[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 177 (Tuesday, September 13, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62926-62935]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-21998]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2016-0188]
Biweekly Notice: Applications and Amendments to Facility
Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant
Hazards Considerations
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Biweekly notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 189a. (2) of the Atomic Energy Act of
1954, as amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC) is publishing this regular biweekly notice. The Act requires the
Commission to publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to
be issued, and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make
immediately effective any amendment to an operating license or combined
license, as applicable, upon a determination by the Commission that
such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration,
notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a
hearing from any person.
This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or
proposed to be issued, from August 16, 2016, to August 29, 2016. The
last biweekly notice was published on August 30, 2016.
DATES: Comments must be filed by October 13, 2016. A request for a
hearing must be filed by November 14, 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-2016-0188. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-
3463; email: [email protected]. For technical questions, contact
the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this document.
Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Office of Administration,
Mail Stop: OWFN-12-H08, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555-0001.
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting
comments, see ``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paula Blechman, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2242, email: [email protected].
I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments
A. Obtaining Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0188, facility name, unit
number(s), plant docket number, application date, and subject 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-2016-0188.
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 this
document.
NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
B. Submitting Comments
Please include Docket ID NRC-2016-0188, facility name, unit
number(s), plant docket number, 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 if circumstances change during the 30-day comment
period such that failure to act in a
[[Page 62927]]
timely way would result, for example, in derating or shutdown of the
facility. If the Commission takes 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. If 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
persons (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by this action may
file a request for a hearing and a petition to intervene (petition)
with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility
operating license or combined license. Petitions 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 petition 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 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 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
petitioner; (2) the nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to
be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the
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 petitioner's interest. The petition
must also set forth the specific contentions which the 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
petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for the
contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert
opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner
intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The
petitioner must also provide references to those specific sources and
documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the petitioner
intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion to support
its position on the issue. 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 petitioner
to relief. A 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 the NRC's regulations, policies, and procedures.
Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60
days from the date of publication of this notice. Requests for hearing,
petitions for leave to intervene, and motions for leave to file new or
amended contentions that are filed after the 60-day deadline will not
be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the
filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10
CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(iii).
If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the
Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no
significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve
to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that
the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration,
the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately
effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held
would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final
determination is that the amendment request involves a significant
hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before
the issuance of any amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent
danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will
issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.
A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian
Tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to
participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1).
The petition should state the nature and extent of the petitioner's
interest in the proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the
Commission by November 14, 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 set forth in this section, except that under 10 CFR
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. Details regarding the opportunity to
make a limited appearance will be provided by the presiding officer if
such sessions are scheduled.
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 (hereinafter
``petition''), and documents filed by interested governmental entities
[[Page 62928]]
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, as amended at 77
FR 46562, August 3, 2012). The E-Filing process requires participants
to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in
some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may
not submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption
in accordance with the procedures described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10
days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the
Office of the Secretary by email at [email protected], or by
telephone at 301-415-1677, to request (1) a digital identification (ID)
certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or
representative) to digitally sign documents and access the E-Submittal
server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise
the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a request or
petition (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 available on the NRC's public Web site at
http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/adjudicatory-sub.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 Electronic Filing Help Desk will not be
able to offer assistance in using unlisted software.
Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a
docket has been created, the participant can then submit a petition.
Submissions should be in Portable Document Format (PDF). Additional
guidance on PDF submissions is available on the NRC's public Web site
at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/electronic-sub-ref-mat.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 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 Electronic
Filing 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 Electronic Filing Help Desk is available between 9 a.m.
and 7 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
stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and
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 petition 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.
The Commission will issue a notice or order granting or denying a
hearing request or intervention petition, designating the issues for
any hearing that will be held and designating the Presiding Officer. A
notice granting a hearing will be published in the Federal Register and
served on the parties to the hearing.
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.
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: June 30, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16194A342.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the
Technical Specification (TS) requirements for the auxiliary feedwater
(AFW) system. The proposed changes include conforming administrative
changes to the TSs.
