[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 100 (Tuesday, May 24, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32800-32815]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-11976]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2016-0100]
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 April 26, 2016, to May 9, 2016. The last
biweekly notice was published on May 10, 2016 (81 FR 28891).
DATES: Comments must be filed by June 23, 2016. A request for a hearing
must be filed by July 25, 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-2016-0100. 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
[[Page 32801]]
Submitting Comments'' in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this
document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mable Henderson, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-3760, email: [email protected].
I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments
A. Obtaining Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0100 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-2016-0100.
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-2016-0100, 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 will post 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 available
to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
II. Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility
Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses and Proposed No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under
the Commission's regulations in Sec. 50.92 of title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (10 CFR), this means that operation of the facility
in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated, or (2) create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or
(3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis
for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown
below.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final
determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period 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 makes a final no significant
hazards consideration determination, any hearing will take place after
issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will
occur very infrequently.
A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing and Petition for Leave To Intervene
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any
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
[[Page 32802]]
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) through (iii). If a hearing is requested, and the
Commission has not made a final determination on the issue of no
significant hazards consideration, the Commission will make a final
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The
final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If
the final determination is that the amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the
amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the
request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance
of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment
request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing
held would take place before the issuance of any amendment unless the
Commission finds an imminent danger to the health or safety of the
public, in which case it will issue an appropriate order or rule under
10 CFR part 2.
A State, local governmental body, federally-recognized Indian
Tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to
participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition should
state the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the
proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission by July
25, 2016. The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing
instructions in the ``Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)'' section of
this document, and should meet the requirements for petitions for leave
to intervene set forth in this section, except that under Sec.
2.309(h)(2) a State, local governmental body, or Federally-recognized
Indian Tribe, or agency thereof does not need to address the standing
requirements in 10 CFR 2.309(d) if the facility is located within its
boundaries. A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized
Indian Tribe, or agency thereof may also have the opportunity to
participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c).
If a hearing is granted, any person who does not wish, or is not
qualified, to become a party to the proceeding may, in the discretion
of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited appearance
pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person making a
limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of position on
the issues, but may not otherwise participate in the proceeding. A
limited appearance may be made at any session of the hearing or at any
prehearing conference, subject to the limits and conditions as may be
imposed by the presiding officer. Persons desiring to make a limited
appearance are requested to inform the Secretary of the Commission by
July 25, 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
ten 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
[[Page 32803]]
available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the time the
documents are submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be
timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system
no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of
a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends
the submitter an email notice confirming receipt of the document. The
E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access
to the document to the NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any
others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to
participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the
documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and
other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for
and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing request/petition
to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access to the document
via the E-Filing system.
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-
Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System
Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC's public
Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by email to
[email protected], or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-7640. The
NRC Meta System Help Desk is available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m.,
Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays.
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not
submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in
accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing
requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper
format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention:
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or
expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth
Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland
20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants
filing a document in this manner are responsible for serving the
document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by
first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier,
express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the
document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having
granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a
participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer
subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from
use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
http://ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the
Commission, or the presiding officer. Participants are requested not to
include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers,
home addresses, or home phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC
regulation or other law requires submission of such information.
However, in some instances, a request to intervene will require
including information on local residence in order to demonstrate a
proximity assertion of interest in the proceeding. With respect to
copyrighted works, except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose
of the adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use
application, participants are requested not to include copyrighted
materials in their submission.
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.
Arizona Public Service Company, et al., Docket Nos. STN 50-528, STN 50-
529, and STN 50-530, Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2,
and 3 (PVNGS), Maricopa County, Arizona
Date of amendment request: April 1, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16096A337.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the
technical specifications (TSs) for PVNGS, by modifying the requirements
regarding the degraded and loss of voltage relays that are planned to
be modified to be more aligned with designs generally implemented in
the industry. Specifically, the licensing basis for degraded voltage
protection will be changed from reliance on a TS initial condition that
ensures adequate post-trip voltage support of accident mitigation
equipment to crediting automatic actuation of the degraded and loss of
voltage relays to ensure proper equipment performance.
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 would revise the allowable values of the
Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS) Engineered Safety
Features Actuation System (ESFAS) Class 1E 4.16 [kiloVolt (kV)] bus
degraded voltage and loss of voltage relays. Specifically, the
proposed change includes a two stage time delay for the degraded
voltage relays and a fixed time delay for the loss of voltage relays
with corresponding voltage settings. The proposed change is
supported by design calculations and analyses to ensure that the
Class 1E buses will be isolated from the normal off-site power
source at the appropriate voltage level and time delay under either
accident or non-accident sustained degraded voltage conditions. The
normally operating safety-related motors will continue to operate
without sustaining damage or tripping during the worst-case,
accident (i.e., safety injection actuation signal, SIAS) or non-
accident degraded voltage condition for the maximum possible time-
delay. Thus, the safety-related loads will be available to perform
their safety function if a loss-of coolant accident (LOCA)
coincident with a loss-of-offsite power (LOOP) occurs following a
degraded voltage condition.
The proposed change implements a new design for a reduced (short
stage) time delay to isolate safety buses from offsite power if a
LOCA were to occur coincident with a sustained degraded voltage
condition. This ensures that emergency core cooling system pumps
inject water into the reactor vessel within the time assumed and
evaluated in the accident analysis, consistent with current NRC
requirements and 10 CFR part 50, Appendix A, General Design
Criterion 17, Electric Power Systems.
The proposed changes do not adversely affect accident initiators
or precursors. The diesel generator start, due to a LOCA signal, and
loading sequence are not affected by this change. During an actual
loss of voltage or degraded voltage condition, the loss of voltage
and/or degraded voltage time delay will isolate the Class 1E 4.16 kV
distribution system from offsite power before the diesel is ready to
assume the emergency loads, which is the limiting time basis for
mitigating system responses to the accident. For this reason, the
existing LOCA with coincident LOOP analysis continues to be valid.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of
[[Page 32804]]
accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change would revise the allowable values of the
PVNGS ESFAS Class 1E 4.16 kV bus degraded voltage and loss of
voltage relays. Specifically, the proposed change includes a two
stage time delay for the degraded voltage relays and a fixed time
delay for the loss of voltage relays with corresponding voltage
settings.
The proposed change does not introduce any changes or mechanisms
that create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident.
While the proposed change does install new relays, with new settings
and time delays, the relays are not new to the industry and are not
being operated in a unique or different manner. No new effects on
existing equipment are created nor are any new malfunctions
introduced.
The accidents and events previously analyzed remain bounding.
