[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 244 (Tuesday, December 20, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 92863-92880]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-30438]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2016-0256]
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 22, 2016, to December 5, 2016. The
last biweekly notice was published on December 6, 2016.
DATES: Comments must be filed by January 19, 2017. A request for a
hearing must be filed by February 21, 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-2016-0256. 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: Shirley Rohrer, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-5411, email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments
A. Obtaining Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0256, 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-2016-0256.
NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the
ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select ``ADAMS Public Documents'' and
then select ``Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.'' For problems with ADAMS,
please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at
1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected]. The
ADAMS accession number for each document referenced (if it is available
in ADAMS) is provided the first time that it is mentioned in this
document.
NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
B. Submitting Comments
Please include Docket ID NRC-2016-0256, facility name, unit
number(s), plant docket number, application date, and subject in your
comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact
information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your
comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into
ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove
identifying or contact information.
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons
for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to
include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be
publicly disclosed in their comment submission.
[[Page 92864]]
Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment
submissions to remove such information before making the comment
submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
II. Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility
Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses and Proposed No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under
the Commission's regulations in Sec. 50.92 of title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (10 CFR), this means that operation of the facility
in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated, or (2) create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or
(3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis
for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown
below.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final
determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period if circumstances change during the 30-day comment
period such that failure to act in a 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 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).
[[Page 92865]]
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 21, 2017. The petition must be filed in
accordance with the filing instructions in the ``Electronic Submissions
(E-Filing)'' section of this document, and should meet the requirements
for petitions set forth in this section, except that under 10 CFR
2.309(h)(2) a State, local governmental body, or Federally-recognized
Indian Tribe, or agency thereof does not need to address the standing
requirements in 10 CFR 2.309(d) if the facility is located within its
boundaries. A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized
Indian Tribe, or agency thereof may also have the opportunity to
participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c).
If a hearing is granted, any person who does not wish, or is not
qualified, to become a party to the proceeding may, in the discretion
of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited appearance
pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person making a
limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of position on
the issues, but may not otherwise participate in the proceeding. A
limited appearance may be made at any session of the hearing or at any
prehearing conference, subject to the limits and conditions as may be
imposed by the presiding officer. Details regarding the opportunity to
make a limited appearance will be provided by the presiding officer if
such sessions are scheduled.
B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a
request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or
other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a
request for hearing or petition to intervene (hereinafter
``petition''), and documents filed by interested governmental entities
participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with
the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007, as amended at 77
FR 46562, August 3, 2012). The E-Filing process requires participants
to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in
some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may
not submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption
in accordance with the procedures described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10
days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the
Office of the Secretary by email at [email protected], or by
telephone at 301-415-1677, to request: (1) A digital identification
(ID) certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or
representative) to digitally sign documents and access the E-Submittal
server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise
the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a petition (even
in instances in which the participant, or its counsel or
representative, already holds an NRC-issued digital ID certificate).
Based upon this information, the Secretary will establish an electronic
docket for the hearing in this proceeding if the Secretary has not
already established an electronic docket.
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is
available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/getting-started.html. System requirements for accessing
the E-Submittal server are available on the NRC's public Web site at
http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/adjudicatory-sub.html.
Participants may attempt to use other software not listed on the Web
site, but should note that the NRC's E-Filing system does not support
unlisted software, and the NRC Electronic Filing Help Desk will not be
able to offer assistance in using unlisted software.
Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a
docket has been created, the participant can then submit a petition.
Submissions should be in Portable Document Format (PDF). Additional
guidance on PDF submissions is available on the NRC's public Web site
at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/electronic-sub-ref-mat.html. A filing
is considered complete at the time the documents are submitted through
the NRC's E-Filing system. To be timely, an electronic filing must be
submitted to the E-Filing system no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time
on the due date. Upon receipt of a transmission, the E-Filing system
time-stamps the document and sends the submitter an email notice
confirming receipt of the document. The E-Filing system also
distributes an email notice that provides access to the document to the
NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any others who have advised the
Office of the Secretary that they wish to participate in the
proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the documents on those
participants separately. Therefore, applicants and other participants
(or their counsel or representative) must apply for and receive a
digital ID certificate before a hearing petition to intervene is filed
so that they can obtain access to the document via the E-Filing system.
