[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 40 (Tuesday, March 1, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10675-10686]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-04346]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2016-0040]
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 February 2, 2016, to February 12, 2016. The
last biweekly notice was published on February 16, 2016.
DATES: Comments must be filed by March 31, 2016. A request for a
hearing must be filed by May 2, 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-2016-0040. 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: Janet Burkhardt, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1384, email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments
A. Obtaining Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0040 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-2016-0040.
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.
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-2016-0040, 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
[[Page 10676]]
Sec. 50.92 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR),
this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the
proposed amendment would not (1) involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated, or (2)
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any
accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety. The basis for this proposed determination for
each amendment request is shown below.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final
determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period 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 May
2, 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
[[Page 10677]]
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
May 2, 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, 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
[[Page 10678]]
security numbers, home addresses, or home phone numbers in their
filings, unless an NRC regulation or other law requires submission of
such information. However, in some instances, a request to intervene
will require including information on local residence in order to
demonstrate a proximity assertion of interest in the proceeding. With
respect to copyrighted works, except for limited excerpts that serve
the purpose of the adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use
application, participants are requested not to include copyrighted
materials in their submission.
Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60
days from the date of publication of this notice. Requests for hearing,
petitions for leave to intervene, and motions for leave to file new or
amended contentions that are filed after the 60-day deadline will not
be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the
filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10
CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(iii).
For further details with respect to these license amendment
applications, see the application for amendment which is available for
public inspection in ADAMS and at the NRC's PDR. For additional
direction on accessing information related to this document, see the
``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' section of this
document.
Duke Energy Progress, Inc., Docket No. 50-261, H. B. Robinson Steam
Electric Plant, Unit No. 2 (HBRSEP2), Darlington County, South Carolina
Date of amendment request: November 2, 2015, as supplemented by
letter dated December 22, 2015. Publicly-available versions are in
ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML15307A069 and ML15356A481, respectively.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise the reactor coolant system (RCS) pressure and temperature (P/T)
limits by replacing Technical Specification (TS) Section 3.4.3, ``RCS
Pressure and Temperature (P/T) Limits,'' Figures 3.4.3-1 and 3.4.3-2,
with figures that are applicable up to 50 effective full power years
(EFPY).
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 license amendment involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed RCS P/T limits are based on NRC-approved
methodology and will continue to maintain appropriate limits for the
HBRSEP2 RCS up to 50 EFPY. These changes provide appropriate limits
for pressure and temperature during heatup and cooldown of the RCS,
thus ensuring that the probability of RCS failure is maintained
acceptably low. These limits are not directly related to the
consequences of accidents.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not result in an increase
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.
2. Does the Proposed Change Create the Possibility of a New or
Different Kind of Accident From Any Accident Previously Evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes will continue to ensure that the RCS will
be maintained within appropriate pressure and temperature limits
during heatup and cooldown. No physical changes to the HBRSEP2
systems, structures, or components are being implemented. There are
no new or different accident initiators or sequences being created
by the proposed Technical Specifications changes.
Therefore, these 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 ensure that the margin of safety for the
fission product barriers protected by these functions will continue
to be maintained. This conclusion is based on use of the applicable
NRC-approved methodology for developing and establishing the
proposed RCS P/T limits.
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: Lara S. Nichols, Deputy General Counsel,
Duke Energy Corporation, 550 South Tyron Street, Mail Code DEC45A,
Charlotte, NC, 28202.
NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin G. Beasley.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (ENO), Docket No. 50-333, James A.
FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant (JAF), Oswego County, New York
Date of amendment request: January 15, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16015A456.
Description of amendment request: The licensee has provided a
formal notification to the NRC of the intention to permanently cease
power operations of JAF at the end of the current operating cycle. Once
certifications for permanent cessation of operation and permanent
removal of fuel from the reactor are submitted to the NRC, certain
staffing and training Technical Specifications (TSs) administrative
controls will no longer be applicable or appropriate for the
permanently defueled condition. Therefore, ENO is requesting approval
of changes to the staffing and training requirements in Section 5.0,
Administrative Controls, of the JAF TSs. Specifically, the amendment
would revise and remove certain requirements in TS Sections 5.1,
``Responsibility,'' 5.2, ``Organization,'' and 5.3, ``Plant Staff
Qualifications.'' The proposed amendment would not be effective until
the certification of permanent cessation of operation and certification
of permanent removal of fuel from the reactor vessel are submitted to
the NRC.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, with NRC staff revisions provided in [brackets], which
is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment would not take effect until JAF has
permanently ceased operation and entered a permanently defueled
condition. The proposed amendment would modify the JAF TS by
deleting the portions of the TS that are no longer applicable to a
permanently defueled facility, while modifying the other sections to
correspond to the permanently defueled condition.