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 change would revise the allowable values of the
PVNGS ESFAS Class 1E 4.16 kV bus degraded voltage and loss of
voltage relays. Specifically, the proposed change includes a two
stage time delay for the degraded voltage relays and a fixed time
delay for the loss of voltage relays with corresponding voltage
settings. The proposed change implements a new design for a reduced
time delay to isolate safety buses from offsite power if a LOCA were
to occur coincident with a sustained degraded voltage condition.
This ensures that emergency core cooling system pumps inject water
into the reactor vessel within the time assumed and evaluated in the
accident analysis, consistent with current NRC requirements and 10
CFR part 50, Appendix A, General Design Criterion 17, Electric Power
Systems. The proposed TS change to the maximum and minimum allowable
voltages for the Class 1E 4.16 kV buses will allow all safety loads
to have sufficient voltage to perform their intended safety
functions while ensuring spurious trips are avoided. Thus, the
results of the accident analyses will not be affected as the input
assumptions are protected.
The diesel generator start, due to a LOCA signal, is not
affected by this change. During an actual loss of voltage or
degraded voltage condition, the loss of voltage and/or degraded
voltage relay voltage settings and time delays will continue to
isolate the Class 1E 4.16 kV distribution system from offsite power
before the emergency diesel generator is ready to assume the
emergency loads. 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
that review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
request for amendments involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Michael G. Green, Senior Regulatory Counsel,
Pinnacle West Capital Corporation, P.O. Box 52034, Mail Station 8695,
Phoenix, AZ 85072-2034.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. (DNC), Docket No. 50-336, Millstone
Power Station, Unit No. 2 (MPS2), New London County, Connecticut
Date of amendment request: January 25, 2016. A publicly available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16029A168.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise MPS2
Technical Specification (TS) 3.5.2, ``Emergency Core Cooling Systems,
ECCS Subsystems--Tavg > 300 [deg]F,'' to remove the charging
system and eliminate Surveillance Requirement 4.5.2.e from the TSs. The
proposed amendment would also revise MPS2 Final Safety Analysis Report
(FSAR) Chapter 14, Section 14.6.1, ``Inadvertent Opening of a
Pressurized Water Reactor Pressurizer Pressure Relief Valve,'' to
reflect the results of a new long-term analysis for the Inadvertent
Opening of Pressurizer Pressure Relief Valve (IOPPRV) event that does
not credit charging flow. The proposed amendment would also revise MPS2
FSAR, Section 14.0.11, to clarify the existing discussion regarding the
application of single failure criteria.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below, with NRC staff revisions
provided in [brackets]:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The FSAR Chapter 14 accident analyses for MPS2 do not take
credit for the flow delivered by the charging pumps. Additionally,
the proposed change does not modify any plant equipment or method of
operation for any [structures, systems, and components] SSC[s]
required for safe operation of the facility or mitigation of
accidents assumed in the facility safety analyses.
Therefore, the proposed amendment will not significantly
increase the probability or consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment does not modify any plant equipment or
method of operation for any SSC required for safe operation of the
facility or mitigation of accidents assumed in the facility safety
analyses. As such, no new failure modes are introduced by the
proposed change. Consequently, the proposed amendment does not
introduce any accident initiators or malfunctions that would cause a
new or 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 amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety since the proposed changes do not affect
equipment design or operation, and no changes are being made to the
TS-required safety limits or safety system settings. The proposed
changes involve a new safety analysis for the long-term event
response for FSAR Chapter 14.6.1, ``Inadvertent Opening of a
Pressurized Water Reactor Pressurizer Pressure Relief Valve.'' The
analysis demonstrates that flow from two [high pressure safety
injection] HPSI pumps, with no credit for the charging pumps, is
sufficient to prevent long-term core uncovery, and thus there is no
challenge to the specified acceptable fuel design limits. By meeting
the MPS2 FSAR Chapter 14 acceptance criteria for a moderate
frequency event, there is no 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: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion
Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar Street, RS-2, Richmond, VA
23219.
NRC Branch Chief: Travis L. Tate.
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. (DNC), Docket No. 50-336, Millstone
Power Station, Unit No. 2 (MPS2), New London County, Connecticut
Date of amendment request: January 26, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16034A358.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise
Section 9.5 of the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) to allow fuel
movement to start 100 hours after reactor subcriticality and proceed at
an average rate of six assemblies per hour provided the Reactor
Building Closed Cooling Water (RBCCW) temperature to the spent fuel
pool cooling and shutdown cooling heat exchangers is maintained at less
than or equal to 75 [deg]F. If 75 [deg]F cooling water is not
achievable, fuel movement at an
[[Page 32805]]
average rate of six fuel assemblies per hour could be permitted at 150
hours after subcriticality and then only with RBCCW temperatures less
than or equal to 85[deg]F. The proposed changes to FSAR Section 9.5
would also address some typographical errors. Technical Specification
Bases Section 3/4.9.3 would also be revised to remove reference to the
MPS2 spent fuel pool (SFP) heat load analysis.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below, with NRC staff revisions
provided in [brackets]:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment affects some assumptions in the MPS2 FSAR
related to the performance of the SFP cooling system and cooling of
the fuel in the refueling pool. However, the existing design limits
for the SFP remain unchanged. Reducing the decay time from 150 hours
to 100 hours prior to allowing fuel movement at an increased average
rate of six fuel assemblies per hour does not adversely affect SFP
design or operation, provided proposed RBCCW temperature limits are
satisfied. The proposed amendment does not change the design or
function of the SFP cooling system and is consistent with that
previously approved by the NRC under License Amendment 240.
The proposed amendment does not affect the temperature limits of
the SFP. The thermal-hydraulic analyses supporting the amendment
show that the SFP temperature limits continue to be met with
increased heat loads due to reduced time to fuel movement and a
higher rate of fuel movement. SFP heat load is not an initiator of
any accident discussed in Chapter 14 of the MPS2 FSAR. The proposed
amendment does not affect the capability of plant structures,
systems, or components (SCCs) to perform their design function and
does not increase the probability of a malfunction of any SSC.
The MPS2 FSAR Chapter 14 accident analyses, including the FHA
[fuel handling accident] presented in FSAR Section 14.7.4, are not
affected by the proposed amendment. The proposed amendment does not
increase the probability of a FHA, change the assumptions in the
FHA, or affect the conclusions of the current FHA analysis of
record. The current FHA analysis of record assumes a minimum 100-
hour decay time, which is consistent with the minimum allowable
decay time assumed in the thermal-hydraulic analyses that support
this amendment. The dose results of the FHA analysis are unchanged,
and remain within applicable regulatory limits.
