[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 80 (Tuesday, April 26, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24659-24667]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-09543]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2016-0083]
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 March 29 to April 11, 2016. The last
biweekly notice was published on April 12, 2016.
DATES: Comments must be filed by May 26, 2016. A request for a hearing
must be filed by June 27, 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-2016-0083. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-
3463; email: [email protected]. For technical questions, contact
the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this document.
Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Office of Administration,
Mail Stop: OWFN-12-H08, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555-0001.
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting
comments, see ``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Janet Burkhardt, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1384, email: [email protected].
I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments
A. Obtaining Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0083 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-2016-0083.
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-2016-0083, 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 enter the comment submissions into
ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove
identifying or contact information.
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons
for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to
include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be
publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should
state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to
remove such information before making the 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
[[Page 24660]]
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 June
27, 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
[[Page 24661]]
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 June 27, 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 at 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.
For further details with respect to these license amendment
applications, see the application for amendment which is available for
public inspection
[[Page 24662]]
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.
NextEra Energy, Point Beach, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-266 and 50-301, Point
Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Town of Two Creeks, Manitowoc
County, Wisconsin
Date of amendment request: January 15, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16015A112.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the
technical specifications (TSs) for Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1
and 2. The proposed change eliminates TS 3.7.14, ``Primary Auxiliary
Building Ventilation (VNPAB),'' in its entirety on the basis that the
VNPAB is not credited for accident mitigation and meets none of the
criteria of 10 CFR 50.36 for inclusion in the TS.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not impact the physical configuration
or function of plant structures, systems, or components (SSCs) or
the manner in which SSCs are operated, maintained, modified, tested,
or inspected. No actual facility equipment or accident analyses are
affected by the proposed changes.
The control room dose analysis for a loss of coolant accident
using alternate source term (AST) initially credited operation of
the VNPAB exhaust system. However, the analysis was subsequently
revised to remove credit for the VNPAB prior to NRC final approval
of implementation of AST. As a result, NextEra is proposing to
remove the VNPAB system from the TS. The VNPAB system is not an
initiator of accidents and does not function to mitigate the
consequences of DBAs [design-basis accidents].
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 involve a physical alteration of
the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed).
The proposed change does not create any new failure modes for
existing equipment or any new limiting single failures.
Additionally, the proposed change does not involve a change in the
methods governing normal plant operation, and all safety functions
will continue to perform as previously assumed in the accident
analyses. Thus, the proposed change does not adversely affect the
design function or operation of any structures, systems, and
components important to safety.
No new accident scenarios, failure mechanisms, or limiting
single failures are introduced as a result of the proposed change.
The proposed change does not challenge the performance or integrity
of any safety-related system.
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 margin of safety associated with the acceptance criteria of
any accident is unchanged. The proposed change will have no [effect]
on the availability, operability, or performance of safety-related
systems and components. The proposed change will not adversely
affect the operation of plant equipment or the function of equipment
assumed in the accident analysis.
The proposed amendment does not involve changes to any safety
analyses assumptions, safety limits, or limiting safety system
settings. The changes do not adversely impact plant operating
margins or the reliability of equipment credited in the safety
analyses.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: William Blair, Managing Attorney--Nuclear,
Florida Power & Light Company, P.O. Box 14000, 700 Universe Boulevard,
Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420.
NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.
NextEra Energy, Point Beach, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-266 and 50-301, Point
Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Town of Two Creeks, Manitowoc
County, Wisconsin
Date of amendment request: February 12, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16043A217.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the
facility operating licenses and the technical specifications (TSs) for
Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2. The proposed changes to the
operating licenses, which are administrative in nature, remove license
conditions that have been completed and are no longer in effect. The
proposed change to the TSs revise the ventilation filter testing
program by changing the value for methyl iodide penetration for the
control room emergency filtration system.
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 amendment includes a change to delete license
conditions that are complete or otherwise obsolete. This change is
strictly administrative in nature. The proposed amendment also
revises the charcoal testing criteria in TS 5.5.10, Ventilation
Filter Testing Program. The proposed changes do not impact the
physical configuration or function of plant structures, systems, or
components (SSCs) or the manner in which SSCs are operated,
maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. No actual facility
equipment or accident analyses 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 do not involve a physical alteration of the
plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed). The
proposed changes do not create any new failure modes for existing
equipment or any new limiting single failures. Additionally, the
proposed changes do not involve a change in the methods governing
normal plant operation, and all safety functions will continue to
perform as previously assumed in the accident analyses. Thus, the
proposed change does not adversely affect the design function or
operation of any structures, systems, and components important to
safety.
