[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 5, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 257-272]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-33260]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2015-0288]
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 December 8, 2015, to December 21, 2015. The
last biweekly notice was published on December 22, 2015.
DATES: Comments must be filed by February 4, 2016. A request for a
hearing must be filed March 7, 2016.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods
(unless this document describes a different method for submitting
comments on a specific subject):
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2015-0288. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-
3463; email: [email protected].
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: Mable Henderson, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-3760, email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments
A. Obtaining Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0288 when contacting the NRC
about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain
publicly-available information related to this action by any of the
following methods:
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2015-0288.
NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the
ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select ``ADAMS Public Documents'' and
then select ``Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.'' For problems with ADAMS,
please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at
1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected]. The
ADAMS accession number for each document referenced (if it is available
in ADAMS) is provided the first time that it is mentioned in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
B. Submitting Comments
Please include Docket ID NRC-2015-0288, facility name, unit
number(s), application date, and subject in your comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact
information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your
comment submission. The NRC posts all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov, as well as entering the comment submissions into
ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove
identifying or contact information.
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons
for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to
include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be
publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should
state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to
remove such information before making the comment submissions available
to the public or entering the comment submissions 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, (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
[[Page 258]]
comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day comment
period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for
example in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the Commission
take action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the
notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a notice of
issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant Hazards
Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after
issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will
occur very infrequently.
A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing and Petition for Leave To Intervene
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any
person(s) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a
request for a hearing and a petition to intervene with respect to
issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license or
combined license. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to
intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's ``Agency
Rules of Practice and Procedure'' in 10 CFR part 2. Interested
person(s) should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is
available at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room O1-
F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. The
NRC's regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on
the NRC's Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is
filed within 60 days, the Commission or a presiding officer designated
by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic
Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or
petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of the
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing or
an appropriate order.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the
following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone
number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the
proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's
property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the
proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must
also set forth the specific contentions which the requestor/petitioner
seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the
requestor/petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for
the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert
opinion which support the contention and on which the requestor/
petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing.
The requestor/petitioner must also provide references to those specific
sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the
requestor/petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert
opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that
a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law
or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of
the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if
proven, would entitle the requestor/petitioner to relief. A requestor/
petitioner who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at
least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding,
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene,
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the
hearing with respect to resolution of that person's admitted
contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence and to
submit a cross-examination plan for cross-examination of witnesses,
consistent with NRC regulations, policies and procedures.
Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60
days from the date of publication of this notice. Requests for hearing,
petitions for leave to intervene, and motions for leave to file new or
amended contentions that are filed after the 60-day deadline will not
be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the
filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10
CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(iii).
If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the
Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no
significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve
to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that
the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration,
the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately
effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held
would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final
determination is that the amendment request involves a significant
hazards consideration, then any hearing held 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 March
7, 2016. The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing
instructions in the ``Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)'' section of
this document, and should meet the requirements for petitions for leave
to intervene set forth in this section, except that under Sec.
2.309(h)(2) a State, local governmental body, or Federally-recognized
Indian Tribe, or agency thereof does not need to address the standing
requirements in 10 CFR 2.309(d) if the facility is located within its
boundaries. A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized
Indian Tribe, or agency thereof may also have the opportunity to
participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c).
If a hearing is granted, any person who does not wish, or is not
qualified, to become a party to the proceeding may, in the discretion
of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited appearance
pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person making a
limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of position on
the issues, but may not otherwise participate in the proceeding. A
limited appearance may be made at any session of the hearing or at any
prehearing conference, subject to the limits and conditions as may be
imposed by the presiding officer. Persons desiring to make a limited
appearance are requested to inform the Secretary of the Commission by
March 7, 2016.
[[Page 259]]
B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a
request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or
other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a
request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by
interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c),
must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139;
August 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit
and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some
cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not
submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in
accordance with the procedures described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10
days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the
Office of the Secretary by email at [email protected], or by
telephone at 301-415-1677, to request (1) a digital identification (ID)
certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or
representative) to digitally sign documents and access the E-Submittal
server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise
the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a request or
petition for hearing (even in instances in which the participant, or
its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-issued digital ID
certificate). Based upon this information, the Secretary will establish
an electronic docket for the hearing in this proceeding if the
Secretary has not already established an electronic docket.
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is
available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/getting-started.html. System requirements for accessing
the E-Submittal server are detailed in the NRC's ``Guidance for
Electronic Submission,'' which is available on the agency's public Web
site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants
may attempt to use other software not listed on the Web site, but
should note that the NRC's E-Filing system does not support unlisted
software, and the NRC Meta System Help Desk will not be able to offer
assistance in using unlisted software.
If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC
in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the
document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to
serve documents through the Electronic Information Exchange System,
users will be required to install a Web browser plug-in from the NRC's
Web site. Further information on the Web-based submission form,
including the installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on
the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html.
Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a
docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for
hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in
Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance
available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the time the
documents are submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be
timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system
no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of
a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends
the submitter an email notice confirming receipt of the document. The
E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access
to the document to the NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any
others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to
participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the
documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and
other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for
and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing request/petition
to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access to the document
via the E-Filing system.
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-
Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System
Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC's public
Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by email to
[email protected], or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-7640. The
NRC Meta System Help Desk is available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m.,
Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays.
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not
submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in
accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing
requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper
format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention:
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or
expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth
Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff.
Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for
serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered
complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or
by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing
the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer,
having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a
participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer
subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from
use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
http://ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the
Commission, or the presiding officer. Participants are requested not to
include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers,
home addresses, or home phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC
regulation or other law requires submission of such information.
However, in some instances, a request to intervene will require
including information on local residence in order to demonstrate a
proximity assertion of interest in the proceeding. With respect to
copyrighted works, except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose
of the adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use
application, participants are requested not to include copyrighted
materials in their submission.
Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60
days from the date of publication of this notice. Requests for hearing,
petitions for leave to intervene, and motions for leave to file new or
amended contentions that are filed after the 60-day deadline will not
be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the
filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10
CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(iii).
For further details with respect to these license amendment
applications,
[[Page 260]]
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.
DTE Electric Company, Docket No. 50-341, Fermi 2, Monroe County,
Michigan
Date of amendment request: September 24, 2015. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15268A149.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would modify
technical specification requirements to address Generic Letter 2008-01,
``Managing Gas Accumulation in Emergency Core Cooling, Decay Heat
Removal, and Containment Spray Systems,'' as described in TSTF-523,
Revision 2, ``Generic Letter 2008-01, Managing Gas Accumulation.''
