[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 234 (Tuesday, December 6, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 87964-87978]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-28990]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2016-0245]
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 November 8 to November 21, 2016. The last
biweekly notice was published on November 22, 2016.
DATES: Comments must be filed by January 5, 2017. A request for a
hearing must be filed by February 6, 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-2016-0245. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-
3463; email: [email protected]. For technical questions, contact
the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this document.
Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Office of Administration,
Mail Stop: OWFN-12-H08, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555-0001.
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting
comments, see ``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Janet Burkhardt, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1384, email: [email protected].
I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments
A. Obtaining Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0245, 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-2016-0245.
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/
[[Page 87965]]
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-2016-0245, 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 posts all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as entering the comment submissions into
ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove
identifying or contact information.
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons
for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to
include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be
publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should
state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to
remove such information before making the comment submissions available
to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.
II. Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility
Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses and Proposed No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under
the Commission's regulations in 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 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
[[Page 87966]]
to intervene, and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions
that are filed after the 60-day deadline will not be entertained absent
a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates
good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)
through (iii).
If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the
Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no
significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve
to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that
the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration,
the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately
effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held
would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final
determination is that the amendment request involves a significant
hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before
the issuance of any amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent
danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will
issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.
A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian
Tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to
participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1).
The petition should state the nature and extent of the petitioner's
interest in the proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the
Commission by February 6, 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:
[[Page 87967]]
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
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.
Duke Energy Progress, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-325 and 50-324, Brunswick
Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, Brunswick County, North Carolina
Date of amendment request: August 29, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16252A220.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the
Technical Specifications (TSs) to eliminate Section 5.5, ``lnservice
Testing Program.'' A new defined term, ``lnservice Testing Program,''
is added to the TS Definitions section. This request is consistent with
Technical Specification Task Force Traveler TSTF-545, Revision 3, ``TS
lnservice Testing Program Removal & Clarify SR [Surveillance
Requirement] Usage Rule Application to Section 5.5 Testing'' (ADAMS
Accession No. ML15314A305).
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 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 [American Society of
Mechanical Engineers] OM [Operations and Maintenance] Code, as
clarified by Code Case OMN-20, ``Inservice Test Frequency.'' The
remaining requirements in the Section 5.5 IST [Inservice Testing]
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 amendment 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 amendment 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 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 margin of safety (equipment
operability). Should the component be inoperable, the Technical
Specifications provide actions to ensure that the margin of safety
is protected. The proposed change also eliminates a statement that
nothing in the ASME Code should be construed to supersede the
requirements of any TS. The NRC has determined that statement to be
incorrect. However, elimination of the statement will have no effect
on plant operation or safety.
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
[[Page 87968]]
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, Deputy General Counsel,
550 South Tryon Street, M/C DEC45A, Charlotte, NC 28202.
Acting NRC Branch Chief: Jeanne A. Dion.
Duke Energy Progress, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-325 and 50-324, Brunswick
Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, Brunswick County, North Carolina
Date of amendment request: September 28, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16287A415.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the
Technical Specifications (TSs) to be consistent with Technical
Specification Task Force Traveler TSTF-423, Revision 1, to allow, for
some systems, entry into hot shutdown rather than cold shutdown to
repair equipment, if risk is assessed and managed consistent with the
program in place for complying with the requirements of 10 CFR
50.65(a)(4). Changes proposed in TSTF-423 will be made to the Units'
TSs for selected Required Action end states.
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 allows a change to certain required end
states when the TS Completion Times for remaining in power operation
will be exceeded. Most of the requested TS changes are to permit an
end state of hot shutdown (Mode 3) rather than an end state of cold
shutdown (Mode 4) contained in the current TS. The request was
limited to: (1) those end states where entry into the shutdown mode
is for a short interval, (2) entry is initiated by inoperability of
a single train of equipment or a restriction on a plant operational
parameter, unless otherwise stated in the applicable TS, and (3) the
primary purpose is to correct the initiating condition and return to
power operation as soon as is practical. Risk insights from both the
qualitative and quantitative risk assessments were used in specific
TS assessments. Such assessments are documented in Section 6 of
topical report NEDC-32988-A, Revision 2, ``Technical Justification
to Support Risk-Informed Modification to Selected Required Action
End States for BWR [Boiling-Water Reactor] Plants.'' They provide an
integrated discussion of deterministic and probabilistic issues,
focusing on specific TSs, which are used to support the proposed TS
end state and associated restrictions. The NRC staff finds that the
risk insights support the conclusions of the specific TS
assessments. Therefore, the probability of an accident previously
evaluated is not significantly increased, if at all. The
consequences of an accident after adopting TSTF-423 are no different
than the consequences of an accident prior to adopting TSTF-423.