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:
[[Page 62929]]
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change requires that three AFW steam supplies must
be operable. The AFW system is not an initiator of any accident
previously evaluated; therefore, the probability of occurrence of an
accident is not significantly affected by the proposed changes. The
change does not involve a significant increase in the consequences
of an accident because three steam supplies are needed to ensure
that the AFW system can perform its specified function for all
postulated events in the presence of a single failure. The proposed
changes do not adversely impact the ability of the AFW system to
mitigate the consequences of accidents previously evaluated because
the proposed change reduces the allowable out of service time for a
single inoperable steam supply.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change requires that three steam supplies are
available to ensure that the AFW system can perform its specified
function in the presence of a single failure. As such, the proposed
change adds a more restrictive requirement than currently exists
because the LCO [limiting condition for operation] can no longer be
met with only two AFW steam supplies operable.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of
the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed).
The proposed change does not create any new failure modes for
existing equipment or any new limiting single failures.
Additionally, the proposed change does not involve a change in the
methods governing normal plant operation, and all safety functions
will continue to perform as previously assumed in the accident
analyses. Thus, the proposed change does not adversely affect the
design function or operation of any plant structures, systems, or
components.
No new accident scenarios, failure mechanisms, or limiting
single failures are introduced as a result of the proposed change.
The proposed change does not challenge the performance or integrity
of any safety-related system.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change adds a more restrictive requirement than
currently exists because the LCO can no longer be met with only two
AFW steam supplies operable. The proposed change will not adversely
affect the operation of plant equipment or the function of equipment
assumed in the accident analysis. The proposed amendment does not
involve changes to any safety analyses assumptions, safety limits,
or limiting safety system settings. The change does not adversely
impact plant operating margins or the reliability of equipment
credited in the safety analyses.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: William S. Blair, Managing Attorney--
Nuclear, Florida Power & Light Company, 700 Universe Blvd., MS LAW/JB,
Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Tracy J. Orf.
South Carolina Electric and Gas Company and South Carolina Public
Service Authority, Docket Nos. 52-027 and 52-028, Virgil C. Summer
Units 2 and 3, Fairfield County, South Carolina
Date of amendment request: June 2, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16154A226.
Description of amendment request: The proposed changes revise the
Combined Licenses (COL) concerning the design details of the safety-
related passive core cooling system (PXS), the nonsafety-related normal
residual heat removal system (RNS), and the nonsafety-related
containment air filtration system (VFS). The amendment request proposes
changes to the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) in the form
of departures from the plant-specific Design Control Document (DCD)
Tier 2 information, and involves changes to related plant-specific DCD
Tier 1 information, with corresponding changes to the associated COL
Appendix C information. Because, this proposed change requires a
departure from Tier 1 information in the Westinghouse Advanced Passive
1000 DCD, the licensee also requested an exemption from the
requirements of the Generic DCD Tier 1 in accordance with 10 CFR
52.63(b)(1).
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not affect the operation of any systems
or equipment that initiate an analyzed accident or alter any
structures, systems, and components (SSCs) accident initiator or
initiating sequence of events. The proposed changes result from
identifying PSX, RNS, and VFS piping lines required to be described
in the licensing basis as ASME [American Society of Mechanical
Engineers] Code Section III, evaluated to meet the LBB [leak-before-
break] design criteria, or designed to withstand combined normal and
seismic design basis loads without a loss of functional capability.
Neither planned or inadvertent operation nor failure of the PXS,
RNS, or VFS is an accident initiator or part of an initiating
sequence of events for an accident previously evaluated. Therefore,
the probabilities of the accidents evaluated in the UFSAR are not
affected.
The proposed changes do not have an adverse impact on the
ability of the PXS, RNS, or VFS to perform their design functions.
The design of the PXS, RNS, and VFS continues to meet the same
regulatory acceptance criteria, codes, and standards as required by
the UFSAR. In addition, the changes ensure that the capabilities of
the PXS, RNS, and VFS to mitigate the consequences of an accident
meet the applicable regulatory acceptance criteria, and there is no
adverse effect on any safety-related SSC or function used to
mitigate an accident. The changes do not affect the prevention and
mitigation of other abnormal events, e.g., anticipated operational
occurrences, earthquakes, floods and turbine missiles, or their
safety or design analyses. Therefore, the consequences of the
accidents evaluated in the UFSAR are not affected.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not affect the operation of any systems
or equipment that may initiate a new or different kind of accident,
or alter any SSC such that a new accident initiator or initiating
sequence of events is created. The proposed changes result from
identifying PXS, RNS, and VFS piping lines required to be described
in the licensing basis as ASME Code Section III, evaluated to meet
the LBB design criteria, or designed to withstand combined normal
and seismic design basis loads without a loss of functional
capability. These proposed changes do not adversely affect any other
PXS, RNS, VFS, or SSC design functions or methods of operation in a
manner that results in a new failure mode, malfunction, or sequence
of events that affect safety-related or nonsafety-related equipment.