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 revises or adds Surveillance Requirement(s)
(SRs) that require verification that the Emergency Core Cooling
System (ECCS), the Residual Heat Removal (RHR) System, and the
Reactor Core Isolation Cooling (RCIC) System are not rendered
inoperable due to accumulated gas and to provide allowances which
permit performance of the revised verification. Gas accumulation in
the subject systems is not an initiator of any accident previously
evaluated. As a result, the probability of any accident previously
evaluated is not significantly increased. The proposed SRs ensure
that the subject systems continue to be capable to perform their
assumed safety function and are not rendered inoperable due to gas
accumulation. Thus, the consequences of any accident previously
evaluated are not significantly increased.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises or adds SRs that require
verification that the ECCS, the RHR System, and the RCIC System are
not rendered inoperable due to accumulated gas and to provide
allowances which permit performance of the revised verification. 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. In addition,
the proposed change does not impose any new or different
requirements that could initiate an accident. The proposed change
does not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis and 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 revises or adds SRs that require
verification that the ECCS, the RHR System, and the RCIC System are
not rendered inoperable due to accumulated gas and to provide
allowances which permit performance of the revised verification. The
proposed change adds new requirements to manage gas accumulation in
order to ensure the subject systems are capable of performing their
assumed safety functions. The proposed SRs are more comprehensive
than the current SRs and will ensure that the assumptions of the
safety analysis are protected. The proposed change does not
adversely affect any current plant safety margins or the reliability
of the equipment assumed in the safety analysis. Therefore, there
are no changes being made to any safety analysis assumptions, safety
limits or limiting safety system settings that would adversely
affect plant safety as a result of the proposed 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: Jon P. Christinidis, DTE Energy, Expert
Attorney--Regulatory, 688 WCB, One Energy Plaza, Detroit, MI 48226.
NRC Branch Chief: David L. Pelton.
Duke Energy Progress Inc., Docket No. 50-400, Shearon Harris Nuclear
Power Plant (HNP), Unit 1, New Hill, North Carolina
Date of amendment request: October 29, 2015. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15302A542.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise
several HNP, Unit 1, Technical Specifications (TSs) to allow the `A'
Emergency Service Water (ESW) pump to be inoperable for 14 days to
allow for the replacement of the `A' Train ESW pump. The proposed
license amendment request (LAR) would be applicable on a one-time
basis.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
The `B' Train ESW supply and supported equipment will remain
fully operable during the 14 day completion time. The `A' ESW pump
and supported equipment function as accident mitigators. Removing
the `A' Train ESW pump from service for a limited period of time
does not affect any accident initiator and therefore cannot change
the probability of an accident. The proposed changes and the `A'
Train ESW pump replacement activity have been evaluated to assess
their impact on the systems affected and upon the design basis
safety functions.
The activities covered by this LAR also include defense-in-depth
actions. Weather patterns will be monitored and this activity
schedule will be adjusted if tornado/high wind conditions become
imminent.
In addition, completing the lineups required by the operations
work procedure (OWP) for the Service Water (SW) system, OWP-SW,
``Service Water,'' which is necessary when an ESW pump is
inoperable, provides defense in depth for prevention of core damage
and containment failure. The lineup steps for time periods when the
`A' ESW pump is inoperable include the lifting of leads to disable
the Safety Injection (SI) close signal to service water valve `1SW-
39' and service water valve `SW-276.' This allows the breakers to be
maintained on and allows expeditious isolation capability in the
event of a SW leak in the Reactor Auxiliary Building. This lineup
also defeats the SI signal to service water valve `SW-276' to
maintain it open. As long as service water valves `1SW-274' and
`1SW-40' are operable, the `B' Train ESW header is isolable, and
operable. The simplified flow diagrams provided in Attachment 5
(enclosed in original document) illustrate the flow paths affected
by the valves discussed above. Quantitative measures and qualitative
measures will be taken during the planned ESW pump replacement,
which are identified in Attachment 7 (enclosed in original document)
as Regulatory Commitments.
There will be no effect on the analysis of any accident or the
progression of the accident since the operable ESW `B' train is
capable of serving 100 percent of all the required heat loads. As
such, there is no impact on consequence mitigation for any transient
or accident.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of
[[Page 261]]
accident from any accident previously evaluated?
The proposed amendment is a one-time extension of the required
completion times from 72 hours for the Charging Pumps, Emergency
Core Cooling Systems Subsystems, Containment Spray System, Spray
Additive System, Containment Cooling System, Auxiliary Feedwater
System, Component Cooling Water System, ESW System, Essential
Services Chilled Water System, and AC [Alternating Current] Sources
systems to 336 hours. Additionally, proposed amendment is a one-time
extension of the required completion times from 7 days for the
Control Room Emergency Filtration System and the Reactor Auxiliary
Building Emergency Exhaust Systems to 336 hours. The requested
change does not involve the addition or removal of any plant system,
structure, or component.
The proposed temporary TS changes do not affect the basic
design, operation, or function of any of the systems associated with
the TS impacted by the amendment. Implementation of the proposed
amendment will not create the possibility of a new or different kind
of accident from that previously evaluated.
HNP intends to isolate and replace the `A' ESW pump. During the
period in which the `A' Train ESW pump is not available, the (NSW
System will remain available to supply the `A' Train ESW loads and
the `B' Train ESW Train will be operable.
Throughout the pump replacement project, compensatory measures
will be in place to provide additional assurance that the affected
systems will continue to be capable of performing their intended
safety functions.
In conclusion, this proposed LAR does not impact any plant
systems that are accident initiators and does not impact any safety
analysis.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in the margin of safety?
Margin of safety is related to the confidence in the ability of
the fission product barriers to perform their design functions
during and following an accident situation. These barriers include
the fuel cladding, the reactor coolant system, and the containment
system. The performance of the fuel cladding, reactor coolant, and
containment systems will not be impacted by the proposed LAR.
Additionally, the proposed amendment does not involve a change
in the operation of the plant. The activity only extends the amount
of time the `A' Train ESW system is allowed to be inoperable for the
replacement of the `A' ESW pump to improve design margin.
The estimated incremental conditional core damage probability
(ICCDP) during the 14 day completion time extension is much less
than the limits presented in Regulatory Guide 1.177. Therefore, it
is concluded that the proposed changes do not involve a significant
reduction in the margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Lara S. Nichols, Deputy General Counsel,
Duke Energy Corporation, 550 South Tryon Street, Mail Code DEC45A,
Charlotte, NC 28202.
NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin G. Beasley.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-317 and 50-318, Calvert
Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Calvert County, Maryland
Date of amendment request: November 5, 2015. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15310A064.
Description of amendments request: The amendments would revise the
Calvert Cliffs Technical Specifications (TSs) to relocate certain
Surveillance Requirements Frequencies to the previously approved
Surveillance Frequency Control Program.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below, with NRC staff revisions
provided in [brackets]:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed License Amendment Request is an administrative
change. The proposed change relocates the specified [f]requencies
for periodic Surveillance Requirements [SRs] to licensee control
under the SFCP. Surveillance Frequencies (SF) are not an initiator
to any accident previously evaluated. As a result, the probability
of any accident previously evaluated is not significantly increased.