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.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of
the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be
installed). If risk is assessed and managed, allowing a change to
certain required end states when the TS Completion Times for
remaining in power operation are exceeded (i.e., entry into hot
shutdown rather than cold shutdown to repair equipment) 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 and the commitment by the licensee to adhere to the
guidance in TSTF-IG-05-02, ``Implementation Guidance for TSTF-423,
Revision 1, `Technical Specifications End States, NEDC-32988-A,'''
will further minimize possible concerns.
Thus, based on the above, this change does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from an accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change allows, for some systems, entry into hot
shutdown rather than cold shutdown to repair equipment, if risk is
assessed and managed. The BWROG's [BWR Owner Group's] risk
assessment approach is comprehensive and follows NRC staff guidance
as documented in Regulatory Guides (RG) 1.174 and 1.177. In
addition, the analyses show that the criteria of the three-tiered
approach for allowing TS changes are met. The risk impact of the
proposed TS changes was assessed following the three-tiered approach
recommended in RG 1.177. A risk assessment was performed to justify
the proposed TS changes. The net change to the margin of safety is
insignificant.
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: Kathryn B. Nolan, Deputy General Counsel,
550 South Tryon Street, M/C DEC45A, Charlotte, NC 28202.
Acting NRC Branch Chief: Jeanne A. Dion.
Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50-397, Columbia Generating Station,
Benton County, Washington
Date of amendment request: August 30, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16245A273.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would reclassify
reactor water cleanup (RWCU) piping, valves, pumps and mechanical
modules located outside of primary and secondary containment in the
radwaste building from Quality Group C to Quality Group D.
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 does not result in a significant increase
in the probability of an accident because Quality Group D standards
are considered appropriate for water containing components which are
not part of the reactor coolant pressure boundary but may contain
radioactive materials. The probability of a line break is not
increased since the materials, design, and fabrication of Quality
Group C components is comparable to Quality Group D components.
Differences between the two quality groups are limited primarily to
quality assurance requirements. The use of Quality Group D
components for portions of RWCU located in the radwaste building
provides an adequate level of quality, commensurate with the
importance of the functions to be performed by that portion of the
system, and ensures that the facility can be operated without undue
risk to the health and safety of the public.
All safety related equipment required to mitigate accidents is
either significantly remote from, or separated by protective
barriers from the reclassified portions of the system. The
consequences of breaks considered in the portion of the RWCU system
affected by this activity are calculated to not exceed regulatory
limits for dose to control room personnel or the public.
[[Page 87969]]
Calculated results are not significantly different than those
reported for the existing instrument line break analysis in [the
Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR)] Chapter 15.
[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.
A postulated failure in the RWCU system piping would result in a
high-energy line break (HELB) accident. High energy line breaks are
already postulated and analyzed at various locations for portions of
the RWCU system located in the reactor building. The existing
instrument line break analysis was determined to bound a postulated
worst case RWCU HELB. Since the offsite and onsite consequences of a
postulated break in the reclassified portion of the RWCU is bounded
by the existing instrument line break analyses, a new or different
accident has not been created.
[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 a significant reduction
in a margin of safety. As noted in the technical and regulatory
evaluation above, the reclassified portions of the system perform no
active safety functions and will not result in radiological safety
impact beyond that already assumed within the existing plant 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 A. Horin, Esq., Winston & Strawn,
1700 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20006-3817.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. STN 50-454 and STN 50-455,
Byron Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Ogle County, Illinois
Date of amendment request: October 7, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16281A174.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the
Byron Station licensing basis for protection from tornado-generated
missiles. Specifically, the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report
(UFSAR) would be revised to identify the TORMIS Computer Code as the
methodology used for assessing tornado-generated missile protection of
unprotected plant structures, systems, and components (SSCs) and to
describe the results of the Byron Station site-specific tornado hazard
analysis.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The NRC TORMIS Safety Evaluation Report states the following:
``The current Licensing criteria governing tornado missile
protection are contained in [NUREG-0800] Standard Review Plan (SRP)
Section 3.5.1.4, [Missiles Generated by Natural Phenomena] and 3.5.2
[Structures, Systems and Components to be Protected from Externally
Generated Missiles]. These criteria generally specify that safety-
related systems be provided positive tornado missile protection
(barriers) from the maximum credible tornado threat. However, SRP
Section 3.5.1.4 includes acceptance criteria permitting relaxation
of the above deterministic guidance, if it can be demonstrated that
the probability of damage to unprotected essential safety-related
features is sufficiently small.''
