEXL critical
power correlations for both GE14 and GNF2
fuel types in the reactor core. This change
does not involve changes to the plant
hardware or its operating characteristics.
There are no changes in the method by which
any plant systems perform a safety function,
nor are there any changes in the methods
governing normal plant operation. No new
accident scenarios, failure mechanisms, or
limiting single failures are introduced as a
result of the proposed changes. As a result,
no new failure modes are being introduced.
Therefore, the change does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The margin of safety is established through
the design of the plant structures, systems,
and components, and through the parameters
for safe operation and setpoints for the
actuation of equipment relied upon to
respond to transients and design basis
accidents. Evaluation of the 10 CFR part 21
condition by GE determined that, since the
critical power ratio improves during the
PRFO transient, there is no impact on the
fuel safety margin, and there is no challenge
to fuel cladding integrity. The proposed
changes do not change the requirements
governing operation or the availability of
safety equipment assumed to operate to
preserve the margin of safety.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.
E:\FR\FM\20DEN1.SGM
20DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 20, 2016 / Notices
The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee’s analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: David W.
Jenkins, Senior Attorney, FirstEnergy
Corporation, Mail Stop A–GO–15, 76
South Main Street, Akron, OH 44308.
NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating
Company, Docket No. 50–440, Perry
Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No. 1, Lake
County, Ohio
Date of amendment request: October
27, 2016. A publicly-available version is
in ADAMS under Accession No.
ML16302A055.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed amendment would revise
Technical Specification (TS) 3.8.3,
‘‘Diesel Fuel Oil, Lube Oil, and Starting
Air,’’ by relocating the current stored
diesel fuel oil and lube oil numerical
volume requirements from the TS to the
TS Bases. The proposed changes are
consistent with Technical Specifications
Task Force Traveler TSTF–501,
Revision 1, ‘‘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 fuel oil and lube oil required to
support 7-day operation of each onsite diesel
generator, and the volume equivalent to a 6day supply, to licensee control. The specific
volume of fuel oil equivalent to a 7 and 6day supply is calculated using the NRCapproved methodology described in
Regulatory Guide 1.137, Revision 1, ‘‘FuelOil Systems for Standby Diesel Generators’’
and ANSI–N195 1976, ‘‘Fuel Oil Systems for
Standby Diesel-Generators.’’ 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 fuel oil and lube oil is not changed and
is consistent with the assumptions in the
accident analyses, and the actions taken
when the volume of fuel oil and lube oil are
less than a 6-day supply have not changed,
neither the probability nor the consequences
of any accident previously evaluated will be
affected.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:36 Dec 19, 2016
Jkt 241001
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 accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No
The proposed 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 the 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.
3. Does the proposed change involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No
The proposed change relocates the volume
of diesel fuel oil and lube oil required to
support 7-day operation of each onsite diesel
generator, and the volume equivalent to a 6day supply, to licensee control. As the bases
for the existing limits on diesel fuel oil, and
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: David W.
Jenkins, Senior Attorney, FirstEnergy
Corporation, Mail Stop A–GO–15, 76
South Main Street, Akron, OH 44308.
NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50–354,
Hope Creek (Hope Creek) Generating
Station, Salem County, New Jersey
Date of amendment request: October
7, 2016. A publicly-available version is
in ADAMS under Accession No.
ML16281A139.
Description of amendment request:
The amendment would revise the Hope
Creek Technical Specifications by
incorporating Nuclear Energy Institute
(NEI) topical report 94–01, Revision 3–
A, and the conditions and limitations
specified in NEI topical report 94–01,
Revision 2–A, as the implementation
document for the Hope Creek
performance-based containment leakage
rate testing program. Based on guidance
in NEI 94–01, Revision 3–A, the
proposed change would allow the Hope
PO 00000
Frm 00100
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
92869
Creek Type A Test (Integrated Leak Rate
Test, or ILRT) frequency to be extended
from 10 to 15 years, and the Type C
Tests (Local Leak Rate Tests, or LLRTs)
frequency to be extended from 60 to 75
months. In addition, the amendment
would delete a one-time extension of
the test frequencies previously granted
in License Amendment No. 147.
Basis for proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination:
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
licensee has provided its analysis of the
issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented
below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed activity involves revision of
the Hope Creek Generating Station (HCGS)
Technical Specification (TS) 6.8.4.f, Primary
Containment Leakage Rate Testing Program,
to allow the extension of the HCGS Type A
containment integrated leakage rate test
interval to 15 years, and the extension of the
Type C local leakage rate test interval to 75
months. The current Type A test interval of
120 months (10 years) would be extended on
a permanent basis to no longer than 15 years
from the last Type A test. The existing Type
C test interval of 60 months for selected
components would be extended on a
performance basis to no longer than 75
months. Extensions of up to nine months
(total maximum interval of 84 months for
Type C tests) are permissible only for nonroutine emergent conditions.
The proposed extension 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 containment is
designed to provide an essentially leak tight
barrier against the uncontrolled release of
radioactivity to the environment for
postulated accidents. As such, the
containment and the testing requirements
invoked to periodically demonstrate the
integrity of the containment exist to ensure
the plant’s ability to mitigate the
consequences of an accident, and do not
involve the prevention or identification of
any precursors of an accident.
The change in dose risk for changing the
Type A Integrated Leak Rate Test (ILRT)
interval from three-per-ten years to once-perfifteen-years, measured as an increase to the
total integrated dose risk for all internal
events accident sequences, is 5.15E–03
person-rem/yr (0.01%) using the Electric
Power Research Institute (EPRI) guidance
with the base case corrosion included. This
change meets both of the related acceptance
criteria for change in population dose. The
change in dose risk drops to 1.38E–03
person-rem/yr (<0.01%) when using the EPRI
Expert Elicitation methodology. Therefore,
this proposed extension does not involve a
significant increase in the probability of an
accident previously evaluated.
As documented in NUREG–1493,
‘‘Performance-Based Containment Leak-Test
E:\FR\FM\20DEN1.SGM
20DEN1
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
92870
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 20, 2016 / Notices
Program,’’ dated January 1995, Types B and
C tests have identified a very large percentage
of containment leakage paths, and the
percentage of containment leakage paths that
are detected only by Type A testing is very
small. The HCGS Type A test history
supports this conclusion.
The integrity of the containment is subject
to two types of failure mechanisms that can
be categorized as: (1) activity based, and, (2)
time based. Activity based failure
mechanisms are defined as degradation due
to system and/or component modifications or
maintenance. Local leak rate test
requirements and administrative controls
such as configuration management and
procedural requirements for system
restoration ensure that containment integrity
is not degraded by plant modifications or
maintenance activities. The design and
construction requirements of the
containment combined with the containment
inspections performed in accordance with
American Society of Mechanical Engineers
(ASME) Section XI, and TS requirements
serve to provide a high degree of assurance
that the containment would not degrade in a
manner that is detectable only by a Type A
test. Based on the above, the proposed test
interval extensions do not significantly
increase the consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
The proposed amendment also deletes an
exception previously granted in amendment
147 to allow a one-time extension of the ILRT
test frequency for HCGS. This exception was
for an activity that has already taken place;
therefore, this deletion is solely an
administrative action that does not result in
any change in how HCGS is operated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
result in 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 amendment to TS 6.8.4.f,
‘‘Primary Containment Leakage Rate Testing
Program,’’ involves the extension of the
HCGS Type A containment test interval to 15
years and the extension of the Type C test
interval to 75 months. The containment and
the testing requirements to periodically
demonstrate the integrity of the containment
exist to ensure the plant’s ability to mitigate
the consequences of an accident.
The proposed change does not involve a
physical modification to the plant (i.e., no
new or different type of equipment will be
installed), nor does it alter the design,
configuration, or change the manner in
which the plant is operated or controlled
beyond the standard functional capabilities
of the equipment.
The proposed amendment also deletes an
exception previously granted in amendment
147 to allow a one-time extension of the ILRT
test frequency for HCGS. This exception was
for an activity that has already taken place;
therefore, this deletion is solely an
administrative action that does not result in
any change in how HCGS is operated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
create the possibility of a new or different
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:36 Dec 19, 2016
Jkt 241001
kind of accident from any previously
evaluated for HCGS.
3. Does the proposed change involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment to TS 6.8.4.f
involves the extension of the HCGS Type A
containment test interval to 15 years and the
extension of the Type C test interval to 75
months for selected components. This
amendment does not alter the manner in
which safety limits, limiting safety system set
points, or limiting conditions for operation
are determined. The specific requirements
and conditions of the TS Containment Leak
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.
The proposed change involves the
extension of the interval between Type A
containment leak rate tests and Type C tests
for HCGS. The proposed surveillance interval
extension is bounded by the 15-year ILRT
interval and the 75-month Type C test
interval currently authorized within NEI 94–
01, Revision 3–A. Industry experience
supports the conclusion that Type B and C
testing detects a large percentage of
containment leakage paths and that the
percentage of containment leakage paths that
are detected only by Type A testing is small.
The containment inspections performed in
accordance with ASME Section Xl and TS
serve to provide a high degree of assurance
that the containment would not degrade in a
manner that is detectable only by Type A
testing. The combination of these factors
ensures that the margin of safety in the plant
safety analysis is maintained. The design,
operation, testing methods and acceptance
criteria for Types 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 changes to the
Type A and Type C test intervals.
The proposed amendment also deletes an
exception previously granted in amendment
147 to allow a one-time extension of the ILRT
test frequency for HCGS. This exception was
for an activity that has taken place; therefore,
the deletion is solely an administrative action
and does not change how HCGS is operated
and maintained. Thus, there is no reduction
in any margin of safety.
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: Jeffrie J. Keenan,
PSEG Nuclear LLC—N21, P.O. Box 236,
Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Stephen S.
Koenick.
PO 00000
Frm 00101
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
South Carolina Electric & Gas Company
and South Carolina Public Service
Authority, Docket Nos. 52–027 and 52–
028, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station
(VCSNS), Units 2 and 3, Fairfield, South
Carolina
Date of amendment request:
September 29, 2016. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML16273A557.
Description of amendment request:
The changes would amend Combined
License Nos. NPF–93 and NPF–94 for
the VCSNS, Units 2 and 3, respectively.
The amendments propose changes to
the Updated Final Safety Analysis
Report (UFSAR) in the form of
departures from a plant-specific Design
Control Document Tier 2 figure and a
Combined Operating License (COL)
Appendix C table. Specifically, the
proposed departures consist of changes
to plant-specific UFSAR Figure 9.3.6–1,
Sheet 2 of 2, and COL Appendix C,
Table 2.3.2–4, related to the
configuration of the boric acid storage
tank (BAST) suction point. The change
also aligns the Tier 1 Chemical and
Volume Control System (CVS) makeup
flow rate with previously approved Tier
2 information.
Basis for proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination:
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
licensee has provided its analysis of the
issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented
below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes alter the BAST
suction point by relocating the common
inlet/outlet line from the bottom of the tank
to the side of the tank and to align the
Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and Acceptance
Criteria (ITAAC) for the maximum CVS flow
to the Reactor Coolant System (RCS) with the
previously approved Tier 2 descriptions and
analyses. No change is made to the minimum
required volume of the BAST, the included
concentrations, or the overall operation of the
system. The proposed changes do not alter
any safety related functions, and the analyses
previously performed on the potential for an
inadvertent dilution event are not affected.
Consequently, there is no change to an
accident initiator in the UFSAR and
accordingly, there is no change to the
probabilities of accident previously
evaluated. The radioactive source terms and
release paths are unchanged, thus the
radiological releases in the UFSAR accident
analyses are not affected.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does
not involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create
the possibility of a new or different kind of
E:\FR\FM\20DEN1.SGM
20DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 20, 2016 / Notices
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change to alter the BAST
suction point affects only nonsafety-related
equipment, reducing the possibility for leaks
in the BAST. The basic requirements,
including the applicable codes and
standards, for the configuration of the BAST
are unchanged. In addition, the change to the
ITAAC verified CVS makeup flow does not
alter the design of the CVS, which is
currently limited in the design to 175 gallons
per minute of flow. The change to the ITAAC
aligns the test with the Tier 2 requirement.
Consequently, because the BAST codes and
standards are unchanged and the CVS is
otherwise unchanged, there is no effect on
accidents previously evaluated in the
UFSAR.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does
not create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change to the BAST piping
configuration and to the CVS makeup flow
ITAAC does not alter any safety-related
equipment, applicable design codes, code
compliance, design function, or safety
analysis. Consequently, no safety analysis or
design basis acceptance limit is challenged or
exceeded by the proposed changes, and thus,
the margin of safety is not reduced.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does
not involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee’s analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Kathryn M.
Sutton, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLC,
1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20004–2514.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T.
Markley.
South Carolina Electric & Gas Company,
Docket Nos. 52–027 and 52–028, Virgil
C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and
3, Fairfield, South Carolina
Date of amendment request:
September 2, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession
No. ML16246A214.
Description of amendment request:
The amendment request proposes
changes to a plant-specific Tier 1 (and
combined license Appendix C) table
and the Updated Final Safety Analysis
Report (UFSAR) tables to clarify the
flow area for the Automatic
Depressurization System (ADS) fourth
stage squib valves and to reduce the
minimum effective flow area for the
second and third stage ADS control
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:36 Dec 19, 2016
Jkt 241001
valves. 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 is also requested for
the plant-specific Design Control
Document Tier 1 material departures.
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 adversely
affect the operation of any systems or
equipment that initiate an analyzed accident
or alter any structures, systems, and
components (SSC) accident initiator or
initiating sequence of events. The proposed
changes do not adversely affect the physical
design and operation of the second and third
stage ADS control valves and fourth stage
ADS squib valves, including as-installed
inspections, testing, and maintenance
requirements, as described in the UFSAR.
