[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 225 (Tuesday, November 22, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 83871-83881]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-28085]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2016-0239]
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 October 25 to November 7, 2016. The last
biweekly notice was published on November 8, 2016.
DATES: Comments must be filed by December 22, 2016. A request for a
hearing must be filed by January 23, 2017.
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-2016-0239. 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: Beverly Clayton, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-3475, email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments
A. Obtaining Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0239, 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-2016-0239.
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].
NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public
documents at
[[Page 83872]]
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-2016-0239, 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 submissions into ADAMS.
II. Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility
Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses and Proposed No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under
the Commission's regulations in Sec. 50.92 of title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (10 CFR), this means that operation of the facility
in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated, 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 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 the action. Petitions shall be filed in accordance with
the Commission's ``Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure'' in 10 CFR
part 2. Interested persons 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's 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 Panel
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 proceeding. 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 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) 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
[[Page 83873]]
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 January 23, 2017. 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
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 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, 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
[[Page 83874]]
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.
DTE Electric Company, Docket No. 50-341, Fermi 2, Monroe County,
Michigan
Date of amendment request: July 25, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16207A433.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
eliminate Technical Specification (TS) Section 5.5.6, ``Inservice
Testing and Inspection Program,'' as well as revise TS Section 5.5.4,
``Radioactive Effluent Controls Program,'' by clarifying that
Surveillance Requirements (SRs) 3.0.2 and 3.0.3 are applicable to the
radioactive effluents program. In addition, the amendment proposes
adding a new definition for ``Inservice Testing Program'' (IST), to TS
Section 1.1, ``Definitions.'' TS SRs that currently refer to the IST
would be revised to refer to the new defined term, ``INSERVICE TESTING
PROGRAM.'' The proposed changes are consistent with NRC-approved
Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler, TSTF-545, Revision
3, ``TS Inservice Testing Program Removal & Clarify SR Usage Rule
Application to TS Section 5.5 Testing.''
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises TS Chapter 5, ``Administrative
Controls,'' Section 5.5, ``Programs and Manuals,'' by eliminating
the ``Inservice Testing Program'' specification. Most requirements
in the Inservice Testing Program are removed, as they are
duplicative of requirements in the ASME OM [American Society of
Mechanical Engineers Operation and Maintenance] Code, as clarified
by Code Case OMN-20, ``Inservice Test Frequency.'' The remaining
requirements in the Section 5.5 IST Program are eliminated because
the NRC has determined their inclusion in the TS is contrary to
regulations. A new defined term, ``Inservice Testing Program,'' is
added to the TS, which references the requirements of 10 CFR
50.55a(f).
Performance of inservice testing is not an initiator to any
accident previously evaluated. As a result, the probability of
occurrence of an accident is not significantly affected by the
proposed change. Inservice test frequencies under Code Case OMN-20
are equivalent to the current testing period allowed by the TS with
the exception that testing frequencies greater than 2 years may be
extended by up to 6 months to facilitate test scheduling and
consideration of plant operating conditions that may not be suitable
for performance of the required testing. The testing frequency
extension will not affect the ability of the components to mitigate
any accident previously evaluated as the components are required to
be operable during the testing period extension. Performance of
inservice tests utilizing the allowances in OMN-20 will not
significantly affect the reliability of the tested components. As a
result, the availability of the affected components, as well as
their ability to mitigate the consequences of accidents previously
evaluated, is not affected.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not alter the design or configuration
of the plant. The proposed change does not involve a physical
alteration of the plant; no new or different kind of equipment will
be installed. The proposed change does not alter the types of
inservice testing performed. In most cases, the frequency of
inservice testing is unchanged. However, the frequency of testing
would not result in a new or different kind of accident from any
previously evaluated since the testing methods are not altered.
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 eliminates some requirements from the TS in
lieu of requirements in the ASME Code, as modified by use of Code
Case OMN-20. Compliance with the ASME Code is required by 10 CFR
50.55a. The proposed change also allows inservice tests with
frequencies greater than 2 years to be extended by 6 months to
facilitate test scheduling and consideration of plant operating
conditions that may not be suitable for performance of the required
testing. The testing frequency extension will not affect the ability
of the components to respond to an accident as the components are
required to be operable during the testing period extension. The
proposed change will eliminate the existing TS SR [surveillance
requirement] 3.0.3 allowance to defer performance of missed
inservice tests up to the duration of the specified testing
frequency, and instead will require an assessment of the missed test
on equipment operability. This assessment will consider the effect
on a margin of safety (equipment operability). Should the component
be inoperable, the TS provide actions to ensure that the margin of
safety is protected. The proposed change also eliminates a statement
that nothing in the ASME Code should be construed to supersede the
requirements of any TS. The NRC has determined that statement to be
incorrect. However, elimination of the statement will have no effect
on plant operation or safety.