The deletion and modification of provisions of the
administrative controls do not directly affect the design of
structures, systems, and components (SSCs) necessary for safe
storage of irradiated fuel or the methods used for handling and
storage of such fuel in the fuel pool. The changes to the
administrative controls are administrative in nature and do not
affect any accidents applicable to the safe management of irradiated
fuel or the permanently shutdown and defueled condition of the
reactor.
In a permanently defueled condition, the only credible accident
is the fuel handling accident [(FHA)].
The probability of occurrence of previously evaluated accidents
is not increased, since extended operation in a defueled condition
will be the only operation allowed, and therefore bounded by the
existing analyses. Additionally, the occurrence of postulated
[[Page 10679]]
accidents associated with reactor operation is no longer credible in
a permanently defueled reactor. This significantly reduces the scope
of applicable accidents.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not result in 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 have no impact on facility SSCs affecting
the safe storage of irradiated fuel, or on the methods of operation
of such SSCs, or on the handling and storage of irradiated fuel
itself. The administrative removal of or modifications of the TS
that are related only to administration of facility cannot result in
different or more adverse failure modes or accidents than previously
evaluated because the reactor will be permanently shutdown and
defueled and JAF will no longer be authorized to operate the
reactor.
The proposed deletion of requirements of the JAF TS do not
affect systems credited in the accident analysis for the [FHA] at
JAF. The proposed TS will continue to require proper control and
monitoring of safety significant parameters and activities.
The proposed amendment does not result in any new mechanisms
that could initiate damage to the remaining relevant safety barriers
for defueled plants (fuel cladding and spent fuel cooling). Since
extended operation in a defueled condition will be the only
operation allowed, and therefore bounded by the existing analyses,
such a condition does not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
Because the 10 CFR part 50 license for JAF will no longer
authorize operation of the reactor or emplacement or retention of
fuel into the reactor vessel once the certifications required by 10
CFR 50.82(a)(1) are submitted, as specified in 10 CFR 50.82(a)(2),
the occurrence of postulated accidents associated with reactor
operation is no longer credible. The only remaining credible
accident is a [FHA]. The proposed amendment does not adversely
affect the inputs or assumptions of any of the design basis analyses
that impact the FHA.
The proposed changes are limited to those portions of the [TS]
that are not related to the safe storage of irradiated fuel. The
requirements that are proposed to be revised or deleted from the JAF
[TS] are not credited in the existing accident analysis for the
remaining applicable postulated accident; and as such, do not
contribute to the margin of safety associated with the accident
analysis. Postulated DBAs [Design Basis Accidents] involving the
reactor are no longer possible because the reactor will be
permanently shutdown and defueled and JAF will no longer be
authorized to operate the reactor.
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: Ms. Jeanne Cho, Assistant General Counsel,
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 440 Hamilton Avenue, White Plains, NY
10601.
NRC Branch Chief: Travis L. Tate.
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 (GGNS), Claiborne
County, Mississippi
Date of amendment request: September 15, 2015. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15259A042.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the
GGNS Technical Specifications (TSs) to eliminate the ``Inservice
Testing [IST] Program,'' specification in Section 5.5, ``Programs and
Manuals,'' which is superseded by Code Case OMN-20. A new defined term,
``Inservice Testing Program,'' would be added to TS Section 1.1,
``Definitions.'' This request is consistent with TS Task Force (TSTF)-
545, Revision 1, ``TS Inservice Testing Program Removal & Clarify SR
[Surveillance Requirement] Usage Rule Application to Section 5.5
Testing.''
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below, with NRC edits in [brackets]:
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 TS Chapter 5, ``Administrative
Controls,'' Section 5.5, ``Programs and Manuals,'' by eliminating
the ``Inservice Testing Program'' specification. Requirements in the
IST program are removed, as they are duplicative of requirements in
the ASME OM Code [American Society of Mechanical Engineers Code for
Operation and Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants], as clarified by
Code Case OMN-20, ``Inservice Test Frequency.'' Other requirements
in the Section 5.5 IST Program are eliminated because the NRC has
determined their inclusion in the TS is contrary to regulations. A
new defined term, ``Inservice Testing Program,'' is added to the TS,
which references the requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a(f). The proposed
change also revises the SR Section 3.0, ``SR Applicability,'' Bases
to explain the application of the usage rules to the Section 5.5
testing requirements.