The systems and components required by the TS for which the SF are
relocated are still required to be operable, meet the acceptance
criteria for the SR, and be capable of performing any mitigation
function assumed in the accident analysis. As a result, the
consequences of any accident previously evaluated are not
significantly increased.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed License Amendment Request is an administrative
change. The proposed change relocates the specified [f]requencies
for periodic SR to licensee control under the SFCP. No new or
different accidents result from utilizing the proposed change. The
change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no
new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a change in
the methods governing normal plant operation. In addition, the
change does not impose any new or different requirements. The change
does not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis. The proposed
change is consistent with the safety analysis assumptions and
current plant operating practice.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed License Amendment Request is an administrative
change. The proposed change relocates the specified [f]requencies
for periodic SR to licensee control under the SFCP. The design,
operation, testing methods, and acceptance criteria for systems,
structures, and components, specified in applicable codes and
standards (or alternatives approved for use by the NRC) will
continue to be met as described in the plant licensing basis
(including the Final Safety Analysis Report and Bases to TS), since
these are not affected by [relocating] the SF[s]. Similarly, there
is no impact to safety analysis acceptance criteria as described in
the plant licensing basis.
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
amendments request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel,
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL
60555.
NRC Branch Chief: Travis L. Tate.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-220, Nine Mile Point
Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Oswego County, New York
Date of amendment request: March 26, 2015. This Notice is regarding
the application dated May 12, 2015, which superseded the application
dated March 26, 2015, ADAMS Accession Nos. ML15089A231 and ML15089A233.
A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No.
ML15134A232.
Description of amendment request: The NRC staff has previously made
a proposed determination that the amendment request dated March 26,
2015, involves no significant hazards
[[Page 262]]
consideration (80 FR 58518; September 29, 2015). Subsequently, by
application dated May 12, 2015, the licensee superseded the March 26,
2015, amendment request in its entirety. Accordingly, this Notice of
the May 12, 2015, application supersedes the previous Notice in its
entirety.
This amendment request involves the adoption of approved changes to
NUREG-1433, ``Standard Technical Specifications [STS] General Electric
BWR/4 Plants,'' Revision 4.0, to allow relocation of specific Technical
Specifications (TS) surveillance frequencies to a licensee-controlled
program. The proposed changes are described in Technical Specification
Task Force (TSTF) Traveler 425 ``Relocate Surveillance Frequencies to
Licensee Control--RITSTF [Risk Informed TSTF] Initiative 5b,'' Revision
3 (TSTF-425) ADAMS Accession No. ML090850642, and are described in the
Notice of Availability published in the FR on July 6, 2009 (74 FR
31996). The proposed changes are consistent with NRC-approved TSTF-425.
The proposed changes relocate surveillance frequencies to a licensee-
controlled program, the Surveillance Frequency Control Program (SFCP).
The changes are applicable to licensees using probabilistic risk
guidelines contained in NRC-approved NEI (Nuclear Energy Institute) 04-
10, ``Risk-Informed Technical Specifications Initiative 5b, Risk-
Informed Method for Control of Surveillance Frequencies'' (ADAMS
Accession No. ML071360456).
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. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes relocate the specified frequencies for
periodic surveillance requirements to licensee control under a new
Surveillance Frequency Control Program. Surveillance frequencies are
not an initiator to any accident previously evaluated. As a result,
the probability of any accident previously evaluated is not
significantly increased. The systems and components required by the
technical specifications for which the surveillance frequencies are
relocated are still required to be operable, meet the acceptance
criteria for the surveillance requirements, and be capable of
performing any mitigation function assumed in the accident analysis.
As a result, the consequences of any accident previously evaluated
are not significantly increased.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
Response: No.
No new or different accidents result from utilizing the proposed
changes. The changes do not involve a physical alteration of the
plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be
installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant
operation. In addition, the LAR changes do not impose any new or
different requirements. The changes do not alter assumptions made in
the safety analysis. The proposed changes are consistent with the
safety analysis assumptions and current plant operating practice.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in
the margin of safety?
Response: No.
The design, operation, testing methods, and acceptance criteria
for systems, structures, and components (SSCs), specified in
applicable codes and standards (or alternatives approved for use by
the NRC) will continue to be met as described in the plant licensing
basis (including the final safety analysis report and bases to TS),
since these are not affected by changes to the surveillance
frequencies. Similarly, there is no impact to safety analysis
acceptance criteria as described in the plant licensing basis. To
evaluate a change in the relocated surveillance frequency, Exelon
will perform a probabilistic risk evaluation using the guidance
contained in NRC approved NEI 04-10, Rev. 1, in accordance with the
TS SFCP. NEI 04-10, Rev. 1, methodology provides reasonable
acceptance guidelines and methods for evaluating the risk increase
of proposed changes to surveillance frequencies consistent with
Regulatory Guide 1.177.
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: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel,
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL
60555.
NRC Branch Chief: Travis L. Tate.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-220 and 50-410, Nine
Mile Point Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Oswego County, New York
Date of amendment request: October 8, 2015. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15281A028.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would allow the
proposed changes to Nine Mile Point, Unit 1 (NMP1) and Nine Mile Point,
Unit 2 (NMP2) TSs to provide an allowance for brief, inadvertent,
simultaneous opening of redundant secondary containment personnel
access doors during normal entry and exit conditions. Specifically,
NMP1 Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) 3.4.3 and Surveillance
Requirement (SR) 4.4.3 are modified to acknowledge that secondary
containment access openings may be open for entry and exit. Further,
the definition for Reactor Building Integrity, specified in NMP1 TS
Definition 1.12, is revised for consistency to reflect the changes
proposed to TS Section 3.4.3 LCO and SR 4.4.3. The NMP2 SR 3.6.4.1.3 is
modified to acknowledge that secondary containment access openings may
be open for entry and exit.
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. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes address temporary conditions during which
the secondary containment SRs are not met. The secondary containment
is not an initiator of any accident previously evaluated. As a
result, the probability of any accident previously evaluated is not
increased. The consequences of an accident previously evaluated
while using the proposed changes are not impacted and are bounded by
the existing design bases calculations and analyses. As a result,
the consequences of an accident previously evaluated are not
significantly increased.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not alter the protection system design,
create new failure modes, or change any modes of operation. The
proposed changes do not involve a physical alteration of the plant,
and no new or different kind of equipment will be installed.
Consequently, there are no new initiators that could result in a new
or different kind of accident.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
[[Page 263]]
3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes would provide an allowance for brief,
inadvertent, simultaneous opening of redundant secondary containment
personnel access doors during normal entry and exit conditions. The
allowance for both an inner and outer secondary containment access
door to be open simultaneously for entry and exit does not affect
the safety function of secondary containment as the doors are
promptly closed after entry or exit, thereby restoring the secondary
containment boundary. In addition, brief, inadvertent, simultaneous
opening and closing of redundant secondary containment personnel
access doors during entry and exit conditions does not affect the
ability of the Emergency Ventilation System (NMP1) or the Standby
Gas Treatment (SGT) System (NMP2) to establish the required
secondary containment vacuum.