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 previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment would revise the minimum allowed start
time to begin fuel movement from 150 hours to 100 hours after
reactor subcriticality and increase the maximum allowable rate of
fuel assembly movement from an average of four assemblies per hour
to an average of six assemblies per hour. The revised decay time
limit and fuel offload rates do not create the possibility of a new
type of accident because the methods for moving fuel and the
operation of equipment used for moving fuel are not changed. The
proposed amendment does not add or modify any plant equipment. The
design and testing of systems designed to maintain the SFP
temperature within established limits are not affected by the
proposed change. The proposed amendment does not create any credible
new failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident initiators not
considered in the design and licensing basis.
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 FHA analysis of record already accounts for irradiated fuel
with at least 100 hours of decay. This approved analysis has shown
that the projected doses will remain within applicable regulatory
limits. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not reduce the margin
of safety of the currently approved FHA analysis of record.
The SFP heat load analyses submitted demonstrate that the impact
of reduced decay time on SFP decay heat load is offset by the
reduced cooling water temperatures such that the maximum normally
allowed pool temperature is not exceeded. The slight 1.6 [deg]F
increase in SFP temperature for full core off-load as a normal event
(for 100 hour hold time with 75 [deg]F RBCCW temperature) is not a
significant change and remains below the maximum normally allowed
SFP temperature of 150 [deg]F. The peak temperature of the SFP
during a loss of cooling event is unaffected and the peak
temperature of the fuel cladding, or along the fuel, remains within
acceptable limits. 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: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion
Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar Street, RS-2, Richmond, VA
23219.
NRC Branch Chief: Travis L. Tate.
Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50-397, Columbia Generating Station,
Benton County, Washington
Date of amendment request: March 3, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16067A390.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the
Technical Specification Surveillance Requirements for heaters in the
Standby Gas Treatment (SGT) and Control Room Emergency Filtration
(CREF) ventilation systems. The proposed amendment is consistent with
NRC-approved Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-
522, Revision 0, ``Revise Ventilation System Surveillance Requirements
to Operate for 10 hours per Month,'' as published in the Federal
Register on September 20, 2012 (77 FR 58421), with variations due to
plant-specific nomenclature.
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 replaces an existing Surveillance
Requiremen[t] to operate the SGT System and CREF System equipped
with electric heaters for a continuous 10 hour period every 31 days
with a requirement to operate the systems for 15 continuous minutes
with heaters operating.
These systems are not accident initiators and therefore, these
changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability of
an accident. The proposed system and filter testing changes are
consistent with current regulatory guidance for these systems and
will continue to assure that these systems perform their design
function which may include mitigating accidents. Thus the change
does not involve a significant increase in the consequences of an
accident.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change replaces an existing Surveillance
Requiremen[t] to operate the SGT System and CREF System equipped
with electric heaters for a continuous 10 hour period every 31 days
with a requirement to operate the systems for 15 continuous minutes
with heaters operating.
The change proposed for these ventilation systems does not
change any system operations or maintenance activities. Testing
[[Page 32806]]
requirements will be revised and will continue to demonstrate that
the Limiting Conditions for Operation are met and the system
components are capable of performing their intended safety
functions. The change does not create new failure modes or
mechanisms and no new accident precursors are generated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change replaces an existing Surveillance
Requiremen[t] to operate the SGT System and CREF System equipped
with electric heaters for a continuous 10 hour period every 31 days
with a requirement to operate the systems for 15 continuous minutes
with heaters operating.
The design basis for the ventilation systems' heaters is to heat
the incoming air which reduces the relative humidity. The heater
testing change proposed will continue to demonstrate that the
heaters are capable of heating the air and will perform their design
function. The proposed change is consistent with regulatory
guidance.
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 A. Horin, Esq., Winston & Strawn,
1700 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20006-3817.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-317 and 50-318, Calvert
Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Calvert County, Maryland
Date of amendment request: February 4, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16035A227.
Description of amendments request: The amendments would revise the
Calvert Cliffs technical specifications (TSs) to correct an
administrative error in the License Amendment Request (LAR) submitted
in accordance with Technical Specification Task Force Traveler 523,
``Generic Letter 2008-01, Managing Gas Accumulation.'' The proposed
change would add Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.5.2.10 to the list of
applicable Surveillances of SR 3.5.3.1.
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 any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed LAR is purely an administrative change; therefore,
the probability of any accident previously evaluated is not
significantly increased. The systems and components required by the
TS for which SR 3.5.2.10 is applicable, continue to be operable and
capable of performing any mitigation function assumed in the
accident analysis. As a result, the consequences of any accident
previously evaluated are not significantly increased.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed LAR is purely an administrative change. The
proposed change to add SR 3.5.2.10 to the list of applicable
surveillances in SR 3.5.3.1 does not create a new or different kind
of accident previously evaluated.
The change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant
(i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a
change in the methods governing normal plant operation. In addition,
the change does not impose any new or different requirements. The
change does not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis. The
proposed change is consistent with the safety analysis assumptions
and current plant operating practice.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed LAR is purely an administrative change to add SR
3.5.2.10 to the list of applicable surveillances in SR 3.5.3.1.
The design, operation, testing methods, and acceptance criteria
for systems, structures, and components (SSCs), specified in
applicable codes and standards (or alternatives approved for use by
the NRC) will continue to be met as described in the plant licensing
basis (including the Final Safety Analysis Report and Bases to TS).
Similarly, there is no impact to safety analysis acceptance criteria
as described in the plant licensing basis.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendments request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel,
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL
60555.
NRC Branch Chief: Travis L. Tate.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-317 and 50-318, Calvert
Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Calvert County, Maryland
Date of amendment request: February 25, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16060A223.
Description of amendments request: The amendments would revise the
Calvert Cliffs technical specifications (TSs) to permit the use of
Risk-Informed Completion Times in accordance with TSTF-505, Revision 1,
``Provide Risk-Informed Extended Completion Times--RITSTF Initiative
4b.'' The availability of this TS improvement was announced in the
Federal Register on March 15, 2012 (77 FR 15399).
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 any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes permit the extension of Completion Times
provided the associated risk is assessed and managed in accordance
with the NRC approved Risk-Informed Completion Time Program. The
proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the
probability of an accident previously evaluated because the changes
involve no change to the plant or its modes of operation. The
proposed changes do not increase the consequences of an accident
because the design-basis mitigation function of the affected systems
is not changed and the consequences of an accident during the
extended Completion Time are no different from those during the
existing Completion Time.
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 previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not change the design, configuration, or
method of operation of the plant. The proposed changes do not
involve a physical alteration of the plant (no new or different kind
of equipment will be installed).
[[Page 32807]]
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes permit the extension of Completion Times
provided that risk is assessed and managed in accordance with the
NRC approved Risk-Informed Completion Time Program. The proposed
changes implement a risk-informed configuration management program
to assure that adequate margins of safety are maintained.