Therefore, this activity does not allow for a new fission product
release path, result in a new fission product barrier failure mode,
or create a new sequence of events that results in significant fuel
cladding failures.
[[Page 62930]]
Therefore, the requested amendment does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes maintain existing safety margins. The
proposed changes ensure that PXS, RNS, and VFS design requirements
and design functions are met. The proposed changes maintain existing
safety margin through continued application of the existing
requirements of the UFSAR, while adding additional design features
to ensure the PXS, RNS, and VFS perform the design functions
required to meet the existing safety margins. Therefore, the
proposed changes satisfy the same design functions in accordance
with the same codes and standards as stated in the UFSAR. These
changes do not adversely affect any design code, function, design
analysis, safety analysis input or result, or design/safety margin.
Because no safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/
criterion is challenged or exceeded by the proposed changes, no
margin of safety is reduced.
Therefore, the requested amendment does not involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Ms. Kathryn M. Sutton, Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius, LLC, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004-2514.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Jennifer Dixon-Herrity.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-
366, Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Appling County,
Georgia
Date of amendment request: July 1, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16188A268.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise
Technical Specification (TS) 5.5.12, ``Primary Containment Leakage Rate
Testing Program,'' by (1) increasing the existing Type A integrated
leak test program test interval from 10 to 15 years in accordance with
Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) topical report NEI 94-01, Revision 3-A,
``Industry Guideline for Implementing Performance-Based Option of 10
CFR part 50, Appendix J'' (ADAMS Accession No. ML12221A202), and the
conditions and limitations specified in NEI 94-01, Revision 2-A (ADAMS
Accession No. ML100620847); (2) extending the containment isolation
valve leakage test (Type C) frequency from 60 months to 75 months in
accordance with NEI 94-01, Revision 3-A; (3) adopting the use of the
American National Standards Institute/American Nuclear Society 56.8-
2002, ``Containment System Leakage Testing Requirements;'' and (4)
adopting a more conservative grace interval of 9 months for Type A,
Type B, and Type C leakage test in accordance with NEI 94-01, Revision
3-A.
Additionally, the amendment would also delete the information from
TS 5.5.12 regarding the performance of Type A tests for Unit Nos. 1 and
2 in 2008 and 2010, respectively, on the basis that both tests have
already occurred.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment to the Technical Specifications (TS)
involves the extension of the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant (HNP),
Units 1 and 2 Type A containment test interval to 15 years and the
extension of the Type C test interval to 75 months. The current Type
A test interval of 120 months (10 years) would be extended on a
permanent basis to no longer than 15 years from the last Type A
test. The current Type C test interval of 60 months for selected
components would be extended on a performance basis to no longer
than 75 months. Extensions of up to nine months (total maximum
interval of 84 months for Type C tests) are permissible only for
non-routine emergent conditions. The proposed extension does not
involve either a physical change to the plant or a change in the
manner in which the plant is operated or controlled. The containment
is designed to provide an essentially leak tight barrier against the
uncontrolled release of radioactivity to the environment for
postulated accidents. As such, the containment and the testing
requirements invoked to periodically demonstrate the integrity of
the containment exist to ensure the plant's ability to mitigate the
consequences of an accident, and do not involve the prevention or
identification of any precursors of an accident. The change in Type
A test frequency from three in ten years to one in fifteen years,
measured as an increase in the total integrated plant dose risk for
those accident sequences influenced by Type A testing, is 9.90E-03
person-rem/yr using the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)
guidance values, and drops to 1.96E-03 person-rem/yr using the EPRI
Expert Elicitation values. Therefore, this proposed extension does
not involve a significant increase in the probability of an accident
previously evaluated.
In addition, as documented in NUREG-1493, ``Performance-Based
Containment Leak-Test Program,'' Types B and C tests have identified
a very large percentage of containment leakage paths, and the
percentage of containment leakage paths that are detected only by
Type A testing is very small. The HNP, Units 1 and 2 Type A test
history supports this conclusion.
