[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 11 (Tuesday, January 19, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2915-2923]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-00686]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2016-0005]
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 22, 2015, to January 4, 2016. The
last biweekly notice was published on January 5, 2016.
DATES: Comments must be filed by February 18, 2016. A request for a
hearing must be filed March 21, 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-2016-0005. 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: Shirley Rohrer, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-5411, email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments
A. Obtaining Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0005 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-2016-0005.
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-2016-0005, 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
[[Page 2916]]
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 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
[[Page 2917]]
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
21, 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 21, 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 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,
[[Page 2918]]
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, 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.
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-334 and
50-412, Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 (BVPS), Beaver
County, Pennsylvania
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket No. 50-346,
Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 1 (DBNPS), Ottawa County,
Ohio
Date of amendment request: November 19, 2015. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15323A138.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would change the
BVPS and DBNPS Technical Specifications (TSs). Specifically, the
proposed license amendment would revise TS 5.3.1, ``Unit Staff
Qualifications,'' by incorporating an exception to American National
Standards Institute (ANSI) Standard N18.1-1971, ``Selection and
Training of Nuclear Power Plant Personnel.'' This would require
licensed operators to comply with the requirements of 10 CFR part 55,
``Operators' Licenses,'' in lieu of the ANSI standard.
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, along with NRC edits in square
brackets:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed license amendment is a change to the administrative
section of the BVPS and DBNPS TS. The NRC has determined that
accredited training programs based upon the systems approach to
training (SAT) are acceptable for satisfying regulatory requirements
contained in 10 CFR 55. The BVPS and DBNPS licensed operator
training programs are Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO)
National Academy for Nuclear Training (NANT) accredited programs
based on the SAT. Hence, the BVPS and DBNPS licensed operator
training programs satisfy NRC requirements contained in 10 CFR 55.
The ability of licensed operators to respond to and mitigate
accidents is unchanged by the proposed TS changes. The proposed
changes do not impact the design, operation, or maintenance of any
plant system, structure, or component at either BVPS or DBNPS.
Based on the above, FENOC [FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating
Company] concludes that the proposed changes do not involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment involves changes to the BVPS and DBNPS TS
that aligns the TS with 10 CFR 55. 10 CFR 55 permits the use of INPO
accredited licensed operator training programs to meet regulatory
requirements. The BVPS and DBNPS licensed operator training programs
are accredited, therefore, the NRC requirements are satisfied. The
ability of licensed operators to respond to and mitigate accidents
is unchanged by the proposed TS changes. The proposed changes do not
impact the design, operation, or maintenance of any plant system,
structure, or component at either BVPS or DBNPS.
Based on the above discussion, FENOC concludes that the proposed
changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed TS changes are administrative in nature. The
proposed changes do no impact the design, operation, or maintenance
of any plant system, structure, or component at either BVPS or
DBNPS. The ability of licensed operators to respond and mitigate
accidents is unchanged by the proposed TS changes.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: David W. Jenkins, FirstEnergy Nuclear
Operating Company, FirstEnergy Corporation, 76 South Main Street, Mail
Stop A-GO-15, Akron, OH 44308.
NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.
Indiana Michigan Power Company (I&M), Docket Nos. 50-315 and 50-316,
Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Berrien County, Michigan
Date of amendment request: November 19, 2015. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15328A469.
Description of amendment request: The proposed changes are
consistent with the NRC -approved Technical Specifications Task Force
(TSTF) Traveler, TSTF-425, Revision 3, ``Relocate Surveillance
Frequencies to Licensee Control--RITSTF [Risk Informed Technical
Specification Task Force] Initiative 5b.'' The proposed change
relocates surveillance frequencies to a licensee controlled program,
the Surveillance Frequency Control Program (SFCP).
[[Page 2919]]
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
affirmed the applicability of the model proposed no significant hazards
consideration published on July 6, 2009 (74 FR 31996). The findings
presented in that evaluation are 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 relocate the specified frequencies for
periodic surveillance requirements (SRs) to licensee control under a
new SFCP. 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]
(TSs) for which the surveillance frequencies are relocated are still
required to be operable, meet the acceptance criteria for the SRs,
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. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident 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 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.
Consequently, the proposed changes do not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The 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 TSs),
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, I&M will
perform a probabilistic risk evaluation using the guidance contained
in NRC approved NEI [Nuclear Energy Institute] 04-10, Rev. 1, in
accordance with the TS SFCP. NEI 04-10, Revision 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 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: Robert B. Haemer, Senior Nuclear Counsel,
One Cook Place, Bridgman, MI 49106.
NRC Branch Chief: David L. Pelton.
South Carolina Electric and Gas Company Docket Nos. 52-027 and 52-028,
Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS), Units 2 and 3, Fairfield
County, South Carolina
Date of amendment request: October 9, 2015. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15282A309.