Performance of inservice testing is not an initiator to any
accident previously evaluated. As a result, the probability of
occurrence of an accident is not significantly affected by the
proposed change. Inservice test periods under Code Case OMN-20 are
equivalent to the current testing period allowed by the TS with the
exception that testing periods greater than 2 years may be extended
by up to 6 months to facilitate test scheduling and consideration of
plant operating conditions that may not be suitable for performance
of the required testing. The testing period extension will not
affect the ability of the components to mitigate any accident
previously evaluated as the components are required to be operable
during the testing period extension. Performance of inservice tests
utilizing the allowances in OMN-20 will not significantly affect the
reliability of the tested components. As a result, the availability
of the affected components, as well as their ability to mitigate the
consequences of accidents previously evaluated, is not affected.
The proposed [changes to the] SR 3.0 Bases clarify the
appropriate application of the existing TS requirements. Since the
proposed change does not significantly affect system Operability,
the proposed change will have no significant effect on the
initiating events for accidents previously evaluated and will have
no significant effect on the ability of the systems to mitigate
accidents previously evaluated.
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 does not alter the design or configuration
of the plant. The proposed change does not involve a physical
alteration of the plant; no new or different kind of equipment will
be installed. The proposed change does not alter the types of
inservice testing performed. In most cases, the frequency of
inservice testing is unchanged. However, the frequency of testing
would not result in a new or different kind of accident from any
previously evaluated since the testing methods are not altered. The
proposed Bases change does not change the Operability requirements
for plant systems or the actions taken when plant systems are not
operable. The proposed Bases change clarifies the current
application of the specifications.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
[[Page 10680]]
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change eliminates some requirements from the TS in
lieu of requirements in the ASME Code, as modified by use of Code
Case OMN-20. Compliance with the ASME Code is required by 10 CFR
50.55a. The proposed change also allows inservice tests with periods
greater than 2 years to be extended by 6 months to facilitate test
scheduling and consideration of plant operating conditions that may
not be suitable for performance of the required testing. The testing
period extension will not affect the ability of the components to
respond to an accident as the components are required to be operable
during the testing period extension. The proposed change will
eliminate the existing TS SR 3.0.3 allowance to defer performance of
missed inservice tests up to the duration of the specified testing
period, and instead will require an assessment of the missed test on
equipment operability. This assessment will consider the effect on a
margin of safety (equipment operability). Should the component be
inoperable, the Technical Specifications provide actions to ensure
that the margin of safety is protected. The proposed change also
eliminates a statement that nothing in the ASME Code should be
construed to supersede the requirements of any TS. The NRC has
determined that statement to be incorrect. However, elimination of
the statement will have no effect on plant operation or safety. The
proposed changes to the SR 3.0 Bases clarify the application of the
existing TS requirements and, as a result, have no significant
effect on a margin of safety.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Joseph A. Aluise, Associate General
Counsel--Nuclear, Entergy Services, Inc., 639 Loyola Avenue, New
Orleans, Louisiana 70113.
NRC Branch Chief: Meena K. Khanna.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC and PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-277
and 50-278, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station (PBAPS), Units 2 and 3,
York and Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: December 23, 2015. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15357A250.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise
Technical Specification (TS) Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO)
3.10.1, to expand its scope to include provisions for temperature
excursions greater than 212 degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F) as a
consequence of inservice leak and hydrostatic testing, and as a
consequence of scram time testing initiated in conjunction with an
inservice leak or hydrostatic test, while considering operational
conditions to be in Mode 4. The proposed change is based on NRC-
approved Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Improved Standard
Technical Specifications Change Traveler, TSTF-484, Revision 0, ``Use
of TS 3.10.1 for Scram Time Testing Activities.''
The NRC staff issued a Notice of Availability for TSTF-484 in the
Federal Register on October 27, 2006 (71 FR 63050). The staff also
issued a Federal Register notice on August 21, 2006 (71 FR 48561) that
provided a model safety evaluation and a model no significant hazards
consideration (NSHC) determination that licensees could reference in
their plant-specific applications. In its application dated December
23, 2015, the licensee affirmed the applicability of the model NSHC
determination for PBAPS, Units 2 and 3.