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-
Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Electronic
Filing Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC's
public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by
email to [email protected], or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-
7640. The NRC Electronic Filing Help Desk is available between 9 a.m.
and 7 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government
holidays.
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not
submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in
accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing
stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and
requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper
format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention:
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or
expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and
Adjudications Staff. Participants filing a document in this manner are
responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing
is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in
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
[[Page 92866]]
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, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-325 and 50-324, Brunswick
Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, Brunswick County, North Carolina
Date of amendment request: September 26, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16287A421.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the
Safety Limit Minimum Critical Power Ratio (SLMCPR) values contained in
the Technical Specifications (TSs) for two recirculation loop operation
and for single loop recirculation operation.
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 SLMCPR values have been determined using NRC-
approved methods discussed in AREVA Topical Report ANP-10307PA,
Revision 0, AREVA MCPR Safety Limit Methodology for Boiling Water
Reactors, June 2011, as augmented by the associated TS Appendix B
Additional Condition related to channel bow model uncertainty.
Establishing a two recirculation loop SLMCPR value of >=1.07 and a
single recirculation loop SLMCPR value of >=1.09 ensures that the
acceptance criteria continues to be met (i.e., at least 99.9 percent
of all fuel rods in the core do not experience transition boiling).
The probability of an evaluated accident is derived from the
probabilities of the individual precursors to that accident. The
proposed license amendments do not involve any plant modifications
or operational changes that could affect system reliability or
performance, or that could affect the probability of operator error.
As such, the proposed changes do not affect any postulated accident
precursors. Since no individual precursors of an accident are
affected, the proposed license amendments do not involve a
significant increase in the probability of a previously analyzed
event.
The consequences of an evaluated accident are determined by the
operability of plant systems designed to mitigate those
consequences. The basis for the SLMCPR calculation is to ensure that
during normal operation and during anticipated operational
occurrences, at least 99.9 percent of all fuel rods in the core do
not experience transition boiling if the safety limit is not
exceeded.
Based on these considerations, the proposed changes do not
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of
previously analyzed accident.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
Creation of the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident requires creating one or more new accident precursors. New
accident precursors may be created by modifications of plant
configuration, including changes in allowable modes of operation.
The SLMCPR is a TS numerical value calculated for two recirculation
loop operation and single recirculation loop operation to ensure at
least 99.9 percent of all fuel rods in the core do not experience
transition boiling if the safety limit is not exceeded. SLMCPR
values are calculated using NRC-approved methodology identified in
the TS. The proposed SLMCPR values do not involve any new modes of
plant operation or any plant modifications and do not directly or
indirectly affect the failure modes of any plant systems or
components. 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 change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The SLMCPR provides a margin of safety by ensuring that at least
99.9 percent of the fuel rods do not experience transition boiling
during normal operation and anticipated operational occurrences if
the MCPR Safety Limit is not exceeded. Revision of the SLMCPR values
in Technical Specification 2.1.1.2, using NRC-approved methodology,
will ensure that the current level of fuel protection is maintained
by continuing to ensure that the fuel design safety criterion is met
(i.e., that no more than 0.1 percent of the rods are expected to be
in boiling transition if the MCPR Safety Limit is not exceeded).
Therefore, the proposed amendments do not result in a significant
reduction in the margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Kathryn B. Nolan, Deputy General Counsel,
550 South Tryon St., M/C DEC45A, Charlotte, NC 28202.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Jeanne A. Dion.