Description of amendment request: The proposed change, if approved,
is to change the VCSNS, Units 2 and 3, Tier 2, Final Safety Analysis
Report, with new plant-specific Emergency Action Levels (EALs) and
License Conditions 2.D(12)(c), relating to initial EALs.
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, including the modification of VCSNS Units
2&3 License Conditions and submittal of the new plant-specific EALs
for both units, do not impact the physical function of plant
structures, systems, or components (SSC) or the manner in which SSCs
perform their design function. The proposed changes neither
adversely affect accident initiators or precursors, nor alter design
assumptions. The proposed changes do not alter or prevent the
ability of SSCs to perform their intended function to mitigate the
consequences of an initiating event within assumed acceptance
limits. No operating procedures or administrative controls that
function to prevent or mitigate accidents are affected by the
proposed changes.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes, including the modification of VCSNS Units
2&3 License Conditions and submittal of the new plant-specific EALs
for both units, do not involve a physical alteration of the plant
(i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be installed or
removed) or a change in the method of plant operation. The proposed
changes will not introduce failure modes that could result in a new
accident, and the changes do not alter assumptions made in the
safety analysis. The proposed changes are not initiators of any
accidents.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
Margin of safety is associated with the ability of the fission
product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, reactor coolant system
pressure boundary, and containment structure) to limit the level of
radiation dose to the public. The proposed changes, including the
modification of VCSNS Units 2&3 License Conditions and submittal of
the new plant-specific EALs for both units, do not impact operation
of the plant or its response to transients or accidents. The
proposed changes do not affect the Technical Specifications. The
proposed changes do not involve a change in the method of plant
operation, and no accident analyses will be affected by the proposed
changes.
Additionally, the proposed changes will not relax any criteria
used to establish safety limits and will not relax any safety system
settings. The safety analysis acceptance criteria are not affected
by these proposed changes. The proposed changes will not result in
plant operation in a configuration outside the design basis. The
proposed changes do not adversely affect systems that respond to
safely shut down the plant and to maintain the plant in a safe
shutdown condition.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Kathryn M. Sutton, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius
LLC, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC, 20004-2514.
NRC Branch Chief: Lawrence J. Burkhart.
[[Page 2920]]
South Carolina Electric and Gas Company Docket Nos. 52-027 and 52-028,
Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS), Units 2 and 3, Fairfield
County, South Carolina
Date of amendment request: October 21, 2015. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15295A090.
Description of amendment request: The proposed change, if approved,
to depart from certified AP1000 DCD Tier 1 information and from the
plant-specific Tier 2 and Tier 2* information in the Updated Final
Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) for VCSNS, Units 2 and 3, by modifying
the overall design of the Central Chilled Water subsystem to relocate
the Air Cooled Chiller Pump 3 (VWS-MP-03) and associated equipment from
the Auxiliary Building to the Annex Building, for each unit
respectively. The proposed changes include information in the combined
license, Appendix C. An exemption request relating to the proposed
changes to the AP1000 DCD Tier 1 is included with the request.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The Central Chilled Water System (VWS) performs the nonsafety-
related function of supplying chilled water to the heating,
ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems. The only safety-
related function of the VWS is to provide isolation of the VWS lines
penetrating the containment. The low capacity VWS is non-seismically
designed.
The change to relocate an air cooled chiller pump and associated
equipment and add a chemical feed tank to this pump does not
adversely affect the capability of either low capacity VWS subsystem
loop to perform the system design function. This change does not
have an adverse impact on the response to anticipated transient or
postulated accident conditions because the low capacity VWS is a
nonsafety-related and non-seismic system. No safety-related
structure, system, component (SSC) or function is involved with or
affected by this change. The changes to the low capacity VWS
subsystem do not involve an interface with any SSC accident
initiator or initiating sequence of events, and thus, the
probabilities of the accidents evaluated in the plant-specific
[Updated Final Safety Analysis Report] UFSAR are not affected. The
proposed VWS change does not involve a change to the predicted
radiological releases due to postulated accident conditions, thus,
the consequences of the accidents evaluated in the UFSAR are not
affected.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to the nonsafety-related low capacity VWS
subsystem do not affect any safety-related equipment, nor do they
add any new interfaces to safety-related SSCs. No system or design
function or equipment qualification is affected by these changes.
The changes do not introduce a new failure mode, malfunction or
sequence of events that could affect safety-related equipment.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The VWS is a nonsafety-related system that performs the defense-
in-depth function of providing a reliable source of chilled water to
various HVAC subsystems and unit coolers and the safety-related
function of providing isolation of the VWS lines penetrating the
containment. The changes to the VWS do not affect the VWS
containment penetrations or any other safety-related equipment or
fission product barriers. The requested changes will 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
requested changes.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Kathryn M. Sutton, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius
LLC, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC, 20004-2514.