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.
[[Page 83875]]
Attorney for licensee: Jon P. Christinidis, DTE Energy, Expert
Attorney--Regulatory, 688 WCB, One Energy Plaza, Detroit, MI 48226-
1279.
NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.
Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Docket No. 50-261, H.B. Robinson Steam
Electric Plant (HBRSEP) Unit No. 2, Darlington County, South Carolina
Date of amendment request: September 14, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16259A169.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
adopt a revised alternative source term (AST) to support the transition
from an 18-month to a 24-month fuel cycle. The amendment would also
change applicable licensing basis documents.
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. The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant Increase
in the Probability or Consequences of an Accident Previously
Evaluated.
Revision of the AST does not affect the design or operation of
HBRSEP, Unit No. 2. Rather, once the occurrence of an accident has
been postulated, the new source term is an input to evaluate the
consequences of the postulated accident. The revision of the AST has
been evaluated. Based on the results of this analysis, it has been
demonstrated that the dose consequences are within the regulatory
[requirements and] guidance provided by the NRC. This [These
regulatory requirements and] guidance is [are] presented in 10 CFR
50.67 and Regulatory Guide 1.183 [, respectively].
Therefore, this change does not involve a significant increase
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.
2. The Proposed Change Does Not Create the Possibility of a New
or Different Kind of Accident From Any Previously Evaluated.
The proposed change does not affect plant structures, systems,
or components. The proposed change is a revision evaluation and does
not initiate design basis accidents.
Thus, this change does not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant Reduction
in the Margin of Safety.
The proposed change is associated with a revision to the
licensing basis for HBRSEP, Unit No. 2. The revised AST is in
accordance with 10 CFR 50.67 and the associated Regulatory Guide
1.183. The analysis has been performed using conservative
methodologies in accordance with regulatory guidance. The dose
consequences are within the acceptance criteria found in the
regulatory [requirements and] guidance associated with Alternative
Source Terms.
The proposed change continues to ensure that doses at the
exclusion area and low population zone boundaries, as well as the
control room, are within the corresponding regulatory limits.
Specifically, the margin of safety for the radiological consequences
of these accidents is considered to be that provided by meeting the
applicable regulatory limits.
Therefore, this 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: Kathryn B. Nolan, Associate General Counsel,
Duke Energy Business Services, 550 South Tyron Street, Mail Code
DEC45A, Charlotte, NC 28202.
Acting NRC Branch Chief: Jeanne A. Dion.
Entergy Operations, Inc. (Entergy), Docket No. 50-382, Waterford Steam
Electric Station, Unit 3 (Waterford 3), St. Charles Parish, Louisiana
Date of amendment request: September 21, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16245A359.
Description of amendment request: Entergy proposes to revise the
Waterford 3 Technical Specifications (TS) to clarify the surveillance
requirements for selected Engineered Safety Features Actuation System
(ESFAS) Subgroup relays. Specifically, the license amendment would
revise Table Notation for TS Table 4.3-2, ``Engineered Safety Features
Actuation System Instrumentation Surveillance Requirements,'' to remove
references to specific relays and to ensure the notation fully reflects
the implementation of the Waterford 3 Surveillance Frequency Control
Program (SFCP). The Waterford 3 SFCP was approved by letter dated July
26, 2016, via License Amendment No. 249 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML16159A419).
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's edits in
[square brackets]:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change will allow relays K105 and K306 to not be
tested during power operation but shall be tested in accordance with
the same frequency identified in the SFCP for the primary relays,
which currently requires that they be tested at least once per 18
months and during each cold shutdown condition unless tested within
the previous 62 days. The probability of an accident previously
evaluated remains unchanged since the primary relays K114, K305, and
K313 are currently tested in accordance with the SFCP (not tested
during power operation but are tested at least once per 18 months
and during each cold shutdown condition unless tested within the
previous 62 days), K105 and K306 are currently not tested during
power operation, and K105 and K306 will be tested in accordance with
the SFCP (at least once per 18 months and during each cold shutdown
condition unless tested within the previous 62 days). Not testing
relays K105 and K306 during power operation and testing during cold
shutdown cannot initiate an accident because the specific accidents
which inadvertent ESFAS actuation is an initiator (Loss of External
Load, Loss of Normal Feedwater Flow, Asymmetric Steam Generator
Transient, and Loss of Component Cooling to the RCPs [Reactor
Coolant Pumps]) are not possible during cold shutdown.