Therefore, the safety function of the secondary containment is not
affected.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel,
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL
60555.
NRC Branch Chief: Travis L. Tate.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC and PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-277
and 50-278, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3, York and
Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: December 15, 2015. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15349A800.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would
reduce the reactor steam dome pressure stated in the Technical
Specifications (TSs) for the reactor core safety limits. The proposed
change addresses a 10 CFR part 21 issue concerning the potential to
violate the safety limits during a pressure regulator failure maximum
demand (open) (PRFO) transient.
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 to the reactor steam dome pressure in
Reactor Core Safety Limits 2.1.1.1 and 2.1.1.2 does not alter the
use of the analytical methods used to determine the safety limits
that have been previously reviewed and approved by the NRC. The
proposed change is in accordance with an NRC approved critical power
correlation methodology, and as such, maintains required safety
margins. The proposed change does not adversely affect accident
initiators or precursors, nor does it alter the design assumptions,
conditions, or configuration of the facility or the manner in which
the plant is operated and maintained.
The proposed change does not alter or prevent the ability of
structures, systems, and components (SSCs) from performing their
intended function to mitigate the consequences of an initiating
event within the assumed acceptance limits. The proposed change does
not require any physical change to any plant SSCs nor does it
require any change in systems or plant operations. The proposed
change is consistent with the safety analysis assumptions and
resultant consequences.
Lowering the value of reactor steam dome pressure in the TS has
no physical effect on plant equipment and therefore, no impact on
the course of plant transients. The change is an analytical exercise
to demonstrate the applicability of correlations and methodologies.
There are no known operational or safety benefits.
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 dome pressure safety limit
from 785 psig [pounds per square inch gauge] to 685 psig is a change
based upon previously approved documents and does not involve
changes to the plant hardware or its operating characteristics. As a
result, no new failure modes are being introduced. There are no
hardware changes nor are there any changes in the method by which
any plant systems perform a safety function. No new accident
scenarios, failure mechanisms, or limiting single failures are
introduced as a result of the proposed change.
The proposed change does not introduce any new accident
precursors, nor does it involve any physical plant alterations or
changes in the methods governing normal plant operation. Also, the
change does not impose any new or different requirements or
eliminate any existing requirements. The change does not alter
assumptions made in the safety analysis.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 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 General
Electric determined that since the Minimum Critical Power Ratio
improves during the PRFO transient, there is no decrease in the
safety margin and therefore there is no threat to fuel cladding
integrity. The proposed change in reactor steam dome pressure
supports the current safety margin, which protects the fuel cladding
integrity during a depressurization transient, but does not change
the requirements governing operation or availability of safety
equipment assumed to operate to preserve the margin of safety. The
change does not alter the behavior of plant equipment, which remains
unchanged.
The proposed change to Reactor Core Safety Limits 2.1.1.1 and
2.1.1.2 is consistent with and within the capabilities of the
applicable NRC approved critical power correlation for the fuel
designs in use at PBAPS Units 2 and 3. No setpoints at which
protective actions are initiated are altered by the proposed change.
The proposed change does not alter the manner in which the safety
limits are determined. This change is consistent with plant design
and does not change the TS operability requirements; thus,
previously evaluated accidents are not affected by this proposed
change.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel,
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Rd., Warrenville, IL
60555.
NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-272 and 50-311, Salem Nuclear
Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Salem County, New Jersey
Date of amendment request: September 11, 2015, as supplemented by
letter dated November 5, 2015. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS
under Accession Nos. ML15254A387 and ML15309A750, respectively.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the
technical specifications to support planned plant modifications to
implement chiller replacements and for performing maintenance on common
line components.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination:
[[Page 264]]
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. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The Auxiliary Building Chilled Water (AB CH) system will
continue to meet the design cooling requirements for both normal and
accident conditions. The Two chiller and Cross Tied configuration
analyses verify the capability of the system to perform its design
function. The configuration analyses were performed assuming that
one of the required chillers is out of service for the supplying
unit to account for a possible failure of a chiller, demonstrating
that only the remaining required chillers are required to be
operating for normal operation and accident conditions. This
supports operating with the required chillers available and the
potential loss of a chiller during an accident as the single
failure, or the unexpected loss of a chiller during normal
operation.
The AB CH system is not an initiator or precursor to any
anticipated (or abnormal) operational transients or postulated
design basis accidents. Operating with only two chillers required
does not alter the design requirements of the system; the required
cooling capability is still met. The AB CH systems for Salem Unit 1
and Unit 2 are designed to allow the systems to be cross-tied;
allowing for the pumps and chillers of one Unit to cool the heat
loads of both Units. In cross-tie configuration the analyses
demonstrate the system will continue to provide required cooling
capability to the control room and safety related areas during
normal operation and in the event of an accident.
Therefore there is no increase in the probability of any
previously evaluated accident.
Two Chiller or Cross-Tied operation has no effect on the
consequences of any previously analyzed accident. Evaluations were
performed assuming that one of the required chillers is out of
service to account for a possible failure of a chiller. The two
chiller analyses determined that certain heat loads are required to
be isolated, certain environmental conditions are required, and that
single filtration alignment of the CREACS [Control Room Emergency
Air Conditioning System] must be restricted. The cross-tied analyses
determined that certain heat loads are required to be isolated,
certain environmental conditions are required, and both trains of
the CREACS must be in service. The proposed TS changes incorporate
these restrictions ensuring the design requirements of the system
will continue to be met. The temperatures of the Control Area Rooms
continue to be below the acceptance criteria during AB CH system Two
Chiller and Cross-Tied operations for both normal operation and
accident conditions.
Therefore this proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to the TS permitting AB CH system Two
Chiller and Cross-Tied operation do not introduce any new accident
initiators or create any new failure mechanisms or malfunctions. The
analyses demonstrate the system continues to perform its design
functions for both normal and accident conditions. To ensure the
system has adequate cooling capability, restrictions are placed in
TS isolating non-safety related loads, verifying certain
environmental conditions, and restricting single filtration train
alignment operation. These restrictions do not cause the system to
be operated outside its design basis and therefore do not create any
new failure mechanisms.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment does not alter setpoints or limits
established or assumed by any accident analyses. The proposed change
does not exceed or alter a design basis or safety limit (i.e.,
Control Room Area temperatures remain below design requirements),
therefore it does not significantly reduce the margin of safety. In
Two Chiller and Cross-Tied configuration, restrictions are placed in
the TS ensuring the AB CH system will continue to provide adequate
cooling during normal and accident conditions. The Control Room area
ambient air temperature will not exceed the allowable temperature
for continuous duty rating for the equipment and instrumentation and
the control room will remain habitable for operations personnel
during and following all credible accident conditions.