Basis for proposed NSHC determination: As required by 10 CFR
50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of NSHC,
which is presented below:
Criterion 1: The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant
Increase in the Probability or Consequences of an Accident Previously
Evaluated
Technical Specifications currently allow for operation at
greater than 212[emsp14][deg]F while imposing MODE 4 requirements in
addition to the secondary containment requirements required to be
met. Extending the activities that can apply this allowance will not
adversely impact the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
Criterion 2: The Proposed Change Does Not Create the Possibility of a
New or Different Kind of Accident From Any Accident Previously
Evaluated
Technical Specifications currently allow for operation at
greater than 212[emsp14][deg]F while imposing MODE 4 requirements in
addition to the secondary containment requirements required to be
met. No new operational conditions beyond those currently allowed by
LCO 3.10.1 are introduced. 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 or eliminate any existing 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 change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
Criterion 3: The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant
Reduction in a Margin of Safety
Technical Specifications currently allow for operation at
greater than 212[emsp14][deg]F while imposing MODE 4 requirements in
addition to the secondary containment requirements required to be
met. Extending the activities that can apply this allowance will not
adversely impact any margin of safety. Allowing completion of
inspections and testing and supporting completion of scram time
testing initiated in conjunction with an inservice leak or
hydrostatic test prior to power operation results in enhanced safe
operations by eliminating unnecessary maneuvers to control reactor
temperature and pressure.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
Based on the above, 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 NSHC.
Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel,
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Rd., Warrenville, IL
60555.
NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-237 and 50-249, Dresden
Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3, Grundy County, Illinois
Date of amendment request: December 14, 2015. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15348A224.
Description of amendment request: The amendment proposes to revise
the technical specifications to increase the minimum required fuel oil
in each standby diesel generator (DG) fuel oil day tank.
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 does not increase the probability or the
consequences of an accident previously evaluated. The DGs and
[[Page 10681]]
their associated emergency buses function to mitigate accidents. The
proposed change does not involve a change in the operational limits
or the design of the electrical power systems, change the function
or operation of plant equipment, or affect the response of that
equipment when called upon to operate.
The proposed change to TS SR 3.8.1.4 confirms the minimum supply
of fuel oil in each DG fuel oil day tank. The minimum value for the
affected parameter is being increased in the conservative direction
and assures the DGs' ability to fulfill their safety function.
Therefore, based on the discussion above, 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 does not involve a change in the operational
limits or the design capabilities of the electrical power systems.
The proposed change does not alter the function or operation of
plant equipment or introduce any new failure mechanisms. The
evaluation that supports this request included a review of the DG
fuel oil system to which this parameter applies.
Therefore, this change will 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.
Margins of safety are related to the confidence in the ability
of the fission product barriers to perform their design functions
during and following an accident. These barriers include the fuel
cladding, the reactor coolant system, and the containment systems.
Since the proposed change does not adversely affect the operation of
any plant equipment, including equipment credited in protecting the
fission product barriers, operation in the proposed manner will 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 Acting Branch Chief: Justin C. Poole.
Omaha Public Power District, Docket No. 50-285, Fort Calhoun Station
(FCS), Unit No. 1, Washington County, Nebraska
Date of amendment request: August 31, 2015, as superseded by letter
dated December 23, 2015. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS under
Accession Nos. ML15243A167 and ML15363A042, respectively.
Description of amendment request: The licensee proposes to revise
the FCS Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR) to change the structural
design methodology for Class I structures at FCS to use American
Concrete Institute (ACI) ultimate strength requirements, with the
exception of the containment structure (cylinder, dome, and base mat),
the spent fuel pool, and the foundation mats. No change to the current
licensing basis code of record is proposed for the excepted structures.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
This LAR [license amendment request] revises the methodology
used to design new or re-evaluate existing Class I structures other
than the containment structure (cylinder, dome, and base mat), the
spent fuel pool (SFP), and the foundation mats. These structures
will continue to utilize the current license basis and thus are not
affected by this change. The proposed change allows other Class I
structures to apply the ultimate strength design (USD) method from
the ACI 318-63 Code for normal operating/service load combinations.
The ACI USD method is an accepted industry standard used for the
design and analysis of reinforced concrete. A change in the
methodology that an analysis uses to verify structure qualifications
does not have any impact on the probability of accidents previously
evaluated. Designs performed with the ACI USD method will continue
to demonstrate that the Class I structures meet industry accepted
ACI Code requirements. This LAR does not propose changes to the no
loss-of-function loads, loading combinations, or required ultimate
strength capacity.