The proposed change to allow relays K105 and K306 to not be
tested during power operation have been evaluated for impact on the
accident analyses. The accident analyses remain within the
regulatory acceptance criteria.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
Moreover, testing of the modified relay scheme during power
operation could result in inadvertent actuation and subsequent
occurrence of an accident if either the permissive or primary relay
has failed ``off,'' or actuated. Continued testing in accordance
with the SFCP assures inadvertent actuation during testing resulting
from a failed ``off'' relay will not result in an accident described
in the UFSAR [Updated Final Safety Analysis Report].
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 allows relays K105 and K306 to be tested in
accordance with the SFCP (not tested during power operation but
shall be tested at least once per 18 months and during each cold
shutdown condition unless tested within the previous 62 days). This
surveillance frequency does not change the design function or
operation of the ESFAS. There are no credible new failure
mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident initiators not considered in
the design and licensing bases that can be created by implementing
the proposed change.
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?
[[Page 83876]]
Response: No.
The inclusion of relays K105 and K306 in the list of relays in
the SFCP that are not tested during power operation as proposed in
this TS 3/4.3.2 amendment request has been determined to not exceed
or alter a design basis or safety limit and therefore has no
significant impact on the accident analyses described in the UFSAR,
therefore this change does not involve a significant reduction in
the existing margins of safety for the fuel, the fuel cladding, the
reactor coolant system boundary, or the containment building.
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 B. Glew, Jr., Associate General
Counsel--Entergy Services, Inc., 440 Hamilton Avenue, White Plains, New
York 10601.
Acting NRC Branch Chief: Stephen S. Koenick.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon), Docket No. 50-219, Oyster
Creek Nuclear Generating Station (OCNGS), Ocean County, New Jersey
Date of amendment request: May 17, 2016, as supplemented by letter
dated November 2, 2016. Publicly-available versions are available in
ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML16138A129 and ML16308A029, respectively.
Description of amendment request: The licensee has provided a
formal notification to the NRC, in a letter dated January 7, 2011
(ADAMS Accession No. ML110070507), of the intention to permanently
cease power operations of OCNGS no later than December 31, 2019. Once
certifications for permanent cessation of operations and permanent
removal of fuel from the reactor are submitted to the NRC, certain
staffing and training Technical Specifications (TSs) administrative
controls will no longer be applicable or appropriate for the
permanently defueled condition. Therefore, Exelon is requesting
approval of changes to the staffing and training requirements in
Section 6.0, ``Administrative Controls''; editorial and administrative
changes to Section 6.0, and add additional definitions to TS Section
1.1, ``Definitions,'' of the OCNGS TSs. The proposed changes include
additions to, deletions from, and conforming administrative changes to
the OCNGS TSs. The proposed amendment would not be effective until the
certification of permanent cessation of operation and certification of
permanent removal of fuel from the reactor vessel are submitted to the
NRC.
The license amendment request was originally noticed in the Federal
Register on July 19, 2016 (81 FR 46963). The notice is being reissued
in its entirety to include the revised scope and description of the
amendment request.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes would not take effect until OCNGS has
permanently ceased operation and entered a permanently defueled
condition. The proposed changes would revise the OCNGS TS by
deleting or modifying certain portions of the TS administrative
controls described in Section 6.0 of the TS that are no longer
applicable to a permanently shutdown and defueled facility.
The proposed changes do not involve any physical changes to
plant Structures, Systems, and Components (SSCs) or the manner in
which SSCs are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected.
The proposed changes do not involve a change to any safety limits,
limiting safety system settings, limiting control settings, limiting
conditions for operation, surveillance requirements, or design
features.
The deletion and modification of provisions of the
administrative controls do not directly affect the design of SSCs
necessary for safe storage of spent irradiated fuel or the methods
used for handling and storage of such fuel in the Spent Fuel Pool
(SFP). The proposed changes are administrative in nature and do not
affect any accidents applicable to the safe management of spent
irradiated fuel or the permanently shutdown and defueled condition
of the reactor.