The sharing of the AB CH system between Units in the Cross-Tied
configuration does not impair its ability to perform its safety
function for both normal and accident conditions. Design cooling
requirements for the accident condition unit continue to be met, and
the operating unit cooling requirements are also met such that there
can be an orderly shutdown and cool down.
Therefore, these changes do not involve a significant reduction
in the margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Jeffrie J. Keenan, PSEG Nuclear LLC--N21,
P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038.
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-272 and 50-311, Salem Nuclear
Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Salem County, New Jersey
Date of amendment request: October 12, 2015. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15285A014.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the
Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Technical
Specification (TS) 3.6.2.3, ``Containment Cooling System,'' to correct
a discrepancy between TS mode applicability and the shutdown mode in
the associated action statements. The request also proposes changes to
the Unit Nos. 1 and 2, TS 3.7.1.1, ``Safety Valves,'' to correct
discrepancies between TS mode applicability and action statement
shutdown modes.
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.
Neither the Containment Fan Cooling Units (CFCUs) nor the MSSVs
[main steam line code safety valves] are accident initiators. These
proposed changes will not increase the probability of occurrence of
any design basis accident since the corrections to the affected
Technical Specifications, in and of themselves, cannot initiate an
accident. Should a previously evaluated accident occur, the proposed
changes will ensure that the plant equipment is operable in all
required applicable modes of operation and that the Technical
Specification action statements are consistent with those applicable
modes. There will be no impact on the source term or pathways
assumed in accidents previously evaluated. No design functions of
structures, systems and components required to mitigate the
consequences of an accident are affected. Therefore, the
consequences of an accident previously evaluated are not
significantly increased.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment does not involve physical changes
(installing new equipment or modifying existing equipment) related
to the design functions or operations of the CFCUs or MSSVs. In
addition, the proposed changes to the affected Technical
[[Page 265]]
Specification applicability modes and action statement modes will
not create the potential for any new initiating events or transients
to occur in the physical plant.
Therefore, the proposed changes do 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, which correct a non-conservative TS and
eliminate an inconsistency between applicability mode and action
statement, do not exceed or alter a setpoint, design basis or safety
limit.
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: Jeffrie J. Keenan, PSEG Nuclear LLC--N21,
P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038.
NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.
South Carolina Electric and Gas Company Docket Nos. 52-027 and 52-028,
Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3, Fairfield County,
South Carolina
Date of amendment request: September 30, 2015. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15273A115.
Description of amendment request: The proposed change, if approved,
would depart from certain plant-specific Tier 1 information by adding
two turbine building sump pumps to accommodate the increased flow that
will be experienced during condensate polishing system rinsing
operations. The proposed change also indicates that there is more than
one main turbine building sump. Because flow into the turbine building
sumps may be radiologically contaminated, the turbine building sump
pumps will cease operation if a high radiation signal is present. The
proposed changes to Tier 1 would have corresponding changes to the
Combined License (COL) Appendix C, however there are no associated Tier
2 changes required.
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 identify that there is more than one
turbine building sump and to add two turbine building sump pumps
(WWS-MP-07A and B) to [combined license] COL Appendix C, Section
2.3.29, and corresponding Table 2.3.29-1 will provide consistency
within the current licensing basis. The main turbine building sumps
and sump pumps are not safety-related components and do not
interface with any systems, structures, or components (SSC) accident
initiator or initiating sequence of events; thus, the probability of
accidents evaluated within the plant-specific [Updated Final Safety
Analysis Report] UFSAR are not affected. The proposed changes do not
involve a change to the predicted radiological releases due to
accident conditions, thus the consequences of 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 to identify that there is more than one
turbine building sump and to add two turbine sump pumps to the non-
safety waste water system (WWS) do not affect any safety-related
equipment, nor does it add any new interface to safety-related SSCs.
No system or design function or equipment qualification is affected
by this change. The changes do not introduce a new failure mode,
malfunction, or sequence of events that could affect safety or
safety-related equipment.
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 WWS is a non-safety-related system that does not interface
with any safety-related equipment. The proposed changes to identify
that there is more than one turbine building sump and to add two
turbine building sump pumps do not 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 change.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Ms. Kathryn M. Sutton, Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius LLC, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004-2514.
NRC Branch Chief: Lawrence J. Burkhart.
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), Docket Nos. 50-259, 50-260, and 50-
296, Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units (BFN) 1, 2, and 3, Limestone
County, Alabama
Date of amendment request: September 16, 2015 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML15260B125).
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the
Technical Specifications (TSs) for Units 1 and 2, by adding a new
Specification (i.e., TS 3.3.8.3) to consolidate the requirements
governing the safety functions for the Emergency Core Cooling System
(ECCS) Preferred Pump Logic, Common Accident Signal (CAS) Logic, and
the Unit Priority Re-Trip Logic and for Unit 3, by adding a new
Specification (i.e., TS 3.3.8.3) to consolidate the requirements
governing the safety functions for the CAS Logic, and the Unit Priority
Re-Trip Logic for consistency with the changes to the, Units 1 and 2
TSs. The proposed change would relocate the existing requirements for
the CAS Logic from Units 1, 2, and 3, TS 3.8.1, ``AC Sources--
Operating,'' to the proposed TS 3.3.8.3. In addition, TS 3.3.5.1, Table
3.3.5.1-1, ``Emergency Core Cooling System Instrumentation,'' would be
revised to incorporate references to the proposed TS 3.3.8.3.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes relocate and clarify the requirements
currently addressed in the BFN TS governing the safety functions for
the ECCS Preferred Pump Logic (BFN, Units 1 and 2 only), Common
Accident Signal Logic, and the Unit Priority Re-Trip Logic.
Requirements are neither added nor deleted. The proposed TS 3.3.8.3
continues to provide LCO [Limiting Condition for Operation],
Required Actions and Completion Times, and Surveillance Requirements
for ECCS Preferred Pump Logic (BFN, Units 1 and 2 only), Common
Accident Signal Logic, and the Unit Priority Re-Trip Logic. A TVA
risk assessment has determined that the risk of changing the
Completion Time for the ECCS Preferred Pump Logic from 24 hours to
seven days, and maintaining the current
[[Page 266]]
Surveillance Test Intervals as the current Surveillance Test
Interval for the rest of the ECCS Instrumentation in the technical
specifications is acceptable. Because the proposed changes do not
require modification of the plant or change the way the logic
systems are used, the proposed changes do not affect the current
LOCA [loss-of-coolant accident] analysis of record.
Based on the above discussions, the proposed changes do not
involve an increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes relocate and clarify the requirements
currently addressed in the BFN TS governing the safety functions for
the ECCS Preferred Pump Logic (BFN, Units 1 and 2 only), Common
Accident Signal Logic, and the Unit Priority Re-Trip Logic.