Calculations that apply the limit design method and use dynamic
increase factors (DIF) of ACI 349-97, Appendix C will demonstrate
that the concrete structures meet required design criteria.
Therefore, these proposed changes will not pose a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
The use of actual concrete strength based on original test data
for the areas identified in Section 2.2 of this document and the use
of 10% higher steel yield strength for the reactor cavity and
compartment (RC&C) and containment internal structures (CIS)
maintain adequate structural capacity. As such, these proposed
changes do not pose a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously evaluated because the revised
strength values are determined based on actual original test data
using a high level of confidence.
The controlled hydrostatic load is changed from live load to
dead load for ultimate strength design in the definition. This is
consistent with ACI-349-97 and therefore does not pose a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
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.
This LAR proposes no physical change to any plant system,
structure, or component (SSC). Similarly, no changes to plant
operating practices, operating procedures, computer firmware, or
computer software are proposed. This LAR does not propose changes to
the design loads used to design Class I structures. Application of
the new methodology to the design or evaluation of Class I
structures will continue to ensure that those structures will
adequately house and protect equipment important to safety.
Calculations that use the ACI USD method for normal operating/
service load combinations will continue to demonstrate that the
concrete structures meet required design criteria. Calculations that
apply the limit design method and use dynamic increase factors (DIF)
of ACI 349-97, Appendix C will demonstrate that the concrete
structures meet required design criteria. Use of the actual
compressive strength of concrete based on 28-day test data (not age
hardening) is permitted by the ACI 318-63 Code and ensures that the
concrete structure is capable of performing its design function
without alteration or compensatory actions of any kind. A 10% higher
steel yield has minimal reduction on design margin for the RC&C or
the CIS. The controlled hydrostatic load is changed from live load
to dead load for ultimate strength design in the definition which is
consistent with ACI-349-97.
The use of these alternative methodologies for qualifying Class
I structures does not have a negative impact on the ability of the
structure or its components to house and protect equipment important
to safety and thus, does not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change is for the design of new or re-analysis of
existing Class I structures with the exception of the containment
structure, the spent fuel pool, and the foundation mats for which no
change to the current licensing basis (CLB) is proposed.
Utilization of the ACI 318-63 Code USD method applies only to
the normal operating/service load cases and is already part of the
CLB for no loss-of-function load cases. No changes to design basis
loads are proposed;
[[Page 10682]]
therefore, new designs or re-evaluations of existing Class I
structures shall still prove capable of coping with design basis
loads.
Use of the actual compressive strength of concrete based on 28-
day test data (not age hardening) is justified and further
constrained by limiting its application to areas where the concrete
is not exposed to harsh conditions. ACI 349-97, Appendix C is an
accepted design code used in the nuclear industry. Calculations
using DIFs per ACI 349-97, Appendix C must demonstrate that the
Class I structures continue to meet an appropriate design code
widely used in the nuclear industry. The use of a 10% higher steel
yield was conservatively derived from original test data and has
minimal reduction on design margin for the RC&C or the CIS. The
controlled hydrostatic load is changed from live load to dead load
for ultimate strength design in the definition which is consistent
with ACI-349-97.
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: David A. Repka, Esq., Winston & Strawn, 1700
K Street NW., Washington, DC 20006-3817.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 50-391, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant
(WBN), Unit 2, Rhea County, Tennessee
Date of amendment request: December 31, 2015. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15365A595.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise
License Condition 2.C(4) to permit the use of the Fuel Rod Performance
and Design 4 Thermal Conductivity Degradation (PAD4TCD) computer
program for the second cycle of plant operation.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below, with NRC staff revisions
provided in [brackets]:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequence of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) response to a large
break Loss-of-Coolant Accident (LOCA) as described in the WBN Unit 2
Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) Chapter 15 incorporated an
explicit evaluation of the effects of Thermal Conductivity
Degradation (TCD). The FSAR evaluation considered fuel burn-up
values that represent multi-cycle cores where the effects of TCD
would be more evident. These analyses showed that the calculated
peak clad temperature was 1776[emsp14][deg]F [degrees Fahrenheit]