Therefore, the operation of the second and
third stage ADS control valves and fourth
stage ADS squib valves is not adversely
affected. Inadvertent operation or failure of
the second and third stage ADS control
valves and fourth stage ADS squib valves are
considered as accident initiators or part of an
initiating sequence of events for an accident
previously evaluated. However, the proposed
changes do not adversely affect the
probability of inadvertent operation or
failure, nor the consequences of such
accident precursor sequences. Therefore, the
probabilities of the accidents previously
evaluated in the UFSAR are not affected.
The proposed changes do not adversely
affect the ability of the second and third stage
ADS control valves and fourth stage ADS
squib valves to perform their design
functions. The designs of the second and
third stage ADS control valves and fourth
stage ADS squib valves continue to meet the
same regulatory acceptance criteria, codes,
and standards as required by the UFSAR. In
addition, the proposed changes maintain the
capabilities of the second and third stage
ADS control valves and fourth stage ADS
squib valves to mitigate the consequences of
an accident and to meet the applicable
regulatory acceptance criteria. The proposed
changes do not adversely 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
PO 00000
Frm 00102
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
92871
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 do
not adversely affect the physical design and
operation of the second and third stage ADS
control valves and fourth stage ADS squib
valves, including as-installed inspections,
testing, and maintenance requirements, as
described in the UFSAR. Therefore, the
operation of the second and third stage ADS
control valves and fourth stage ADS squib
valves is not adversely affected. These
proposed changes do not adversely affect any
other 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 nonsafetyrelated 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 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 changes maintain existing
safety margins. The proposed changes
maintain the capabilities of the second and
third stage ADS control valves and fourth
stage ADS squib valves to perform their
design functions. The proposed changes
maintain existing safety margin through
continued application of the existing
requirements of the UFSAR, while updating
the acceptance criteria for verifying the
design features necessary to confirm the
second and third stage ADS control valves
and fourth stage ADS squib valves perform
the design functions required to meet the
existing safety margins in the safety analyses.
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.
No safety analysis or design basis
acceptance limit/criterion is challenged or
exceeded by the proposed changes, and 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: Kathryn M.
Sutton, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLC,
E:\FR\FM\20DEN1.SGM
20DEN1
92872
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 20, 2016 / Notices
1111. Pennsylvania NW., Washington,
DC 20004–2514.
NRC Branch Chief: Jennifer DixonHerrity.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
Southern Nuclear Operating Company,
Inc., (SNC) Docket Nos. 50–348 and 50–
364, Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant,
Units 1 and 2, Houston County,
Alabama
Date of amendment request: October
11, 2016. A publicly-available version is
in ADAMS under Accession No.
ML16285A354.
Description of amendment request:
SNC stated that the current Technical
Specification (TS) 3.8.9, ‘‘Distribution
Systems—Operating,’’ contains a
conservative Completion Time of 8
hours for an inoperable 600 Volt
alternating current (AC) load center (LC)
1–2R. The proposed change would add
new Action Conditions to TS 3.8.9 and
include appropriate Required Actions
and associated Completion Times for LC
1–2R.
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. The NRC staff has
reviewed the licensee’s analysis against
the standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c). The
licensee’s analysis 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 amendment revises the TS
requirements to include an appropriate
Condition, Required Actions and associated
Completion Times to address an inoperable
600 Volt AC LC 1–2R that is required to be
operable by TS 3.8.9 ‘‘Distribution Systems—
Operating.’’
The proposed change does not involve a
physical alteration of the plant (no new or
different type of equipment will be installed).
The 600V LC are not a precursor to any
accident previously evaluated. The proposed
changes do not adversely affect accident
initiators or precursors nor alter the design
assumptions, conditions, and configuration
of the facility or the manner in which the
plant is operated and maintained. The
proposed changes do not adversely affect the
ability of structures, systems and components
(SSCs) to perform their intended safety
function to mitigate the consequences of an
initiating event within the assumed
acceptance limits. The LC 1–2R provides
power to equipment that may be used to
mitigate the consequences of accidents
previously evaluated. The proposed change
to TS 3.8.9, ‘‘Distribution Systems—
Operating’’ provides assurance that the
requirements of the TS appropriately address
all the equipment that is required to be
operable by TS 3.8.9. Thus, the proposed
change does not affect the probability or the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:36 Dec 19, 2016
Jkt 241001
consequences of any accident previously
evaluated.
Therefore, it is concluded that the
proposed change does not involve a
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment revises the TS to
include an appropriate Condition, Required
Actions, and associated Completion Times to
address inoperable 600 Volt AC LC 1–2R that
is required to be operable by TS 3.8.9
‘‘Distribution Systems- Operating.’’
The proposed change does not involve a
physical alteration of the plant (no new or
different type of equipment will be installed)
or a change in the methods governing normal
plant operation. The proposed change to the
TS assures that the TS appropriately
addresses all the equipment required to be
operable to support the electrical distribution
system. Thus, the proposed change does not
adversely affect the design function or
operation of any structures, systems, and
components important to safety.
Therefore, it is concluded that the
proposed change does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment revises the TS
requirements to include an appropriate
Condition, Required Actions, and associated
Completion Times to address inoperable 600
Volt AC LC 1–2R that is required to be
operable by TS 3.8.9 ‘‘Distribution Systems—
Operating.’’
The proposed change to TS 3.8.9
‘‘Distribution Systems—Operating’’ provides
assurance that all the requirements of the TS
are appropriately addressed in the Action
Conditions. The proposed change serves to
make the TS more complete and appropriate
for all the equipment required to be operable
to support the electrical distribution system.
Thus, the proposed change does not involve
a change in the margin of safety.
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: Jennifer M.
Buettner, Associate General Counsel,
Southern Nuclear Operating Company,
40 Inverness Center Parkway,
Birmingham, AL 35201.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T.
Markley.
PO 00000
Frm 00103
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Southern Nuclear Operating Company,
Inc., Docket Nos. 52–025 and 52–026,
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP),
Units 3 and 4, Burke County, Georgia
Date of amendment request: October
26, 2016. A publicly-available version is
in ADAMS under Accession No.
ML16300A325.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed changes would amend
Combined License Nos. NPF–91 and
NPF–92 for the VEGP, Units 3 and 4,
respectively. The amendments propose
changes to the Updated Final Safety
Analysis Report (UFSAR) in the form of
departures from a plant-specific Design
Control Document Tier 2 figure and a
Combined Operating License (COL)
Appendix C table. Specifically, the
proposed departures consist of changes
to plant-specific UFSAR Figure 9.3.6–1,
Sheet 2 of 2, and COL Appendix C,
Table 2.3.2–4, related to the
configuration of the boric acid storage
tank (BAST) suction point. The changes
also align the Tier 1 chemical and
volume control system (CVS) makeup
flow rate with previously approved Tier
2 information.
Basis for proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination:
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
licensee has provided its analysis of the
issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented
below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes alter the BAST
suction point by relocating the common
inlet/outlet line from the bottom of the tank
to the side of the tank and aligns the
Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and Acceptance
Criteria (ITAAC) for the maximum CVS flow
to the reactor coolant system (RCS) with the
previously approved Tier 2 descriptions and
analyses. No change is made to the minimum
required volume of the BAST, the included
concentrations, or the overall operation of the
system. The proposed changes do not alter
any safety-related functions, and the analyses
previously performed on the potential for an
inadvertent dilution event are not affected.
Consequently, there is no change to an
accident initiator in the UFSAR and
accordingly, there is no change to the
probabilities of accident previously
evaluated. The radioactive source terms and
release paths are unchanged, thus the
radiological releases in the UFSAR accident
analyses are not affected.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does
not involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create
the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
E:\FR\FM\20DEN1.SGM
20DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 20, 2016 / Notices
Response: No.
The proposed change to alter the BAST
suction point affects only nonsafety-related
equipment, reducing the possibility for leaks
in the BAST. The basic requirements,
including the applicable codes and
standards, for the configuration of the BAST
are unchanged. In addition, the change to the
ITAAC verified CVS makeup flow does not
alter the design of the CVS, which is
currently limited in the design to 175 gallons
per minute of flow. The change to the ITAAC
aligns the test with the Tier 2 requirement.
Consequently, because the BAST codes and
standards are unchanged and the CVS is
otherwise unchanged, there is no effect on
accidents previously evaluated in the
UFSAR.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does
not create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change to the BAST piping
configuration and to the CVS makeup flow
ITAAC does not alter any safety-related
equipment, applicable design codes, code
compliance, design function, or safety
analysis. Consequently, no safety analysis or
design basis acceptance limit is challenged or
exceeded by the proposed changes, and thus,
the margin of safety is not reduced.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does
not involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety from any accident
previously evaluated.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee’s analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: M. Stanford
Blanton, Balch & Bingham LLP, 1710
Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL
35203–2015.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T.
Markley.
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: August
31, 2016. A publicly-available version is
in ADAMS under Accession No.
ML16244A253.
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 Tier
2 information and a combined license
(COL) License Condition which
references one of the proposed changes.
Additionally, the proposed changes to
the UFSAR eliminate pressurizer spray
line monitoring during pressurizer surge
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:36 Dec 19, 2016
Jkt 241001
line first plant only testing. In addition,
these proposed changes correct
inconsistencies in testing purpose,
testing duration, and the ability to leave
equipment in place following the data
collection period. These changes
involve material which is specifically
referenced in Section 2.D.(2) of the
COLs. This submittal requests approval
of the license amendment necessary to
implement these changes.
Basis for proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination:
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
licensee has provided its analysis of the
issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below
with Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC) staff edits in square brackets:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The design functions of the [reactor coolant
system (RCS)] include providing an effective
reactor coolant pressure boundary. The
proposed changes for removing the
requirement to install temporary
instrumentation on the pressurizer spray line
during the monitoring of the pressurizer
surge line for thermal stratification and
thermal cycling during hot functional testing
and during the first fuel cycle for the first
plant only, proposed changes to parameter
retention requirements, and proposed change
to remove the pressurizer spray and surge l
ine valve leakage requirement do not impact
the existing design requirements for the RCS.
These changes are acceptable as they are
consistent with the commitments made for
the pressurizer surge line monitoring
program for the first plant only, and do not
adversely affect the capability of the
pressurizer surge line and pressurizer spray
lines to perform the required reactor coolant
pressure boundary design functions.
These proposed changes to the monitoring
of the pressurizer surge line for thermal
stratification and thermal cycling during hot
functional testing and during the first fuel
cycle for the first plant only, proposed
changes to parameter retention requirements,
and proposed change to remove the
pressurizer spray and surge line valve
leakage requirement as described in the
current licensing basis do not have an
adverse effect on any of the design functions
of the systems. The proposed changes do not
affect the support, design, or operation of
mechanical and fluid systems required to
mitigate the consequences of an accident.
There is no change to plant systems or the
response of systems to postulated accident
conditions. There is no change to the
predicted radioactive releases due to
postulated accident conditions. The plant
response to previously evaluated accidents or
external events is not adversely affected, nor
do the proposed changes create any new
accident precursors.
Therefore, the requested amendment does
not involve a significant increase in the
PO 00000
Frm 00104
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
92873
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 for removing the
requirement to install temporary
instrumentation on the pressurizer spray line
during the monitoring of the pressurizer
surge line for thermal stratification and
thermal cycling during hot functional testing
and during the first fuel cycle for the first
plant only, proposed changes to parameter
retention requirements, and proposed change
to remove the pressurizer spray and surge
line valve leakage requirement as described
in the current licensing basis maintain the
required design functions, and are consistent
with other Updated Final Safety Analysis
Report (UFSAR) information. The proposed
changes do not adversely affect the design
requirements for the RCS, including the
pressurizer surge line and pressurizer spray
lines. The proposed changes do not adversely
affect the design function, support, design, or
operation of mechanical and fluid systems.
The proposed changes do not result in a new
failure mechanism or introduce any new
accident precursors. No design function
described in the UFSAR is adversely affected
by the proposed changes.
Therefore, the requested 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.
No safety analysis or design basis
acceptance limit/criterion is challenged or
exceeded by the proposed changes, and 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 Branch Chief: Jennifer DixonHerrity.
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: October
14, 2016. Publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No.
ML16288A810.
Description of amendment request:
The requested amendment requires a
change to the Combined License (COL)
Appendix A, as well as plant-specific
E:\FR\FM\20DEN1.SGM
20DEN1
92874
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 20, 2016 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
Tier 2, Tier 2 *, and COL Appendix C
(and corresponding plant-specific Tier
1). The proposed changes would revise
the licenses basis documents to add
design detail to the automatic
depressurization system (ADS) blocking
device and to add the blocking device
to the design of the in-containment
refueling water storage tank injection
squib valves actuation logic. An
exemption request relating to the
proposed changes to the AP1000 Design
Control Document Tier 1 is included
with the request.
Basis for proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination:
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
licensee has provided its analysis of the
issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below
with Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC) staff edits in square brackets:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The AP1000 accident analysis previously
evaluated a loss of coolant accident caused
by an inadvertent ADS valve actuation.
Adding design detail to the ADS blocking
device, and applying the blocking device to
the [in-containment refueling water storage
tank (IRWST)] injection valves, does not
impact this analysis. Using a blocking device
on the ADS and IRWST injection valves is a
design feature which further minimizes the
probability of a loss of coolant accident
caused by a spurious valve actuation.
Furthermore, because the blocking device is
designed to prevent a spurious valve
actuation due to a software [common cause
failure (CCF)] and does not adversely impact
any existing design feature, it does not
involve a significant increase in the
probability of an accident previously
evaluated.
The proposed amendment does not affect
the prevention and mitigation of abnormal
events, e.g., accidents, anticipated operation
occurrences, earthquakes, floods, turbine
missiles, and fires or their safety or design
analyses. This change does not involve
containment of radioactive isotopes or any
adverse effect on a fission product barrier.