Requirements are neither added nor deleted. The proposed TS 3.3.8.3
continues to provide LCO, Required Actions and Completion Times, and
Surveillance Requirements for ECCS Preferred Pump Logic (BFN, Units
1 and 2 only), Common Accident Signal Logic, and the Unit Priority
Re-Trip Logic. The proposed changes result in no physical change to
the plant configuration or method of operation.
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 proposed changes relocate and clarify the requirements
currently addressed in the BFN TS governing the safety functions for
the ECCS Preferred Pump Logic (BFN, Units 1 and 2 only), Common
Accident Signal Logic, and the Unit Priority Re-Trip Logic.
Requirements are neither added nor deleted. The proposed TS 3.3.8.3
continues to provide LCO, Required Actions and Completion Times, and
Surveillance Requirements for ECCS Preferred Pump Logic (BFN, Units
1 and 2 only), Common Accident Signal Logic, and the Unit Priority
Re-Trip Logic. A TVA risk assessment has determined that the risk of
changing the Completion Time for the ECCS Preferred Pump Logic from
24 hours to seven days, and maintaining the current Surveillance
Test Intervals as the current Surveillance Test Interval for the
rest of the ECCS Instrumentation in the technical specifications is
acceptable.
Accordingly, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority,
400 West Summit Hill Drive, 6A West Tower, Knoxville, TN 37902.
NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin G. Beasley.
III. Previously Published Notices of Consideration of Issuance of
Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses,
Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and
Opportunity for a Hearing
The following notices were previously published as separate
individual notices. The notice content was the same as above. They were
published as individual notices either because time did not allow the
Commission to wait for this biweekly notice or because the action
involved exigent circumstances. They are repeated here because the
biweekly notice lists all amendments issued or proposed to be issued
involving no significant hazards consideration.
For details, see the individual notice in the Federal Register on
the day and page cited. This notice does not extend the notice period
of the original notice.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-237 and 50-249, Dresden
Nuclear Power Station (DNPS), Units 2 and 3, Grundy County, Illinois
Date of amendment request: December 30, 2014, as supplemented by
letters dated May 8, and July 30, 2015. Publicly-available versions are
in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML14364A100, ML15128A305, and
ML15215A336, respectively.
Brief description of amendment request: The NRC is considering
issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-19 and
DPR-25, issued to Exelon Generation Company, LLC (the licensee), for
operation of DNPS, Units 2 and 3. The proposed amendment uses a new
Criticality Safety Analysis (CSA) methodology for performing the
criticality safety evaluation for legacy fuel types in addition to the
new ATRIUM 10XM fuel design in the DNPS spent fuel pools. In addition,
the licensee's amendment request proposes a change to the DNPS
Technical Specification (TS) 4.3.1, ``Criticality,'' in support of the
new CSA.
Date of publication of individual notice in Federal Register:
November 5, 2015 (80 FR 68573).
Expiration date of individual notice: December 7, 2015 (public
comments); January 5, 2015 (hearing requests).
IV. 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.
Duke Energy Florida, Inc. and Seminole Electric Cooperative, Inc.,
Docket No. 50-302, Crystal River, Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant,
Citrus County, Florida
Date of application for amendment: May 7, 2015.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical
Specifications 5.1.1, 5.2.1.b, 5.3.2, and 5.6.2.3 by changing the title
of the position with overall responsibility for the safe handling and
storage of nuclear fuel and licensee initiated changes to the Offsite
Dose Calculation Manual from either the Plant Manager or the
Decommissioning Director to the General Manager Decommissioning.
[[Page 267]]
Date of issuance: November 27, 2015.
Effective date: As of the date of its issuance and shall be
implemented within 30 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 249. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML15261A452; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Facility Operating License No. DPR-72: Amendment revised the
Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 21, 2015 (80 FR
43127).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated August 11, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
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 application for amendment: December 15, 2014 as
supplemented by letters dated May 6, October 12, November 6, and
November 24, 2015.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment modified Surveillance
Requirement (SR) 3.6.4.3.1 of TS 3.6.4.3, ``Standby Gas Treatment (SBT)
System''; SR 3.7.3.1 of TS 3.7.3 ``Control Room Fresh Air (CRFA)
System''; and TS 5.5.7, ``Ventilation Filter Testing Program (VFTP).''
The changes to SRs 3.6.4.3.1 and 3.7.3.1 are consistent with the
adoption of Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Standard
Technical Specification (STS) Traveler TSTF-522, ``Revise Ventilation
System Surveillance Requirements to Operate for 10 hours per Month.''
Additionally, the change to TS 5.5.7 provided consistency with the
above TS changes that was not addressed in TSTF-522.
Date of issuance: December 17, 2015.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days of issuance.
Amendment No: 208. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML15336A256; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-29: The amendment revised the
Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 28, 2015 (80 FR
23603). The supplemental letters dated May 6, October 12, November 6,
and November 24, 2015, 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 17, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations,
Inc., Docket No. 50-271, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (VY),
Vernon, Vermont
Date of amendment request: June 12, 2014, as supplemented by
letters dated October 21, 2014; February 5, 2015; June 18, 2015; and
July 16, 2015.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the
permanently defueled emergency plan and emergency action level (EAL)
scheme to reflect the reduced scope of offsite and onsite emergency
planning and the significantly reduced spectrum of credible accidents
that can occur for the permanently defueled condition.
Date of issuance: December 11, 2015.
Effective date: As of April 15, 2016, and shall be implemented
within 90 days of the amendment effective date.
Amendment No.: 264. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML15233A166; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-28: The amendment
revised the VY permanently defueled emergency plan and EAL scheme.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 9, 2014 (79 FR
73109). The supplemental letters dated October 21, 2014; February 5,
2015; June 18, 2015; and July 16, 2015, 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 this amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 11, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: Yes. The
Safety Evaluation dated December 11, 2015, provides the discussion of
the comments received from the State of Vermont and the public.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. STN 50-456 and STN 50-457,
Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, Will County, Illinois
Docket Nos. STN 50-454 and STN 50-455, Byron Station, Unit Nos. 1 and
2, Ogle County, Illinois
Date of application for amendment: December 14, 2014, as
supplemented by letters dated June 25, and September 16, 2015.
Brief description of amendment: The changes increase the voltage
limit for the diesel generator full load rejection test specified by
technical specification (TS) and surveillance requirement (SR)
3.8.1.10. Additionally, the proposed amendment adds Note 3 to TS SR
3.8.1.10 that allows for full load reject testing.
Date of issuance: December 17, 2015.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No(s).: 187/187, and 194/194. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15293A589. Documents related
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with
the amendments.
Facility Operating License Nos.NPF-72 and NPF-77 and Renewed
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-37 and NPF-66: The amendments
revise the TSs and License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 17, 2015 (80 FR
13907). The June 25, and September 16, 2015, supplements contained
clarifying information and did not change the scope of the proposed
action or affect 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 December 17, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-461, Clinton Power
Station, Unit 1, DeWitt County, Illinois
Date of application for amendment: November 17, 2014, as
supplemented by letters dated April 21, June 24, and November 16, 2015.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises Technical
Specification (TS) 5.5.2, ``Primary Coolant Sources Outside
Containment,'' The approved change requires integrated leak testing to
be performed at least once per 24 months and adds a provision to apply
surveillance
[[Page 268]]
requirement 3.0.2 to TS 5.5.2 requirements.