No new accident scenarios, failure mechanisms, or limiting
single failures are introduced as a result of the proposed changes.
The proposed changes do not challenge the performance or integrity
of any safety-related system.
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 margin of safety associated with the acceptance criteria of
any accident is
[[Page 24663]]
unchanged. The proposed changes will have no effect on the
availability, operability, or performance of safety-related systems
and components. The proposed change will not adversely affect the
operation of plant equipment or the function of equipment assumed in
the accident analysis.
The proposed amendment does not involve changes to any safety
analyses assumptions, safety limits, or limiting safety system
settings. The changes do not adversely impact plant operating
margins or the reliability of equipment credited in the safety
analyses.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: William Blair, Managing Attorney--Nuclear,
Florida Power & Light Company, P. O. Box 14000, 700 Universe Boulevard,
Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420.
NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.
Northern States Power Company--Minnesota (NSPM), Docket No. 50-263,
Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant (MNGP), Wright County, Minnesota
Date of amendment request: February 10, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16047A336.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise Technical Specification (TS) 5.5.11, ``Primary Containment
Leakage Rate Testing Program,'' to increase the containment integrated
leakage rate test program Test A interval from 10 to 15 years.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment involves a permanent change to extend the
Type A containment integrated leak rate test (ILRT) interval from 10
to 15 years. The proposed extension does not involve either a
physical change to the plant or a change in the manner in which the
plant is operated or maintained. The containment is designed to
provide an essentially leak tight barrier against the uncontrolled
release of radioactivity to the environment for postulated
accidents. As such, the containment and the testing requirements
invoked to periodically demonstrate the integrity of the containment
exist to ensure the plant's ability to mitigate the consequences of
an accident, and do not involve the prevention or identification of
any precursors of an accident.
The effect of changing the Type A test frequency to once every
15 years, measured as an increase to the total integrated plant risk
(for accident sequences influenced by Type A testing), is less than
or equal to the criteria established in [Electric Power Research
Institute (EPRI)] Report No. 1009325, Revision 2-A. Moreover, the
risk impact for the ILRT extension when compared to other severe
accident risks is negligible. In addition, as documented in NUREG-
1493, Type B and C tests have identified a very large percentage of
containment leakage paths, and the percentage of containment leakage
paths that are detected only by Type A testing is very small. The
MNGP Type A test history supports this conclusion.
The integrity of the containment is subject to two types of
failure mechanisms that can be categorized as: (1) Activity based,
and, (2) time based. Activity based failure mechanisms are defined
as those which involve degradation due to system and/or component
modifications or maintenance. Local leak rate test requirements and
administrative controls such as configuration management and
procedural requirements for system restoration ensure that
containment integrity is not degraded by plant modifications or
maintenance activities. The design and construction requirements of
the containment combined with the containment inspections performed
in accordance with American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)
[Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,] Section XI, and TS requirements
provide a high degree of assurance that the containment would not
degrade in a manner that is detectable only by a Type A test.
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 TS change involves a permanent extension of the
Type A containment test interval from 10 to 15 years. The
containment testing requirements which periodically demonstrate the
integrity of the containment exist to ensure the plant's ability to
mitigate the consequences of an accident. The proposed change does
not involve a physical change to the plant (i.e., no new or
different type of equipment will be installed) nor does the proposed
change alter the design, configuration, or the manner in which the
plant is operated or controlled beyond the standard functional
capabilities of the equipment.
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 change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed TS change involves a permanent extension of the
Type A containment test interval from 10 to 15 years. The specific
requirements and conditions of the Primary Containment Leak Rate
Testing Program exist to ensure that the required degree of
containment structural integrity and leak-tightness considered in
the plant safety analysis is maintained. The overall containment
leak rate limit specified by TS is maintained.