NRC Branch Chief: Lawrence J. Burkhart.
South Carolina Electric and Gas Company Docket Nos. 52-027 and 52-028,
Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS) Units 2 and 3, Fairfield
County, South Carolina
Date of amendment request: November 4, 2015. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15308A595. This accession
number is corrected in this notice.
Description of amendment request: The proposed change, if approved,
to depart from certified AP1000 Tier 1 information and from the plant-
specific Tier 2 Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR)
information by reconfiguring the signal processing in the two processor
cabinets currently planned for the Annex Building and relocating the
cabinets to the Auxiliary Building. The proposed changes also change
the hardware and reduce the number of functions of the cabinet as well
as changing the power supply to one backed by separate diesel
generators. Because this proposed change requires a departure from Tier
1 information in the Westinghouse Advanced Passive 1000 Design Control
Document (DCD), the licensee also requested an exemption from the
requirements of the Generic DCD Tier 1 in accordance with 10 CFR
52.63(b)(1). The accession number associated with this amendment
request and previous sentence are the subject of this correction.
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 the design of the diverse actuation
system (DAS) conform to the DAS fire-induced spurious actuation
(smart fire) of the squib valves and single point failure criteria.
The DAS is a nonsafety-related diverse backup to the safety-related
protection and safety monitoring system (PMS). The proposed changes
do not involve any accident initiating component/system failure or
event, thus the probabilities of the accidents previously evaluated
are not affected. The affected equipment does not adversely affect
or interact with safety-related equipment or a radioactive material
barrier, and this activity does not involve the containment of
radioactive material. Thus, the proposed changes would not affect
any safety-related accident mitigating function. The radioactive
material source terms and release paths used in the safety analyses
are unchanged, thus the radiological releases in the Updated Final
Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) accident analyses are not affected.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to the design of the DAS do not alter the
performance of the DAS as a nonsafety-related diverse backup to the
[[Page 2921]]
PMS. The new configuration within two independent and separate
processor cabinets located in the Auxiliary Building do not
adversely affect any safety-related equipment or function, therefore
no new accident initiator or failure mode is created. The changes to
provide independent power supplies to the separate processor
cabinets do not have any impact on any safety-related equipment or
function, and no new accident or failure mode is created. The
proposed changes do not create a new fault or sequence of events
that could lead to a radioactive release. The changes do not
adversely affect any safety-related equipment or structure.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a
new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to the design of the DAS do not affect any
safety-related equipment or function. The proposed changes do not
have any adverse effect on the ability of safety-related structures,
systems, or components to perform their design basis functions. No
safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is
challenged or exceeded by the proposed changes, thus no margin of
safety is reduced. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Kathryn M. Sutton, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius
LLC, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC, 20004-2514.
NRC Branch Chief: Lawrence J. Burkhart.
III. Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses
and Combined Licenses
During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice,
the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has
determined for each of these amendments that the application complies
with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,
as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The
Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the
Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set
forth in the license amendment.
A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility
operating license or combined license, as applicable, proposed no
significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a
hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the Federal
Register as indicated.
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that
these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in
accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b),
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be
prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an
environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in
10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment,
it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the action see (1) the
applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's
related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as
indicated. All of these items can be accessed as described in the
``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' section of this
document.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414, Catawba
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York County, South Carolina
Date of amendment request: November 24, 2014, as supplemented by
letters dated January 15, 2015, July 31, 2015, August 17, 2015, and
October 23, 2015.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical
Specifications to correct non-conservative setpoints. Specifically, the
Allowable Value and Nominal Trip Setpoint for the Auxiliary Feedwater
Loss of Offsite Power (Function 6.d) are modified. Additionally, the
values in the associated Surveillance Requirement 3.3.5.2 would be
modified to the same values. As part of the change, the licensee is
also proposing to add the applicable footnotes in accordance with
Technical Specification Task Force-493, Revision 4, ``Clarify
Application of Setpoint Methodology for LSSS Functions.''
Date of issuance: December 18, 2015.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 277 and 273. A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No. ML15320A333; documents related to these
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation (SE) enclosed with the
amendments.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-35 and NPF-52: Amendments
revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 31, 2015 (80 FR
17085). The supplemental letters dated January 15, 2015, July 31, 2015,
August 17, 2015, and October 23, 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 18, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
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: February 13, 2014, as supplemented by
letter dated June 22, 2015.
Brief description of amendments: These amendments revise Technical
Specification (TS) 3.4.10, ``Pressurizer Safety Valves,'' to modify as-
found lift tolerances in the surveillance requirement (SR). The changes
to the SR reduce the lift setpoint for valve RC-201, and increase the
allowable as-found setpoint tolerance on valves RC-200 and RC-201.