There is no impact on previously evaluated
accidents source terms. The [protection and
safety monitoring system (PMS)] is still able
to actuate ADS and IRWST injection valves
for plant conditions which require their
actuation. Therefore, the proposed
amendment does not involve a significant
increase in the 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 involve a
new failure mechanism or malfunction,
which affects an SSC accident initiator, or
interface with any [structure, system, or
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:36 Dec 19, 2016
Jkt 241001
component (SSC)] accident initiator or
initiating sequence of events considered in
the design and licensing bases. There is no
adverse effect on radioisotope barriers or the
release of radioactive materials. The
proposed amendment does not adversely
affect any accident, including the possibility
of creating 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
type of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The blocking device is independent of
PMS processor hardware and software. It is
designed to allow for ADS and IRWST
injection actuations when the plant
parameters indicate an actual [loss of coolant
accident (LOCA)] event. Therefore, the ADS
and IRWST are still able to perform their
safety functions when required. A postulated
failure of a blocking device which would
prevent necessary ADS and IRWST injection
valve opening would be detected by the
proposed periodic surveillance testing within
the [Technical Specifications (TS)]. Failure of
the ADS actuation or IRWST injection valve
opening in a division could also result from
concurrent failure of the two Core Makeup
Tanks (CMTs) level sensors in one division,
with both sensors reading above the blocking
setpoint. Failures of the level sensors would
be immediately detected due to the
deviations in redundant measurements.
Furthermore, the proposed TS actions require
that the four divisions of blocking devices be
capable of automatically unblocking for each
CMT. In addition, the TS require that the
blocking devices be unblocked in plant
modes which allow for the operability of less
than two CMTs.
The blocking device will continue to
comply with the existing [Updated Final
Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR)] regulatory
requirements and industry standards. The
proposed changes would not affect any
safety-related design code, function, design
analysis, safety analysis input or result, or
existing design/safety margin. No safety
analysis or design basis acceptance limit/
criterion is challenged or exceeded by the
requested changes. 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 Branch Chief: Jennifer DixonHerrity.
PO 00000
Frm 00105
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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: January
26, 2016, as supplemented by letter
dated July 14, 2016.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendment revised the MPS2 licensing
basis to change the spent fuel pool heat
load analysis description contained in
the Final Safety Analysis Report.
Date of issuance: November 29, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days from the date of
issuance.
E:\FR\FM\20DEN1.SGM
20DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 20, 2016 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
Amendment No.: 330. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML16277A680;
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 Operating License.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: May 24, 2016 (81 FR 32804).
The supplemental letter dated July 14,
2016, provided additional information
that clarified the application, did not
expand the scope of the application as
originally noticed, and did not change
the staff’s original proposed no
significant hazards consideration
determination as published in the
Federal Register.
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated November 29,
2016.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Duke Energy Florida, Inc. (DEF), et al.,
Docket No. 50–302, Crystal River
Nuclear Generating Plant, Unit 3 (CR–
3), Citrus County, Florida
Date of application for amendment:
August 27, 2015, as supplemented by
letters dated March 2, 2016, and July 14,
2016.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendment approves the CR–3
Permanently Defueled Emergency Plan,
and Permanently Defueled Emergency
Action Level Bases Manual, for the
Independent Spent Fuel Storage
Installation.
Date of issuance: December 5, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment No.: 252. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML16244A102;
documents related to this amendment
are listed in the Safety Evaluation
enclosed with the amendment.
Facility Operating License No. DPR–
72: This amendment revises the License.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: November 10, 2015 (80 FR
69711).
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated December 5,
2016.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Docket No.
50–261, H. B. Robinson Steam Electric
Plant, Unit No. 2, Darlington County,
South Carolina
Date of amendment request:
November 2, 2015, as supplemented by
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:36 Dec 19, 2016
Jkt 241001
letters dated December 22, 2015; and
March 31, May 9, and September 14,
2016.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendment revised the reactor coolant
system (RCS) pressure and temperature
limits by replacing Technical
Specification (TS) Section 3.4.3, ‘‘RCS
Pressure and Temperature (P/T)
Limits,’’ Figures 3.4.3–1 and 3.4.3–2,
with figures that are applicable up to 50
effective full power years (EFPYs).
Date of issuance: November 22, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 120 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 248. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML16285A404;
documents related to this amendment
are listed in the Safety Evaluation
enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License
No. DPR–23: Amendment revised the
Renewed Facility Operating License and
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: March 1, 2016 (81 FR 10678).
The supplemental letters dated March
31, May 9, and September 14, 2016,
provided additional information that
clarified the application, did not expand
the scope of the application as originally
noticed, and did not change the staff’s
original proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination as
published in the Federal Register.
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated November 22,
2016.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Docket No.
50–400, Shearon Harris Nuclear Power
Plant, Unit 1, Wake and Chatham
Counties, North Carolina
Date of amendment request: August
18, 2015, as supplemented by letters
dated September 29, 2015, February 5,
2016, April 28, 2016, and May 19, 2016.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendment revised the Technical
Specifications (TSs) by relocating
specific surveillance frequencies to a
licensee-controlled program with the
implementation of Nuclear Energy
Institute (NEI) 04–10, ‘‘Risk-Informed
Technical Specifications Initiative 5b,
Risk-Informed Method for Control of
Surveillance Frequencies.’’
Additionally, the change added a new
program, the Surveillance Frequency
Control Program, to TS Section 6,
‘‘Administrative Controls.’’
Date of issuance: November 29, 2016.
PO 00000
Frm 00106
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
92875
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 120 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 154. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML16200A285;
documents related to this amendment
are listed in the Safety Evaluation (SE)
enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License
No. NPF–63: Amendment revised the
Facility Operating License and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: The NRC staff initially made
a proposed determination that the
amendment request dated August 18,
2015, as supplemented by letter dated
September 29, 2015, involved no
significant hazards consideration
(NSHC) (December 8, 2015, 80 FR
76319). By letters dated February 5,
2016, and April 28, 2016, the licensee
provided clarifying information that did
not expand the scope of the application
and did not change the NRC staff’s
original proposed NSHC determination,
as published in the Federal Register
(FR) on December 8, 2015 (80 FR
76319). Subsequently, by letter dated
May 19, 2016, the licensee
supplemented its amendment request
with a proposed change that expanded
the scope of the request. Therefore, the
NRC published a second proposed
NSHC determination in the FR on July
15, 2016 (81 FR 46118), which
superseded the notice dated December
8, 2015 (80 FR 76319).
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendment is contained in an SE
dated November 29, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC,
Docket No. STN 50–457, Braidwood
Station, Unit No. 2, Will County, Illinois
Date of application for amendment:
September 30, 2016 (ADAMS Accession
No. ML16274A474), as supplemented
by letters dated October 26 and 28,
2016, and November 14, 2016 (ADAMS
Accession Nos. ML16301A073,
ML16302A468, and ML16319A397).
Brief description of amendment: The
amendment allows a one-time extension
from 72 hours to 200 hours of the
technical specification completion time
associated with the 2A service water
(SX) pump in support of maintenance
activities.
Date of issuance: November 23, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
prior to the 2A SX pump work window.
Amendment No.: 191. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML16315A302;
documents related to this amendment
E:\FR\FM\20DEN1.SGM
20DEN1
92876
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 20, 2016 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
are listed in the Safety Evaluation
enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License
No NPF–77: The amendment revises the
Technical Specifications and License
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: October 21, 2016 (81 FR
72838).
The October 26 and 28, 2016
supplements, contained clarifying
information and did not change the NRC
staff’s initial proposed finding of no
significant hazards consideration.
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendments is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated November 23,
2016.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
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 November 30,
2016.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC,
Docket Nos. 50–237 and 50–249.
Dresden Nuclear Power Station (DNPS),
Unit Nos. 2 and 3, Grundy County,
Illinois
Date of application for amendment:
December 14, 2015, as supplemented by
letter dated
June 30, 2016.
Brief description of amendments: The
amendment revises the technical
specification (TS) for DNPS, Units 2 and
3, standby or emergency diesel
generator (EDG) fuel oil day tank
volume as described in TS 3.81, ‘‘AC
Sources—Operating,’’ surveillance
requirement (SR) 3.8.1.4, from the
current value of greater than or equal to
(>) 205 gallons to >245 gallons. Raising
the EDG fuel oil day tank volume
requirement will assure that each EDG
can operate for one hour at the
maximum allowable operating
conditions. The licensee has identified
this issue as a non-conservative
Technical Specification and
administrative controls are currently inplace to assure sufficient fuel oil is
available in each fuel oil day tank.
Date of issuance: November 30, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented no
later than 60 days from the date of
issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 252 and 245. A
publicly-available version is in ADAMS
under Accession No. ML16305A212;
documents related to this amendment
are listed in the Safety Evaluation
enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License
Nos. DPR–19 and DPR–25: Amendment
revises the Renewed Facility Operating
Licenses and Technical Specification.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: March 1, 2016 (81 FR 10680).
The supplemental letter dated June 30,
2016, provided additional information
that clarified the application, did not
Date of amendment request: January
15, 2016, as supplemented by letters
dated April 19, 2016; May 9, 2016; and
June 21, 2016.
Brief description of amendments: The
amendments reduce the reactor vessel
steam dome pressure specified in the
technical specifications (TSs) for the
reactor core safety limits. The
amendments also revise the setpoint
and allowable value for the main steam
line low pressure isolation function in
the TSs.
Date of issuance: November 21, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 120 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 222 and 183. A
publicly-available version is in ADAMS
under Accession No. ML16272A319;
documents related to these amendments
are listed in the Safety Evaluation
enclosed with the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License
Nos. NPF–39 and NPF–85: Amendments
revised the Renewed Facility Operating
Licenses and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: March 15, 2016 (81 FR
13842). The supplemental letters dated
April 19, 2016; May 9, 2016; and June
21, 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 November 21,
2016.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:36 Dec 19, 2016
Jkt 241001
Exelon Generation Company, LLC,
Docket Nos. 50–352 and 50–353,
Limerick Generating Station, Units 1
and 2, Montgomery County,
Pennsylvania
PO 00000
Frm 00107
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Exelon Generation Company, LLC,
Docket No. 50–410, Nine Mile Point
Nuclear Station, Unit 2, Oswego County,
New York
Date of amendment request: February
23, 2016.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendment revised the Technical
Specifications.
Date of issuance: November 22, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 159. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML16281A596;
documents related to this amendment is
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed
with this amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License
No. NPF–69: Amendment revised the
Renewed Facility Operating License and
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: May 10, 2016, (81 FR 28897).
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated November 22,
2016.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC,
Docket No. 50–219, Oyster Creek
Nuclear Generating Station (OCNGS),
Ocean County, New Jersey
Exelon Generation Company, LLC,
Docket No. 50–220, Nine Mile Point
Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (NMP1), Oswego
County, New York
Date amendment request: August 1,
2016.
Brief description of amendments: The
amendments would revise OCNGS’s
Technical
Specification (TS) Section 2.1, ‘‘Safety
Limit—Fuel Cladding Integrity,’’ and
NMP1’s TS Section 2.1.1, ‘‘Fuel
Cladding Integrity,’’ to reduce the steam
dome pressure.
Date of issuance: November 29, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment Nos.: 289 for OCNGS and
225 for NMP1. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession
No. ML16256A567; documents related
to these amendments are listed in the
Safety Evaluation enclosed with the
amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License
Nos. DPR–16 and DPR–63: Amendments
revised the Licenses and Technical
Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: September 27, 2016 (81 FR
66307).
E:\FR\FM\20DEN1.SGM
20DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 20, 2016 / Notices
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendments is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated November 29,
2016.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
Florida Power & Light Company, et al.,
Docket Nos. 50–335 and 50–389, St.
Lucie Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, St. Lucie
County, Florida
Date of amendment request: April 31,
2016, as supplemented by a letter dated
August 11, 2016.
Brief description of amendments: The
amendments revised Appendix B
(Environmental Protection Plan, Section
4.2) of the renewed operating licenses to
reflect the ‘‘currently applicable’’
Biological Opinion issued by the
National Marine Fisheries Service
March 24, 2016.
Date of issuance: December 5, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 236 and 186. A
publicly-available version is in ADAMS
under Accession No. ML16251A128;
documents related to these amendments
are listed in the safety evaluation
enclosed with the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License
Nos. DPR–67 and NPF–16: Amendments
revised the Renewed Facility Operating
Licenses and Appendix B.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: June 7, 2016 (81 FR 36621).
The supplemental letter dated August
11, 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 December 5,
2016.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
South Carolina Electric & Gas Company
and South Carolina Public Service
Authority, Docket Nos. 52–027 and 52–
028, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station
(VCSNS), Units 2 and 3, Fairfield
County, South Carolina
Date of amendment request:
December 17, 2015 as supplemented
January 11, 2016 and March 16, 2016.
Description of amendment: The
amendment authorizes changes to the
VCSNS, Units 2 and 3, Updated Final
Safety Analysis Report Tier 2*
information as well as a change to a
license condition to, in part, revise the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:36 Dec 19, 2016
Jkt 241001
Wall 11 structure by modifying
openings, changing reinforcement
detailing, clarifying the classification of
building structures for high-energy line
break events, crediting the north wall of
the Turbine Building first bay wall as a
high energy line break barrier and
associated missile barriers for protection
of Wall 11 from tornado missiles.
Date of issuance: May 31, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 48. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML16109A298;
documents related to this amendment
are listed in the Safety Evaluation
enclosed with the amendment.
Facility Combined Licenses Nos. NPF–
93 and NPF–94: Amendment revised the
Facility Combined Licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: February 2, 2016 (81 FR
5499). The supplemental letters dated
January 11, 2016, and March 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 the
Safety Evaluation dated May 31, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company,
Docket Nos. 52–025 and 52–026, Vogtle
Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), Units
3 and 4, Burke County, Georgia
Date of amendment request: May 18,
2016.
Description of amendment: The
amendment authorizes changes to the
VEGP Units 3 and 4 listed minimum
volume of the passive core cooling
system core makeup tanks (CMT)
reflected in Appendix A, Technical
Specifications and the Updated Final
Safety Analysis Report of the VEGP
Units 3 and 4 Combined Licenses.