Application of these new specifications and the configuration
management program considers cumulative effects of multiple systems
or components being out of service and does so more effectively than
the current TS.
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
amendments request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel,
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL
60555.
NRC Branch Chief: Travis L. Tate.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353, Limerick
Generating Station (LGS), Units 1 and 2, Montgomery County,
Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: March 29, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Package Accession No. ML16090A286.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the
Technical Specification (TS) requirements for snubbers.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes will revise TS 4.7.4 to conform the TS to
the revised Snubber Program. Snubber examination, testing, and
service life monitoring will continue to meet the requirements of 10
CFR 50.55a(g). Snubber examination, testing, and service life
monitoring are not initiators of any accident previously evaluated.
Therefore, the probability of an accident previously evaluated is
not significantly increased. Snubbers will continue to be
demonstrated OPERABLE by performance of a program for examination,
testing, and service life monitoring in compliance with 10 CFR
50.55a or authorized alternatives. The proposed changes do not
adversely affect plant operations, design functions, or analyses
that verify the capability of systems, structures, and components to
perform their design functions. Therefore, the consequences of
accidents previously evaluated are not significantly increased.
Based on the above, these 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 any physical alteration of
plant equipment. The proposed changes do not alter the method by
which any safety-related system performs its function. As such, no
new or different types of equipment will be installed, and the basic
operation of installed equipment is unchanged. The methods governing
plant operation and testing remain consistent with current safety
analysis assumptions.
Therefore, it is concluded that these proposed changes do not
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from
any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes ensure snubber examination, testing, and
service life monitoring will continue to meet the requirements of 10
CFR 50.55a(g). Snubbers will continue to be demonstrated OPERABLE by
performance of a program for examination, testing, and service life
monitoring in compliance with 10 CFR 50.55a or authorized
alternatives.
Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed changes do not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel,
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL
60555.
NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.
Nebraska Public Power District (NPPD), Docket No. 50-298, Cooper
Nuclear Station (CNS), Nemaha County, Nebraska
Date of amendment request: March 22, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16110A425.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would modify the
CNS technical specifications (TSs) by relocating specific surveillance
frequencies to a licensee-controlled program consistent with NRC-
approved Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-425,
Revision 3, ``Relocate Surveillance Frequencies to Licensee Control--
RITSTF [Risk-Informed Technical Specifications Task Force] Initiative
5b,'' dated March 18, 2009 (ADAMS Accession No. ML090850642). The
availability of this TS improvement program was announced in the
Federal Register on July 6, 2009 (74 FR 31996). The NPPD has proposed
certain plant-specific variations and deviations from TSTF-425,
Revision 3, as described in its application dated March 22, 2016.
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. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change relocates the specified frequencies for
periodic surveillance requirements to licensee control under a new
SFCP [Surveillance Frequency Control Program]. Surveillance
frequencies are not an initiator to any accident previously
evaluated. As a result, the probability of any accident previously
evaluated is not significantly increased. The systems and components
required by the technical specifications for which the surveillance
frequencies are relocated are still required to be operable, meet
the acceptance criteria for the surveillance requirements, and be
capable of performing any mitigation function assumed in the
accident analysis. As a result, the consequences of any accident
previously evaluated are not significantly increased.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
Response: No.
No new or different accidents result from utilizing the proposed
change. The change does not involve a physical alteration of the
plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be
installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant
operation. In addition, the change does not impose any new or
different requirements. The change does not alter assumptions made
[[Page 32808]]
in the safety analysis. The proposed change is consistent with the
safety analysis assumptions and current plant operating practice.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in
the margin of safety?
Response: No.
The design, operation, testing methods, and acceptance criteria
for structures, systems, components, specified in applicable codes
and standards (or alternatives approved for use by the NRC) will
continue to be met as described in the plant licensing basis
(including the final safety analysis report and bases to TS), since
these are not affected by changes to the surveillance frequencies.
Similarly, there is no impact to safety analysis acceptance criteria
as described in the plant licensing basis. To evaluate a change in
the relocated surveillance frequency, NPPD will perform a
probabilistic risk evaluation using the guidance contained in NRC
approved NEI [Nuclear Energy Institute] 04-10, Revision 1, in
accordance with the TS SFCP. NEI 04-10, Revision 1, methodology
provides reasonable acceptance guidelines and methods for evaluating
the risk increase of proposed changes to surveillance frequencies
consistent with Regulatory Guide 1.177.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the 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: Mr. John C. McClure, Nebraska Public Power
District, Post Office Box 499, Columbus, NE 68602-0499.
NRC Branch Chief: Meena K. Khanna.
NextEra Energy Seabrook LLC, Docket No. 50-443, Seabrook Station, Unit
No. 1, Rockingham County, New Hampshire
Date of amendment request: February 27, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16068A130.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the
emergency plan for Seabrook Station, Unit No. 1 (Seabrook), to adopt
the emergency action level scheme pursuant to Nuclear Energy Institute
(NEI) 99-01, Revision 6, ``Development of Emergency Action Levels for
Non-Passive Reactors.''
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
The proposed changes to the Seabrook emergency action levels
neither 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, and they do not alter design assumptions, plant
configuration, or the manner in which the plant is operated and
maintained. The proposed change does 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 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?
No new accident scenarios, failure mechanisms, or limiting
single failures are introduced as a result of the proposed changes.
The changes do not challenge the integrity or performance of any
safety-related systems. No plant equipment is installed or removed,
and the changes do not alter the design, physical configuration, or
method of operation of any plant SSC. No physical changes are made
to the plant, and emergency action levels are not accident
initiators[,] so no new causal mechanisms are introduced.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Margin of safety is associated with the ability of the fission
product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, reactor coolant system
pressure boundary, and containment structure) to limit the level of
radiation dose to the public. The proposed changes do not impact
operation of the plant and no accident analyses are affected by the
proposed changes. The changes do not affect the Technical
Specifications or the method of operating the plant. Additionally,
the proposed changes will not relax any criteria used to establish
safety limits and will not relax any safety system settings. The
safety analysis acceptance criteria are not affected by these
changes. The proposed changes will not result in plant operation in
a configuration outside the design basis. The proposed changes do
not adversely affect systems that respond to safely shut down the
plant and to maintain the plant in a safe shutdown condition.
Therefore, the proposed change 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: William Blair, Managing Attorney--Nuclear,
Florida Power & Light Company, P.O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, FL 33408-
0420.
NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-
364, Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Houston County,
Alabama
Date of amendment request: March 16, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16076A217.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the
technical specifications to allow the use of Optimized
ZIRLOTM as an approved fuel rod cladding.