As permitted by these SRP sections, the combined probability
will be maintained below an allowable level, i.e., an acceptance
criterion threshold, which reflects an extremely low probability of
occurrence. SRP Section 2.2.3, ``Evaluation of Potential
Accidents,'' established this threshold as approximately 1.0E-06 per
year if, when combined with reasonable qualitative arguments, the
realistic probability can be shown to be lower. The Byron Station
analysis approach assumes that if the sum of the individual
probabilities calculated for tornado missiles striking and damaging
portions of safety-significant SSCs is greater than or equal to
1.0E-06 per year per unit, then installation of tornado missile
protection barriers would be required for certain components to
lower the total cumulative damage probability below the acceptance
criterion of 1.0E-06 per year per unit. Conversely, if the total
cumulative damage probability remains below the acceptance criterion
of 1.0E-06 per year per unit, no additional tornado missile
protection barriers would be required for any of the unprotected
safety-significant components.
With respect to the probability of occurrence or the
consequences of an accident previously evaluated in the UFSAR, the
possibility of a tornado impacting the Byron Station site and
causing damage to plant SSCs is a licensing basis event currently
addressed in the UFSAR. The change being proposed (i.e., the use of
the TORMIS methodology for assessing tornado-generated missile
protection of unprotected plant SSCs), does not affect the
probability of a tornado strike on the site; however, from a
licensing basis perspective, the proposed change does affect the
probability that missiles generated by a tornado will strike and
damage certain safety-significant plant SSCs. There are a defined
number of safety-significant components that could theoretically be
struck and damaged by tornado-generated missiles. The probability of
tornado-generated missile hits on these ``important'' systems and
components is calculated using the TORMIS probabilistic methodology.
The combined probability of damage for unprotected safety-
significant equipment will be maintained below the acceptance
criterion of 1.0E-06 per year per unit to ensure adequate equipment
remains available to safely shutdown the reactors, and maintain
overall plant safety, should a tornado strike occur. Consequently,
the proposed change does not constitute a significant increase in
the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident
based on the extremely low probability of damage caused by tornado-
generated missiles and the commensurate extremely low probability of
a radiological release.
Finally, the use of the TORMIS methodology will have no impact
on accident initiators or precursors; does not alter the accident
analysis assumptions or the manner in which the plant is operated or
maintained; and does not affect the probability of operator error.
Based on the above discussion, 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 impact of a tornado strike on the Byron Station site is a
licensing basis event that is explicitly addressed in the UFSAR. The
proposed change simply involves recognition of the acceptability of
using an analysis tool (i.e., the TORMIS methodology) to perform
probabilistic tornado missile damage calculations in accordance with
approved regulatory guidance. The proposed change does not result in
the creation of any new accident precursors; does not result in
changes to any existing accident scenarios; and does not introduce
any operational changes or mechanisms that would create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident.
Therefore, the proposed change will not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident than those previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The existing Byron Station licensing basis regarding tornado
missile protection of safety-significant SSCs assumes that missile
protection barriers are provided for safety-
[[Page 87970]]
significant SSCs; or the unprotected component is assumed to be
unavailable post-tornado. The results of the Byron Station TORMIS
analysis have demonstrated that there is an extremely low
probability, below an established regulatory acceptance limit, that
these ``important'' SSCs could be struck and subsequently damaged by
tornado-generated missiles. The change in licensing basis from
protecting safety-significant SSCs from tornado missiles, to
demonstrating that there is an extremely low probability that
safety-significant SSCs will be struck and damaged by tornado-
generated missiles, does not constitute a significant decrease in
the margin of safety.
Therefore, the proposed change to use the TORMIS methodology
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
requested amendments involve no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel,
Exelon Nuclear, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555.
Acting NRC Branch Chief: G. Edward Miller.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-461, Clinton Power
Station (CPS), Unit 1, DeWitt County, Illinois
Date of amendment request: August 11, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16229A278.
Description of amendment request: The proposed change would
eliminate the on-shift positions not needed for storage of the spent
fuel in the spent fuel pool during the initial decommissioning period
and the emergency response organization (ERO) positions not needed to
respond to credible events. Additionally the licensee is proposing to
revise the emergency action levels (EALs) to reflect those conditions
applicable when the unit is in a permanently defueled condition.
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 to the CPS Emergency Plan do not impact the
function of plant Structures, Systems, or Components (SSCs). The
proposed changes do not involve the modification of any plant
equipment or affect plant operation. The proposed changes do not
affect accident initiators or precursors, nor do the proposed
changes alter design assumptions. The proposed changes do not
prevent the ability of the on-shift staff and ERO to perform their
intended functions to mitigate the consequences of any accident or
event that will be credible in the permanently defueled condition.
The proposed changes only remove positions and remove certain EALs
that will no longer be needed or credited in the Emergency Plan in
the permanently defueled condition.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes reduce the number of on-shift and ERO
positions commensurate with the hazards associated with a
permanently shutdown and defueled facility. The proposed changes
also remove EALs which are no longer applicable to CPS in a
permanently defueled condition. The proposed changes do not involve
installation of new equipment or modification of existing equipment,
so that no new equipment failure modes are introduced. Also, the
proposed changes do not result in a change to the way that the
equipment or facility is operated so that no new accident initiators
are created.