Specifically, the changes reflect a
correction to align licensing documents
to reflect the CMT volume given in the
VEGP Combined License Tier 1 as 2487
cubic feet is based on and supported by
a small-break loss-of-coolant accident
safety analysis.
Date of issuance: September 15, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 53. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML16216A394;
documents related to this amendment
PO 00000
Frm 00108
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
92877
are listed in the Safety Evaluation
enclosed with the amendment.
Facility Combined Licenses No. NPF–
91 and NPF–92: Amendment revised the
Facility Combined Licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: July 5, 2016 (81 FR 43646).
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendment is contained in the
Safety Evaluation dated September 15,
2016.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company,
Docket Nos. 52–025 and 52–026, Vogtle
Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), Units
3 and 4, Burke County, Georgia
Date of amendment request: January
29, 2016, and supplemented by letter
dated April 8, 2016.
Description of amendment: The
amendment authorizes changes to the
VEGP, Units 3 and 4, Updated Final
Safety Analysis Report in the form of
departures from the incorporated plant
specific Design Control Document Tier
2* and Tier 2 information. The changes
are also approved in plant-specific
technical specifications. The changes
incorporate information in WCAP–
17524–P–A, Revision 1, ‘‘AP1000 Core
Reference Report,’’ which was approved
by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission on February 19, 2015.
Date of issuance: August 19, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 52. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML16201A435;
documents related to this amendment
are listed in the Safety Evaluation
enclosed with the amendment.
Facility Combined Licenses Nos. NPF–
91 and NPF–92: Amendment revised the
Facility Combined Licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: March 29, 2016 (81 FR
17501). The supplemental letter dated
April 8, 2016, provided additional
information that clarified the
application, did not expand the scope of
the application request 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 the
Safety Evaluation dated August 19,
2016.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
E:\FR\FM\20DEN1.SGM
20DEN1
92878
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 20, 2016 / Notices
Southern Nuclear Operating Company,
Docket Nos. 52–025 and 52–026, Vogtle
Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), Units
3 and 4, Burke County, Georgia
Date of amendment request:
December 22, 2015, and supplemented
by letters dated May 9, 2016, and May
27, 2016.
Description of amendment: The
amendment authorizes changes to the
VEGP, Units 3 and 4, Updated Final
Safety Analysis Report in the form of
departures from the incorporated plantspecific Design Control Document Tier
2* and Tier 2 information with respect
to proposed changes to the design of
auxiliary building Wall 11, and other
changes to the licensing basis for use of
seismic Category II structures. It also
involves a change to a license condition.
Date of issuance: August 3, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 51. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML16201A298;
documents related to this amendment
are listed in the Safety Evaluation
enclosed with the amendment.
Facility Combined Licenses No. NPF–
91 and NPF–92: Amendment revised the
Facility Combined Licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: February 16, 2016 (81 FR
7835). The supplemental letters dated
May 9, 2016, and May 27, 2016,
provided additional information that
clarified the application, did not expand
the scope of the application request 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 the
Safety Evaluation dated August 3, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
III. Notice of Issuance of Amendments
to Facility Operating Licenses and
Combined Licenses and Final
Determination of No Significant
Hazards Consideration and
Opportunity for a Hearing (Exigent
Public Announcement or Emergency
Circumstances)
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 for the
amendment complies with the
standards and requirements of the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:36 Dec 19, 2016
Jkt 241001
(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.
Because of exigent or emergency
circumstances associated with the date
the amendment was needed, there was
not time for the Commission to publish,
for public comment before issuance, its
usual notice of consideration of
issuance of amendment, proposed no
significant hazards consideration
determination, and opportunity for a
hearing.
For exigent circumstances, the
Commission has either issued a Federal
Register notice providing opportunity
for public comment or has used local
media to provide notice to the public in
the area surrounding a licensee’s facility
of the licensee’s application and of the
Commission’s proposed determination
of no significant hazards consideration.
The Commission has provided a
reasonable opportunity for the public to
comment, using its best efforts to make
available to the public means of
communication for the public to
respond quickly, and in the case of
telephone comments, the comments
have been recorded or transcribed as
appropriate and the licensee has been
informed of the public comments.
In circumstances where failure to act
in a timely way would have resulted, for
example, in derating or shutdown of a
nuclear power plant or in prevention of
either resumption of operation or of
increase in power output up to the
plant’s licensed power level, the
Commission may not have had an
opportunity to provide for public
comment on its no significant hazards
consideration determination. In such
case, the license amendment has been
issued without opportunity for
comment. If there has been some time
for public comment but less than 30
days, the Commission may provide an
opportunity for public comment. If
comments have been requested, it is so
stated. In either event, the State has
been consulted by telephone whenever
possible.
Under its regulations, the Commission
may issue and make an amendment
immediately effective, notwithstanding
the pendency before it of a request for
a hearing from any person, in advance
of the holding and completion of any
required hearing, where it has
determined that no significant hazards
consideration is involved.
The Commission has applied the
standards of 10 CFR 50.92 and has made
a final determination that the
PO 00000
Frm 00109
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
amendment involves no significant
hazards consideration. The basis for this
determination is contained in the
documents related to this action.
Accordingly, the amendments have
been issued and made effective 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 51.12(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 application for
amendment, (2) the amendment to
Facility Operating License or Combined
License, as applicable, 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.
A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing
and Petition for Leave To Intervene
The Commission is also offering an
opportunity for a hearing with respect to
the issuance of the amendment.
Within 60 days after the date of
publication of this notice, any persons
(petitioner) whose interest may be
affected by this action may file a request
for a hearing and a petition to intervene
(petition) with respect to the action.
Petitions shall be filed in accordance
with the Commission’s ‘‘Agency Rules
of Practice and Procedure’’ in 10 CFR
part 2. Interested persons 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 petition 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 petition; and the Secretary
or the Chief Administrative Judge of the
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
Panel will issue a notice of a hearing or
an appropriate order.
E:\FR\FM\20DEN1.SGM
20DEN1
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 20, 2016 / Notices
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a
petition 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
petitioner; (2) the nature of the
petitioner’s right under the Act to be
made a party to the proceeding; (3) the
nature and extent of the 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
petitioner’s interest. The petition must
also set forth the specific contentions
which the 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 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 petitioner intends to rely in
proving the contention at the hearing.
The petitioner must also provide
references to those specific sources and
documents of which the petitioner is
aware and on which the petitioner
intends to rely to establish those facts or
expert opinion to support its position on
the issue. 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
proceeding. The contention must be one
which, if proven, would entitle the
petitioner to relief. A 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
consistent with the NRC’s 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:36 Dec 19, 2016
Jkt 241001
determination by the presiding officer
that the filing demonstrates good cause
by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR
2.309(c)(1)(i) through (iii).
If a hearing is requested, and the
Commission has not made a final
determination on the issue of no
significant hazards consideration, the
Commission will make a final
determination on the issue of no
significant hazards consideration. The
final determination will serve to decide
when the hearing is held. If the final
determination is that the amendment
request involves no significant hazards
consideration, the Commission may
issue the amendment and make it
immediately effective, notwithstanding
the request for a hearing. Any hearing
held would take place after issuance of
the amendment. If the final
determination is that the amendment
request involves a significant hazards
consideration, then any hearing held
would take place before the issuance of
any amendment unless the Commission
finds an imminent danger to the health
or safety of the public, in which case it
will issue an appropriate order or rule
under 10 CFR part 2.
A State, local governmental body,
Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or
agency thereof, may submit a petition to
the Commission to participate as a party
under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1).
The petition should state the nature
and extent of the petitioner’s interest in
the proceeding. The petition should be
submitted to the Commission by
February 21, 2017. 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 set forth in
this section, except that under 10 CFR
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
PO 00000
Frm 00110
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
92879
conference, subject to the limits and
conditions as may be imposed by the
presiding officer. Details regarding the
opportunity to make a limited
appearance will be provided by the
presiding officer if such sessions are
scheduled.
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
(hereinafter ‘‘petition’’), 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, as amended at 77 FR
46562, August 3, 2012). 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 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 petition (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 available on the
NRC’s public Web site at https://
www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/
adjudicatory-sub.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
Electronic Filing Help Desk will not be
E:\FR\FM\20DEN1.SGM
20DEN1
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
92880
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 20, 2016 / Notices
able to offer assistance in using unlisted
software.
Once a participant has obtained a
digital ID certificate and a docket has
been created, the participant can then
submit a petition. Submissions should
be in Portable Document Format (PDF).
Additional guidance on PDF
submissions is available on the NRC’s
public Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/
site-help/electronic-sub-ref-mat.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 EFiling 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 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 Electronic Filing 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
Electronic Filing Help Desk is available
between 9 a.m. and 7 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 stating why there is good cause for
not filing electronically and 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, 11555 Rockville Pike,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:36 Dec 19, 2016
Jkt 241001
Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention:
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff.
Participants filing a document in this
manner are responsible for serving the
document on all other participants.
Filing is considered complete by firstclass mail as of the time of deposit in
the mail, or by courier, express mail, or
expedited delivery service upon
depositing the document with the
provider of the service. A presiding
officer, having granted an exemption
request from using E-Filing, may require
a participant or party to use E-Filing if
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 petition 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.
The Commission will issue a notice or
order granting or denying a hearing
request or intervention petition,
designating the issues for any hearing
that will be held and designating the
Presiding Officer. A notice granting a
hearing will be published in the Federal
Register and served on the parties to the
hearing.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC,
Docket No. 50–410, Nine Mile Point
Nuclear Station, Unit 2, Oswego County,
New York
Date of amendment request:
November 26, 2016.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendment revised the High Pressure
Core Spray system and Reactor Core
Isolation Cooling system actuation
instrumentation technical specifications
by adding a footnote indicating that the
injection functions of Drywell PressureHigh and Manual Initiation are not
required to be operable under low
reactor pressure conditions.
PO 00000
Frm 00111
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Date of issuance: November 29, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 160. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML16333A000;
documents related to this amendment
are listed in the Safety Evaluation
enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License
No. NPF–69: Amendment revised the
Renewed Facility Operating License and
Technical Specifications.
Public comments requested as to
proposed no significant hazards
consideration (NSHC): No.
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendment, finding of emergency
circumstances, state consultation, and
final NSHC determination are contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated November
29, 2016.
Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer,
Associate General Counsel, Exelon
Generation Company, LLC, 4300
Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Douglas
Pickett.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 8 day of
December, 2016.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
George A. Wilson, Deputy,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor
Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2016–30438 Filed 12–19–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[NRC–2016–0001]
Sunshine Act Meeting Notice
December 19, 26, 2016, January
2, 9, 16, 23, 2017.
PLACE: Commissioners’ Conference
Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland.
STATUS: Public and Closed.
DATES:
Week of December 19, 2016
There are no meetings scheduled for
the week of December 19, 2016.
Week of December 26, 2016—Tentative
There are no meetings scheduled for
the week of December 26, 2016.
Week of January 2, 2017—Tentative
There are no meetings scheduled for
the week of January 2, 2017.
Week of January 9, 2017—Tentative
Friday, January 13, 2017
9:00 a.m. Briefing on Operator
Licensing Program (Public Meeting)
E:\FR\FM\20DEN1.SGM
20DEN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 244 (Tuesday, December 20, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 92863-92880]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-30438]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2016-0256]
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 November 22, 2016, to December 5, 2016. The
last biweekly notice was published on December 6, 2016.
DATES: Comments must be filed by January 19, 2017. A request for a
hearing must be filed by February 21, 2017.
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-2016-0256. 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: Shirley Rohrer, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-5411, email: Shirley.Rohrer@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments
A. Obtaining Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0256, facility name, unit
number(s), plant docket number, application date, and subject 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-2016-0256.
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 this
document.
NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
B. Submitting Comments
Please include Docket ID NRC-2016-0256, facility name, unit
number(s), plant docket number, application date, and subject in your
comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact
information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your
comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at https://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into
ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove
identifying or contact information.
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons
for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to
include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be
publicly disclosed in their comment submission.
[[Page 92864]]
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
persons (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by this action may
file a request for a hearing and a petition to intervene (petition)
with respect to the action. Petitions shall be filed in accordance with
the Commission's ``Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure'' in 10 CFR
part 2. Interested persons 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 petition 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 petition; and the Secretary or the Chief
Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition 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
petitioner; (2) the nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to
be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the
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 petitioner's interest. The petition
must also set forth the specific contentions which the 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
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 petitioner
intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The
petitioner must also provide references to those specific sources and
documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the petitioner
intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion to support
its position on the issue. 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 proceeding. The contention must be one
which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A 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 consistent with the NRC's 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) through (iii).
If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the
Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no
significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve
to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that
the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration,
the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately
effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held
would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final
determination is that the amendment request involves a significant
hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before
the issuance of any amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent
danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will
issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.
A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian
Tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to
participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1).
[[Page 92865]]
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 February 21, 2017. 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 set forth in this section, except that under 10 CFR
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. Details regarding the opportunity to
make a limited appearance will be provided by the presiding officer if
such sessions are scheduled.
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 (hereinafter
``petition''), 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, as amended at 77
FR 46562, August 3, 2012). 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 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 petition (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 available on the NRC's public Web site at
https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/adjudicatory-sub.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 Electronic Filing Help Desk will not be
able to offer assistance in using unlisted software.
Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a
docket has been created, the participant can then submit a petition.
Submissions should be in Portable Document Format (PDF). Additional
guidance on PDF submissions is available on the NRC's public Web site
at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/electronic-sub-ref-mat.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 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 Electronic
Filing 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 Electronic Filing Help Desk is available between 9 a.m.
and 7 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
stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and
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, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and
Adjudications Staff. Participants filing a document in this manner are
responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing
is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in
the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service
upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A
presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-
Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the
presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting
the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
https://ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the
Commission, or the presiding officer. Participants are requested not to
include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers,
home addresses, or home phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC
regulation or other law requires submission of such information.