In a permanently defueled condition, the only credible accidents
are the Fuel Handling Accident (FHA), Radioactive Liquid Waste
System Leak, and Postulated Radioactive Releases Due to Liquid Tank
Failures. Other accidents such as Loss of Coolant Accident, Loss of
Feedwater, and Reactivity and Power Distribution Anomalies will no
longer be applicable to a permanently defueled reactor plant.
The probability of occurrence of previously evaluated accidents
is not increased, since extended operation in a permanently defueled
condition will be the only operation allowed, and therefore, bounded
by the existing analyses. Additionally, the occurrence of postulated
accidents associated with reactor operation is no longer credible in
a permanently defueled reactor. This significantly reduces the scope
of applicable accidents.
Therefore, the proposed changes do 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 changes to delete and/or modify certain TS
administrative controls have no impact on facility SSCs affecting
the safe storage of spent irradiated fuel, or on the methods of
operation of such SSCs, or on the handling and storage of spent
irradiated fuel itself. The proposed changes do not result in
different or more adverse failure modes or accidents than previously
evaluated because the reactor will be permanently shut down and
defueled and OCNGS will no longer be authorized to operate the
reactor.
The proposed changes do not affect systems credited in the
accident analysis for the FHA, Radioactive Liquid Waste System Leak,
and Postulated Radioactive Releases Due to Liquid Tank Failures at
OCNGS. The proposed changes will continue to require proper control
and monitoring of safety significant parameters and activities.
The proposed changes do not result in any new mechanisms that
could initiate damage to the remaining relevant safety barriers in
support of maintaining the plant in a permanently shutdown and
defueled condition (e.g., fuel cladding and SFP cooling). Since
extended operation in a defueled condition will be the only
operation allowed, and therefore bounded by the existing analyses,
such a condition does not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident.
The proposed changes do not alter the protection system design,
create new failure modes, or change any modes of operation. The
proposed changes do not involve a physical alteration of the plant,
and no new or different kind of equipment will be installed.
Consequently, there are no new initiators that could result in a new
or different kind of accident.
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 involve deleting and/or modifying certain
TS administrative controls once the OCNGS facility has been
permanently shutdown and defueled. As specified in 10 CFR
50.82(a)(2), the 10 CFR 50 license for OCNGS will no longer
authorize operation of the reactor or emplacement or retention of
fuel into the reactor vessel following submittal of the
certifications required by 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1). As a result, the
occurrence of certain design basis postulated accidents are no
longer considered credible when the reactor is permanently defueled.
The only remaining credible accident is a fuel handling accident
(FHA). The proposed changes do not adversely affect the inputs or
assumptions of any of the design basis analyses that impact the FHA.
The proposed changes are limited to those portions of the TS
administrative controls
[[Page 83877]]
that are related to the safe storage and maintenance of spent
irradiated fuel. The requirements that are proposed to be revised
and/or deleted from the OCNGS TS are not credited in the existing
accident analysis for the remaining applicable postulated accident
(i.e., FHA); therefore, they do not contribute to the margin of
safety associated with the accident analysis. Certain postulated
DBAs [design-basis accidents] involving the reactor are no longer
possible because the reactor will be permanently shut down and
defueled and OCNGS will no longer be authorized to operate the
reactor.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
reduction in the margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel,
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL
60555.
Acting NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.
NextEra Energy Duane Arnold, LLC, Docket No. 50-331, Duane Arnold
Energy Center (DAEC), Linn County, Iowa
Date of amendment request: September 13, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16263A071.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise the DAEC Emergency Plan to increase staff augmentation times for
Emergency Response Organization response functions.
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 increase in staff augmentation times has no effect
on normal plant operation or on any accident initiator or precursors
and does not impact the function of plant structures, systems, or
components (SCCs). The proposed change does not alter or prevent the
ability of the
Emergency Response Organization to perform their intended
functions to mitigate the consequences of an accident or event. The
ability of the emergency response organization to respond adequately
to radiological emergencies has been demonstrated as acceptable
through a staffing analysis as required by 10 CFR 50 Appendix
E.IV.A.9.
Therefore, the proposed Emergency Plan changes do not involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not impact the accident analysis. The
change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no
new or different type of equipment will be installed), a change in
the method of plant operation, or new operator actions. The proposed
change does not introduce failure modes that could result in a new
accident, and the change does not alter assumptions made in the
safety analysis. This proposed change increases the staff
augmentation response times in the Emergency Plan, which are
demonstrated as acceptable through a staffing analysis as required
by 10 CFR 50 Appendix E.IV.A.9. The proposed change does not alter
or prevent the ability of the Emergency Response Organization to
perform their intended functions to mitigate the consequences of an
accident or event.