Date of issuance: December 18, 2015.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No: 208. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML15251A584; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-62: The amendment revised the
Technical Specifications and License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 17, 2015 (80
FR 8361). The April 21, 2015 supplement, contained clarifying
information, which changed the NRC staff's initial proposed finding
that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration,
therefore the notice was later supplemented on May 12, 2015 (80 FR
27197). The June 24, and November 16, 2015 supplements did not affect
the revised no significant hazards consideration.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 18, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. STN 50-456 and STN 50-457,
Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, Will County, Illinois and Docket Nos.
STN 50-454 and STN 50-455, Byron Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Ogle
County, Illinois
Date of application for amendment: April 24, 2014, as supplemented
by letters dated April 30, 2015, and October 9, 2015.
Brief description of amendment: The amendments add new low degraded
voltage relays and timers, with appropriate settings, on each
engineered safety features bus. The technical specifications and
surveillance requirements are changed to add appropriate operational
and testing requirements for the new relays and timers.
Date of issuance: December 21, 2015.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
during subsequent refueling outages as specified in the amendments.
Amendment No(s).: 188/188 and 195/195. A publicly-available version
is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15307A776. Documents related to these
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the
amendments.
Facility Operating License Nos.NPF-72 and NPF-77 and Renewed
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-37 and NPF-66: The amendments
revises the Technical Specifications and License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 2, 2014 (79
FR 52065).
The April 30, 2015, and October 9, 2015, supplements contained
clarifying information and did not change the NRC staff's original
proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as
published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 21, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-237 and 50-249, Dresden
Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3, Grundy County, Illinois
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-374, LaSalle
County Station, Units 1 and 2, LaSalle County, Illinois
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 application for amendments: December 22, 2014, as
supplemented by letter dated September 29, 2015.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments add a new Technical
Specification (TS) 3.10.8, ``Inservice Leak and Hydrostatic Testing,''
to allow reactor operations to remain in Mode 4 for specified testing
with reactor coolant temperatures above the Mode 4 limit. TS 3.10.8 may
only be used for (1) performance of an inservice leak or hydrostatic
test, (2) as a consequence of maintaining adequate pressure for an
inservice leak or hydrostatic test, or (3) as a consequence of
maintaining adequate pressure for control rod scram time testing
initiated in conjunction with an inservice leak or hydrostatic test.
Date of issuance: December 17, 2015.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 248, 241, 219, 205, 261, and 256. Publicly-
available versions can be found in ADAMS under Accession No.
ML15324A439; documents related to these amendments are listed in the
Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-19, DPR-25, NPF-11, NPF-18,
DPR-29, and DPR-30: The amendments revised the Technical Specifications
and the Licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 31, 2015 (80 FR
17089). The supplemental letter dated September 29, 2015, 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 December 17, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
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: April 1, 2015, as supplemented by letter
dated August 10, 2015.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the BVPS-1
and BVPS-2 Renewed Facility Operating Licenses (RFOLs) and Technical
Specifications (TSs). Specifically, the license amendments revised
various sections associated with steam generators, including changes
consistent with the guidance provided in Technical Specification Task
Force Traveler-510, Revision 2, ``Revision to Steam Generator Program
Inspection Frequencies and Tube Sample Selection'' (ADAMS Accession No.
ML110610350).
Date of issuance: December 16, 2015.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 296 (Unit 1) and 184 (Unit 2). A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15294A439; documents related
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation (SE) enclosed
with the amendments.
RFOL Nos. DPR-66 and NPF-73: Amendments revised the RFOLs and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 12, 2015 (80 FR
27198). The supplemental letter dated August 10, 2015, 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.
[[Page 269]]
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in an SE dated December 16, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Indiana Michigan Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-315 and 50-316, Donald
C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Berrien County, Michigan
Date of amendment request: December 17, 2014, as supplemented by
letters dated July 9, 2015, and October 30, 2015.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revise the Donald
C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, technical specifications to allow
surveillance testing of the onsite standby emergency diesel generators
during modes in which it was previously restricted. Specifically, the
changes remove the mode restrictions in the notes of the surveillance
requirements 3.8.1.10, EDG single largest load rejection test,
3.8.1.11, EDG full load rejection test, and 3.8.1.15, EDG endurance
run.
Date of issuance: December 11, 2015.
Effective date: These amendments are effective as of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented within 140 days of issuance.
Amendment No(s).: 330 for Unit 1 and 311 for Unit 2. A publicly-
available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15327A217;
documents related to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation
enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-58 and DPR-74: The
amendments revise the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and the
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 17, 2015 (80 FR
13909). The supplemental letters dated July 9, 2015, and October 30,
2015, 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 11, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Omaha Public Power District, Docket No. 50-285, Fort Calhoun Station,
Unit No. 1, Washington County, Nebraska
Date of amendment request: December 26, 2014, as supplemented by
letters dated September 11, September 18, November 2, and December 8,
2015.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the current
emergency action level scheme to a scheme based on Nuclear Energy
Institute (NEI) 99-01, Revision 6, ``Development of Emergency Action
Levels for Non-Passive Reactors,'' November 2012.
Date of issuance: December 15, 2015.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
by June 30, 2016.
Amendment No.: 285. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML15288A005; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-40: The amendment
revised the operating license.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 3, 2015 (80 FR
5801). The supplemental letters dated September 11, September 18,
November 2, and December 8, 2015, 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 15, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-259, 50-260, and 50-296,
Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2 and 3, Limestone County, Alabama
Date of amendment request: December 11, 2014, as supplemented by
letter dated September 30, 2015.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the stored
diesel fuel oil and lube oil numerical volume requirements in the
Technical Specifications (TSs) by replacing them with diesel operating
time requirements consistent with Technical Specifications Task Force
Traveler-501, Revision 1, ``Relocate Stored Fuel Oil and Lube Oil
Volume Values to Licensee Control.''
Date of issuance: December 14, 2015.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment No(s).: 292 (Unit 1), 317 (Unit 2), and 275 (Unit 3). A
publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15324A247;
documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety
Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-33, DPR-52, and DPR-68:
Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 31, 2015 (80 FR
17104). The supplemental letter dated September 30, 2015, 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 14, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: A comment
was received on the initial Federal Register notice regarding a Grand
Gulf amendment, but the comment was unrelated to this licensing action.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-259, 50-260, and 50-296,
Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3, Limestone County,
Alabama
Date of amendment request: December 11, 2014, as supplemented by
letters dated June 3, 2015, and July 30, 2015.