The proposed change involves only an extension of the interval
between Type A test performances for MNGP. Extension of the proposed
surveillance interval is in accordance with the 15-year ILRT
Interval determined acceptable by the NRC utilizing the guidance of
[Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI)] 94-01, Revision 2-A. Industry
experience supports the conclusion that Type B and C testing detects
a large percentage of containment leakage paths and that the
percentage of containment leakage paths that are detected only by
Type A testing is small. The containment inspections performed in
accordance with ASME Section XI, and the TS serve to provide a high
degree of assurance that the containment would not degrade in a
manner that is detectable only by Type A testing. The combination of
these factors ensures that the margin of safety in the plant safety
analysis is maintained. The design, operation, testing methods and
acceptance criteria for Type A, B, and C containment leakage tests
specified in applicable codes and standards continue to be met with
the acceptance of this proposed change because these criteria are
not affected by the proposed change to the Type A test interval.
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: Peter M. Glass, Assistant General Counsel,
Xcel Energy Services, Inc., 414 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, MN 55401.
NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.
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: November 24, 2015. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15328A515.
Description of amendment request: The amendment request proposes to
rename, relocate, and add radiation detectors to provide monitoring of
the radiologically controlled area ventilation system (VAS) exhaust
from the radiologically controlled areas of the
[[Page 24664]]
auxiliary building and annex building. The amendment proposes changes
in the VEGP Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) Tier 2
information, and departure from certified AP1000 Design Control
Document (DCD) Tier 1 information. It also requires conforming changes
to Combined License Appendix C, ``Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and
Acceptance Criteria.'' Because this proposed change requires a
departure from Tier 1 information in the Westinghouse Advanced Passive
1000 DCD, the licensee also requested an exemption from the
requirements of the Generic DCD Tier 1 in accordance with 52.63(b)(1).
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The design functions of the VAS include prevention of the
unmonitored release of airborne radioactivity to the atmosphere or
adjacent plant areas by providing monitoring of the VAS exhaust from
radiologically controlled areas of the auxiliary building and annex
building, and to automatically isolate the selected building areas
and start the containment air filtration system (VFS) upon detection
of high radioactivity. The proposed changes to the VAS to relocate
and add radiation detectors are acceptable as they maintain these
design functions.
These proposed changes to the VAS design as described in the
current licensing basis do not have an adverse effect on any of the
design functions of the systems. The proposed changes do not affect
the support, design, or operation of mechanical and fluid systems
required to mitigate the consequences of an accident. There is no
change to plant systems or the response of systems to postulated
accident conditions. There is no change to the predicted radioactive
releases due to postulated accident conditions. The plant response
to previously evaluated accidents or external events is not
adversely affected, nor do the proposed changes described create any
new accident precursors.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes revise the VAS design as described in the
current licensing basis to enable the system to perform required
design functions, and are consistent with other UFSAR information.
The proposed changes do not change the design requirements for the
system. The relocated and new VAS radiation detectors are designed
to the same equipment specifications, including required sensitivity
and range, as the existing radiation detectors. The relocated and
new VAS radiation detectors monitor the same parameters, as well as
perform the same design functions, as the existing radiation
detectors. The proposed changes to the system do not result in a new
failure mechanism or introduce any new accident precursors. No
design function described in the UFSAR is adversely affected by the
proposed changes. The proposed changes do not result in a new
failure mode, malfunction or sequence of events that could affect
safety or safety-related equipment. The proposed changes do not
allow for a new fission product release path, result in a new
fission product barrier failure mode, or create a new sequence of
events that would result in significant fuel cladding failures.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not change the codes or standards for
the radiation detectors, or functionality of the ductwork in the
auxiliary building and annex building. The proposed changes have no
adverse effect on the nonsafety-related system design functions of
the VAS for the prevention of the unmonitored release of airborne
radioactivity to the atmosphere or adjacent plant areas by providing
monitoring of the VAS exhaust from radiologically controlled areas
of the auxiliary building and annex building, and to automatically
isolate the selected building areas and start the VFS upon detection
of high radioactivity. The proposed changes do not affect safety-
related equipment or equipment whose failure could initiate an
accident. The proposed changes to relocate and add radiation
detectors do not adversely interface with safety-related equipment
or fission product barriers. Therefore, the proposed changes do not
affect any safety-related equipment, 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, 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: M. Stanford Blanton, Balch & Bingham LLP,
1710 Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 35203-2015.
Acting NRC Branch Chief: John McKirgan.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-424, 50-425,
52-025, 52-026, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), Units 1, 2, 3,
and 4, Burke County, Georgia and Southern Nuclear Operating Company,
Inc. (SNC), Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-364, Joseph M. Farley Nuclear
Plant (FNP), Units 1 and 2, Houston County, Alabama, Docket Nos. 50-321
and 50-366, Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant (HNP), Units 1 and 2, City of
Dalton, GA
Date of amendment request: March 3, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16071A110.