The integrity of the containment is subject to two types of
failure mechanisms that can be categorized as: (1) Activity based,
and, (2) time based. Activity based failure mechanisms are defined
as degradation due to system and/or component modifications or
maintenance. Local leakage rate test (LLRT) requirements and
administrative controls such as configuration management and
procedural requirements for system restoration ensure that
containment integrity is not degraded by plant modifications or
maintenance activities. The design and construction requirements of
the containment combined with the containment inspections performed
in accordance with American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)
Section XI, and TS requirements serve to provide a high degree of
assurance that the containment would not degrade in a manner that is
detectable only by a Type A test. Based on the above, the proposed
extensions do not significantly increase the consequences of an
accident previously evaluated. The proposed amendment also deletes
exceptions previously granted to allow onetime extensions of the
ILRT [integrated leak rate test] test frequency for both Units 1 and
2. These exceptions were for activities that have already taken
place; therefore, their deletion is solely an administrative action
that has no effect on any component and no physical impact on how
the units are operated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not result in 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 amendment to the TS involves the extension of the
HNP, Unit 1 and 2 Type A containment test interval to 15 years and
the extension of the Type C test interval to 75 months. The
containment and the testing requirements to periodically demonstrate
the integrity of the containment exist to ensure the plant's ability
to mitigate the consequences of an accident. The proposed change
does not involve a physical change to the plant (i.e., no new or
different type of equipment will be installed) nor does it alter the
design, configuration, or change the manner in which the plant is
operated or controlled beyond the standard functional capabilities
of the equipment.
The proposed amendment also deletes exceptions previously
granted to allow one-time extensions of the ILRT test frequency for
both Units 1 and 2. These exceptions were for activities that would
have already taken place by the time this amendment is approved;
therefore, their deletion is solely an administrative action that
does not result in any change in how the units are operated.
[[Page 62931]]
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 amendment to TS 5.5.12 involves the extension of
the HNP, Units 1 and 2 Type A containment test interval to 15 years
and the extension of the Type C test interval to 75 months for
selected components. This amendment does not alter the manner in
which safety limits, limiting safety system set points, or limiting
conditions for operation are determined. The specific requirements
and conditions of the TS Containment Leak Rate Testing Program exist
to ensure that the degree of containment structural integrity and
leak-tightness that is considered in the plant safety analysis is
maintained. The overall containment leak rate limit specified by TS
is maintained.
The proposed change involves only the extension of the interval
between Type A containment leak rate tests and Type C tests for HNP,
Units 1 and 2. The proposed surveillance interval extension is
bounded by the 15-year ILRT Interval and the 75-month Type C test
interval currently authorized within NEI 94-01, ``Industry Guideline
for Implementing Performance-Based Option of 10 CFR part 50,
Appendix J,'' Revision 3-A. Industry experience supports the
conclusion that Type B and C testing detects a large percentage of
containment leakage paths and that the percentage of containment
leakage paths that are detected only by Type A testing is small. The
containment inspections performed in accordance with ASME Section
XI, and TS serve to provide a high degree of assurance that the
containment would not degrade in a manner that is detectable only by
Type A testing. The combination of these factors ensures that the
margin of safety in the plant safety analysis is maintained. The
design, operation, testing methods and acceptance criteria for Type
A, B, and C containment leakage tests specified in applicable codes
and standards would continue to be met, with the acceptance of this
proposed change, since these are not affected by changes to the Type
A and Type C test intervals.
The proposed amendment also deletes exceptions previously
granted to allow one time extensions of the ILRT test frequency for
both HNP Units 1 and 2. These exceptions were for activities that
have taken place; therefore, their deletion is solely an
administrative action and does not change how the units are operated
and maintained. Thus, there is no reduction in any margin of safety.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Jennifer M. Buettner, Associate General
Counsel, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., 40 Inverness Center
Parkway, Birmingham, AL 35242.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026,
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4, Burke County, Georgia
Date of amendment request: July 25, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16207A496.
Description of amendment request: The amendment request proposes
changes to plant-specific Tier 1 information, with corresponding
changes to the associated combined license (COL) Appendix C
information, and involves associated Tier 2 information in the Updated
Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). Pursuant to the provisions of 10
CFR 52.63(b)(1), an exemption from elements of the design as certified
in the 10 CFR part 52, Appendix D, design certification rule is also
requested for the plant-specific design control document Tier 1
material departures. Specifically, the requested amendment proposes
clarifications to a plant-specific Tier 1 (and COL Appendix C) table
and a UFSAR table in regard to the inspections of the excore source,
intermediate, and power range detectors.