which provides a large margin to the regulatory limit specified in
10 CFR 50.46 of 2200[emsp14][deg]F.
The change to License Condition 2.C(4) does not change the
safety analysis or any plant feature or design. Thus it is concluded
that a significant increase in the consequences of an accident
previously evaluated will not occur as a result of the proposed
change.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
The proposed change to [L]icense [C]ondition 2.C(4) does not change
or modify the plant design, introduce any new modes of plant
operation, change or modify the design of the ECCS, or change or
modify the accident analyses presented in the WBN Unit 2 FSAR.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The safety analyses for WBN Unit 2 described in the FSAR have
explicitly accounted for the potential effects of TCD where
applicable. The results of these analyses have established that WBN
Unit 2 can operate safely and in the unlikely event that a design
basis event occurs, there are large margins to the regulatory limits
explicitly accounting for TCD. This proposed change to License
Condition 2.C(4) does not change these analyses or conclusions.
Thus, the proposed change does not result in a significant
reduction in the margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority,
400 West Summit Hill Drive, WT 6A-K, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902.
NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin G. Beasley.
Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-338 and 50-339,
North Anna Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 (NAPS), Louisa County,
Virginia
Date of amendment request: December 10, 2015. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15352A108.
Description of amendment request: The proposed license amendment
would revise Technical Specification (TS) 3.2.1, ``Heat Flux Hot
Channel Factor FQ(Z)).'' Specifically, by relocating
required operating space reductions (Power and Axial Flux Difference)
to the Core Operating Limits Report, accompanied by verification for
each reload cycle; and by defining TS surveillance requirements for
steady-state and transient FQ(Z) and corresponding actions
with which to apply an appropriate penalty factor to measured results
as identified in Westinghouse documents NSAL-09-5, Rev. 1 and NSAL-15-
1, Rev. 0 respectively.
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 for resolution of Westinghouse notification
documents NSAL-09-05, Rev. 1 and NSAL-15-1, Rev. 0 is intended to
address deficiencies identified within the existing NAPS Technical
Specifications and to return them to their as-designed function.
Operation in accordance with the revised TS ensures that the
assumptions for initial conditions of key parameter values in the
safety analyses remain valid and does not result in actions that
would increase the probability or consequences of any accident
previously evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or the consequences of any accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
Operation in accordance with the revised TS and its limits
precludes new challenges to [structures, systems and components
(SSCs)] that might introduce a new type of accident. All design and
performance criteria will continue to be met and no new single
failure mechanisms will be created. The proposed change for
resolution of Westinghouse notification documents NSAL-09-5, Rev. 1
and NSAL-15-1, Rev. 0 does not involve the alteration of plant
equipment or
[[Page 10683]]
introduce unique operational modes or accident precursors. It thus
does not create the potential for a different kind of accident.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
Operation in accordance with the revised TS and its limits
preserves the margins assumed in the initial conditions for key
parameters assumed in the safety analysis. This ensures that all
design and performance criteria associated with the safety analysis
will continue to be met and that the margin of safety is not
affected.
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 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion
Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar Street, RS-2, Richmond, VA
23219.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
ZionSolutions, LLC. (ZS), Docket Nos. 50-295 and 50-304, Zion Nuclear
Power Station (ZNPS), Units 1 and 2, Lake County, Illinois
Date of amendment request: January 7, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16008B080.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would approve a
revision to the ZNPS Defueled Station Emergency Plan (DSEP) to
implement an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI)-Only
emergency plan. The major proposed changes to the DSEP include the
removal of non-ISFSI related emergency event types; transfer of
responsibility for implementing the emergency plan to ISFSI Management,
and a revised emergency plan organization.
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.
ZS has, in effect, an NRC-approved emergency plan. The credible
accidents involving the ISFSI and [Modular Advanced Generation
Nuclear All-Purpose Storage System (MAGNASTOR)] system have been
analyzed and determined that none result in doses to the public
beyond the owner-controlled boundary (Figure 2-2 of the emergency
plan) that would exceed the [U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Protective Action Guides (EPA PAGs)]. These analyses have not
changed. With decommissioning completed, the ZNPS site-related
accidents previously analyzed are no longer credible.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident from any
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.
ZS has, in effect, an NRC-approved emergency plan. The credible
accidents involving the ISFSI and MAGNASTOR system have been
analyzed and determined that none result in doses to the public
beyond the owner-controlled boundary that would exceed the EPA PAGs.