Therefore, the proposed changes do 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.
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 changes do not
adversely affect existing plant safety margins or the reliability of
the equipment assumed to operate in the safety analyses. There are
no changes being made to safety analysis assumptions, safety limits,
or limiting safety system settings that would adversely affect plant
safety as a result of the proposed changes. The proposed changes are
associated with the Emergency Plan and staffing and EAL schemes and
do not impact operation of the plant or its response to transients
or accidents.
The proposed changes do not affect the Technical Specifications.
The proposed changes do not involve a change in the method of plant
operation, and no accident analyses will be affected by the proposed
changes. Safety analysis acceptance criteria are not affected by the
proposed changes and margins of safety are maintained. The revised
Emergency Plan will continue to provide the necessary response staff
with the proposed changes.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel,
Exelon Nuclear, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555.
Acting NRC Branch Chief: G. Edward Miller.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-254 and 50-265, Quad
Cities Nuclear Power Station (QCNPS), Units 1 and 2, Rock Island
County, Illinois
Date of amendment request: October 20, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16294A203.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment request
supports the deletion, modification, and addition to the organization,
staffing, and training requirements contained in Sections 1.0 and 5.0
of the Technical Specifications (TSs) after the license no longer
authorizes operation of the reactor or placement or retention of fuel
in the reactor pressure vessel. This proposed amendment also supports
implementation of the Certified Fuel Handler training program.
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 QCNPS has
permanently ceased operation and entered a permanently defueled
condition. The proposed changes would revise the QCNPS TS by
deleting or modifying certain portions of the TS administrative
controls described in Section 5.0 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 facility
administrative
[[Page 87971]]
controls do not 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 Design Basis Fuel Handling Accidents Inside Containment (the
specific concern is dropping a fuel bundle over the Spent Fuel Pool;
not the Reactor Vessel) and Spent Fuel Storage Buildings and
Postulated Liquid 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.
The proposed changes in the administrative controls do not
affect the ability to successfully respond to previously evaluated
accidents and do not affect radiological assumptions used in the
evaluations. The proposed changes narrow the focus of nuclear safety
concerns to those associated with safely maintaining spent nuclear
fuel. These changes remove the implication that QCNPS can return to
operation once the final certification required by 10 CFR
50.82(a)(1)(ii) is submitted to the NRC. Any event involving safe
storage of spent irradiated fuel or the methods used for handling
and storage of such fuel in the SFP would evolve slowly enough that
no immediate response would be required to protect the health and
safety of the public or station personnel. Adequate communications
capability is provided to allow facility personnel to safely manage
storage and handling of irradiated fuel. As a result, no changes to
radiological release parameters are involved. There is no effect on
the type or amount of radiation released, and there is no effect on
predicted offsite doses in the event of an accident.
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 QCNPS will no longer be authorized to operate the
reactor. 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
or create new failure modes. 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 QCNPS facility has been
permanently shutdown and defueled. As specified in 10 CFR
50.82(a)(2), the 10 CFR 50 license for QCNPS 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 accidents are the Design Basis Fuel
Handling Accidents Inside Containment and Spent Fuel Storage
Buildings (the specific concern is dropping a fuel bundle over the
Spent Fuel Pool; not the Reactor Vessel) and the Postulated Liquid
Releases Due to Liquid Tank Failures. The proposed changes do not
adversely affect the inputs or assumptions of any of the design
basis analyses that impact the Design Basis Fuel Handling Accidents.
The proposed changes are limited to those portions of the TS
administrative controls that are not related to the safe storage and
maintenance of spent irradiated fuel.
These proposed changes do not directly involve any physical
equipment limits or parameters. The requirements that are proposed
to be revised and/or deleted from the QCNPS TS are not credited in
the existing accident analysis for the remaining applicable
postulated accidents; 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 QCNPS 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
requested amendments involve no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel,
Exelon Nuclear, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555.
Acting NRC Branch Chief: G. Edward Miller.
Florida Power & Light Company, Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251, Turkey
Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 3 and 4, Miami-Dade County, Florida
Date of amendment request: April 4, 2016, as supplemented by
letters dated September 1, 2016, and November 10, 2016. Publicly-
available versions are in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML16110A266,
ML16260A399, and ML16323A313, respectively.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the
Technical Specification (TS) requirements for snubbers and add a new TS
to the Administrative Controls section of the TSs describing the
licensee's Snubber Testing Program. The amendments would revise the
snubber TS surveillance requirements (SRs) by deleting specific
requirements from the TS SRs and replacing them with a requirement to
demonstrate snubber operability in accordance with the licensee-
controlled Snubber Testing Program. The proposed changes include
additions to, deletions from, and conforming administrative changes to
the TSs.