Description of amendment request: The amendment requests NRC
approval for the adoption of Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 99-01,
Revision 6, ``Development of Emergency Action Levels for Non-Passive
Reactors,'' to replace the Emergency Action Level (EAL) schemes for
VEGP, FNP, and HNP that are currently based on Revision 4 of NEI 99-01.
Additionally, SNC proposes changes to the radiation monitors at FNP.
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.
Adoption of NEI 99-01, Revision 6 EAL Schemes--The proposed
changes to SNC's EAL schemes to adopt the NRC-endorsed guidance in
NEI 99-01, Revision 6, ``Development of Emergency Action Levels for
Non-Passive Reactors,'' do not reduce the capability to meet the
emergency planning requirements established in 10 CFR 50.47 and 10
CFR 50, Appendix E. The proposed changes do not reduce the
functionality, performance, or capability of SNC's [emergency
response organization (ERO)] to respond in mitigating the
consequences of any design basis accident.
The probability of a reactor accident requiring implementation
of Emergency Plan EALs has no relevance in determining whether the
proposed changes to the EALs reduce the effectiveness of the
Emergency Plans. As discussed in Section D, ``Planning Basis,'' of
NUREG-0654, Revision 1, ``Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of
Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of
Nuclear Power Plants:''
``. . . The overall objective of emergency response plans is to
provide dose savings (and in some cases immediate life saving) for
[[Page 24665]]
a spectrum of accidents * * * No single specific accident sequence
should be isolated as the one for which to plan because each
accident could have different consequences, both in nature and
degree. Further, the range of possible selection for a planning
basis is very large, starting with a zero point of requiring no
planning at all because significant offsite radiological accident
consequences are unlikely to occur, to planning for the worst
possible accident, regardless of its extremely low likelihood * * *.
.''
Therefore, SNC did not consider the risk insights regarding any
specific accident initiation or progression in evaluating the
proposed changes.
The proposed changes do not involve any physical changes to
plant equipment or systems, nor do they alter the assumptions of any
accident analyses. The proposed changes do not adversely affect
accident initiators or precursors nor do they alter the design
assumptions, conditions, and configuration or the manner in which
the plants are operated and maintained. The proposed changes do not
adversely affect the ability of Structures, Systems, or Components
(SSCs) to perform their intended safety functions in mitigating the
consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance
limits.
Therefore, the proposed changes to the EAL schemes do not
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of
an accident previously evaluated.
[FNP] RE-60 Radiation Monitors--The proposed changes to the
[FNP] EALs resulting from the proposed modification of the RE-60
radiation monitors do not impact the physical function of SSCs or
the manner in which SSCs perform their design function. The proposed
change does not adversely affect accident initiators or precursors,
nor alter design assumptions.
While the proposed change will alter the design configuration of
the plant by replacing and relocating radiation monitors RE-60-A, B
and C and by abandoning RE-60D, the proposed change does not alter
or prevent the ability of operable SSCs to perform their intended
function to mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within
assumed acceptance limits. Similarly, while these instruments
monitor and provide information on the consequences of an accident,
the radiation monitors perform no safety function that directly
mitigates the consequences of an accident. Further, no operating
procedures or administrative controls that function to prevent or
mitigate accidents are affected by the proposed change.
Therefore, the proposed change to the [FNP] EALs resulting from
the proposed modification of the RE-60 radiation monitors 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.
Adoption of NEI 99-01, Revision 6 EAL Schemes--The proposed
changes to SNC's EAL schemes to adopt the NRC-endorsed guidance in
NEI 99-01, Revision 6, do not involve any physical changes to plant
systems or equipment. The proposed changes do not involve the
addition of any new plant equipment. The proposed changes will not
alter the design configuration, or method of operation of plant
equipment beyond its normal functional capabilities. All SNC ERO
functions will continue to be performed as required. The proposed
changes do not create any new credible failure mechanisms,
malfunctions, or accident initiators.
Therefore, the proposed changes to the EAL schemes do not create
the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from those
that have been previously evaluated.
[FNP] RE-60 Radiation Monitors--The proposed change to the [FNP]
EALs resulting from the proposed modification of the RE-60 radiation
monitors does not impact the [FNP] accident analysis. The change
does not involve a physical alteration of safety-related SSCs (i.e.,
no new or different type of safety-related SSC will be installed), a
change in the method of plant operation, or new operator actions.