However, in some instances, a petition will require including
information on local residence in order to demonstrate a
[[Page 92866]]
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.
The Commission will issue a notice or order granting or denying a
hearing request or intervention petition, designating the issues for
any hearing that will be held and designating the Presiding Officer. A
notice granting a hearing will be published in the Federal Register and
served on the parties to the hearing.
For further details with respect to these license amendment
applications, see the application for amendment which is available for
public inspection in ADAMS and at the NRC's PDR. For additional
direction on accessing information related to this document, see the
``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' section of this
document.
Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-325 and 50-324, Brunswick
Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, Brunswick County, North Carolina
Date of amendment request: September 26, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16287A421.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the
Safety Limit Minimum Critical Power Ratio (SLMCPR) values contained in
the Technical Specifications (TSs) for two recirculation loop operation
and for single loop recirculation operation.
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 SLMCPR values have been determined using NRC-
approved methods discussed in AREVA Topical Report ANP-10307PA,
Revision 0, AREVA MCPR Safety Limit Methodology for Boiling Water
Reactors, June 2011, as augmented by the associated TS Appendix B
Additional Condition related to channel bow model uncertainty.
Establishing a two recirculation loop SLMCPR value of >=1.07 and a
single recirculation loop SLMCPR value of >=1.09 ensures that the
acceptance criteria continues to be met (i.e., at least 99.9 percent
of all fuel rods in the core do not experience transition boiling).
The probability of an evaluated accident is derived from the
probabilities of the individual precursors to that accident. The
proposed license amendments do not involve any plant modifications
or operational changes that could affect system reliability or
performance, or that could affect the probability of operator error.
As such, the proposed changes do not affect any postulated accident
precursors. Since no individual precursors of an accident are
affected, the proposed license amendments do not involve a
significant increase in the probability of a previously analyzed
event.
The consequences of an evaluated accident are determined by the
operability of plant systems designed to mitigate those
consequences. The basis for the SLMCPR calculation is to ensure that
during normal operation and during anticipated operational
occurrences, at least 99.9 percent of all fuel rods in the core do
not experience transition boiling if the safety limit is not
exceeded.
Based on these considerations, the proposed changes do not
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of
previously analyzed accident.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
Creation of the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident requires creating one or more new accident precursors. New
accident precursors may be created by modifications of plant
configuration, including changes in allowable modes of operation.
The SLMCPR is a TS numerical value calculated for two recirculation
loop operation and single recirculation loop operation to ensure at
least 99.9 percent of all fuel rods in the core do not experience
transition boiling if the safety limit is not exceeded. SLMCPR
values are calculated using NRC-approved methodology identified in
the TS. The proposed SLMCPR values do not involve any new modes of
plant operation or any plant modifications and do not directly or
indirectly affect the failure modes of any plant systems or
components. Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The SLMCPR provides a margin of safety by ensuring that at least
99.9 percent of the fuel rods do not experience transition boiling
during normal operation and anticipated operational occurrences if
the MCPR Safety Limit is not exceeded. Revision of the SLMCPR values
in Technical Specification 2.1.1.2, using NRC-approved methodology,
will ensure that the current level of fuel protection is maintained
by continuing to ensure that the fuel design safety criterion is met
(i.e., that no more than 0.1 percent of the rods are expected to be
in boiling transition if the MCPR Safety Limit is not exceeded).
Therefore, the proposed amendments do not result in 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: Kathryn B. Nolan, Deputy General Counsel,
550 South Tryon St., M/C DEC45A, Charlotte, NC 28202.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Jeanne A. Dion.
Entergy Operations, Inc., System Energy Resources, Inc., South
Mississippi Electric Power Association, and Entergy Mississippi, Inc.,
Docket No. 50-416, Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Claiborne
County, Mississippi
Date of amendment request: October 26, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS, under Accession No. ML16301A150.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
change the Technical Specifications (TS) to revise requirements for
unavailable barriers by adding new Limiting Condition for Operation
(LCO) 3.0.9. This LCO establishes conditions under which systems would
remain operable when required physical barriers are not capable of
providing their related support function. This proposed amendment is
consistent with NRC-approved Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF)
Improved Standard Technical Specifications Change Traveler, TSTF-427,
Revision 2, ``Allowance for Non-Technical Specification Barrier
Degradation on Supported System OPERABILITLY.'' The Notice of
Availability of this TS improvement and the model application was
published in the Federal Register on October 3, 2006 (71 FR 58444), as
part of the consolidated line item improvement process.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee provided an
analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration (NSHC) by
citing the proposed NSHC determination published by the NRC staff in
the Federal Register notice referenced above. The proposed NSHC is
reproduced below:
Criterion 1--The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant
Increase in the Probability or Consequences of an Accident
Previously Evaluated.
The proposed change allows a delay time for entering a supported
system technical specification (TS) when the inoperability is due
solely to an unavailable barrier if risk is
[[Page 92867]]
assessed and managed. The postulated initiating events which may
require a functional barrier are limited to those with low
frequencies of occurrence, and the overall TS system safety function
would still be available for the majority of anticipated challenges.
Therefore, the probability of an accident previously evaluated is
not significantly increased, if at all. The consequences of an
accident while relying on the allowance provided by proposed LCO
3.0.9 are no different than the consequences of an accident while
relying on the TS required actions in effect without the allowance
provided by proposed LCO 3.0.9. Therefore, the consequences of an
accident previously evaluated are not significantly affected by this
change. The addition of a requirement to assess and manage the risk
introduced by this change will further minimize possible concerns.
Therefore, this change does not involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
Criterion 2--The Proposed Change Does Not Create the Possibility
of a New or Different Kind of Accident from any Accident Previously
Evaluated.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of
the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed).
Allowing delay times for entering supported system TS when
inoperability is due solely to an unavailable barrier, if risk is
assessed and managed, will not introduce new failure modes or
effects and will not, in the absence of other unrelated failures,
lead to an accident whose consequences exceed the consequences of
accidents previously evaluated. The addition of a requirement to
assess and manage the risk introduced by this change will further
minimize possible concerns. Thus, this change does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from an accident
previously evaluated.
Criterion 3--The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant
Reduction in the Margin of Safety.
The proposed change allows a delay time for entering a supported
system TS when the inoperability is due solely to an unavailable
barrier, if risk is assessed and managed. The postulated initiating
events which may require a functional barrier are limited to those
with low frequencies of occurrence, and the overall TS system safety
function would still be available for the majority of anticipated
challenges. The risk impact of the proposed TS changes was assessed
following the three-tiered approach recommended in RG [Regulatory
Guide] 1.177. A bounding risk assessment was performed to justify
the proposed TS changes. This application of LCO 3.0.9 is predicated
upon the licensee's performance of a risk assessment and the
management of plant risk. The net change to the margin of safety is
insignificant as indicated by the anticipated low levels of
associated risk (ICCDP [incremental conditional core damage
probability] and ICLERP [incremental conditional large early release
probability]) as shown in Table 1 of Section 3.1.1 in the Safety
Evaluation. Therefore, this 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 B. Glew, Jr., Associate General
Counsel--Entergy Services, Inc., 440 Hamilton Avenue, White Plains, New
York 10601.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-254 and 50-265, Quad
Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Rock Island County,
Illinois
Date of amendment request: September 12, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16258A146.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise the setpoint for detecting a loss of voltage on the 4.16
kilovolt essential service system (ESS) buses.
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 to the 4.16 kV Essential Service System
(ESS) bus loss of voltage allowable values allows the protection
scheme to function as originally designed. This change will involve
alteration of nominal trip setpoints in the field and will also be
reflected in revisions to the calibration procedures. The proposed
change does not affect the probability or consequences of any
accident. Analysis was conducted and demonstrates that the proposed
allowable values will allow the normally operating safety related
motors to continue to operate without sustaining damage or tripping
during the worst-case, non-accident degraded voltage condition for
the maximum possible time-delay of 332.3 seconds. Thus, these safety
related loads will be available to perform their safety function if
a loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) concurrent with a loss-of offsite
power (LOOP) occurs following the degraded voltage condition.
The proposed change does not adversely affect accident
initiators or precursors, and do not alter the design assumptions,
conditions, or configuration or the plant or the manner in which the
plant is operated or maintained. The proposed allowable values
ensure that the 4.16 kV distribution system remains connected to the
offsite power system when adequate offsite voltage is available and
motor starting transients are considered. The emergency diesel
generator (EDG) start due to a LOCA signal is not adversely affected
by this change. During an actual loss of voltage condition, the loss
of voltage time delay will continue to isolate the 4.16 kV
distribution system from offsite power before the EDG is ready to
assume the emergency loads, which is the limiting time basis for
mitigating system responses to the accident. For this reason, the
existing loss of power LOCA analysis continues to be valid.
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 involves the revision of 4.16 kV ESS bus
loss of voltage allowable values to satisfy existing design
requirements. The proposed change does not introduce any changes or
mechanisms that create the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident. The proposed change does not install any new or different
type of equipment, and installed equipment is not being operated in
a new or different manner. No new effects on existing equipment are
created nor are any new malfunctions introduced.
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 amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed protection voltage allowable values are low enough
to prevent inadvertent power supply transfer, but high enough to
ensure that sufficient power is available to the required equipment.
The EDG start due to a LOCA signal is not adversely affected by this
change. During an actual loss of voltage condition, the loss of
voltage time delays will continue to isolate the 4.16 kV
distribution system from offsite power before the EDG is ready to
assume the emergency loads.
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
requested amendments involve no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel,
Exelon Nuclear, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: G. Edward Miller.
[[Page 92868]]
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-334 and
50-412, Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 (BVPS-1 and
BVPS-2), Beaver County, Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: September 28, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Package Accession No. ML16277A194.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the
BVPS-1 and BVPS-2 Emergency Plan by revising the emergency action level
(EAL) schemes to one based on Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 99-01,
Revision 6, ``Development of Emergency Action Levels for Non-Passive
Reactors,'' November 2012 (ADAMS Accession No. ML12326A805). NEI 99-01,
Revision 6, was endorsed by the NRC by letter dated March 28, 2013
(ADAMS Accession No. ML12346A463).
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 to BVPS's EAL scheme to adopt the NRC-
endorsed guidance of NEI 99-01, Revision 6, do not involve any
physical changes to plant systems or equipment. The proposed changes
do not alter any of the requirements of the technical
specifications. The proposed changes do not modify any plant
equipment and do not impact any failure modes that could lead to an
accident. Additionally, the proposed changes do not impact the
ability of structures, systems, or components (SSCs) to perform
their intended safety functions in mitigating the consequences of an
initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits.
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 changes to BVPS's EAL scheme to adopt the NRC-
endorsed guidance of NEI 99-01, Revision 6, do not involve any
physical changes to plant systems or equipment. The proposed changes
do not involve the addition of any new plant equipment. The proposed
changes will not alter the design configuration, or method of
operation of plant equipment beyond its normal functional
capabilities. BVPS functions will continue to be performed as
required. The proposed changes do not create any new credible
failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident initiators.
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 changes to BVPS's EAL scheme to adopt the NRC-
endorsed guidance of NEI 99-01, Revision 6, do not involve any
physical changes to plant systems or equipment. Margins of safety
are unaffected by the proposed changes. There are no changes being
made to safety analysis assumptions, safety limits, or limiting
safety system settings that would adversely affect plant safety as a
result of the proposed EAL scheme change. The proposed change does
not affect the technical specifications. There are no changes to
environmental conditions of any of the SSC or the manner in which
any SSC is operated. The applicable requirements of 10 CFR 50.47 and
10 CFR 50, Appendix E will continue to be met.
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: David W. Jenkins, FirstEnergy Nuclear
Operating Company, FirstEnergy Corporation, 76 South Main Street, Mail
Stop A-GO-15, Akron, OH 44308.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Stephen S. Koenick.
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, Docket No. 50-440, Perry Nuclear
Power Plant, Unit No. 1, Lake County, Ohio
Date of amendment request: November 1, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16307A029.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise Technical Specification 2.1.1, ``Reactor Core [Safety Limits]
SLs,'' to reduce the reactor steam dome pressure value.
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.
Decreasing the reactor steam dome pressure limit in Technical
Specification Safety Limits 2.1.1 expands the range of use of the
GEXL14 and GEXL17 correlations (applicable to GE14 and GNF2 fuel
respectively) and the calculation of the minimum critical power
ratio (CPR). The CPR increases during the pressure reduction that
occurs during the [Pressure Regulator Failure-Maximum Demand (Open)]
PRFO event, so that the initial CPR is the limiting CPR condition
during the entire transient. CPR increases during the event relative
to the initial CPR value, so fuel cladding integrity is not
threatened. Since the change does not involve a modification of any
plant hardware, the probability and consequence of the PRFO
transient are essentially unchanged.
The proposed change will continue to support the application
range of the GEXL correlations applied at PNPP and the calculation
of the minimum CPR. The proposed TS revision involves no significant
changes to the operation of any systems or components in normal,
accident or transient operating conditions.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed reduction in the reactor steam dome pressure limit
in Technical Specification Safety Limits 2.1.1 from 785 psig to 686
psig is a change based on NRC approved documents that permit a wider
range of applicability for the GEXL critical power correlations for
both GE14 and GNF2 fuel types in the reactor core. This change does
not involve changes to the plant hardware or its operating
characteristics. There are no changes in the method by which any
plant systems perform a safety function, nor are there any changes
in the methods governing normal plant operation. No new accident
scenarios, failure mechanisms, or limiting single failures are
introduced as a result of the proposed changes. As a result, no new
failure modes are being introduced.