Entergy Operations, Inc., System Energy Resources, Inc., South
Mississippi Electric Power Association, and Entergy Mississippi, Inc.,
Docket No. 50-416, Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Claiborne
County, Mississippi
Date of amendment request: October 26, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS, under Accession No. ML16301A150.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
change the Technical Specifications (TS) to revise requirements for
unavailable barriers by adding new Limiting Condition for Operation
(LCO) 3.0.9. This LCO establishes conditions under which systems would
remain operable when required physical barriers are not capable of
providing their related support function. This proposed amendment is
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 OPERABILITLY.'' The Notice of
Availability of this TS improvement and the model application was
published in the Federal Register on October 3, 2006 (71 FR 58444), as
part of the consolidated line item improvement process.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee provided an
analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration (NSHC) by
citing the proposed NSHC determination published by the NRC staff in
the Federal Register notice referenced above. The proposed NSHC is
reproduced 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
[[Page 92867]]
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 Accident 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: William B. Glew, Jr., Associate General
Counsel--Entergy Services, Inc., 440 Hamilton Avenue, White Plains, New
York 10601.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-254 and 50-265, Quad
Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Rock Island County,
Illinois
Date of amendment request: September 12, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16258A146.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise the setpoint for detecting a loss of voltage on the 4.16
kilovolt essential service system (ESS) buses.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change to the 4.16 kV Essential Service System
(ESS) bus loss of voltage allowable values allows the protection
scheme to function as originally designed. This change will involve
alteration of nominal trip setpoints in the field and will also be
reflected in revisions to the calibration procedures. The proposed
change does not affect the probability or consequences of any
accident. Analysis was conducted and demonstrates that the proposed
allowable values will allow the normally operating safety related
motors to continue to operate without sustaining damage or tripping
during the worst-case, non-accident degraded voltage condition for
the maximum possible time-delay of 332.3 seconds. Thus, these safety
related loads will be available to perform their safety function if
a loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) concurrent with a loss-of offsite
power (LOOP) occurs following the degraded voltage condition.
The proposed change does not adversely affect accident
initiators or precursors, and do not alter the design assumptions,
conditions, or configuration or the plant or the manner in which the
plant is operated or maintained. The proposed allowable values
ensure that the 4.16 kV distribution system remains connected to the
offsite power system when adequate offsite voltage is available and
motor starting transients are considered. The emergency diesel
generator (EDG) start due to a LOCA signal is not adversely affected
by this change. During an actual loss of voltage condition, the loss
of voltage time delay will continue to isolate the 4.16 kV
distribution system from offsite power before the EDG is ready to
assume the emergency loads, which is the limiting time basis for
mitigating system responses to the accident. For this reason, the
existing loss of power LOCA analysis continues to be valid.
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 involves the revision of 4.16 kV ESS bus
loss of voltage allowable values to satisfy existing design
requirements. The proposed change does not introduce any changes or
mechanisms that create the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident. The proposed change does not install any new or different
type of equipment, and installed equipment is not being operated in
a new or different manner. No new effects on existing equipment are
created nor are any new malfunctions introduced.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed protection voltage allowable values are low enough
to prevent inadvertent power supply transfer, but high enough to
ensure that sufficient power is available to the required equipment.
The EDG start due to a LOCA signal is not adversely affected by this
change. During an actual loss of voltage condition, the loss of
voltage time delays will continue to isolate the 4.16 kV
distribution system from offsite power before the EDG is ready to
assume the emergency loads.
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
requested amendments involve no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel,
Exelon Nuclear, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: G. Edward Miller.
[[Page 92868]]
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-334 and
50-412, Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 (BVPS-1 and
BVPS-2), Beaver County, Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: September 28, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Package Accession No. ML16277A194.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the
BVPS-1 and BVPS-2 Emergency Plan by revising the emergency action level
(EAL) schemes to one based on 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, was 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 amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to BVPS's EAL scheme to adopt the NRC-
endorsed guidance of NEI 99-01, Revision 6, do not involve any
physical changes to plant systems or equipment. The proposed changes
do not alter any of the requirements of the technical
specifications. The proposed changes do not modify any plant
equipment and do not impact any failure modes that could lead to an
accident. Additionally, the proposed changes do not impact the
ability of structures, systems, or components (SSCs) to perform
their intended safety functions in mitigating the consequences of an
initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to BVPS's EAL scheme to adopt the NRC-
endorsed guidance of NEI 99-01, Revision 6, do not involve any
physical changes to plant systems or equipment. The proposed changes
do not involve the addition of any new plant equipment. The proposed
changes will not alter the design configuration, or method of
operation of plant equipment beyond its normal functional
capabilities. BVPS functions will continue to be performed as
required. The proposed changes do not create any new credible
failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident initiators.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to BVPS's EAL scheme to adopt the NRC-
endorsed guidance of NEI 99-01, Revision 6, do not involve any
physical changes to plant systems or equipment. Margins of safety
are unaffected by the proposed changes. 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 EAL scheme change. The proposed change does
not affect the technical specifications. There are no changes to
environmental conditions of any of the SSC or the manner in which
any SSC is operated. The applicable requirements of 10 CFR 50.47 and
10 CFR 50, Appendix E will continue to be met.
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: David W. Jenkins, FirstEnergy Nuclear
Operating Company, FirstEnergy Corporation, 76 South Main Street, Mail
Stop A-GO-15, Akron, OH 44308.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Stephen S. Koenick.