The license amendment request was originally noticed in the Federal
Register (FR) on July 5, 2016 (81 FR 43652). The notice is being
reissued in its entirety because the licensee's supplement dated
November 10, 2016, expanded the scope of the application by proposing
to delete a portion of the snubber SR that requires inspections per
another TS that is no longer applicable to snubbers.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
[[Page 87972]]
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes would revise TS SR 4.7.6 to conform the TS
to the revised surveillance program for snubbers. Snubber
examination, testing and service life monitoring will continue to
meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a(g).
Snubber examination, testing and service life monitoring is not
an initiator of any accident previously evaluated. Therefore, the
probability of an accident previously evaluated is not significantly
increased.
Snubbers will continue to be demonstrated OPERABLE by
performance of a program for examination, testing and service life
monitoring in compliance with 10 CFR 50.55a or authorized
alternatives. The proposed change to the TS 3.7.6 Action for
inoperable snubbers is administrative in nature and is required for
consistency with the proposed change to TS SR 4.7.6. The proposed
change does not adversely affect plant operations, design functions
or analyses that verify the capability of systems, structures, and
components to perform their design functions[;] therefore, the
consequences of accidents previously evaluated are not significantly
increased.
Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not involve any physical alteration of
plant equipment. The proposed changes do not alter the method by
which any safety-related system performs its function. As such, no
new or different types of equipment will be installed, and the basic
operation of installed equipment is unchanged. The methods governing
plant operation and testing remain consistent with current safety
analysis assumptions.
Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes ensure snubber examination, testing and
service life monitoring will continue to meet the requirements of 10
CFR 50.55a(g). Snubbers will continue to be demonstrated OPERABLE by
performance of a program for examination, testing and service life
monitoring in compliance with 10 CFR 50.55a or authorized
alternatives.
The proposed change to the TS 3.7.6 Action for inoperable
snubbers is administrative in nature and is required for consistency
with the proposed change to TS SR 4.7.6.
Therefore, it is concluded that 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.
Acting NRC Branch Chief: Jeanne A. Dion.
Florida Power & Light Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389,
St. Lucie Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, St. Lucie County, Florida
Date of amendment request: September 16, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16271A181.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the
Unit 1 and Unit 2 Technical Specifications (TSs) by removing certain
process radiation monitors and placing their requirements in a
licensee-controlled manual. The amendments would also change the Unit 2
containment particulate radiation monitor range.
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 effluent radiation monitors are not event initiators, nor
are they credited in the mitigation of any event or credited in the
PRA [Probabilistic Risk Assessment]. Relocating the monitors to the
ODCM [Offsite Dose Calculation Manual] does not adversely impact the
monitor function, and does not affect the accident analyses in any
manner.
The Unit 2 containment atmosphere particulate radiation monitor
is credited in the Leak-Before-Break analyses, where it states that
``the leakage detection systems are capable of detecting the
specified leak rate'' and that the leakage detection systems ``are
consistent with Regulatory Guide 1.45.'' Correcting the TS
instrument range for the monitor does not adversely impact the
monitor function, i.e., its capability to detect leakage. This
change does not affect the accident analyses in any manner.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes correct a legacy error in the Unit 2 TS,
and the TS removal of effluent monitors and their subsequent
relocation to the ODCM do not change the function or capabilities of
any equipment, and do not involve the addition or modification of
any plant equipment. Also, the proposed change does not alter the
design, configuration, or method of operation of the plant. The
subject monitors remain capable of performing their design
functions.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes remove select effluent monitors from the
TSs and relocate their requirements to the ODCM and correct a legacy
error in the Unit 2 TSs, and do not involve the addition or
modification of any plant equipment. The changes do not modify the
plant or plant equipment, and do not change the manner in which
structures, systems or components are design[ed] or evaluated.
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 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 Boulevard, MS LAW/
JB, Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420.
Acting NRC Branch Chief: Jeanne A. Dion.
Indiana Michigan Power Company (I&M), Docket Nos. 50-315 and 50-316,
Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Berrien County, Michigan
Date of amendment request: October 18, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16294A257.
Description of amendment request: The proposed changes would revise
Technical Specification 5.5.14, ``Containment Leakage Rate Testing
Program,'' to clarify the containment leak rate testing pressure
criteria.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability of
[[Page 87973]]
occurrence or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not involve changes to the installed
structures, systems or components of the facility. The proposed
change is consistent with Westinghouse Owners Group Standard
Technical Specification language for the Containment Leak Rate
Program.
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 introduce a new mode of plant
operation and does not involve physical modification to the plant.
The change does not introduce new accident initiators or impact
assumptions made in the safety analysis. Testing requirements
continue to demonstrate that the Limiting Conditions for Operation
are met and the system components are functional.