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 would allow the use of Optimized
ZIRLOTM clad nuclear fuel in the reactors. The NRC
approved topical report WCAP-12610-P-A & CENPD-404-P-A, Addendum 1-A
``Optimized ZIRLOTM,'' prepared by Westinghouse Electric
Company LLC (Westinghouse), addresses Optimized ZIRLOTM
and demonstrates that Optimized ZIRLOTM has essentially
the same properties as currently licensed ZIRLOTM. The
fuel cladding itself is not an accident initiator and does not
affect accident probability. Use of Optimized ZIRLOTM
fuel cladding has been shown to meet all 10 CFR 50.46 acceptance
criteria and, therefore, will not increase the consequences of an
accident.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
Use of Optimized ZIRLOTM clad fuel will not result in
changes in the operation or configuration of the facility. Topical
Report WCAP-12610-P-A and CENPD-404-P-A demonstrated that the
material properties of Optimized ZIRLOTM are similar to
those of ZIRLO[supreg]. Therefore, Optimized ZIRLOTM fuel
rod cladding will perform similarly to those fabricated from
ZIRLO[supreg], thus precluding the
[[Page 32809]]
possibility of the fuel becoming an accident initiator and causing a
new or different type 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.
The proposed change will not involve a significant reduction in
the margin of safety because it has been demonstrated that the
material properties of the Optimized ZIRLOTM are not
significantly different from those of ZIRLO[supreg]. Optimized
ZIRLOTM is expected to perform similarly to ZIRLO[supreg]
for all normal operating and accident scenarios, including both loss
of coolant accident (LOCA) and non-LOCA scenarios. For LOCA
scenarios, plant-specific evaluations have been performed which
allow the use of fuel assemblies with fuel rods containing Optimized
ZIRLOTM. These LOCA evaluations address the NRC SER
[safety evaluation report] conditions and limitations for Optimized
ZIRLOTM fuel rod cladding and provide continued
compliance with the acceptance criteria of 10 CFR 50.46.
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: Jennifer M. Buettner, Associate General
Counsel, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 40 Iverness Center
Parkway, Birmingham, AL 35201.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-
425, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, Burke County,
Georgia; Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-364, Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant,
Units 1 and 2, Houston County, Alabama; Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366,
Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Appling County, Georgia
Date of amendment request: March 14, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16074A185.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would adopt the
NRC-approved Technical Task Force Traveler TSTF-65-A, Revision 1, ``Use
of Generic Titles for Utility Positions.'' The proposed change would
allow use of generic personnel titles in lieu of plant-specific titles.
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 change has no effect on structures, systems, and components
(SSCs) of the plants. There are no changes to plant operations, or
to any design function or analysis that verifies the capability of
an SSC to perform a design function. There are no previously
evaluated accidents affected by this change. The proposed changes
are administrative in nature, and as such, do not affect indicators
of analyzed events or assumed mitigation of accidents or transients.
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?
This change has no effect on the design function or operation of
SSCs, and will not affect the SSCs' operation or ability to perform
their design functions. This change does not involve a physical
alteration of the plants, add any new equipment, or allow any
existing equipment to be operated in a manner different from the
present method of operation.
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 changes involve a significant reduction in
a margin of safety?
This change is administrative in nature and has no effect on
plant design margins. There are no changes being made to safety
limits or limiting safety system settings that would adversely
affect plant safety as a result of the proposed change.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in 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: Jennifer M. Buettner, Associate General
Counsel of Operations and Nuclear, Southern Nuclear Operating Company,
40 Iverness Center Parkway, Birmingham, AL 35201.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-
425, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, Burke County,
Georgia
Date of amendment request: March 16, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16076A217.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the
technical specifications to allow the use of Optimized
ZIRLOTM as an approved fuel rod cladding.
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 would allow the use of Optimized
ZIRLOTM clad nuclear fuel in the reactors. The NRC
approved topical report WCAP-12610-P-A & CENPD-404-P-A, Addendum 1-A
``Optimized ZIRLOTM,'' prepared by Westinghouse Electric
Company LLC (Westinghouse), addresses Optimized ZIRLOTM
and demonstrates that Optimized ZIRLOTM has essentially
the same properties as currently licensed ZIRLOTM. The
fuel cladding itself is not an accident initiator and does not
affect accident probability. Use of Optimized ZIRLOTM
fuel cladding has been shown to meet all 10 CFR 50.46 acceptance
criteria and, therefore, will not increase the consequences of an
accident.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
Use of Optimized ZIRLOTM clad fuel will not result in
changes in the operation or configuration of the facility. Topical
Report WCAP-12610-P-A & CENPD- 404-P-A demonstrated that the
material properties of Optimized ZIRLOTM are similar to
those of ZIRLO[supreg]. Therefore, Optimized ZIRLOTM fuel
rod cladding will perform similarly to those fabricated from
ZIRLO[supreg], thus precluding the possibility of the fuel becoming
an accident initiator and causing a new or different type 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 change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change will not involve a significant reduction in
the margin of safety because it has been demonstrated that the
material properties of the Optimized
[[Page 32810]]
ZIRLOTM are not significantly different from those of
ZIRLO[supreg]. Optimized ZIRLOTM is expected to perform
similarly to ZIRLO[supreg] for all normal operating and accident
scenarios, including both loss of coolant accident (LOCA) and non-
LOCA scenarios. For LOCA scenarios, plant-specific evaluations have
been performed which allow the use of fuel assemblies with fuel rods
containing Optimized ZIRLOTM. These LOCA evaluations
address the NRC SER [safety evaluation report] conditions and
limitations for Optimized ZIRLOTM fuel rod cladding and
provide continued compliance with the acceptance criteria of 10 CFR
50.46.
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: Jennifer M. Buettner, Associate General
Counsel, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., 40 Inverness Center
Parkway, Birmingham, AL 35242.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Susquehanna Nuclear, LLC, Docket No. 50-388, Susquehanna Steam Electric
Station, Unit 2, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: January 28, 2016, as supplemented by
letter dated April 6, 2016. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS
under Accession No. ML16029A031 and Package Accession No. ML16097A486,
respectively.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would modify the
Susquehanna Steam Electric Station (SSES), Unit 2, Technical
Specification (TS) 3.7.1, ``Residual Heat Removal Service Water (RHRSW)
System and the Ultimate Heat Sink (UHS),'' and TS 3.8.7, ``Distribution
Systems--Operating,'' to increase the completion time for Conditions A
and B of TS 3.7.1 and Condition C of TS 3.8.7 from 72 hours to 7 days,
in order to accommodate 480 volt (V) engineered safeguard system (ESS)
load center (LC) transformer replacements on SSES, Unit 2. The proposed
change is temporary and will be annotated by a note in each TS that
specifies the allowance expires on June 15, 2020.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below, along with NRC edits in square
brackets:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The temporary changes to the completion times for TS 3.8.7,
Condition C and TS 3.7.1, Conditions A and B are necessary to
implement plant changes, which replace the Unit 1--480 V ESS LC
Transformers 1X210 and 1X220 in order to mitigate the loss of the
transformer due to failure. The temporary change to the completion
time for TS 3.8.7, Condition C is also necessary to implement plant
changes, which replace the Unit 1--480 V ESS LC Transformers 1X230
and 1X240 in order to mitigate the loss of the transformer due to
failure. These replacements decrease the probability of a
transformer failure. The current assumptions in the safety analysis
regarding accident initiators and mitigation of accidents are
unaffected by these changes. No SSC [structure, system, or
component] failure modes or mechanisms are being introduced, and the
likelihood of previously analyzed failures remains unchanged.