The proposed change will not introduce failure modes that could
result in a new accident, and the change does not alter assumptions
made in the safety analysis. The proposed change revises EALs, which
establish the thresholds for placing the plant in an emergency
classification. EALs are not initiators of any accidents.
Therefore, the proposed change to the [FNP] EALs resulting from
the proposed modification of the RE-60 radiation monitors does not
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from
any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in
a margin of safety?
Response: No.
Adoption of NEI 99-01, Revision 6 EAL Schemes--The proposed
changes to SNC's EAL schemes to adopt the NRC-endorsed guidance in
NEI 99-01, Revision 6, do not alter or exceed a design basis or
safety limit. There is no change being made to safety analysis
assumptions, safety limits, or limiting safety system settings that
would adversely affect plant safety as a result of the proposed
changes. There are no changes to setpoints or environmental
conditions of any SSC or the manner in which any SSC is operated.
Margins of safety are unaffected by the proposed changes to adopt
the NEI 99-01, Revision 6 EAL scheme guidance. The applicable
requirements of 10 CFR 50.47 and 10 CFR 50, Appendix E will continue
to be met.
Therefore, the proposed changes to SNC's EAL schemes do not
involve any reduction in a margin of safety.
[FNP] RE-60 Radiation Monitors--Margin of safety is associated
with confidence in 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 change to the [FNP] EALs resulting from the
proposed modification of the RE-60 radiation monitors does not
impact operation of the plant or its response to transients or
accidents. The change does not affect the Technical Specifications
or the Operating License. The proposed change does not involve a
change in the method of plant operation, and no accident analyses
will be affected by the proposed change.
Additionally, the proposed change 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 this change. The proposed change will not result in plant
operation in a configuration outside the design basis. The proposed
change does not adversely affect systems that respond to safely
shutdown the plant and to maintain the plant in a safe shutdown
condition.
Therefore, the proposed change to the Farley EALs resulting from
the proposed modification of the RE-60 radiation monitors 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: Leigh D. Perry, SVP & General Counsel of
Operations and Nuclear, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 40 Iverness
Center Parkway, Birmingham, AL 35201.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
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
[[Page 24666]]
assessment need be prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has
prepared an environmental assessment under the special circumstances
provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that
assessment, it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the action see (1) the
applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's
related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as
indicated. All of these items can be accessed as described in the
``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' section of this
document.
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Docket No. 50-336, Millstone Power
Station, Unit No. 2 (MPS2), New London County, Connecticut
Date of amendment request: March 2, 2015, as supplemented by letter
dated August 31, 2015.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the technical
specifications (TSs) by (1) aligning the peak calculated primary
containment internal pressure (Pa) for the design basis loss
of coolant accident in TS 6.19 to be consistent with the 10 CFR 50
Appendix, J, Option B definition of Pa, and (2) revising the
acceptable methods of surveillance for leakage rate testing of the
containment air lock door seals.
Date of issuance: March 31, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 326. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML16068A312; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-65: Amendment revised
the Renewed Operating License and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 21, 2015 (80 FR
43126). The supplemental letter dated August 31, 2015, provided
additional information that expanded the scope of the application as
originally noticed. A notice published in the Federal Register on
February 22, 2016 (81 FR 8752), superseded the original notice in its
entirety to reflect the expanded scope of the proposed amendment and
include the staff's proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 31, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
DTE Electric Company, Docket No. 50-341, Fermi 2, Monroe County,
Michigan
Date of amendment request: September 24, 2015.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment deleted the note
associated with Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.5.1.4 to reflect the
Residual Heat Removal (RHR) system design and ensure the RHR system
operation is consistent with TS 3.5.1 Limiting Condition for Operation
requirements.
Date of issuance: April 5, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 203. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML16054A637; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-43: This amendment revises the
Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 24, 2015 (80
FR 73235).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated April 5, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-333, James A.
FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant, Oswego County, New York
Date of amendment request: June 22, 2015.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the James A.
FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant Cyber Security Plan Implementation
Schedule Milestone 8 full implementation date from June 30, 2016, to
December 15, 2017.