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 does not exceed or alter a design basis or
safety limit, so there is no significant reduction in 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: Robert B. Haemer, Senior Nuclear Counsel,
One Cook Place, Bridgman, MI 49106.
NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323, Diablo
Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2 (DCPP), San Luis Obispo
County, California
Date of amendment request: October 25, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16315A184.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would
revise the Emergency Plan (E-Plan) for DCPP to adopt the Nuclear Energy
Institute's (NEI's) revised Emergency Action Level (EAL) scheme
described in NEI 99-01, Revision 6, ``Development of Emergency Action
Levels for Non-Passive Reactors,'' November 2012 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML12326A805). NEI-99-01, Revision 6, has been endorsed by the NRC by
letter dated March 28, 2013 (ADAMS Accession No. ML12346A463).
Currently approved E-Plan EAL schemes for DCPP are based on the
guidance established in NEI 99-01, Revision 4, ``Methodology for
Development of Emergency Action Levels,'' January 2003 (ADAMS Accession
No. ML030230250), except for security-related EALs, which are based on
the guidance established in NEI 99-01, Revision 5, ``Methodology for
Development of Emergency Action Levels,'' February 2008 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML080450149).
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 changes to the Diablo Canyon Power Plant (DCPP)
emergency action levels (EALs) do not impact the physical function
of plant structures, systems, or components (SSCs) or the manner in
which SSCs perform their design function. The proposed changes
neither adversely affect accident initiators or precursors, nor
alter design assumptions. The proposed changes do not alter or
prevent the ability of SSCs to perform their intended function to
mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within assumed
acceptance limits. No operating procedures or administrative
controls that function to prevent or mitigate accidents are affected
by the proposed changes.
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 accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not involve a physical alteration of the
plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be installed
or removed) or a change in the method of plant operation. The
proposed changes will not introduce failure modes that could result
in a new accident, and the change does not alter assumptions made in
the safety analysis. The proposed changes to the DCPP EALs are not
initiators of any accidents.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different 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 the ability of the fission
product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, reactor coolant system
pressure boundary, and containment structure) to limit the level of
radiation dose to the public.
The proposed changes do not impact operation of the plant or its
response to transients or accidents. The proposed changes do not
affect the Technical Specifications or the Operating License. The
proposed changes do not involve a change in the method of plant
operation, and no accident analyses will be affected by the proposed
changes. Additionally, the proposed changes will not relax any
criteria used to establish safety limits and will not relax any
safety system settings. The safety analysis acceptance criteria are
not affected by these changes. The proposed changes will not result
in plant operation in a configuration outside the design basis. The
proposed changes do not adversely affect systems that respond to
safely shut down the plant and to maintain the plant in a safe
shutdown condition. The E-Plan will continue to activate an
emergency response commensurate with the extent of degradation of
plant 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 requests involve no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Jennifer Post, Esq., Pacific Gas and
Electric Company, P.O. Box 7442, San Francisco, California 94120.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-
364, Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant (Farley), Units 1 and 2, Houston
County, Alabama
Date of amendment request: October 11, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16285A351.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would add Technical
Specification (TS) requirements for unavailable barriers by adding
Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) 3.0.9, consistent with NRC-
approved Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Improved Standard
Technical Specifications Change Traveler TSTF-427, Revision 2,
``Allowance for Non-Technical Specification Barrier Degradation on
Supported System OPERABILITY.'' The availability of this TS improvement
was published in the Federal Register on October 3, 2006 (71 FR 58444),
as part of the consolidated line item improvement process (CLIIP).
[[Page 87974]]
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 by confirming the applicability of the Farley, Units 1
and 2, to the model proposed no significant hazards consideration
published on October 3, 2006, as part of the CLIIP, as referenced
below:
Criterion 1--The Proposed Change Does 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 technical specification (TS) when the inoperability is due
solely to an unavailable barrier if risk is assessed and managed.
The postulated initiating events which may require a functional
barrier are limited to those with low frequencies of occurrence, and
the overall TS system safety function would still be available for
the 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 the
allowance provided by proposed LCO 3.0.9 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 3.0.9.
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. Therefore, this change does
not involve a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
Criterion 2--The Proposed Change Does Not Create the Possibility of a
New or Different Kind of Accident From any 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 an unavailable barrier, 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. Thus, this change does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from an accident
previously evaluated.