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 Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) staff's edits in square brackets:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change to specify the inspection of the excore
source, intermediate, and power range detectors is done to verify
that aluminum surfaces are contained in stainless steel or titanium,
and avoids the introduction of aluminum into the post-loss of
coolant accident (LOCA) containment environment due to detector
materials. The proposed change does not alter any safety related
functions. The materials of construction are compatible with the
post [-]LOCA conditions inside containment and will not
significantly contribute to hydrogen generation or chemical
precipitates. The change does not affect the operation of any
systems or equipment that initiate an analyzed accident or alter any
structures, systems, and components (SSC) accident initiator or
initiating sequence of events.
The change does not impact the support, design, or operation of
mechanical and fluid systems. There is no change to plant systems or
the response of systems to postulated accident conditions. There is
no change to the predicted radioactive releases due to normal
operation or postulated accident conditions. Consequently, the plant
response to previously evaluated accidents or external events is not
adversely affected, nor does the proposed change create any new
accident precursors.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not affect the operation of any systems
or equipment that may initiate a new or different kind of accident,
or alter any SSC such that a new accident initiator or initiating
sequence of events is created. The proposed change to specify the
inspection of the excore source, intermediate, and power range
detectors is done to verify that aluminum surfaces are contained in
stainless steel or titanium, and avoids the introduction of aluminum
into the post[-]LOCA containment environment due to detector
materials. In addition, the proposed change to the [inspection,
test, analysis, and acceptance criteria (ITAAC)] verified materials
of construction does not alter the design function of the excore
detectors. The detector canning materials of construction are
compatible with the post-LOCA containment environment and do not
contribute a significant amount of hydrogen or chemical
precipitates. The change to the ITAAC aligns the inspection with the
Tier 2 design feature. Consequently, because the excore detectors
functions are unchanged, there are no adverse effects on accidents
previously evaluated in the UFSAR.
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 to specify the inspection of the excore
source, intermediate, and power range detectors is done to verify
that aluminum surfaces are contained in stainless steel or titanium,
and avoids the introduction of aluminum into the post-LOCA
containment environment, does not alter any safety-related
equipment, applicable design codes, code compliance, design
function, or safety analysis. Consequently, no safety analysis or
design basis acceptance limit/criterion is challenged or exceeded by
the proposed change, thus the margin of safety is not reduced.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three
[[Page 62932]]
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: M. Stanford Blanton, Balch & Bingham LLP,
1710 Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 35203-2015.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Jennifer Dixon-Herrity.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026,
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), Units 3 and 4, Burke County,
Georgia
Date of amendment request: June 14, 2016, as revised on August 12,
2016. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession Nos.
ML16166A409 and ML16225A655, respectively.
Description of amendment request: The amendment request proposes
changes to the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) in the form
of departures from the incorporated plant-specific Design Control
Document Tier 2* and associated Tier 2 information. Specifically, the
proposed departures consist of changes to the UFSAR to revise the
details of the structural design of auxiliary building floors.
A biweekly Federal Register notice was published on August 2, 2016,
providing an opportunity to comment, request a hearing, and petition
for leave to intervene for a License Amendment Request (LAR) for the
VEGP combined licenses. Since that time, the licensee has submitted a
revision to the original LAR, dated August 12, 2016, that increases the
scope of the LAR.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The design functions of the auxiliary building floors are to
provide support, protection, and separation for the seismic Category
I mechanical and electrical equipment located in the auxiliary
building. The auxiliary building is a seismic Category I structure
and is designed for dead, live, thermal, pressure, safe shutdown
earthquake loads, and loads due to postulated pipe breaks. The
proposed changes to UFSAR descriptions and figures are intended to
address changes in the detail design of floors in the auxiliary
building. The thickness and strength of the auxiliary building
floors are not reduced. As a result, the design function of the
auxiliary building structure is not adversely affected by the
proposed changes. There is no change to plant systems or the
response of systems to postulated accident conditions. There is no
change to the predicted radioactive releases due to postulated
accident conditions. The plant response to previously evaluated
accidents or external events is not adversely affected, nor do the
changes described create any new accident precursors. Therefore, the
proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The changes to UFSAR descriptions are proposed to address
changes in the detail design of floors in the auxiliary building.