Date of issuance: December 30, 2015.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
at or before the end of the second refueling outage following issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 315 and 293. A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No. ML15279A191; documents related to these
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation (SE) enclosed with the
amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-53 and DPR-69:
Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 22, 2014 (79 FR
42549). The supplemental letter dated June 22, 2015, provided
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand
the scope of the application as originally noticed, 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 an SE dated December 30, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
[[Page 2922]]
NextEra Energy Duane Arnold, LLC, Docket No. 50-331, Duane Arnold
Energy Center, Linn County, Iowa
Date of amendment request: January 26, 2015.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Duane
Arnold Energy Center technical specifications (TSs) Section 3.8.3,
``Diesel Fuel Oil, Lube Oil, and Starting Air,'' by removing the
current stored diesel fuel oil, and lube oil numerical volume
requirements from the TS and replacing them with diesel operating time
requirements consistent with Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF)
Traveler TSTF-501, Revision 1, ``Relocate Stored Fuel Oil and Lube Oil
Volume Values to Licensee Control.''
Date of issuance: December 22, 2015.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment No.: 292. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML15310A082; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation (SE) enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-49: The amendment
revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical
Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 12, 2015 (80 FR
27200).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in an SE dated December 22, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, Docket Nos. 52-027 and 52-028,
Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS) Units 2 and 3, Fairfield
County, South Carolina
Date of amendment request: June 12, 2014, supplemented by letters
dated July 9, October 9, and November 21, 2014 and June 2, 2015.
Description of amendment: The amendment authorizes a departure from
VCSNS Units 2 and 3 plant-specific AP1000 Design Control Document (DCD)
Tier 2* material contained within the VCSNS Units 2 and 3 Updated Final
Safety Analysis Report to correct editorial errors and ensure
consistency with the existing UFSAR Tier 1 and Tier 2 information.
Date of issuance: November 20, 2015.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 37. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS at
Accession No. ML15280A438; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Facility Combined Licenses No. NPF-93 and NPF-94: Amendment revised
the Facility Combined Licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 30, 2014 (79
FR 58812).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in the Safety Evaluation dated November 20, 2015. The supplemental
letters dated July 9, October 9, and November 21, 2014 and June 2,
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.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
STP Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 50-498 and 50-499, South
Texas Project, Units 1 and 2 (STP), Matagorda County, Texas
Date of amendment request: April 23, 2015.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the STP
Technical Specification Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) 3.4.5,
``Steam Generator Tube Integrity,'' Surveillance Requirement 4.4.5.2,
Administrative Controls Specification 6.8.3.o, ``Steam Generator
Program,'' and Specification 6.9.1.7, ``Steam Generator Tube Inspection
Report.'' These changes are needed to address implementation issues
associated with the inspection periods, and address other
administrative changes and clarifications.
Date of issuance: December 28, 2015.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 1--209; Unit 2--196. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15342A003; documents related
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with
the amendments.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-76 and NPF-80: The amendments
revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 23, 2015 (80 FR
35985).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 28, 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: February 17, 2015, as supplemented by
letter dated September 25, 2015.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Table
3.3.6.1-1, ``Primary Containment Isolation Instrumentation,'' of the
Technical Specifications (TSs) to correct an inadvertent omission made
by Amendment Nos. 251, 290, and 249, for Units 1, 2, and 3,
respectively (ADAMS Accession No. ML042730028). Specifically, the
revision added the number ``3'' to indicate Mode 3 for Function 5.g,
Standby Liquid Control System (SLCS) initiation, to the column titled
``Applicable Modes or Other Specified Conditions.'' With this
inadvertent error corrected, SLCS is required to be operable in Modes
1, 2, and 3.
Date of issuance: December 23, 2015.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 294 (Unit 1), 319 (Unit 2), and 277 (Unit 3). A
publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15321A472;
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.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 26, 2015 (80 FR
30102). The supplemental letter dated September 25, 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 23, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 50-390, Watts Bar Nuclear
Plant (WBNP), Unit 1, Rhea County, Tennessee
Date of amendment request: August 13, 2015, as supplemented by
letter dated August 27, 2015.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the facility
operating license to modify a license condition and add a new license
condition to reflect the implementation
[[Page 2923]]
of the dual-unit Fire Protection Report for the WBNP.
Date of issuance: December 23, 2015.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
prior to WBNP, Unit 2, entry into Mode 4, ``Hot Shutdown.''
Amendment No.: 105. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML15344A318; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation (SE) enclosed with the amendment.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-90: Amendment revised the
Facility Operating License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 4, 2015 (80
FR 53581). The supplemental letter dated August 27, 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 23, 2015.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 7th day of January 2016.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Anne T. Boland,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2016-00686 Filed 1-15-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P