Criterion 3--The Proposed Change Does 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 unavailable
barrier, if risk is assessed and managed. The postulated initiating
events which may require a functional barrier are limited to those
with low frequencies of occurrence, and the overall TS system safety
function would still be available for the majority of anticipated
challenges. The risk impact of the proposed TS changes was assessed
following the three-tiered approach recommended in RG [Regulatory
Guide] 1.177. A bounding risk assessment was performed to justify
the proposed TS changes. This application of LCO 3.0.9 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 as indicated by the anticipated low levels of
associated risk (ICCDP [incremental conditional core damage
probability] and ICLERP [incremental conditional large early release
probability]) as shown in Table 1 of Section 3.1.1 in the Safety
Evaluation. 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: Jennifer M. Buettner, Associate General
Counsel, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 40 Inverness Center
Parkway, Birmingham, AL 35201.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation (WCNOC), Docket No. 50-482,
Wolf Creek Generating Station (WCGS), Coffey County, Kansas
Date of amendment request: September 30, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16279A377.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the
emergency action level (EAL) scheme used at WCGS. The currently
approved EAL scheme is based on Nuclear Management and Resources
Council/National Environmental Studies Project (NUMARC/NESP)-007,
Revision 2, ``Methodology for Development of Emergency Action Levels,''
January 1992 (ADAMS Accession No. ML041120174). The proposed change
would allow WCNOC to adopt an EAL scheme which is based on the guidance
established in Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 99-01, Revision 6,
``Development of Emergency Action levels for Non-Passive Reactors,''
November 2012 (ADAMS Accession No. ML12326A805). NEI 99-01, Revision 6
has been endorsed by the NRC by letter dated March 28, 2013 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML12346A463).
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 changes to the WCGS EALs do not impact the physical
function of plant structures, systems or components [(SSCs)] or the
manner in which SSCs perform their design function. The proposed
changes neither adversely affect accident initiators or precursors,
nor alter design assumptions. The proposed changes do not alter or
prevent the ability of SSCs to perform their intended function to
mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within assumed
acceptance limits. No operating procedures or administrative
controls that function to prevent or mitigate accidents are affected
by the proposed changes.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not involve a physical alteration of the
plant (i.e., no new or different types of equipment will be
installed or removed) or a change in the method of plant operation.
The proposed changes will not introduce failure modes that could
result in a new accident, and the changes do not alter assumptions
made in the safety analysis. The proposed changes to the WCGS EALs
are not initiators of any accidents.
Therefore, the proposed changes do 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.
Margin of safety is associated with the ability of the fission
product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, reactor coolant system
pressure boundary, and containment structure) to limit the level of
radiation dose to the public. The proposed changes do not impact
operation of the plant or its response to transients or accidents.
The changes do not affect the Technical Specifications or the
operating license. The proposed changes do not involve a change in
the method of plant operation, and no accident analyses will be
affected by the proposed changes. Additionally, the proposed changes
will not relax any criteria used to establish safety limits and will
not relax any safety system settings. The safety analysis acceptance
criteria are not affected by these changes. The proposed changes
will not result in plant operation in a configuration outside the
design basis. The proposed changes do not adversely affect systems
that respond to safely shut down the plant and to maintain
[[Page 87975]]
the plant in a safe shutdown condition. The emergency plan will
continue to activate an emergency response commensurate with the
extent of degradation of plant safety.
[Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.]
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Jay Silberg, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw
Pittman LLP, 2300 N Street NW., Washington, DC 20037.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
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.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-247 and 50-286, Indian
Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3, Westchester County, New
York
Date of amendment request: December 10, 2015, as supplemented by
letters dated March 2, July 7, and October 6, 2016.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical
Specification (TS) 3.1.3, ``Moderator Temperature Coefficient (MTC),''
and TS 5.6.5, ``Core Operating Limits Report (COLR),'' to allow
exemption from the normally required near end-of-life MTC measurement
by placing a set of conditions on reactor core operation. If these
conditions are met, the MTC measurement could be replaced by a
calculated value.
Date of issuance: November 15, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be
implemented within 30 days.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 2-285; Unit 3-261. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16215A243; documents related
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with
the amendments.
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-26 and DPR-64: The amendments
revised the Facility Operating Licenses and the TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 5, 2016 (81 FR
19647). The supplemental letters dated March 2, July 7, and October 6,
2016, provided additional information that clarified the application,
did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and
did not change the NRC 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 15, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC and PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-277
and 50-278, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3, York and
Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: December 3, 2015, as supplemented by
letters dated June 9, 2016, August 2, 2016, and November 8, 2016.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the
technical specification (TS) surveillance requirements associated with
the emergency diesel generator (EDG) fuel oil transfer system.
Specifically, the amendments allow for the crediting of manual actions,
in lieu of automatic actions, without having to declare the EDGs
inoperable.
Date of issuance: November 16, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 120 days of issuance.