The proposed change requests the Completion Time to restore a
Unit 2 RHRSW subsystem be extended to 7 days in order to replace
Unit 1 transformers 1X210 and 1X220. The extended Completion Times
for TS 3.7.1 Conditions A and B are only applicable when
transformers 1X210 or 1X220 are out of service with the intent of
replacing the transformer.
During the replacements, the affected Unit 2 RHRSW subsystem
will remain functional while the other subsystem of Unit 2 RHRSW
will remain Operable. Operator action required to restore full
capability of cooling provided by the Ultimate Heat Sink will only
consist of manually operating two (2) valves; the Large Spray Array
and the UHS bypass. This action can easily be completed within
several hours and would restore full cooling to the RHRSW system.
Therefore, this 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 changes involve the increase of TS Completion Times
to allow replacement of four (4) Unit 1--480 V ESS LC Transformers.
New transformers will be installed but will not be operated in a new
or different manner. There are no setpoints at which protective or
mitigative actions are initiated [which are] affected by this
change. These changes do not alter the manner in which equipment
operation is initiated, nor will the function demands on credited
equipment be changed. No alterations to procedures that ensure the
plant remains within analyzed limits are being proposed, and no
major changes are being made to procedures relied upon during off-
normal events as described in the FSAR [final safety analysis
report].
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.
Operational safety margin is established through equipment
design, operating parameters, and the setpoints at which automatic
actions are initiated. The proposed changes are acceptable because
the Completion Time extensions allow replacement of the Unit 1--480
V ESS LC Transformers, equipment essential to safe plant operation,
while ensuring safety related functions of affected equipment are
maintained.
With the RHRSW Spray Pond Return Bypass Valves on the out of
service loop electrically de-powered in the open position, a return
flow path will be established. Since the RHRSW Pumps on Unit 2 are
not impacted by the transformers outages, the affected RHRSW Loop on
Unit 2 will be capable of providing cooling. This configuration will
continue to provide the margin of safety assumed by the safety
analysis, although the affected RHRSW loop will be administratively
declared Inoperable.
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: Damon D. Obie, Esquire, Associate General
Counsel, Talen Energy Supply, LLC, 835 Hamilton St., Suite 150,
Allentown, PA 18101.
NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-390 and 50-391, Watts Bar
Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Rhea County, Tennessee
Date of amendment request: December 8, 2015, as supplemented by
letter dated March 11, 2016. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS
under Accession Nos. ML15342A477 and ML16071A456, respectively. The
letter dated March 11, 2016, supersedes the December 8, 2015, amendment
request in its entirety.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the
Watts Bar Nuclear Plant (WBN), Units 1 and 2, Technical Specification
(TS) 3.8.1, ``AC Sources--Operating,'' to extend the Completion Time
(CT) for one inoperable Diesel Generator (DG) from 72 hours to 14 days,
based on the availability of an alternate alternating current (AC)
power source (specifically,
[[Page 32811]]
the FLEX DG added as part of the mitigating strategies for beyond-
design-basis events in response to NRC Order EA-12-049). The amendments
would also make clarifying changes to certain TS 3.8.1 conditions,
required actions, and surveillance requirements.
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 consequence of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not affect the design of the DGs, the
operational characteristics or function of the DGs, the interfaces
between the DGs and other plant systems, or the reliability of the
DGs. Required Actions and their associated CTs are not considered
initiating conditions for any UFSAR [Updated Final Safety Analysis
Report] accident previously evaluated, nor are the DGs considered
initiators of any previously evaluated accidents. The DGs are
provided to mitigate the consequences of previously evaluated
accidents, including a loss of off-site power.
The consequences of previously evaluated accidents will not be
significantly affected by the extended DG CT, because a sufficient
number of onsite Alternating Current power sources will continue to
remain available to perform the accident mitigation functions
associated with the DGs, as assumed in the accident analyses. In
addition, as a risk mitigation and defense-in-depth action, an
independent AC power source, an available FLEX DG, will be available
to support the ESF [engineered safety feature] bus with the
inoperable DG during a SBO [station blackout].
Therefore, this 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 change in the permanent
design, configuration, or method of operation of the plant. The
proposed changes will not alter the manner in which equipment
operation is initiated, nor will the functional demands on credited
equipment be changed. The proposed changes allow operation of the
unit to continue while a DG is repaired and retested with the FLEX
DG in standby to mitigate a SBO event. The proposed extensions do
not affect the interaction of a DG with any system whose failure or
malfunction can initiate an accident. As such, no new failure modes
are being introduced. Therefore, the proposed change does not create
the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any
accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not alter the permanent plant design,
including instrument set points, nor does it change the assumptions
contained in the safety analyses. The FLEX DG alternate AC system is
designed with sufficient redundancy such that a DG may be removed
from service for maintenance or testing. The remaining DGs are
capable of carrying sufficient electrical loads to satisfy the UFSAR
requirements for accident mitigation or unit safe shutdown. The
proposed changes do not affect the redundancy or availability
requirements of offsite power supplies or change the ability of the
plant to cope with station blackout events.
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: Sherry A. Quirk, Executive Vice President
and General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West Summit Hill
Dr., 6A West Tower, Knoxville, TN 37902.
NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin G. Beasley.
III. Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses
and Combined Licenses
During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice,
the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has
determined for each of these amendments that the application complies
with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,
as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The
Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the
Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set
forth in the license amendment.
A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility
operating license or combined license, as applicable, proposed no
significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a
hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the Federal
Register as indicated.