Therefore, the change does not create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The margin of safety is established through the design of the
plant structures, systems, and components, and through the
parameters for safe operation and setpoints for the actuation of
equipment relied upon to respond to transients and design basis
accidents. Evaluation of the 10 CFR part 21 condition by GE
determined that, since the critical power ratio improves during the
PRFO transient, there is no impact on the fuel safety margin, and
there is no challenge to fuel cladding integrity. The proposed
changes do not change the requirements governing operation or the
availability of safety equipment assumed to operate to preserve the
margin of safety.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
[[Page 92869]]
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: David W. Jenkins, Senior Attorney,
FirstEnergy Corporation, Mail Stop A-GO-15, 76 South Main Street,
Akron, OH 44308.
NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, Docket No. 50-440, Perry Nuclear
Power Plant, Unit No. 1, Lake County, Ohio
Date of amendment request: October 27, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16302A055.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise Technical Specification (TS) 3.8.3, ``Diesel Fuel Oil, Lube Oil,
and Starting Air,'' by relocating the current stored diesel fuel oil
and lube oil numerical volume requirements from the TS to the TS Bases.
The proposed changes are consistent with Technical Specifications Task
Force Traveler TSTF-501, Revision 1, ``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 fuel oil and
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 fuel oil equivalent to a 7 and 6-day
supply is calculated using the NRC-approved methodology described in
Regulatory Guide 1.137, Revision 1, ``Fuel-Oil Systems for Standby
Diesel Generators'' and ANSI-N195 1976, ``Fuel Oil Systems for
Standby Diesel-Generators.'' 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 fuel oil and lube oil is not changed and is consistent
with the assumptions in the accident analyses, and the actions taken
when the volume of fuel oil and lube oil are 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 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 accident previously evaluated?
Response: No
The proposed 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 the 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.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No
The proposed change relocates the volume of diesel fuel oil and
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 fuel oil,
and 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: David W. Jenkins, Senior Attorney,
FirstEnergy Corporation, Mail Stop A-GO-15, 76 South Main Street,
Akron, OH 44308.
NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50-354, Hope Creek (Hope Creek) Generating
Station, Salem County, New Jersey
Date of amendment request: October 7, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16281A139.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the
Hope Creek Technical Specifications by incorporating Nuclear Energy
Institute (NEI) topical report 94-01, Revision 3-A, and the conditions
and limitations specified in NEI topical report 94-01, Revision 2-A, as
the implementation document for the Hope Creek performance-based
containment leakage rate testing program. Based on guidance in NEI 94-
01, Revision 3-A, the proposed change would allow the Hope Creek Type A
Test (Integrated Leak Rate Test, or ILRT) frequency to be extended from
10 to 15 years, and the Type C Tests (Local Leak Rate Tests, or LLRTs)
frequency to be extended from 60 to 75 months. In addition, the
amendment would delete a one-time extension of the test frequencies
previously granted in License Amendment No. 147.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed activity involves revision of the Hope Creek
Generating Station (HCGS) Technical Specification (TS) 6.8.4.f,
Primary Containment Leakage Rate Testing Program, to allow the
extension of the HCGS Type A containment integrated leakage rate
test interval to 15 years, and the extension of the Type C local
leakage rate test interval to 75 months. The current Type A test
interval of 120 months (10 years) would be extended on a permanent
basis to no longer than 15 years from the last Type A test. The
existing Type C test interval of 60 months for selected components
would be extended on a performance basis to no longer than 75
months. Extensions of up to nine months (total maximum interval of
84 months for Type C tests) are permissible only for non-routine
emergent conditions.
The proposed extension 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 containment is designed to provide an
essentially leak tight barrier against the uncontrolled release of
radioactivity to the environment for postulated accidents. As such,
the containment and the testing requirements invoked to periodically
demonstrate the integrity of the containment exist to ensure the
plant's ability to mitigate the consequences of an accident, and do
not involve the prevention or identification of any precursors of an
accident.
The change in dose risk for changing the Type A Integrated Leak
Rate Test (ILRT) interval from three-per-ten years to once-per-
fifteen-years, measured as an increase to the total integrated dose
risk for all internal events accident sequences, is 5.15E-03 person-
rem/yr (0.01%) using the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)
guidance with the base case corrosion included. This change meets
both of the related acceptance criteria for change in population
dose. The change in dose risk drops to 1.38E-03 person-rem/yr
(<0.01%) when using the EPRI Expert Elicitation methodology.
Therefore, this proposed extension does not involve a significant
increase in the probability of an accident previously evaluated.
As documented in NUREG-1493, ``Performance-Based Containment
Leak-Test
[[Page 92870]]
Program,'' dated January 1995, Types B and C tests have identified a
very large percentage of containment leakage paths, and the
percentage of containment leakage paths that are detected only by
Type A testing is very small. The HCGS Type A test history supports
this conclusion.
The integrity of the containment is subject to two types of
failure mechanisms that can be categorized as: (1) activity based,
and, (2) time based. Activity based failure mechanisms are defined
as degradation due to system and/or component modifications or
maintenance. Local leak rate test requirements and administrative
controls such as configuration management and procedural
requirements for system restoration ensure that containment
integrity is not degraded by plant modifications or maintenance
activities. The design and construction requirements of the
containment combined with the containment inspections performed in
accordance with American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)
Section XI, and TS requirements serve to provide a high degree of
assurance that the containment would not degrade in a manner that is
detectable only by a Type A test. Based on the above, the proposed
test interval extensions do not significantly increase the
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed amendment also deletes an exception previously
granted in amendment 147 to allow a one-time extension of the ILRT
test frequency for HCGS. This exception was for an activity that has
already taken place; therefore, this deletion is solely an
administrative action that does not result in any change in how HCGS
is operated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not result in 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 amendment to TS 6.8.4.f, ``Primary Containment
Leakage Rate Testing Program,'' involves the extension of the HCGS
Type A containment test interval to 15 years and the extension of
the Type C test interval to 75 months. The containment and the
testing requirements to periodically demonstrate the integrity of
the containment exist to ensure the plant's ability to mitigate the
consequences of an accident.
The proposed change does not involve a physical modification to
the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be
installed), nor does it alter the design, configuration, or change
the manner in which the plant is operated or controlled beyond the
standard functional capabilities of the equipment.
The proposed amendment also deletes an exception previously
granted in amendment 147 to allow a one-time extension of the ILRT
test frequency for HCGS. This exception was for an activity that has
already taken place; therefore, this deletion is solely an
administrative action that does not result in any change in how HCGS
is operated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated
for HCGS.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment to TS 6.8.4.f involves the extension of
the HCGS Type A containment test interval to 15 years and the
extension of the Type C test interval to 75 months for selected
components. This amendment does not alter the manner in which safety
limits, limiting safety system set points, or limiting conditions
for operation are determined. The specific requirements and
conditions of the TS Containment Leak 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.
The proposed change involves the extension of the interval
between Type A containment leak rate tests and Type C tests for
HCGS. The proposed surveillance interval extension is bounded by the
15-year ILRT interval and the 75-month Type C test interval
currently authorized within NEI 94-01, Revision 3-A. Industry
experience supports the conclusion that Type B and C testing detects
a large percentage of containment leakage paths and that the
percentage of containment leakage paths that are detected only by
Type A testing is small. The containment inspections performed in
accordance with ASME Section Xl and TS serve to provide a high
degree of assurance that the containment would not degrade in a
manner that is detectable only by Type A testing. The combination of
these factors ensures that the margin of safety in the plant safety
analysis is maintained. The design, operation, testing methods and
acceptance criteria for Types 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 changes to the Type A and Type C test intervals.
The proposed amendment also deletes an exception previously
granted in amendment 147 to allow a one-time extension of the ILRT
test frequency for HCGS. This exception was for an activity that has
taken place; therefore, the deletion is solely an administrative
action and does not change how HCGS is operated and maintained.
Thus, there is no reduction in any margin of safety.
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: Jeffrie J. Keenan, PSEG Nuclear LLC--N21,
P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Stephen S. Koenick.
South Carolina Electric & Gas Company and South Carolina Public Service
Authority, Docket Nos. 52-027 and 52-028, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear
Station (VCSNS), Units 2 and 3, Fairfield, South Carolina
Date of amendment request: September 29, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16273A557.
Description of amendment request: The changes would amend Combined
License Nos. NPF-93 and NPF-94 for the VCSNS, Units 2 and 3,
respectively. The amendments propose changes to the Updated Final
Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) in the form of departures from a plant-
specific Design Control Document Tier 2 figure and a Combined Operating
License (COL) Appendix C table. Specifically, the proposed departures
consist of changes to plant-specific UFSAR Figure 9.3.6-1, Sheet 2 of
2, and COL Appendix C, Table 2.3.2-4, related to the configuration of
the boric acid storage tank (BAST) suction point. The change also
aligns the Tier 1 Chemical and Volume Control System (CVS) makeup flow
rate with previously approved Tier 2 information.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes alter the BAST suction point by relocating
the common inlet/outlet line from the bottom of the tank to the side
of the tank and to align the Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and
Acceptance Criteria (ITAAC) for the maximum CVS flow to the Reactor
Coolant System (RCS) with the previously approved Tier 2
descriptions and analyses. No change is made to the minimum required
volume of the BAST, the included concentrations, or the overall
operation of the system. The proposed changes do not alter any
safety related functions, and the analyses previously performed on
the potential for an inadvertent dilution event are not affected.
Consequently, there is no change to an accident initiator in the
UFSAR and accordingly, there is no change to the probabilities of
accident previously evaluated. The radioactive source terms and
release paths are unchanged, thus the radiological releases in the
UFSAR accident analyses are not affected.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of
[[Page 92871]]
accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change to alter the BAST suction point affects only
nonsafety-related equipment, reducing the possibility for leaks in
the BAST. The basic requirements, including the applicable codes and
standards, for the configuration of the BAST are unchanged. In
addition, the change to the ITAAC verified CVS makeup flow does not
alter the design of the CVS, which is currently limited in the
design to 175 gallons per minute of flow. The change to the ITAAC
aligns the test with the Tier 2 requirement. Consequently, because
the BAST codes and standards are unchanged and the CVS is otherwise
unchanged, there is no effect on accidents previously evaluated in
the UFSAR.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change to the BAST piping configuration and to the
CVS makeup flow ITAAC does not alter any safety-related equipment,
applicable design codes, code compliance, design function, or safety
analysis. Consequently, no safety analysis or design basis
acceptance limit is challenged or exceeded by the proposed changes,
and thus, the margin of safety is not reduced.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Kathryn M. Sutton, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius,
LLC, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004-2514.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, Docket Nos. 52-027 and 52-028,
Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3, Fairfield, South
Carolina
Date of amendment request: September 2, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16246A214.
Description of amendment request: The amendment request proposes
changes to a plant-specific Tier 1 (and combined license Appendix C)
table and the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) tables to
clarify the flow area for the Automatic Depressurization System (ADS)
fourth stage squib valves and to reduce the minimum effective flow area
for the second and third stage ADS control valves. 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 is also requested for the plant-specific Design
Control Document Tier 1 material departures.
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 adversely affect the operation of
any systems or equipment that initiate an analyzed accident or alter
any structures, systems, and components (SSC) accident initiator or
initiating sequence of events. The proposed changes do not adversely
affect the physical design and operation of the second and third
stage ADS control valves and fourth stage ADS squib valves,
including as-installed inspections, testing, and maintenance
requirements, as described in the UFSAR. Therefore, the operation of
the second and third stage ADS control valves and fourth stage ADS
squib valves is not adversely affected. Inadvertent operation or
failure of the second and third stage ADS control valves and fourth
stage ADS squib valves are considered as accident initiators or part
of an initiating sequence of events for an accident previously
evaluated. However, the proposed changes do not adversely affect the
probability of inadvertent operation or failure, nor the
consequences of such accident precursor sequences. Therefore, the
probabilities of the accidents previously evaluated in the UFSAR are
not affected.
The proposed changes do not adversely affect the ability of the
second and third stage ADS control valves and fourth stage ADS squib
valves to perform their design functions. The designs of the second
and third stage ADS control valves and fourth stage ADS squib valves
continue to meet the same regulatory acceptance criteria, codes, and
standards as required by the UFSAR. In addition, the proposed
changes maintain the capabilities of the second and third stage ADS
control valves and fourth stage ADS squib valves to mitigate the
consequences of an accident and to meet the applicable regulatory
acceptance criteria. The proposed changes do not adversely 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 do not adversely
affect the physical design and operation of the second and third
stage ADS control valves and fourth stage ADS squib valves,
including as-installed inspections, testing, and maintenance
requirements, as described in the UFSAR. Therefore, the operation of
the second and third stage ADS control valves and fourth stage ADS
squib valves is not adversely affected. These proposed changes do
not adversely affect any other 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 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 changes maintain existing safety margins. The
proposed changes maintain the capabilities of the second and third
stage ADS control valves and fourth stage ADS squib valves to
perform their design functions. The proposed changes maintain
existing safety margin through continued application of the existing
requirements of the UFSAR, while updating the acceptance criteria
for verifying the design features necessary to confirm the second
and third stage ADS control valves and fourth stage ADS squib valves
perform the design functions required to meet the existing safety
margins in the safety analyses. 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.
No safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is
challenged or exceeded by the proposed changes, and 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: Kathryn M. Sutton, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius,
LLC,
[[Page 92872]]
1111. Pennsylvania NW., Washington, DC 20004-2514.
NRC Branch Chief: Jennifer Dixon-Herrity.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., (SNC) Docket Nos. 50-348 and
50-364, Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Houston County,
Alabama
Date of amendment request: October 11, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16285A354.
Description of amendment request: SNC stated that the current
Technical Specification (TS) 3.8.9, ``Distribution Systems--
Operating,'' contains a conservative Completion Time of 8 hours for an
inoperable 600 Volt alternating current (AC) load center (LC) 1-2R. The
proposed change would add new Action Conditions to TS 3.8.9 and include
appropriate Required Actions and associated Completion Times for LC 1-
2R.