Amendments Nos.: Unit 2-311; Unit 3-315. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16292A188; documents related
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with
the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-44 and DPR-56: The
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 2, 2016 (81 FR
5498). The supplemental letters dated June 9, 2016, August 2, 2016, and
November 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 amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated November 16, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-364,
Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Houston County, Alabama
Date of amendment request: November 20, 2015, as supplemented by
letters dated January 12, April 11, and June 30, 2016.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the
setpoint requirements in Technical Specification (TS) 3.3.5, ``Loss of
Power (LOP) Diesel Generator (DG) Start Instrumentation.'' The change
was requested to fulfill a license condition to eliminate the manual
actions in lieu of automatic degraded voltage protection to assure
adequate voltage to safety-related equipment during design-basis
events.
Date of issuance: November 17, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 1-206; Unit 2-202. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16196A161; documents related
to
[[Page 87976]]
these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the
amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-2 and NPF-8: The
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 16, 2016 (81
FR 7842). The supplemental letters dated April 11, 2016, and June 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 17, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
IV. Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and
Combined Licenses and Final Determination of No Significant Hazards
Consideration and Opportunity for a Hearing (Exigent Public
Announcement or Emergency Circumstances)
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 for the
amendment 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.
Because of exigent or emergency circumstances associated with the
date the amendment was needed, there was not time for the Commission to
publish, for public comment before issuance, its usual notice of
consideration of issuance of amendment, proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination, and opportunity for a hearing.
For exigent circumstances, the Commission has either issued a
Federal Register notice providing opportunity for public comment or has
used local media to provide notice to the public in the area
surrounding a licensee's facility of the licensee's application and of
the Commission's proposed determination of no significant hazards
consideration. The Commission has provided a reasonable opportunity for
the public to comment, using its best efforts to make available to the
public means of communication for the public to respond quickly, and in
the case of telephone comments, the comments have been recorded or
transcribed as appropriate and the licensee has been informed of the
public comments.
In circumstances where failure to act in a timely way would have
resulted, for example, in derating or shutdown of a nuclear power plant
or in prevention of either resumption of operation or of increase in
power output up to the plant's licensed power level, the Commission may
not have had an opportunity to provide for public comment on its no
significant hazards consideration determination. In such case, the
license amendment has been issued without opportunity for comment. If
there has been some time for public comment but less than 30 days, the
Commission may provide an opportunity for public comment. If comments
have been requested, it is so stated. In either event, the State has
been consulted by telephone whenever possible.
Under its regulations, the Commission may issue and make an
amendment immediately effective, notwithstanding the pendency before it
of a request for a hearing from any person, in advance of the holding
and completion of any required hearing, where it has determined that no
significant hazards consideration is involved.
The Commission has applied the standards of 10 CFR 50.92 and has
made a final determination that the amendment involves no significant
hazards consideration. The basis for this determination is contained in
the documents related to this action. Accordingly, the amendments have
been issued and made effective 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 51.12(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
application for amendment, (2) the amendment to Facility Operating
License or Combined License, as applicable, 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.
A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing and Petition for Leave To Intervene
The Commission is also offering an opportunity for a hearing with
respect to the issuance of the amendment.
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 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
[[Page 87977]]
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
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 February 6, 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
[[Page 87978]]
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
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.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-374, LaSalle
County Station (LSCS), Units 1 and 2, LaSalle County, Illinois
Date of amendment request: September 30, 2016, as supplemented by
letter dated November 8, 2016.
Description of amendment request: The amendments revised the LSCS
licensing basis related to Alternate Source Term Analysis in the
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report to allow operation with and
movement of irradiated Atrium-10 fuel bundles containing part length
rods that have been in operation above 62,000 megawatt days per metric
ton of uranium (MWD/MTU), which is the current rod average burnup limit
specified in Footnote 11 of NRC Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.183,
``Alternative Radiological Source Terms for Evaluating Design Basis
Accidents at Nuclear Power Reactors,'' to which LSCS is committed. In
addition, the change allows use of the release fractions listed in
Table 1 of RG 1.183 for these Atrium-10 partial length rods that are
currently in the LSCA, Unit 2, Cycle 16, reactor core for the remainder
of the current operating cycle.
Date of issuance: November 18, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 10 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 1--221; Unit 2--207. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16320A182; documents related
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with
the amendments.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-11 and NPF-18: The amendments
revised the licensing basis related to Alternate Source Term in the
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report.
Public comments requested as to proposed no significant hazards
consideration (NSHC): Yes. Public notice of the proposed amendment was
published in The Ottawa Times on November 15 and November 16, 2016. The
notice provided an opportunity to submit comments on the Commission's
proposed NSHC determination. No comments have been received.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment, finding of
exigent circumstances, state consultation, and final NSHC determination
are contained in a safety evaluation dated November 18, 2016.
Attorney for licensee: Bradley J. Fewell, Associate General
Counsel, Exelon Nuclear, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Edward G. Miller.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 23rd 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. 2016-28990 Filed 12-5-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P