The thickness, geometry, and strength of the structures are not
adversely altered. The concrete and reinforcement materials are not
altered. The properties of the concrete are not altered. The changes
to the design details of the auxiliary building structure do not
create any new accident precursors. As a result, the design function
of the auxiliary building structure is not adversely affected by the
proposed changes.
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 criteria and requirements of American Concrete Institute
(ACI) 349 and American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) N690
provide a margin of safety to structural failure. The design of the
auxiliary building structure conforms to criteria and requirements
in ACI 349 and AISC N690 and therefore maintains the margin of
safety. Analysis of the connection design confirms that code
provisions are appropriate to the floor to wall connection. The
proposed changes to the UFSAR address changes in the detail design
of floors in the auxiliary building. The proposed changes also
incorporate the requirements for development and anchoring of headed
reinforcement which were previously approved. There is no change to
design requirements of the auxiliary building structure. There is no
change to the method of evaluation from that used in the design
basis calculations. There is not a significant change to the in
structure response spectra. Therefore, the proposed amendment does
not result in a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: M. Stanford Blanton, Balch & Bingham LLP,
1710 Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 35203-2015.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Jennifer Dixon-Herrity.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 50-390, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant
(WBN), Unit 1, Rhea County, Tennessee
Date of amendment request: June 7, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16159A403.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the
Technical Specifications (TSs) to allow use of component cooling system
(CCS) pump 2B-B to support CCS Train 1B operability when the normally-
aligned CCS pump is inoperable. The amendment would provide increased
flexibility for maintaining CCS operability.
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 change to allow the use of the CCS pump 2B-B to
support Train 1B operability does not result in any physical changes
to plant safety-related structures, systems, or components (SSCs).
The CCS functions to remove plant system heat loads during normal,
shutdown, and accident conditions. The CCS will continue to perform
this function with equipment qualified to the same standards. The
CCS is not an accident initiator, but instead performs accident
mitigation functions by serving as the heat sink for safety-related
equipment, ensuring the conditions and assumptions credited in the
accident analyses are preserved. Therefore, the proposed change does
not involve a significant increase in the probability of an accident
previously evaluated.
The purpose of this change is to modify the CCS TS to allow the
use of CCS pump 2B-B to replace CCS pump C-S in supporting Train 1B
operability. The proposed change provides assurance that the minimum
conditions necessary for the CCS to perform its heat removal safety
function are maintained. Accordingly, operation as specified by the
addition of the Notes and the additional surveillance requirement
will provide the necessary assurance that fuel cladding, reactor
coolant system pressure boundary, and containment integrity limits
are not challenged during worst-case pos[t]-accident conditions. CCS
pump C-S and pump 2B-B are identical pumps with identical controls
except that the CCS pump 2B-B does not receive an automatic start
signal from a Unit 1 Safety Injection (SI) actuation signal. To
compensate for the lack
[[Page 62933]]
of the SI actuation signal, CCS pump 2B-B is required to be in
operation to support Unit 1 operation when substituting for CSS pump
C-S. With the CCS pump 2B-B in operation, the pump will continue to
operate following a SI actuation signal. Accordingly, the
conclusions of the accident analyses will remain as previously
evaluated such that there will be no significant increase in the
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequence 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 any physical changes to
plant safety-related SSCs or alter the modes of plant operation in a
manner that will change the design function or operation of the CCS.
The proposed additional limits on CCS alignment and CCS pump 2B-B
operation provide assurance that the conditions and assumptions
credited in the accident analyses are preserved. Thus, the plant's
overall ability to reject heat to the ultimate heat sink during
normal operation, normal shutdown, and worst-case accident
conditions will not be significantly affected by this proposed
change. Because the safety and design requirements continue to be
met and the integrity of the reactor coolant system pressure
boundary is not challenged, no new credible failure mechanisms,
malfunctions, or accident initiators are created, and there will be
no effect on the accident mitigating systems in a manner that would
significantly degrade the plant's response to an accident.