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. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis
against the standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c). The licensee's analysis 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 amendment revises the TS requirements to include an
appropriate Condition, Required Actions and associated Completion
Times to address an inoperable 600 Volt AC LC 1-2R that is required
to be operable by TS 3.8.9 ``Distribution Systems--Operating.''
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of
the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed).
The 600V LC are not a precursor to any accident previously
evaluated. The proposed changes do not adversely affect accident
initiators or precursors nor alter the design assumptions,
conditions, and configuration of the facility or the manner in which
the plant is operated and maintained. The proposed changes do not
adversely affect the ability of structures, systems and components
(SSCs) to perform their intended safety function to mitigate the
consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance
limits. The LC 1-2R provides power to equipment that may be used to
mitigate the consequences of accidents previously evaluated. The
proposed change to TS 3.8.9, ``Distribution Systems--Operating''
provides assurance that the requirements of the TS appropriately
address all the equipment that is required to be operable by TS
3.8.9. Thus, the proposed change does not affect the probability or
the consequences of any accident previously evaluated.
Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed change does not
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of
an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment revises the TS to include an appropriate
Condition, Required Actions, and associated Completion Times to
address inoperable 600 Volt AC LC 1-2R that is required to be
operable by TS 3.8.9 ``Distribution Systems- Operating.''
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of
the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed)
or a change in the methods governing normal plant operation. The
proposed change to the TS assures that the TS appropriately
addresses all the equipment required to be operable to support the
electrical distribution system. Thus, the proposed change does not
adversely affect the design function or operation of any structures,
systems, and components important to safety.
Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed change does not
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from
any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment revises the TS requirements to include an
appropriate Condition, Required Actions, and associated Completion
Times to address inoperable 600 Volt AC LC 1-2R that is required to
be operable by TS 3.8.9 ``Distribution Systems--Operating.''
The proposed change to TS 3.8.9 ``Distribution Systems--
Operating'' provides assurance that all the requirements of the TS
are appropriately addressed in the Action Conditions. The proposed
change serves to make the TS more complete and appropriate for all
the equipment required to be operable to support the electrical
distribution system. Thus, the proposed change does not involve a
change in the margin of safety.
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: Jennifer M. Buettner, Associate General
Counsel, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 40 Inverness Center
Parkway, Birmingham, AL 35201.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-
026, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), Units 3 and 4, Burke
County, Georgia
Date of amendment request: October 26, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16300A325.
Description of amendment request: The proposed changes would amend
Combined License Nos. NPF-91 and NPF-92 for the VEGP, Units 3 and 4,
respectively. The amendments propose changes to the Updated Final
Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) in the form of departures from a plant-
specific Design Control Document Tier 2 figure and a Combined Operating
License (COL) Appendix C table. Specifically, the proposed departures
consist of changes to plant-specific UFSAR Figure 9.3.6-1, Sheet 2 of
2, and COL Appendix C, Table 2.3.2-4, related to the configuration of
the boric acid storage tank (BAST) suction point. The changes also
align the Tier 1 chemical and volume control system (CVS) makeup flow
rate with previously approved Tier 2 information.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes alter the BAST suction point by relocating
the common inlet/outlet line from the bottom of the tank to the side
of the tank and aligns the Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and
Acceptance Criteria (ITAAC) for the maximum CVS flow to the reactor
coolant system (RCS) with the previously approved Tier 2
descriptions and analyses. No change is made to the minimum required
volume of the BAST, the included concentrations, or the overall
operation of the system. The proposed changes do not alter any
safety-related functions, and the analyses previously performed on
the potential for an inadvertent dilution event are not affected.
Consequently, there is no change to an accident initiator in the
UFSAR and accordingly, there is no change to the probabilities of
accident previously evaluated. The radioactive source terms and
release paths are unchanged, thus the radiological releases in the
UFSAR accident analyses are not affected.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
[[Page 92873]]
Response: No.
The proposed change to alter the BAST suction point affects only
nonsafety-related equipment, reducing the possibility for leaks in
the BAST. The basic requirements, including the applicable codes and
standards, for the configuration of the BAST are unchanged. In
addition, the change to the ITAAC verified CVS makeup flow does not
alter the design of the CVS, which is currently limited in the
design to 175 gallons per minute of flow. The change to the ITAAC
aligns the test with the Tier 2 requirement. Consequently, because
the BAST codes and standards are unchanged and the CVS is otherwise
unchanged, there is no effect on accidents previously evaluated in
the UFSAR.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change to the BAST piping configuration and to the
CVS makeup flow ITAAC does not alter any safety-related equipment,
applicable design codes, code compliance, design function, or safety
analysis. Consequently, no safety analysis or design basis
acceptance limit is challenged or exceeded by the proposed changes,
and thus, the margin of safety is not reduced.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety from any accident previously
evaluated.
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 Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
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: August 31, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16244A253.
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 Tier 2 information and a combined license (COL) License
Condition which references one of the proposed changes. Additionally,
the proposed changes to the UFSAR eliminate pressurizer spray line
monitoring during pressurizer surge line first plant only testing. In
addition, these proposed changes correct inconsistencies in testing
purpose, testing duration, and the ability to leave equipment in place
following the data collection period. These changes involve material
which is specifically referenced in Section 2.D.(2) of the COLs. This
submittal requests approval of the license amendment necessary to
implement these changes.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below with Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) staff edits in square brackets:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The design functions of the [reactor coolant system (RCS)]
include providing an effective reactor coolant pressure boundary.
The proposed changes for removing the requirement to install
temporary instrumentation on the pressurizer spray line during the
monitoring of the pressurizer surge line for thermal stratification
and thermal cycling during hot functional testing and during the
first fuel cycle for the first plant only, proposed changes to
parameter retention requirements, and proposed change to remove the
pressurizer spray and surge l ine valve leakage requirement do not
impact the existing design requirements for the RCS. These changes
are acceptable as they are consistent with the commitments made for
the pressurizer surge line monitoring program for the first plant
only, and do not adversely affect the capability of the pressurizer
surge line and pressurizer spray lines to perform the required
reactor coolant pressure boundary design functions.
These proposed changes to the monitoring of the pressurizer
surge line for thermal stratification and thermal cycling during hot
functional testing and during the first fuel cycle for the first
plant only, proposed changes to parameter retention requirements,
and proposed change to remove the pressurizer spray and surge line
valve leakage requirement as described in the current licensing
basis do not have an adverse effect on any of the design functions
of the systems. The proposed changes do not affect the support,
design, or operation of mechanical and fluid systems required to
mitigate the consequences of an accident. There is no change to
plant systems or the response of systems to postulated accident
conditions. There is no change to the predicted radioactive releases
due to postulated accident conditions. The plant response to
previously evaluated accidents or external events is not adversely
affected, nor do the proposed changes create any new accident
precursors.
Therefore, the requested 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 for removing the requirement to install
temporary instrumentation on the pressurizer spray line during the
monitoring of the pressurizer surge line for thermal stratification
and thermal cycling during hot functional testing and during the
first fuel cycle for the first plant only, proposed changes to
parameter retention requirements, and proposed change to remove the
pressurizer spray and surge line valve leakage requirement as
described in the current licensing basis maintain the required
design functions, and are consistent with other Updated Final Safety
Analysis Report (UFSAR) information. The proposed changes do not
adversely affect the design requirements for the RCS, including the
pressurizer surge line and pressurizer spray lines. The proposed
changes do not adversely affect the design function, support,
design, or operation of mechanical and fluid systems. The proposed
changes do not result in a new failure mechanism or introduce any
new accident precursors. No design function described in the UFSAR
is adversely affected by the proposed changes.
Therefore, the requested 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.
No safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is
challenged or exceeded by the proposed changes, and 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 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: October 14, 2016. Publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16288A810.
Description of amendment request: The requested amendment requires
a change to the Combined License (COL) Appendix A, as well as plant-
specific
[[Page 92874]]
Tier 2, Tier 2 *, and COL Appendix C (and corresponding plant-specific
Tier 1). The proposed changes would revise the licenses basis documents
to add design detail to the automatic depressurization system (ADS)
blocking device and to add the blocking device to the design of the in-
containment refueling water storage tank injection squib valves
actuation logic. An exemption request relating to the proposed changes
to the AP1000 Design Control Document Tier 1 is included with the
request.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below with Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) staff edits in square brackets:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The AP1000 accident analysis previously evaluated a loss of
coolant accident caused by an inadvertent ADS valve actuation.
Adding design detail to the ADS blocking device, and applying the
blocking device to the [in-containment refueling water storage tank
(IRWST)] injection valves, does not impact this analysis. Using a
blocking device on the ADS and IRWST injection valves is a design
feature which further minimizes the probability of a loss of coolant
accident caused by a spurious valve actuation. Furthermore, because
the blocking device is designed to prevent a spurious valve
actuation due to a software [common cause failure (CCF)] and does
not adversely impact any existing design feature, it does not
involve a significant increase in the probability of an accident
previously evaluated.
The proposed amendment does not affect the prevention and
mitigation of abnormal events, e.g., accidents, anticipated
operation occurrences, earthquakes, floods, turbine missiles, and
fires or their safety or design analyses. This change does not
involve containment of radioactive isotopes or any adverse effect on
a fission product barrier. There is no impact on previously
evaluated accidents source terms. The [protection and safety
monitoring system (PMS)] is still able to actuate ADS and IRWST
injection valves for plant conditions which require their actuation.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
increase in the 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 involve a new failure mechanism or
malfunction, which affects an SSC accident initiator, or interface
with any [structure, system, or component (SSC)] accident initiator
or initiating sequence of events considered in the design and
licensing bases. There is no adverse effect on radioisotope barriers
or the release of radioactive materials. The proposed amendment does
not adversely affect any accident, including the possibility of
creating 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 type of accident from any
accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The blocking device is independent of PMS processor hardware and
software. It is designed to allow for ADS and IRWST injection
actuations when the plant parameters indicate an actual [loss of
coolant accident (LOCA)] event. Therefore, the ADS and IRWST are
still able to perform their safety functions when required. A
postulated failure of a blocking device which would prevent
necessary ADS and IRWST injection valve opening would be detected by
the proposed periodic surveillance testing within the [Technical
Specifications (TS)]. Failure of the ADS actuation or IRWST
injection valve opening in a division could also result from
concurrent failure of the two Core Makeup Tanks (CMTs) level sensors
in one division, with both sensors reading above the blocking
setpoint. Failures of the level sensors would be immediately
detected due to the deviations in redundant measurements.
Furthermore, the proposed TS actions require that the four divisions
of blocking devices be capable of automatically unblocking for each
CMT. In addition, the TS require that the blocking devices be
unblocked in plant modes which allow for the operability of less
than two CMTs.
The blocking device will continue to comply with the existing
[Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR)] regulatory
requirements and industry standards. The proposed changes would not
affect any safety-related design code, function, design analysis,
safety analysis input or result, or existing design/safety margin.
No safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is
challenged or exceeded by the requested changes. 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 Branch Chief: Jennifer Dixon-Herrity.
III. Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses
and Combined Licenses
During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice,
the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has
determined for each of these amendments that the application complies
with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,
as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The
Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the
Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set
forth in the license 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: January 26, 2016, as supplemented by
letter dated July 14, 2016.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the MPS2
licensing basis to change the spent fuel pool heat load analysis
description contained in the Final Safety Analysis Report.
Date of issuance: November 29, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
[[Page 92875]]
Amendment No.: 330. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML16277A680; 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 Operating License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 24, 2016 (81 FR
32804). The supplemental letter dated July 14, 2016, provided
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change
the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated November 29, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Duke Energy Florida, Inc. (DEF), et al., Docket No. 50-302, Crystal
River Nuclear Generating Plant, Unit 3 (CR-3), Citrus County, Florida
Date of application for amendment: August 27, 2015, as supplemented
by letters dated March 2, 2016, and July 14, 2016.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment approves the CR-3
Permanently Defueled Emergency Plan, and Permanently Defueled Emergency
Action Level Bases Manual, for the Independent Spent Fuel Storage
Installation.
Date of issuance: December 5, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment No.: 252. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML16244A102; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Facility Operating License No. DPR-72: This amendment revises the
License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 10, 2015 (80
FR 69711).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 5, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Docket No. 50-261, H. B. Robinson Steam
Electric Plant, Unit No. 2, Darlington County, South Carolina
Date of amendment request: November 2, 2015, as supplemented by
letters dated December 22, 2015; and March 31, May 9, and September 14,
2016.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the reactor
coolant system (RCS) pressure and temperature limits by replacing
Technical Specification (TS) Section 3.4.3, ``RCS Pressure and
Temperature (P/T) Limits,'' Figures 3.4.3-1 and 3.4.3-2, with figures
that are applicable up to 50 effective full power years (EFPYs).
Date of issuance: November 22, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 120 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 248. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML16285A404; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-23: Amendment revised
the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 1, 2016 (81 FR
10678). The supplemental letters dated March 31, May 9, and September
14, 2016, provided additional information that clarified the
application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally
noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no
significant hazards consideration determination as published in the
Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated November 22, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Docket No. 50-400, Shearon Harris Nuclear
Power Plant, Unit 1, Wake and Chatham Counties, North Carolina
Date of amendment request: August 18, 2015, as supplemented by
letters dated September 29, 2015, February 5, 2016, April 28, 2016, and
May 19, 2016.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical
Specifications (TSs) by relocating specific surveillance frequencies to
a licensee-controlled program with the implementation of Nuclear Energy
Institute (NEI) 04-10, ``Risk-Informed Technical Specifications
Initiative 5b, Risk-Informed Method for Control of Surveillance
Frequencies.'' Additionally, the change added a new program, the
Surveillance Frequency Control Program, to TS Section 6,
``Administrative Controls.''