With decommissioning substantially completed (Safe Transition to an
ISFSI only [emergency plan] is contingent on reducing plant side
curie content to a level where a credible scenario no longer exists
which could trigger a plant side Emergency Action Level (EAL)
Threshold Value. Safe Transition will be a bounding number based on
a calculated value of plant side curie inventory and will occur
prior to the completion of decommissioning sometime in late 2016 or
early 2017); the ZNPS site accidents previously analyzed are no
longer credible. Accidents associated with the ISFSI are addressed
in the MAGNASTOR [Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR)].
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.
Margin of safety is related to the ability of the fission
product barriers (fuel cladding, primary containment) to perform
their design functions during and following postulated accidents. ZS
has, in effect, an NRC-approved emergency plan. The credible
accidents involving the ISFSI and MAGNASTOR system have been
analyzed and determined that none result in doses to the public
beyond the owner-controlled boundary that would exceed the EPA PAGs.
With spent fuel located at the ISFSI and decommissioning
substantially completed, the ZNPS plant-related accidents previously
analyzed are no longer credible.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does 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 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Russ Workman, Deputy General Counsel,
EnergySolutions, 423 West 300 South, Suite 200, Salt Lake City, UT
84101.
NRC Branch Chief: Bruce A. Watson, CHP.
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 No. 50-369, McGuire Nuclear Station,
Unit 1, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Date of amendment request: August 28, 2015, as supplemented by
letter dated November 13, 2015.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment provides a temporary
[[Page 10684]]
extension to the Completion Time for Technical Specification 3.5.2,
``ECCS [Emergency Core Cooling Systems]--Operating,'' Condition A. The
temporary extension will be used to allow the licensee to effect an on-
line repair of the Residual Heat Removal (RHR) pump motor air handling
unit.
Date of issuance: February 3, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 281. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML16004A352; documents related to these amendments are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-9: Amendment revised the
Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 27, 2015 (80 FR
65810). The supplemental letter dated November 13, 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 February 3, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Duke Energy Progress, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-325 and 50-324, Brunswick
Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, Brunswick County, North Carolina
Date of amendment request: February 19, 2015, as supplemented by
letter dated November 5, 2015.
Description of amendment request: The amendments revised (1)
technical specifications (TSs) by replacing AREVA Topical Report ANP-
10298PA, ``ACE/ATRIUM 10XM Critical Power Correlation,'' Revision 0,
March 2010, with Revision 1, March 2014, of the same topical report;
and (2) Appendix B, ``Additional Conditions,'' by removing the license
condition issued by Amendment Nos. 262 and 290 for Units 1 and Unit 2,
respectively.
Date of issuance: February 9, 2016.
Effective date: Once approved, the Unit 1 amendment shall be
implemented prior to start-up from the 2016 Unit 1 refueling outage,
and the Unit 2 amendment shall be implemented prior to start-up from
the 2017 Unit 2 refueling outage.
Amendment Nos.: 269 and 297. A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No. ML16019A029; documents related to these
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the
amendments.
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-71, and DPR-62: Amendments
revised the renewed facility operating licenses and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 28, 2015 (80 FR
23603). The supplemental letter dated November 5, 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 February 9, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50-397, Columbia Generating Station (CGS),
Benton County, Washington
Date of application for amendment: August 12, 2014, as supplemented
by letters dated September 4, 2014, and April 3 and August 11, 2015.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the CGS
Technical Specifications (TSs) to risk-inform requirements regarding
selected Required Actions end states by incorporating Technical
Specification Task Force (TSTF) Change Traveler TSTF-423, Revision 1,
``Technical Specification End States, NEDC-32988-A.'' The Notice of
Availability for TSTF-423, Revision 1, was published in the Federal
Register on February 18, 2011 (76 FR 9164).
Date of issuance: February 3, 2016.
Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 236. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML15216A266; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-21: The amendment
revised the Facility Operating License and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 12, 2014 (79
FR 67200). The supplemental letters dated April 3 and August 11, 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 February 3, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC and PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50-277,
Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station (PBAPS), Unit 2, York and Lancaster
Counties, Pennsylvania
Date amendment request: December 5, 2014, as supplemented by letter
dated April 30, 2015.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical
Specifications (TSs) related to the Safety Limit Minimum Critical Power
Ratios. The changes resulted from a cycle-specific analysis performed
to support the operation of PBAPS, Unit 2, in the current Cycle 21. The
re-analysis was performed to accommodate operation in the Maximum
Extended Load Line Limit Analysis Plus (MELLLA+) operating domain based
on a separate license amendment request dated September 4, 2014.