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.
Margin of safety is associated with confidence in the ability of
the fission product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, reactor coolant
system pressure boundary, and containment structure) to limit the
level of radiation dose to the public. The proposed change is
associated with the Emergency Plan staffing and does not impact
operation of the plant or its response to transients or accidents.
The change does not affect the Technical Specifications. The
proposed change does not involve a change in the method of plant
operation, and no accident analyses will be affected by the proposed
change. Safety analysis acceptance criteria are not affected by this
proposed change. The revised Emergency Plan will continue to provide
the necessary response staff with the proposed change. A staffing
analysis and a functional analysis were performed for the proposed
change on the timeliness of performing major tasks for the
functional areas of Emergency Plan. The analysis concluded that an
extension in staff augmentation times would not significantly affect
the ability to perform the required Emergency Plan tasks. Therefore,
the proposed change is determined to not adversely affect the
ability to meet 10 CFR 50.54(q)(2), the requirements of 10 CFR 50
Appendix E, and the emergency planning standards as described in 10
CFR 50.47 (b).
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: William Blair, P.O. Box 14000 Juno Beach, FL
33408-0420.
NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-354, 50-272, and 50-311, Hope Creek
Generating Station (Hope Creek) and Salem Nuclear Generating Station,
Unit Nos. 1 and 2 (Salem), Salem County, New Jersey
Date of amendment request: October 17, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16291A318.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the
technical specifications (TSs) by removing certain training program
requirements. Specifically, the amendments would remove TS requirements
that are redundant to or superseded by the requirements contained in 10
CFR part 55 and 10 CFR 50.120.
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 is an administrative change to remove the
plant staff retraining and replacement training program requirements
from the TS. The proposed change does not directly impact accidents
previously evaluated. The Salem and Hope Creek licensed operator
training programs have been accredited by the Institute of Nuclear
Power Operations (INPO) and are based on a systems approach to
training. The proposed TS changes take credit for the INPO
accreditation of the licensed operator training programs and require
continued compliance with the requirements of 10 CFR 55. The TS
requirements for all other unit staff qualifications remain
unchanged.
The training program for appropriate unit staff personnel other
than licensed operators is addressed by 10 CFR 50.120. With the 10
CFR 50.120 rule, the NRC is emphasizing the need to ensure that
industry personnel training programs are based upon job performance
requirements. Personnel who are subjected to training based on job
performance requirements should be able to perform their jobs more
efficiently and with fewer errors. This is accomplished using the
systems approach to training implemented by INPO accredited training
programs for selected nuclear personnel. Included within
[[Page 83878]]
the rule is the requirement that the training program must reflect
industry experience.
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 TS changes are administrative changes to clarify
the current requirements for training programs and conform to 10 CFR
55 and 10 CFR 50.120.
The Salem and Hope Creek training programs for licensed
operators and for non-licensed in the nine categories of personnel
listed in 10 CFR 50.120 have been accredited by INPO and are based
on a systems approach to training. The proposed TS changes take
credit for the INPO accreditation of training programs and require
continued compliance with the requirements of 10 CFR 55 and 10 CFR
120. The TS requirements for unit staff qualifications remain
unchanged.
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 changes are administrative in nature and do not
affect the plant design, hardware, system operation, or operating
procedures. The change does not exceed or alter a design basis or
safety limit and thus does not reduce the 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: Jeffrie J. Keenan, PSEG Nuclear LLC--N21,
P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038.
Acting NRC Branch Chief: Stephen S. Koenick.
South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, Docket Nos. 52-027 and 52-028,
Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3, Fairfield, South
Carolina
Date of amendment request: October 24, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16298A385.
Description of amendment request: The amendment request proposes
changes to update the Protection and Safety Monitoring System (PMS)
design, specifically the description of the roles of the Qualified Data
Processing System (QDPS) and the safety displays. The proposed changes
add Main Control Room (MCR) safety-related display divisions A and D to
plant-specific Tier 1 (and associated Combined License (COL) Appendix
C) and the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR), and correct
the name of the QDPS in the UFSAR by referring to the QDPS as a system,
rather than a subsystem. Because, this proposed change requires a
departure from Tier 1 information in the Westinghouse Electric
Company's AP1000 Design Control Document (DCD), the licensee also
requested an exemption from the requirements of the Generic DCD Tier 1
in accordance with 10 CFR 52.63(b)(1).