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 change modifies the CCS TS to maintain the CCS
Train 1B operable while aligned with CCS pump 2B-B. With CCS pump
2B-B in operation when aligned to CCS Train 1B, CCS pump 2B-B will
operate to provide the CCS accident mitigation function if a
postulated accident occurs. CCS pumps C-S and 2B-B are identical
pumps and will perform the same function with this change, resulting
in essentially no change in the safety margin before the change to
the safety margin after the change. Accordingly, the proposed change
will not significantly reduce the margin of safety of any SSCs that
rely on the CCS for heat removal to perform their safety-related
functions.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Ms. Sherry A. Quirk, Executive Vice
President and General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West
Summit Hill Drive, 6A Tower West, Knoxville, TN 37902.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Tracy J. Orf.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 50-391, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant
(WBN), Unit 2, Rhea County, Tennessee
Date of amendment request: May 16, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16137A572.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the
Technical Specifications (TS) to correct an administrative error
regarding the steam generator (SG) narrow range (NR) level specified in
Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.4.6.3.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The WBN Unit 2 TS SR 3.4.6.3 is being amended due [to] an
administrative error that was incorporated into the initial
submittal of the WBN Unit 2 Revision 0 TS. The impact of this
amendment will not affect how plant equipment is operated or
maintained. This proposed amendment corrects an error in the
required SG NR level minimum value, while in Mode 4, from 32% to 6%.
The purpose for this SR is to ensure the steam generator u-tubes are
covered with water on the secondary side of the tubes. For the WBN
Unit 2 SGs the lower SG NR level tap is above the top of the U-
tubes. Therefore, a 6% NR level ensures the U-tubes are covered with
water. There are no changes to the physical plant or analytical
methods.
The proposed amendment does not impact any accident initiators,
analyzed events, or assumed mitigation of accident or transient
events. The proposed changes do not involve the addition or removal
of any equipment or any design changes to the facility. The proposed
changes do not affect any design functions, or analyses that verify
the capability of structures, systems, and components (SSCs) to
perform a design function. The proposed changes do not change any of
the accidents previously evaluated in the Final Safety Analysis
Report (FSAR). The proposed changes do not affect SSCs, operating
procedures, and administrative controls that have the function of
preventing or mitigating any of these accidents.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
No actual plant equipment or accident analyses will be affected
by the proposed amendment. The proposed amendment will not change
the design function of any SSCs or result in any new failure
mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident initiators not considered in
the design and licensing bases. The proposed amendment does not
impact any accident initiators, analyzed events, or assumed
mitigation of accident or transient events.
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 amendment does not involve any physical changes to
the plant or alter the manner in which plant systems are intended to
be operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The
proposed amendment does not alter the manner in which safety limits,
limiting safety system settings or limiting conditions for operation
are determined. The safety analysis acceptance criteria are not
affected by this change. The proposed amendment will not result in
plant operation in a configuration outside the design basis. The
proposed amendment does not adversely affect systems that respond to
safely shutdown the plant and to maintain the plant in a safe
shutdown condition.
The proposed change does not alter the manner in which safety
limits, limiting safety system settings or limiting conditions for
operation are determined. The safety analysis acceptance criteria
are not affected by this change. The proposed change will not result
in plant operation in a configuration outside the design basis.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Ms. Sherry A. Quirk, Executive Vice
President and General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West
Summit Hill Drive, 6A Tower West, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Tracy J. Orf.
III. Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses
and Combined Licenses
During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice,
the
[[Page 62934]]
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.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-461, Clinton Power
Station (CPS), Unit No. 1, DeWitt County, Illinois
Date of application for amendment: January 29, 2016, as
supplemented by letters dated June 2 and 10, 2016.
Brief description of amendment: The proposed amendment approved the
post- loss-of-coolant-accident drawdown time for secondary containment
from 12 to 19 minutes as described in the CPS Updated Safety Analysis
Report and technical specification bases.
Date of issuance: August 17, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 210. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML16217A332; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-62: The amendment revised the
Updated Safety Analysis Report.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 12, 2016 (81 FR
21599). The supplemental letters dated June 2 and 10, 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 August 17, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC (EGC), Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-374,
LaSalle County Station (LSCS), Units 1 and 2, LaSalle County, Illinois
Date of application for amendments: November 19, 2015, as
supplemented by letter dated April 11, 2016.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised LSCS
technical specifications (TS), Section 2.1.1, ``Reactor Core SLs
[safety limits],'' to reflect a lower reactor steam dome pressure
stated for reactor core SLs, Sections 2.1.1.1 and 2.1.1.2.