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that
these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in
accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b),
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be
prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an
environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in
10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment,
it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the action see (1) the
applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's
related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as
indicated. All of these items can be accessed as described in the
``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' section of this
document.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414, Catawba
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York County, South Carolina
Date of amendment request: June 23, 2014, as supplemented by
letters dated August 26, 2014; December 15, 2014; January 22, 2015;
April 23, 2015; and November 16, 2015.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the Renewed
Facility Operating Licenses and technical specifications (TSs) to
implement a measurement uncertainty recapture (MUR) power uprate at
Catawba Nuclear Station Unit 1 (Catawba 1) that increases the rated
thermal power (RTP) from 3411 megawatts thermal (MWt) to 3469 MWt. This
is an increase of approximately 1.7 percent RTP. This increase is based
on the use of Cameron (a.k.a. Caldon) instrumentation to determine core
power level with a power measurement uncertainty of approximately 0.3
percent. As noted in the licensee's application, although the MUR
uprate was for Catawba 1, the amendment request was submitted for both
units. This is because the TSs are common to both units.
Date of issuance: April 29, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 281 (Unit 1) and 277 (Unit 2). A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16081A333; documents related
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with
the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-35 and NPF-52: The
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 4, 2014 (79 FR
65429). The supplemental letters dated August 26, 2014; December 15,
2014;
[[Page 32812]]
January 22, 2015; April 23, 2015; and November 16, 2015, provided
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change
the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated April 29, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414, Catawba
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York County, South Carolina; Duke
Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370 McGuire Nuclear
Station, Units 1 and 2, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina; Duke Energy
Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287, Oconee Nuclear
Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, Oconee County, South Carolina
Date of amendment request: April 16, 2015.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments modified the
technical specification (TS) requirements regarding steam generator
tube inspections and reporting as described in Technical Specification
Task Force (TSTF)-510, Revision 2, ``Revision to Steam Generator
Program Inspection Frequencies and Tube Sample Selection.''
Date of issuance: April 26, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 120 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 280, 276, 284, 263, 396, 398, and 397. A publicly-
available version is available in ADAMS under Accession No.
ML16075A301.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-35, NPF-52, NPF-9, NPF-
17, DPR-38, DPR-47, and DPR-55: Amendments revised the licenses and
TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 23, 2015 (80 FR
35981).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated April 26, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287,
Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, Oconee County, South
Carolina
Date of amendment request: May 19, 2015, as supplemented by letters
dated August 20, 2015, and February 26, 2016.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments add a Reactor
Protective System Nuclear Overpower--High Setpoint trip for three (3)
reactor coolant pump operation to Technical Specification Table 3.3.1-
1, ``Reactor Protective System Instrumentation.'' The existing
overpower protection for three (3) reactor coolant pump operation is
the Nuclear Overpower Flux/Flow/Imbalance trip function. The new
setpoint provides an absolute setpoint that can be actuated regardless
of the transient or Reactor Coolant System flow conditions and provides
a significant margin gain for the small steam line break accident.
Date of issuance: April 29, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days.
Amendment Nos.: 397 for Unit 1, 399 for Unit 2, and 398 for Unit 3.
A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No.
ML16088A330; documents related to these amendments are listed in the
Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-38, DPR-47, and DPR-55:
The amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and the
TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 27, 2015 (80 FR
65810). The supplemental letter dated February 26, 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 April 29, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Duke Energy Progress, Inc., Docket No. 50-261, H. B. Robinson Steam
Electric Plant Unit No. 2, Hartsville, South Carolina
Date of amendment request: May 13, 2015, as supplemented by letter
dated November 19, 2015.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment adopted the NRC-
endorsed Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 99-01, Revision 6,
``Development of Emergency Action Levels for Non-Passive Reactors.''
Date of issuance: April 28, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 180 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 245. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML16061A472; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-23: The amendment
revised the emergency action level technical bases document.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 4, 2015 (80 FR
46348). The supplemental letter dated November 19, 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 April 28, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Duke Energy Progress, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-325 and 50-324; Brunswick
Steam Electric Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Brunswick County, North
Carolina; Docket No. 50-400; Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit
1, Wake County, North Carolina; Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos.
50-413 and 50-414, Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York County,
South Carolina; Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370, McGuire Nuclear Station,
Units 1 and 2, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina; and Docket Nos. 50-
269, 50-270, and 50-287, Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3,
Oconee County, South Carolina
Date of amendment request: June 24, 2015, as supplemented by letter
dated January 18, 2016.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revise or add
Surveillance Requirements to verify that the system locations
susceptible to gas accumulation are sufficiently filled with water and
to provide allowances which permit performance of the verification. The
changes are being made to address the concerns discussed in NRC Generic
Letter 2008-01, ``Managing Gas Accumulation in Emergency Core Cooling,
Decay Heat Removal, and Containment Spray Systems'' (ADAMS Accession
No. ML072910759). The amendments reference TSTF-523, Revision 2,
``Generic Letter 2008-01, Managing Gas Accumulation'' (79 FR 2700).
Date of issuance: April 29, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 1 year.
Amendment Nos.: 270 and 298, for the Brunswick Steam Electric
Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2; 150, for the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power
Plant, Unit 1; 282 and 278, for the Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1
and 2; 285 and 264, for
[[Page 32813]]
the McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2; and 398, 400, and 399, for
the Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16085A113; documents related
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with
the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-71, DPR-62, for the
Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2; NPF-63, for the
Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1; NPF-35 and NPF-52, for the
Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2; NPF-9 and NPF-17, for the
McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2; and DPR-38, DPR-47, DPR-55, for
the Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3: The amendments revised
the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and the TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 14, 2015 (80 FR
48923). This Federal Register notice was corrected on August 20, 2015
(80 FR 50663). The supplemental letter dated January 18, 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
determinations as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated April 29, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-255, Palisades Nuclear
Plant, Van Buren County, Michigan
Date of amendment request: June 11, 2015.
Brief description of amendment: This amendment revises the date of
the Cyber Security Plan (CSP) Implementation Milestone 8 and the
associated existing facility operating license condition regarding full
implementation of the CSP. The CSP and associated implementation
schedule was previously approved by the NRC staff by letter dated
December 8, 2014 (ADAMS Accession No. ML14237A144).
Date of issuance: May 2, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days.
Amendment No.: 259. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML16078A068; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-20: 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 May 2, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC and PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-277
and 50-278, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3, York and
Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: December 15, 2015, as supplemented by
letter dated March 15, 2016.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments reduced the reactor
steam dome pressure stated in the technical specifications (TSs) for
the reactor core safety limits. The change addresses a 10 CFR part 21
issue concerning the potential to violate the safety limits during a
pressure regulator failure maximum demand (open) transient.
Date of issuance: April 27, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendments Nos.: 306 and 310. A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No. ML16064A150; documents related to these
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the
amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-44 and DPR-56: The
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 5, 2016 (81 FR
263). The supplemental letter dated March 15, 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 April 27, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC and PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-277
and 50-278, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3, York and
Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: December 23, 2015.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical
Specification (TS) Limiting Condition for Operation 3.10.1, ``Inservice
Leak and Hydrostatic Testing Operation,'' to allow more efficient
testing during a refueling outage. The 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.''