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 to the roles of the qualified data
processing system (QDPS) and safety-related displays, as well as the
change to add Division A and Division D of the main control room
(MCR) safety-related displays to the listing of PMS equipment, as
identified in Combined License (COL) Appendix C (and plant-specific
Tier 1) Table 2.5.2-1 and Updated Final Safety Analysis Report
(UFSAR) Table 3.11-1 and 3l.6-2 do not alter any accident initiating
component/system failure or event, thus the probabilities of the
accidents previously evaluated are not affected.
The proposed changes do not adversely affect safety-related
equipment or a radioactive material barrier, and this activity dos
not involve the containment of radioactive material.
The radioactive material source terms and release paths used in
the safety analysis are unchanged, thus the radiological releases in
the UFSAR accident analysis 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 change to the roles of the QDPS and safety-related
displays, as well as the change to add Division A and Division D of
the MCR safety-related displays to the listing of PMS equipment, as
identified in COL Appendix C (and plant-specific Tier 1) Table
2.5.2-1 and UFSAR Table 3.11-1 and 3l.6-2 does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated. The proposed changes do not alter the design
or capability of any sensors which provide input to the QDPS. The
functionality of the QDPS to process the input obtained from sensors
into data to be sent to the safety displays is not affected by the
proposed changes. The proposed changes do not affect any functions
performed by the safety displays, nor do the proposed changes affect
the capability of the safety displays to display the data received
from the QDPS.
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.
There is no safety-related structure, system or component (SSC)
or function adversely affected by the proposed change to the roles
of the QDPS and safety-related displays, nor by the change to add
Division A and Division D of the MCR safety-related displays to the
listing of Protection and Safety Monitoring System (PMS) equipment.
The proposed changes do not alter the mechanisms by which system
components are actuated or controlled. 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 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. Kathryn M. Sutton, Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius, LLC, 1111 Pennsylvania NW., Washington, DC 20004-2514.
NRC Branch Chief: Jennifer Dixon-Herrity.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-390 and 50-391, Watts Bar
Nuclear Plant (WBN), Units 1 and 2, Rhea County, Tennessee
Date of amendment request: March 29, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16089A452.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the
WBN, Units 1 and 2, Technical Specification (TS) requirements for
inoperable dynamic restraints (snubbers) by adding Limiting Condition
for Operation (LCO) 3.0.8. The change is consistent with the NRC-
approved Revision 4 to Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF)
Standard Technical Specification Change Traveler, TSTF-372, ``Addition
of LCO 3.0.8, Inoperability of Snubbers.''
The proposed amendment for WBN, Unit 1, would also make an
[[Page 83879]]
administrative change to add a reference to LCO 3.0.7 in LCO 3.0.1,
consistent with TSTF-6, Revision 1, ``Add Exception for LCO 3.0.7 to
LCO 3.0.1.''
The NRC staff issued a notice of availability of a model safety
evaluation and model no significant hazards consideration (NSHC)
determination for referencing in license amendment applications in the
Federal Register on May 4, 2005 (70 FR 23252). The licensee affirmed
the applicability of the model NSHC determination in its application
dated March 29, 2016.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an analysis of the issue
of no significant hazards consideration is presented below:
Criterion 1--The Proposed Changes Do Not Involve a Significant
Increase in the Probability or Consequences of an Accident Previously
Evaluated.
The proposed change allows a delay time for entering a supported
system TS when the inoperability is due solely to an inoperable snubber
if risk is assessed and managed. The postulated seismic event requiring
snubbers is a low-probability occurrence and the overall TS system
safety function would still be available for the vast majority of
anticipated challenges. Therefore, the probability of an accident
previously evaluated is not significantly increased, if at all. The
consequences of an accident while relying on allowance provided by
proposed LCO 3.0.8 are no different than the consequences of an
accident while relying on the TS required actions in effect without the
allowance provided by proposed LCO 3.0.8. Therefore, the consequences
of an accident previously evaluated are not significantly affected by
this change. The addition of a requirement to assess and manage the
risk introduced by this change will further minimize possible concerns.
The proposed administrative change for WBN, Unit 1, does not affect
the structures, systems, or components (SSCs) of the plant, affect
plant operations, or any design function or an analysis that verifies
the capability of an SSC to perform a design function. No change is
being made to any of the previously evaluated accidents in the WBN Unit
1 Updated Final Safety Analysis Report.
Therefore these changes do not involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
Criterion 2--The Proposed Changes Do Not Create the Possibility of
a New or Different Kind of Accident From Any Previously Evaluated.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the
plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed).