Date of issuance: April 6, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be
implemented within 30 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 311. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML16062A388; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-59: The amendment
revised the Renewed Facility Operating License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 4, 2015 (80 FR
46349).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated April 6, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Florida Power & Light Company, Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251, Turkey
Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 3 and 4, Miami-Dade County, Florida
Date of amendment request: July 2, 2015, as supplemented by letter
dated November 17, 2015.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the
Technical Specifications (TSs) by removing TS 3/4.9.5,
``Communications,'' and TS 3/4.9.6, ``Manipulator Crane.'' The
amendments require the licensee to relocate the requirements to the
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report and related procedures to be
controlled in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59, ``Changes, tests, and
experiments.''
Date of issuance: March 29, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos: 269 (Unit No. 3) and 264 (Unit No. 4). A publicly-
available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16040A373;
documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety
Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-31 and DPR-41:
Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 27, 2015 (80 FR
65813). The supplemental letter dated November 17, 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 March 29, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Florida Power & Light Company, Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389, St. Lucie
Plant Unit Nos. 1 and 2, St. Lucie County, Florida
Date of amendment requests: March 22, 2013, as supplemented by
letters dated June 14, 2013; February 24, March 25, April 25, July 14,
August 27, September 10, and October 10, 2014; and March 10, April 1,
April 20, May 12, August 21, and October 22, 2015.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments transition the fire
protection program to a new risk-informed, performance-based
alternative in accordance with 10 CFR 50.48(c), which incorporates by
reference the National Fire Protection Association
[[Page 24667]]
(NFPA) Standard 805 (NFPA 805), ``Performance-Based Standard for Fire
Protection for Light Water Reactor Electric Generating Plants,'' 2001
Edition. Copies of NFPA 805 may be purchased from the NFPA Customer
Service Department, 1 Batterymarch Park, P.O. Box 9101, Quincy,
Massachusetts 02269-9101 and in PDF format through the NFPA Online
Catalog (http://www.nfpa.org) or by calling 1-800-344-3555 or 617-770-
3000. Copies are also available for inspection at the NRC Library, Two
White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852-
2738, and at the NRC PDR, One White Flint North, Room O1-F15, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852-2738.
Date of issuance: March 31, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
as described in the transition license conditions.
Amendment Nos.: 231 and 181. A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No. ML15344A346; documents related to these
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the
amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-67 and NPF-16:
Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 26, 2013 (78
FR 78407). The supplemental letters dated February 24, March 25, April
25, July 14, August 27, September 10, and October 10, 2014; and March
10, April 1, April 20, May 12, August 21, and October 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 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 March 31, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Omaha Public Power District, Docket No. 50-285, Fort Calhoun Station,
Unit No. 1, Washington County, Nebraska
Date of amendment request: July 24, 2015.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical
Specification (TS) Surveillance Requirements (SRs), which currently
require operation of ventilation systems with charcoal filters for a
10-hour period at a monthly frequency. The SRs are revised to require
operation of the systems for 15 continuous minutes at a monthly
frequency.
Date of issuance: April 5, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 287. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML16084A755; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-40: The amendment
revised the License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 13, 2015 (80 FR
61485).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated April 5, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
PSEG Nuclear LLC and Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-272
and 50-311, Salem Nuclear Generating Station (Salem), Unit Nos. 1 and
2, Salem County, New Jersey
Date of amendment request: March 27, 2015, as supplemented by
letter dated February 3, 2016.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised certain
Technical Specification (TS) 3/4.3.1, ``Reactor Trip System
Instrumentation,'' actions. Specifically, TS Table 3.3-1, Action 2, is
revised to allow one power range (PR) channel to be bypassed for up to
4 hours for surveillance testing, and two new action notes are
established for the PR nuclear instrumentation in TS Table 4.3-1. The
changes support the installation and use of bypass test capability for
the PR nuclear instrumentation.
Date of issuance: March 28, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
at Salem, Unit No. 1, prior to returning to the MODE of applicability
following refueling outage 1R24, and at Salem, Unit No. 2, prior to
returning to the MODE of applicability following refueling outage 2R22.
Amendment Nos.: 312 (Unit No. 1) and 293 (Unit No. 2). A publicly-
available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16054A068;
documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety
Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-70 and DPR-75:
Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 7, 2015 (80 FR
38776). The supplemental letter dated February 3, 2016, provided
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change
the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 28, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 15th day of April 2016.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Anne T. Boland,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2016-09543 Filed 4-25-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P