Brief description of amendment: The amendments revised Technical
Specification (TS) 2.1.1, ``Reactor Core SLs [Safety Limits],'' to
lower the value of the reactor steam dome pressure safety limit from
the current 785 pounds per square inch gauge (psig) to 585 psig.
Lowering of this safety limit will effectively expand the validity
range for the units' critical power correlations and the calculation of
the minimum critical power ratio. Specifically, the revised value of
585 psig is consistent with the lower range of the critical power
correlations currently in use at the units. The revised value will also
adequately bound a pressure regulator failure open transient event. No
hardware, design or operational change is involved with this amendment.
Date of issuance: December 16, 2015.
Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment Nos.: 293 (Unit 1), 318 (Unit 2), and 276 (Unit 3). A
publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15287A213;
documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety
Evaluation (SE) enclosed with the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-33, DPR-52, and DPR-68:
Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
[[Page 270]]
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 5, 2015 (80 FR
25721). The supplemental letters dated June 3, 2015, and July 30, 2015,
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 an SE dated December 16, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: Yes. The
comment received on Amendment Nos. 293, 318, and 276 is addressed in
the SE dated December 16, 2015.
V. 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 person(s) whose interest may be
affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and a petition
to intervene with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject
facility operating license or combined license. Requests for a hearing
and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with
the Commission's ``Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure'' in 10 CFR
part 2. Interested person(s) should consult a current copy of 10 CFR
2.309, which is available at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint
North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville,
Maryland 20852. The NRC's regulations are accessible electronically
from the NRC Library on the NRC's Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing or petition
for leave to intervene is filed within 60 days, the Commission or a
presiding officer designated by the Commission or by the Chief
Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel,
will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the
Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the
following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone
number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the
proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's
property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the
proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must
also set forth the specific contentions which the requestor/petitioner
seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue
of law or
[[Page 271]]
fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the requestor/
petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for the
contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert
opinion which support the contention and on which the requestor/
petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing.
The requestor/petitioner must also provide references to those specific
sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the
requestor/petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert
opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that
a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law
or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of
the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if
proven, would entitle the requestor/petitioner to relief. A requestor/
petitioner who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at
least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding,
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene,
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the
hearing with respect to resolution of that person's admitted
contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence and to
submit a cross-examination plan for cross-examination of witnesses,
consistent with NRC regulations, policies and procedures.
Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60
days from the date of publication of this notice. Requests for hearing,
petitions for leave to intervene, and motions for leave to file new or
amended contentions that are filed after the 60-day deadline will not
be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the
filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10
CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(iii).
If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the
Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no
significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve
to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that
the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration,
the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately
effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held
would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final
determination is that the amendment request involves a significant
hazards consideration, then any hearing held 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 March
7, 2016. The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing
instructions in the ``Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)'' section of
this document, and should meet the requirements for petitions for leave
to intervene set forth in this section, except that under Sec.
2.309(h)(2) a State, local governmental body, or Federally-recognized
Indian Tribe, or agency thereof does not need to address the standing
requirements in 10 CFR 2.309(d) if the facility is located within its
boundaries. A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized
Indian Tribe, or agency thereof may also have the opportunity to
participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c).
If a hearing is granted, any person who does not wish, or is not
qualified, to become a party to the proceeding may, in the discretion
of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited appearance
pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person making a
limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of position on
the issues, but may not otherwise participate in the proceeding. A
limited appearance may be made at any session of the hearing or at any
prehearing conference, subject to the limits and conditions as may be
imposed by the presiding officer. Persons desiring to make a limited
appearance are requested to inform the Secretary of the Commission by
March 7, 2016.
B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a
request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or
other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a
request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by
interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c),
must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139;
August 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit
and serve all adjudicatory documents over the Internet, or in some
cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not
submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in
accordance with the procedures described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10
days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the
Office of the Secretary by email at [email protected], or by
telephone at 301-415-1677, to request (1) a digital identification (ID)
certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or
representative) to digitally sign documents and access the E-Submittal
server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise
the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a request or
petition for hearing (even in instances in which the participant, or
its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-issued digital ID
certificate). Based upon this information, the Secretary will establish
an electronic docket for the hearing in this proceeding if the
Secretary has not already established an electronic docket.
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is
available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/getting-started.html. System requirements for accessing
the E-Submittal server are detailed in the NRC's ``Guidance for
Electronic Submission,'' which is available on the agency's public Web
site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants
may attempt to use other software not listed on the Web site, but
should note that the NRC's E-Filing system does not support unlisted
software, and the NRC Meta System Help Desk will not be able to offer
assistance in using unlisted software.
If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC
in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the
document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to
serve documents through the Electronic Information Exchange System,
users will be required to install a Web browser plug-in from the NRC's
Web site. Further information on the Web-based submission form,
including the installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on
the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html.
Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a
docket has
[[Page 272]]
been created, the participant can then submit a request for hearing or
petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in Portable
Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance available on the
NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the time the
documents are submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be
timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system
no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of
a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends
the submitter an email notice confirming receipt of the document. The
E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access
to the document to the NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any
others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to
participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the
documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and
other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for
and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing request/petition
to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access to the document
via the E-Filing system.
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-
Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System
Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC's public
Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by email to
[email protected], or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-7640. The
NRC Meta System Help Desk is available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m.,
Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays.
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not
submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in
accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing
requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper
format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention:
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or
expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth
Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland
20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants
filing a document in this manner are responsible for serving the
document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by
first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier,
express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the
document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having
granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a
participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer
subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from
use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
http://ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the
Commission, or the presiding officer. Participants are requested not to
include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers,
home addresses, or home phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC
regulation or other law requires submission of such information.
However, in some instances, a request to intervene will require
including information on local residence in order to demonstrate a
proximity assertion of interest in the proceeding. With respect to
copyrighted works, except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose
of the adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use
application, participants are requested not to include copyrighted
materials in their submission.
STP Nuclear Operating Company, Docket No. 50-498, South Texas Project,
Unit 1, Matagorda County, Texas
Date of amendment request: December 3, 2015, as supplemented by
letter dated December 9, 2015.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment added a footnote to
Technical Specification (TS) 5.3.2, ``Control Rod Assemblies,'' to
permit operation with 56 full-length control rods during Unit 1 Cycle
20 instead of the normal 57 full-length control rod assemblies. This
extension will allow completion of plans to repair or replace a single
unreliable control rod. This amendment was necessitated by the
discovery of the unreliable control rod during start up testing
following the recently completed Unit 1 refueling outage.
Date of issuance: December 11, 2015.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 24 hours of its date of issuance.
Amendment No.: Unit 1--208. A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No. ML15343A128; documents related to this
amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the
amendment.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-76: The amendment revised the
Facility Operating License and TSs.
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 December 11,
2015.
Attorney for licensee: Steve Frantz, Esq., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius,
1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th day of December, 2015.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Anne T. Boland,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2015-33260 Filed 1-4-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P