Allowing delay times for entering supported system TS when
inoperability is due solely to inoperable snubbers, if risk is assessed
and managed, will not introduce new failure modes or effects and will
not, in the absence of other unrelated failures, lead to an accident
whose consequences exceed the consequences of accidents previously
evaluated. The addition of a requirement to assess and manage the risk
introduced by this change will further minimize possible concerns.
The proposed administrative change for WBN, Unit 1, does not
introduce any new accident causal mechanisms, since no physical changes
are being made to the plant, nor do they impact any plant systems that
are potential accident initiators.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a
new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
Criterion 3--The Proposed Changes Do Not Involve a Significant
Reduction in the Margin of Safety.
The proposed change allows a delay time for entering a supported
system TS when the inoperability is due solely to an inoperable
snubber, if risk is assessed and managed. The postulated seismic event
requiring snubbers is a low-probability occurrence and the overall TS
system safety function would still be available for the vast majority
of anticipated challenges. The risk impact of the proposed TS changes
was assessed following the three tiered approach recommended in NRC
Regulatory Guide 1.177. A bounding risk assessment was performed to
justify the proposed TS changes. This application of LCO 3.0.8 is
predicated upon the licensee's performance of a risk assessment and the
management of plant risk. The net change to the margin of safety is
insignificant.
The proposed administrative change for WBN, Unit 1, will have no
effect on the availability, operability, or performance of safety-
related systems and components. The proposed change will not adversely
affect the operation of plant equipment or the function of equipment
assumed in the accident analysis. The proposed change does not involve
changes to any safety analyses assumptions, safety limits, or limiting
safety system settings. The change does not adversely affect plant-
operating margins or the reliability of equipment credited in the
safety analyses.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
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.
Acting NRC Branch Chief: Jeanne A. Dion.
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.
Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50-397, Columbia Generating Station (CGS),
Benton County, Washington
Date of application for amendment: March 17, 2015, as supplemented
by letters dated September 17, October 29,
[[Page 83880]]
November 17, and December 28, 2015; and April 7, May 11, and June 22,
2016.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment modified the CGS
Technical Specifications by relocating specific surveillance
frequencies to a licensee-controlled program consistent with NRC-
approved Technical Specifications Task Force Traveler (TSTF)-425,
Revision 3, ``Relocate Surveillance Frequencies to Licensee Control--
RITSTF [Risk-Informed Technical Specifications Task Force] Initiative
5b,'' dated March 18, 2009. The availability of this TS improvement
program was announced in the Federal Register on July 6, 2009 (74 FR
31996). The licensee has proposed certain plant-specific variations and
deviations from TSTF-425, Revision 3, as described in its application
dated March 17, 2015.
Date of issuance: November 3, 2016.
Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 120 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 238. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML16253A025; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-21: The amendment
revised the Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 26, 2015 (80 FR
30100). The supplemental letters dated September 17, October 29,
November 17, and December 28, 2015; and April 7, May 11, and June 22,
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 November 3, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, LLC, and Entergy Operations, Inc.,
Docket No. 50-458, River Bend Station, Unit 1 (RBS), West Feliciana
Parish, Louisiana
Date of amendment request: October 29, 2015, as supplemented by
letters dated April 19 and July 27, 2016.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises Technical
Specification (TS) 5.5.13, ``Primary Containment Leakage Rate Testing
Program,'' by incorporating Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) topical
report 94-01, Revision 3-A, as the implementation document for the RBS
performance-based containment leakage rate testing program. Based on
the guidance in NEI 94-01, Revision 3-A, the change allows the RBS Type
A Test (Integrated Leak Rate Test, or ILRT) frequency to be extended
from 120 to 180 months, and the Type C Tests (Local Leak Rate Tests, or
LLRTs) frequency to be extended from 60 to 75 months. Additionally, the
amendment modifies Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.6.5.1.3 to extend
the frequency of the Drywell Bypass Test from 120 to 180 months and
revises its allowed extension per SR 3.0.2 from 12 to 9 months.
Date of issuance: October 27, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 191. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML16287A599; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-47: The amendment revised the
Facility Operating License and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 12, 2016 (81 FR
21597). The supplements dated April 19 and July 27, 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 October 27, 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: August 22, 2016, as supplemented by
letter dated September 8, 2016.