Date of issuance: February 8, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be
implemented prior to operation in the MELLLA+ operating domain.
Amendment No.: 304. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML15343A165; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-44: Amendment revised
the Renewed Facility Operating License and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 3, 2015 (80 FR
11495). The supplemental letter dated April 30, 2015, provided
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 February 8, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
[[Page 10685]]
Exelon Generation Company, LLC and PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50-278,
Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station (PBAPS), Unit 3, York and Lancaster
Counties, Pennsylvania
Date amendment request: April 30, 2015, as supplemented by letter
dated August 6, 2015.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical
Specifications (TSs) related to the Safety Limit Minimum Critical Power
Ratios. The changes resulted from a cycle-specific analysis performed
to support the operation of PBAPS, Unit 3, in the current Cycle 21. The
re-analysis was performed to accommodate operation in the Maximum
Extended Load Line Limit Analysis Plus (MELLLA+) operating domain based
on a separate license amendment request dated September 4, 2014.
Date of issuance: February 8, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be
implemented prior to operation in the MELLLA+ operating domain.
Amendment No.: 308. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML15343A177; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-56: Amendment revised
the Renewed Facility Operating License and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 7, 2015 (80 FR
38773). The supplemental letter dated August 6, 2015, provided
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 February 8, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026,
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), Units 3 and 4, Burke County,
Georgia
Date of amendment request: July 30, 2014, and supplemented by
letters dated December 12, 2014, and July 20, 2015.
Description of amendment: The amendment authorizes changes to the
VEGP Units 3 and 4 Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (USFAR) in the
form of departures from the incorporated plant-specific Design Control
Document Tier 2* information. The proposed amendment would allow
changes to correct editorial errors and promote consistency with the
UFSAR Tier 1 and 2 information.
Date of issuance: February 1, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 45. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML15335A060; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Facility Combined Licenses No. NPF-91 and NPF-92: Amendment revised
the Facility Combined Licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 30, 2014 (79
FR 58812). The supplemental letters dated December 12, 2014, and July
20, 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 the Safety Evaluation dated February 1, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 50-296, Browns Ferry Nuclear
Plant, Unit 3, Limestone County, Alabama
Date of amendment request: March 6, 2015, as supplemented by letter
dated July 7, 2015.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical
Specification (TS) Safety Limit Minimum Critical Power Ratio (SLMCPR)
numeric values. The change decreased the numeric values of SLMCPR in TS
Section 2.1.1.2 for single and two reactor recirculation loop operation
based on the Cycle 18 SLMCPR evaluation.
Date of issuance: February 9, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 279. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML15317A478; documents related to these amendments are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-68: Amendment revised
the Facility Operating License and TS.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 7, 2015 (80 FR
38777). The supplemental letter dated July 7, 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 February 9, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Union Electric Company, Docket No. 50-483, Callaway Plant, Unit 1,
Callaway County, Missouri
Date of application for amendment: March 9, 2015, as supplemented
by letters dated April 8, August 12, and December 10, 2015.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical
Specification (TS) requirements regarding steam generator tube
inspections and reporting as described in TS Task Force (TSTF) traveler
TSTF-510, Revision 2, ``Revision to Steam Generator Program Inspection
Frequencies and Tube Sample Selection,'' with some minor administrative
differences.
Date of issuance: February 2, 2016.
Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 215. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML15324A114; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-30: The amendment
revised the Operating License and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 9, 2015 (80 FR
32630). The supplemental letters dated August 12 and December 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.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 2, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
[[Page 10686]]
Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-338 and 50-339,
North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Louisa County, Virginia
Date of amendment request: May 4, 2015, as supplemented by letter
dated August 5, 2015.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments authorize
modification of the Emergency Action Level (EAL) Technical Basis
Document, EAL RA2.1, to revise the instrumentation used to classify an
event under this EAL. Specifically, this would correct the equipment
identification number from the ``GW-RI-178-1 Process Vent Normal
Range'' monitor to the ``VG-RI-180-1 Vent Stack `B' Normal Range''
monitor for Initiating Condition RA2, EAL RA2.1.
Date of issuance: January 21, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 277 and 259. A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No. ML15307A300; documents related to these
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with these
amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-4 and NPF-7: Amendments
changed the licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 7, 2015 (80 FR
38764). The supplemental letter dated August 5, 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.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated January 21, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: Yes.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd day of February 2016.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Anne T. Boland,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2016-04346 Filed 2-29-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P