Specifically, the amendment reduced the reactor steam dome pressure in
TS SLs, Sections 2.1.1.1 and 2.1.1.2, from 785 psig [pound per square
inch gage] to 700 psia [pound per square inch absolute]. This change to
TS, Section 2.1.1, was identified as a result of 10 CFR part 21,
General Electric report SC05-03, ``Potential to Exceed Low Pressure
Technical Specification Safety Limit.'' This change is valid for the
NRC-approved pressure range pertinent to the critical power
correlations applied to the fuel types in use at LSCS.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and the amendment shall
be implemented for LSCS, Unit 1, within 30 days of issuance of the
amendment. Also, the amendment shall be implemented for LSCS, Unit 2,
prior to startup following refueling outage L2R16 in February 2017.
Amendment Nos.: 220 for NPF-11, Unit 1, and 206 for NPF-18, Unit 2.
The publicly-available version of documents related to these amendments
are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments in
ADAMS under Accession No. ML16155A110.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-11 and NPF-18: The amendments
revised the Licenses and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 2, 2016 (81 FR
5497). The supplemental letter dated April 11, 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 August 23, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Indiana Michigan Power Company, Docket No. 50-316, Donald C. Cook
Nuclear Plant (CNP), Unit 2, Berrien County, Michigan
Date of amendment request: October 19, 2015, as supplemented by
letters dated January 21, 2016, and April 18, 2016.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the CNP, Unit
2, technical specification (TS) requirements for the Engineered Safety
Feature Actuation System Instrumentation by adding a new Condition for
inoperable required channels for main feedwater pump trips, and by
adding a footnote to the Applicable Mode column of TS Table 3.3.2-1 to
reflect the new Condition.
Date of issuance: August 19, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 180 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 313. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML16216A181; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-74: The amendment
revises the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical
Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 22, 2015 (80
FR 79621). The supplemental letters dated January 21, 2016, and April
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 determination as published in the
Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a
[[Page 62935]]
Safety Evaluation dated August 19, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
NextEra Energy Duane Arnold, LLC, Docket No. 50-331, Duane Arnold
Energy Center (DAEC), Linn County, Iowa
Date of amendment request: August 6, 2015, as supplemented by
letter dated April 12, 2016.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the value of
reactor steam dome pressure specified within the Reactor Core Safety
Limits Technical Specification (TS) 2.1.1. This resolved a 10 CFR part
21, condition concerning a potential to momentarily violate Reactor
Core Safety Limit (TSs 2.1.1.1 and 2.1.1.2) during a pressure regulator
failure maximum demand (Open) transient.
Date of issuance: August 18, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment No.: 295. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML16153A091; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-49: The amendment
revised the License and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 10, 2015 (80
FR 69713). The supplemental letter dated April 12, 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 August 18, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Omaha Public Power District, Docket No. 50-285, Fort Calhoun Station,
Unit No. 1, Washington County, Nebraska
Date of amendment request: September 11, 2015, as supplemented by
letter dated April 8, 2016.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical
Specifications (TSs) by removing the current stored diesel fuel oil and
lube oil numerical volume requirements from the TSs and replacing them
with emergency diesel generator operating time requirements consistent
with NRC-approved Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler
TSTF-501, Revision 1, ``Relocate Stored Fuel Oil and Lube Oil Volume
Values to Licensee Control,'' including plant-specific variances.
Date of issuance: August 19, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 289. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML16182A363; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-40: The amendment
revised the License and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 24, 2015 (80
FR 73239). The supplemental letter dated April 8, 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 August 19, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026,
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), Units 3 and 4, Burke County,
Georgia
Date of amendment request: November 16, 2015, as supplemented by
letter dated February 12, 2016.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment authorized changes to
the VEGP Units 3 and 4 Updated Final Safety Analysis Report in the form
of departures from the incorporated plant-specific Design Control
Document Tier 2* information. The proposed changes are related to
changes to construction methods and construction sequence used for the
composite floors and roof of the auxiliary building.
Date of issuance: June 29, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 49. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML16146A734; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Facility Combined License Nos. NPF-91 and NPF-92: The amendment
revised the Facility Combined Licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 2, 2016 (81 FR
5495). The supplemental letter dated February 12, 2016, provided
additional information that did not expand the scope of the amendment
request and did not change the NRC staff's original proposed no
significant hazards consideration determination.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in the Safety Evaluation dated June 29, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 31st day of August 2016.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Anne T. Boland,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2016-21998 Filed 9-12-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P