Brief description of amendment: This amendment replaces existing
license condition 2.C.(4) with a new license condition that states that
Technical Specification (TS) Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.1.4.3 is
not required for control rod drive 13 (CRD-13) during cycle 25 until
the next entry into Mode 3. In addition, the license condition states
that CRD-13 seal leakage shall be repaired prior to entering Mode 2
following the next Mode 3 entry, and that the reactor shall be shut
down if CRD-13 seal leakage exceeds 2 gallons per minute. The amendment
also replaces an obsolete note in TS SR 3.1.4.3 with a note to clarify
that TS SR 3.1.4.3 is not required to be performed or met for CRD-13
during cycle 25 provided CRD-13 is administratively declared immovable,
but trippable, and Condition D is entered for CRD-13.
Date of issuance: October 28, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 15 days.
Amendment No.: 260. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML16281A498; 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 and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 27, 2016 (81
FR 66306).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated October 28, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-293, Pilgrim Nuclear
Power Station (Pilgrim), Plymouth County, Massachusetts
Date of amendment request: January 14, 2016.
Brief description of amendment: This amendment reduced the level of
Pilgrim's Emergency Response Organization staff training for the on-
shift Chemistry Technician to support on-shift Radiation Protection
Technician functions at the onset of a radiological event. The
amendment also revised paragraph 3.B of the Renewed Facility Operating
License.
Date of issuance: October 28, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be
implemented within 30 days.
Amendment No.: 245. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML16250A223; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-35: The amendment
revised the Renewed Facility Operating License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 12, 2016 (81 FR
21597).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated October 28, 2016.
[[Page 83881]]
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Indiana Michigan Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-315 and 50-316, Donald
C. Cook Nuclear Plant (CNP), Units 1 and 2, Berrien County, Michigan
Date of amendment request: March 14, 2016, as supplemented by
letter dated October 28, 2016.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the full
implementation date (Milestone 8) of CNP, Units 1 and 2, Cyber Security
Plan, and revised the associated license conditions for the renewed
facility operating licenses.
Date of issuance: November 2, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 333 for Unit 1 and 315 for Unit 2. A publicly-
available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16077A029;
documents related to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation
enclosed with the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-58 and DPR-74:
Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 7, 2016 (81 FR
36605). The supplemental letter dated October 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 amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated November 2, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-272 and 50-311, Salem Nuclear
Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Salem County, New Jersey
Date of amendment request: September 11, 2015, as supplemented by
letters dated November 5, 2015; March 31, 2016; August 12, 2016; and
August 30, 2016.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the
Technical Specifications to support planned plant modifications to
implement chiller replacements, for performing maintenance, and for
unplanned operational issues.
Date of issuance: November 2, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment Nos.: 316 (Unit 1) and 297 (Unit 2). A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16279A405; 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: The
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and the
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 5, 2016 (81 FR
263). The supplemental letters dated March 31, 2016; August 12, 2016;
and August 30, 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 November 2, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
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: April 7, 2016.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment approved a change to
the Technical Specification (TS) emergency feedwater (EFW) system pump
performance testing requirements in TS \3/4\.7.1.2, ``Emergency
Feedwater System.'' In addition, the request also included an
administrative change to remove an expired note in TS \3/4\.7.1.2 that
temporarily extended the allowed outage time during testing and
maintenance affecting the motor-driven EFW pump flow control valves.
Date of issuance: October 26, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 206. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML16264A411; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-12: Amendment revised
the Renewed Facility Operating License and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 7, 2016 (81 FR
36622).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated October 26, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket No. 50-425, Vogtle
Electric Generating Plant, Unit 2, Burke County, Georgia
Date of amendment request: August 12, 2016, as supplemented by
letter dated September 15, 2016.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment modifies the Unit 2
Technical Specifications (TS) Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO)
3.7.9, ``Ultimate Heat Sink (UHS),'' to add a Note to extend the
completion time of Condition D.2.2 of LCO 3.7.9 from 31 to 46 days to
allow for refurbishing the 2B nuclear service cooling water (NSCW)
transfer pump. This TS change would be a one-time change only for the
2B NSCW transfer pump during operating Cycle 19.
Date of issuance: October 31, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 164. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML16265A162; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-81: Amendment revised
the Renewed Facility Operating License and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 30, 2016 (81 FR
59666). The supplemental letter dated September 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
(NSHC) determination as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment and NSHC
determination are contained in a Safety Evaluation dated October 31,
2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 10th day of November 2016.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Anne T. Boland,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2016-28085 Filed 11-21-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P