Date of issuance: May 9, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendments Nos.: 307 and 311. A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No. ML16084A968; documents related to these
amendments are listed in the safety evaluation enclosed with the
amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-44 and DPR-56: The
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 1, 2016 (81 FR
10680).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated May 9, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-237 and 50-249, Dresden
Nuclear Power Station (DNPS), Units 2 and 3, Grundy County, Illinois
Date of application for amendment: December 30, 2014, as
supplemented by letters dated May 8, 2015, July 30, 2015, October 15,
2015, and February 8, 2016.
Brief description of amendment: The amendments allow revision to
DNPS technical specifications (TSs) in support of a new nuclear
criticality safety analysis methodology, use of a new fuel assembly
design to store AREVA ATRIUM 10XM fuel in the DNPS spent fuel pools
(SFPs), and addition of a new TS 4.3.1.1c criticality parameter related
to the maximum in-rack infinite k-effective (kinf) limit for
fuel assemblies allowed to be stored in the SFP racks. Additionally,
the DNPS licenses will be amended to ensure that any loss or reduction
of SFP neutron-absorbing capacity will be promptly detected, and that
the licensee will perform confirmatory testing to ensure that the
minimum B-10 areal density continues to be met for the BORAL panels
installed in the SFPs at DNPS.
Date of issuance: April 29, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 249 and 242. A publicly-available version is under
ADAMS Accession No. ML15343A126;
[[Page 32814]]
documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety
Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-19 and DPR-25: The
amendments revise the DNPS Technical Specifications and Licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 5, 2015 (80 FR
68573).
The supplements dated October 15, 2015, and February 8, 2016,
contained clarifying information and did not change the NRC staff's
initial proposed finding of no significant hazards consideration.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated April 29, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: None.
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket No. 50-346,
Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 1, Ottawa County, Ohio
Date of application for amendment: April 1, 2015, as supplemented
by letters dated October 14, 2015, and February 19, 2016.
Brief description of amendment: This amendment revises certain
technical specification minimum voltage and frequency acceptance
criteria for emergency diesel generator testing.
Date of issuance: April 27, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
by June 15, 2016.
Amendment No.: 291. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML16083A481. Documents related to this amendment are
listed in the safely evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-3: Amendment revised the
Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Date of notice in Federal Register: July 7, 2015 (80 FR 38759). The
supplemental letters dated October 14, 2015, and February 19, 2016,
provided additional information that clarified the application, did not
expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not
change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated April 27, 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: April 16, 2015, as supplemented by
letters dated December 7, 2015, and March 29, 2016.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the
technical specifications (TSs) related to the boric acid tank to
reflect a correction to a calculation.
Date of issuance: April 26, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos: 270 (Unit No. 3) and 265 (Unit No. 4). A publicly-
available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16004A019;
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: September 1, 2015 (80
FR 52806). The supplements dated December 7, 2015, and March 29, 2016,
provided additional information that clarified the application and did
not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated April 26, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Docket No. 50-133, Humboldt Bay Power
Plant, Unit 3, Humboldt County, California
Date of application for amendment: May 3, 2013, as supplemented
February 14, 2014, April 2, 2014, May 13, 2014, August 13, 2014, and
March 16, 2015.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment adds License
Condition 2.C.(5) to the Humboldt Bay license. This new license
condition incorporates the NRC approved ``License Termination Plan''
(LTP), and associated addendum, into the Humboldt Bay license and
specifies limits on the changes the licensee is allowed to make to the
approved LTP without prior NRC review and approval.
Date of issuance: May 4, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment No.: 45. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML15090A339; documents related to these amendments are
listed in the safety evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
Facility Operating License No. DPR-7: This amendment revises the
License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 3, 2013, (78
FR 54285).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated May 4, 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: April 3, 2015, as supplemented by
letters dated June 2, 2015; November 27, 2015; February 3, 2016;
February 10, 2016; and March 4, 2016.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical
Specification (TS) 3/4.3.1, ``Reactor Trip System Instrumentation,'' to
support planned plant modifications to replace the existing source
range and intermediate range nuclear instrumentation with equivalent
neutron monitoring systems to increase system reliability.
Date of issuance: April 28, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
at Salem, Unit No. 1, during the fall 2017 refueling outage (1R25), and
at Salem, Unit No. 2, during the spring 2017 refueling outage (2R22).
Amendment Nos.: 313 (Unit No. 1) and 294 (Unit No. 2). A publicly-
available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16096A419;
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: August 4, 2015 (80 FR
46350). The supplemental letters dated November 27, 2015; February 3,
2016; February 10, 2016; and March 4, 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 April 28, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
[[Page 32815]]
South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, South Carolina Public Service
Authority, Docket No. 50-395, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit
No. 1, Fairfield County, South Carolina
Date of amendment request: September 29, 2015.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment adopts the NRC-
approved Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Improved Standard
Technical Specifications Change Traveler TSTF-523, Revision 2,
``Generic Letter 2008-01, Managing Gas Accumulation.''
Date of issuance: May 6, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 204. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML16104A295; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-12: Amendment revised the
Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 24, 2015 (80
FR 73241).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated May 6, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
STP Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 50-498 and 50-499, South
Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, Matagorda County, Texas
Date of amendment request: April 29, 2015, as supplemented by
letters dated June 29, October 8, and November 11, 2015, and March 17,
2016.
Brief description of amendment: The amendments revised Technical
Specification 6.8.3.j, ``Containment Leakage Rate Testing Program,'' to
allow a permanent extension of the Type A primary containment
integrated leak rate testing frequency from once every 10 years to once
every 15 years.
Date of issuance: April 29, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 1--210; Unit 2--197. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16116A007; documents related
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with
the amendments.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-76 and NPF-80: The amendments
revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 14, 2015 (80 FR
48942). The notice was corrected on August 20, 2015 (80 FR 50663). The
supplemental letters dated October 8 and November 11, 2015, and March
17, 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 April 29, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 50-259, Browns Ferry Nuclear
Plant, Unit 1, Limestone County, Alabama
Date of amendment request: September 25, 2015, as supplemented by
letters dated December 28, 2015, and March 28, 2016.
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 12 SLMCPR evaluation.
Date of issuance: April 26, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
during the Unit 1 refueling outage in the fall of 2016.
Amendment No.: 295. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML16028A414, documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-33: Amendment revised
the Facility Operating License and TS.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 5, 2016 (81 FR
276). The supplemental letters dated December 28, 2015, and March 28,
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 an SE dated April 26, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 13th day of May 2016.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Anne T. Boland,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2016-11976 Filed 5-23-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P