Date of issuance: November 29, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 120 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 154. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML16200A285; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation (SE) enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-63: Amendment revised
the Facility Operating License and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: The NRC staff initially
made a proposed determination that the amendment request dated August
18, 2015, as supplemented by letter dated September 29, 2015, involved
no significant hazards consideration (NSHC) (December 8, 2015, 80 FR
76319). By letters dated February 5, 2016, and April 28, 2016, the
licensee provided clarifying information that did not expand the scope
of the application and did not change the NRC staff's original proposed
NSHC determination, as published in the Federal Register (FR) on
December 8, 2015 (80 FR 76319). Subsequently, by letter dated May 19,
2016, the licensee supplemented its amendment request with a proposed
change that expanded the scope of the request. Therefore, the NRC
published a second proposed NSHC determination in the FR on July 15,
2016 (81 FR 46118), which superseded the notice dated December 8, 2015
(80 FR 76319).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in an SE dated November 29, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. STN 50-457, Braidwood
Station, Unit No. 2, Will County, Illinois
Date of application for amendment: September 30, 2016 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML16274A474), as supplemented by letters dated October 26
and 28, 2016, and November 14, 2016 (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML16301A073,
ML16302A468, and ML16319A397).
Brief description of amendment: The amendment allows a one-time
extension from 72 hours to 200 hours of the technical specification
completion time associated with the 2A service water (SX) pump in
support of maintenance activities.
Date of issuance: November 23, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
prior to the 2A SX pump work window.
Amendment No.: 191. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML16315A302; documents related to this amendment
[[Page 92876]]
are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No NPF-77: The amendment revises
the Technical Specifications and License
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 21, 2016 (81 FR
72838).
The October 26 and 28, 2016 supplements, contained clarifying
information and did not change the NRC staff's initial proposed finding
of no significant hazards consideration.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated November 23, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-237 and 50-249. Dresden
Nuclear Power Station (DNPS), Unit Nos. 2 and 3, Grundy County,
Illinois
Date of application for amendment: December 14, 2015, as
supplemented by letter dated
June 30, 2016.
Brief description of amendments: The amendment revises the
technical specification (TS) for DNPS, Units 2 and 3, standby or
emergency diesel generator (EDG) fuel oil day tank volume as described
in TS 3.81, ``AC Sources--Operating,'' surveillance requirement (SR)
3.8.1.4, from the current value of greater than or equal to (>) 205
gallons to >245 gallons. Raising the EDG fuel oil day tank volume
requirement will assure that each EDG can operate for one hour at the
maximum allowable operating conditions. The licensee has identified
this issue as a non-conservative Technical Specification and
administrative controls are currently in-place to assure sufficient
fuel oil is available in each fuel oil day tank.
Date of issuance: November 30, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
no later than 60 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 252 and 245. A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No. ML16305A212; documents related to this
amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the
amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-19 and DPR-25:
Amendment revises the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and Technical
Specification.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 1, 2016 (81 FR
10680). The supplemental letter dated June 30, 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 November 30, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353, Limerick
Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: January 15, 2016, as supplemented by
letters dated April 19, 2016; May 9, 2016; and June 21, 2016.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments reduce the reactor
vessel steam dome pressure specified in the technical specifications
(TSs) for the reactor core safety limits. The amendments also revise
the setpoint and allowable value for the main steam line low pressure
isolation function in the TSs.
Date of issuance: November 21, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 120 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 222 and 183. A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No. ML16272A319; documents related to these
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the
amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-39 and NPF-85:
Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 15, 2016 (81 FR
13842). The supplemental letters dated April 19, 2016; May 9, 2016; and
June 21, 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 November 21, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-410, Nine Mile Point
Nuclear Station, Unit 2, Oswego County, New York
Date of amendment request: February 23, 2016.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical
Specifications.
Date of issuance: November 22, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 159. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML16281A596; documents related to this amendment is
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with this amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-69: Amendment revised
the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 10, 2016, (81 FR
28897).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated November 22, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-219, Oyster Creek Nuclear
Generating Station (OCNGS), Ocean County, New Jersey
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-220, Nine Mile Point
Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (NMP1), Oswego County, New York
Date amendment request: August 1, 2016.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments would revise
OCNGS's Technical
Specification (TS) Section 2.1, ``Safety Limit--Fuel Cladding
Integrity,'' and NMP1's TS Section 2.1.1, ``Fuel Cladding Integrity,''
to reduce the steam dome pressure.
Date of issuance: November 29, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment Nos.: 289 for OCNGS and 225 for NMP1. A publicly-
available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16256A567;
documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety
Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-16 and DPR-63:
Amendments revised the Licenses and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 27, 2016 (81
FR 66307).
[[Page 92877]]
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated November 29, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Florida Power & Light Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389,
St. Lucie Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, St. Lucie County, Florida
Date of amendment request: April 31, 2016, as supplemented by a
letter dated August 11, 2016.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Appendix B
(Environmental Protection Plan, Section 4.2) of the renewed operating
licenses to reflect the ``currently applicable'' Biological Opinion
issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service March 24, 2016.
Date of issuance: December 5, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 236 and 186. A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No. ML16251A128; documents related to these
amendments are listed in the safety evaluation enclosed with the
amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-67 and NPF-16:
Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and Appendix
B.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 7, 2016 (81 FR
36621). The supplemental letter dated August 11, 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 December 5, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
South Carolina Electric & Gas Company and South Carolina Public Service
Authority, Docket Nos. 52-027 and 52-028, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear
Station (VCSNS), Units 2 and 3, Fairfield County, South Carolina
Date of amendment request: December 17, 2015 as supplemented
January 11, 2016 and March 16, 2016.
Description of amendment: The amendment authorizes changes to the
VCSNS, Units 2 and 3, Updated Final Safety Analysis Report Tier 2*
information as well as a change to a license condition to, in part,
revise the Wall 11 structure by modifying openings, changing
reinforcement detailing, clarifying the classification of building
structures for high-energy line break events, crediting the north wall
of the Turbine Building first bay wall as a high energy line break
barrier and associated missile barriers for protection of Wall 11 from
tornado missiles.
Date of issuance: May 31, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 48. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML16109A298; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Facility Combined Licenses Nos. NPF-93 and NPF-94: Amendment
revised the Facility Combined Licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 2, 2016 (81 FR
5499). The supplemental letters dated January 11, 2016, and March 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 the Safety Evaluation dated May 31, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026,
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), Units 3 and 4, Burke County,
Georgia
Date of amendment request: May 18, 2016.
Description of amendment: The amendment authorizes changes to the
VEGP Units 3 and 4 listed minimum volume of the passive core cooling
system core makeup tanks (CMT) reflected in Appendix A, Technical
Specifications and the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report of the VEGP
Units 3 and 4 Combined Licenses. Specifically, the changes reflect a
correction to align licensing documents to reflect the CMT volume given
in the VEGP Combined License Tier 1 as 2487 cubic feet is based on and
supported by a small-break loss-of-coolant accident safety analysis.
Date of issuance: September 15, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 53. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML16216A394; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Facility Combined Licenses No. NPF-91 and NPF-92: Amendment revised
the Facility Combined Licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 5, 2016 (81 FR
43646).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in the Safety Evaluation dated September 15, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026,
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), Units 3 and 4, Burke County,
Georgia
Date of amendment request: January 29, 2016, and supplemented by
letter dated April 8, 2016.
Description of amendment: The amendment authorizes changes to the
VEGP, Units 3 and 4, Updated Final Safety Analysis Report in the form
of departures from the incorporated plant specific Design Control
Document Tier 2* and Tier 2 information. The changes are also approved
in plant-specific technical specifications. The changes incorporate
information in WCAP-17524-P-A, Revision 1, ``AP1000 Core Reference
Report,'' which was approved by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
on February 19, 2015.
Date of issuance: August 19, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 52. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML16201A435; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Facility Combined Licenses Nos. NPF-91 and NPF-92: Amendment
revised the Facility Combined Licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 29, 2016 (81 FR
17501). The supplemental letter dated April 8, 2016, provided
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand
the scope of the application request 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 the Safety Evaluation dated August 19, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
[[Page 92878]]
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026,
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), Units 3 and 4, Burke County,
Georgia
Date of amendment request: December 22, 2015, and supplemented by
letters dated May 9, 2016, and May 27, 2016.
Description of amendment: The amendment authorizes changes to the
VEGP, Units 3 and 4, Updated Final Safety Analysis Report in the form
of departures from the incorporated plant- specific Design Control
Document Tier 2* and Tier 2 information with respect to proposed
changes to the design of auxiliary building Wall 11, and other changes
to the licensing basis for use of seismic Category II structures. It
also involves a change to a license condition.
Date of issuance: August 3, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 51. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML16201A298; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Facility Combined Licenses No. NPF-91 and NPF-92: Amendment revised
the Facility Combined Licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 16, 2016 (81
FR 7835). The supplemental letters dated May 9, 2016, and May 27, 2016,
provided additional information that clarified the application, did not
expand the scope of the application request 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 the Safety Evaluation dated August 3, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
III. Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses
and Combined Licenses and Final Determination of No Significant Hazards
Consideration and Opportunity for a Hearing (Exigent Public
Announcement or Emergency Circumstances)
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 for the
amendment 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.
Because of exigent or emergency circumstances associated with the
date the amendment was needed, there was not time for the Commission to
publish, for public comment before issuance, its usual notice of
consideration of issuance of amendment, proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination, and opportunity for a hearing.
For exigent circumstances, the Commission has either issued a
Federal Register notice providing opportunity for public comment or has
used local media to provide notice to the public in the area
surrounding a licensee's facility of the licensee's application and of
the Commission's proposed determination of no significant hazards
consideration. The Commission has provided a reasonable opportunity for
the public to comment, using its best efforts to make available to the
public means of communication for the public to respond quickly, and in
the case of telephone comments, the comments have been recorded or
transcribed as appropriate and the licensee has been informed of the
public comments.
In circumstances where failure to act in a timely way would have
resulted, for example, in derating or shutdown of a nuclear power plant
or in prevention of either resumption of operation or of increase in
power output up to the plant's licensed power level, the Commission may
not have had an opportunity to provide for public comment on its no
significant hazards consideration determination. In such case, the
license amendment has been issued without opportunity for comment. If
there has been some time for public comment but less than 30 days, the
Commission may provide an opportunity for public comment. If comments
have been requested, it is so stated. In either event, the State has
been consulted by telephone whenever possible.
Under its regulations, the Commission may issue and make an
amendment immediately effective, notwithstanding the pendency before it
of a request for a hearing from any person, in advance of the holding
and completion of any required hearing, where it has determined that no
significant hazards consideration is involved.
The Commission has applied the standards of 10 CFR 50.92 and has
made a final determination that the amendment involves no significant
hazards consideration. The basis for this determination is contained in
the documents related to this action. Accordingly, the amendments have
been issued and made effective 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 51.12(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
application for amendment, (2) the amendment to Facility Operating
License or Combined License, as applicable, 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.
A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing and Petition for Leave To Intervene
The Commission is also offering an opportunity for a hearing with
respect to the issuance of the amendment.
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any
persons (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by this action may
file a request for a hearing and a petition to intervene (petition)
with respect to the action. Petitions shall be filed in accordance with
the Commission's ``Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure'' in 10 CFR
part 2. Interested persons 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 petition 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 petition; and the Secretary or the Chief
Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order.
[[Page 92879]]
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition 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
petitioner; (2) the nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to
be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the
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 petitioner's interest. The petition
must also set forth the specific contentions which the 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
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 petitioner
intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The
petitioner must also provide references to those specific sources and
documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the petitioner
intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion to support
its position on the issue. 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 proceeding. The contention must be one
which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A 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 consistent with the NRC's 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) through (iii).
If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the
Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no
significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve
to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that
the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration,
the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately
effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held
would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final
determination is that the amendment request involves a significant
hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before
the issuance of any amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent
danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will
issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.
A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian
Tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to
participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1).
The petition should state the nature and extent of the petitioner's
interest in the proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the
Commission by February 21, 2017. 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 set forth in this section, except that under 10 CFR
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. Details regarding the opportunity to
make a limited appearance will be provided by the presiding officer if
such sessions are scheduled.
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 (hereinafter
``petition''), 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, as amended at 77
FR 46562, August 3, 2012). 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 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 petition (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 available on the NRC's public Web site at
https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/adjudicatory-sub.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 Electronic Filing Help Desk will not be
[[Page 92880]]
able to offer assistance in using unlisted software.
Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a
docket has been created, the participant can then submit a petition.
Submissions should be in Portable Document Format (PDF). Additional
guidance on PDF submissions is available on the NRC's public Web site
at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/electronic-sub-ref-mat.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 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 Electronic
Filing 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 Electronic Filing Help Desk is available between 9 a.m.
and 7 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
stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and
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, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and
Adjudications Staff. Participants filing a document in this manner are
responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing
is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in
the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service
upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A
presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-
Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the
presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting
the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
https://ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the
Commission, or the presiding officer. Participants are requested not to
include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers,
home addresses, or home phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC
regulation or other law requires submission of such information.
However, in some instances, a petition 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.
The Commission will issue a notice or order granting or denying a
hearing request or intervention petition, designating the issues for
any hearing that will be held and designating the Presiding Officer. A
notice granting a hearing will be published in the Federal Register and
served on the parties to the hearing.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-410, Nine Mile Point
Nuclear Station, Unit 2, Oswego County, New York
Date of amendment request: November 26, 2016.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the High
Pressure Core Spray system and Reactor Core Isolation Cooling system
actuation instrumentation technical specifications by adding a footnote
indicating that the injection functions of Drywell Pressure-High and
Manual Initiation are not required to be operable under low reactor
pressure conditions.
Date of issuance: November 29, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 160. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML16333A000; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-69: Amendment revised
the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Public comments requested as to proposed no significant hazards
consideration (NSHC): No.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment, finding of
emergency circumstances, state consultation, and final NSHC
determination are contained in a Safety Evaluation dated November 29,
2016.
Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel,
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL
60555.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Douglas Pickett.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 8 day of December, 2016.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
George A. Wilson, Deputy,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2016-30438 Filed 12-19-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P