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, Docket No. 50-440, Perry Nuclear
Power Plant, Unit No. 1, Lake County, Ohio
Date of amendment request: November 1, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16307A029.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise Technical Specification 2.1.1, ``Reactor Core [Safety Limits]
SLs,'' to reduce the reactor steam dome pressure value.
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.
Decreasing the reactor steam dome pressure limit in Technical
Specification Safety Limits 2.1.1 expands the range of use of the
GEXL14 and GEXL17 correlations (applicable to GE14 and GNF2 fuel
respectively) and the calculation of the minimum critical power
ratio (CPR). The CPR increases during the pressure reduction that
occurs during the [Pressure Regulator Failure-Maximum Demand (Open)]
PRFO event, so that the initial CPR is the limiting CPR condition
during the entire transient. CPR increases during the event relative
to the initial CPR value, so fuel cladding integrity is not
threatened. Since the change does not involve a modification of any
plant hardware, the probability and consequence of the PRFO
transient are essentially unchanged.
The proposed change will continue to support the application
range of the GEXL correlations applied at PNPP and the calculation
of the minimum CPR. The proposed TS revision involves no significant
changes to the operation of any systems or components in normal,
accident or transient operating conditions.
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 reduction in the reactor steam dome pressure limit
in Technical Specification Safety Limits 2.1.1 from 785 psig to 686
psig is a change based on NRC approved documents that permit a wider
range of applicability for the GEXL critical power correlations for
both GE14 and GNF2 fuel types in the reactor core. This change does
not involve changes to the plant hardware or its operating
characteristics. There are no changes in the method by which any
plant systems perform a safety function, nor are there any changes
in the methods governing normal plant operation. No new accident
scenarios, failure mechanisms, or limiting single failures are
introduced as a result of the proposed changes. As a result, no new
failure modes are being introduced.
Therefore, the 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 margin of safety is established through the design of the
plant structures, systems, and components, and through the
parameters for safe operation and setpoints for the actuation of
equipment relied upon to respond to transients and design basis
accidents. Evaluation of the 10 CFR part 21 condition by GE
determined that, since the critical power ratio improves during the
PRFO transient, there is no impact on the fuel safety margin, and
there is no challenge to fuel cladding integrity. The proposed
changes do not change the requirements governing operation or the
availability of safety equipment assumed to operate to preserve the
margin of safety.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
[[Page 92869]]
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: David W. Jenkins, Senior Attorney,
FirstEnergy Corporation, Mail Stop A-GO-15, 76 South Main Street,
Akron, OH 44308.
NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, Docket No. 50-440, Perry Nuclear
Power Plant, Unit No. 1, Lake County, Ohio
Date of amendment request: October 27, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16302A055.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise Technical Specification (TS) 3.8.3, ``Diesel Fuel Oil, Lube Oil,
and Starting Air,'' by relocating the current stored diesel fuel oil
and lube oil numerical volume requirements from the TS to the TS Bases.
The proposed changes are consistent with Technical Specifications Task
Force Traveler TSTF-501, Revision 1, ``Relocate Stored Fuel Oil and
Lube Oil Volume Values to Licensee Control.''
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No
The proposed change relocates the volume of diesel fuel oil and
lube oil required to support 7-day operation of each onsite diesel
generator, and the volume equivalent to a 6-day supply, to licensee
control. The specific volume of fuel oil equivalent to a 7 and 6-day
supply is calculated using the NRC-approved methodology described in
Regulatory Guide 1.137, Revision 1, ``Fuel-Oil Systems for Standby
Diesel Generators'' and ANSI-N195 1976, ``Fuel Oil Systems for
Standby Diesel-Generators.'' The specific volume of lube oil
equivalent to a 7-day and 6-day supply is based on the diesel
generator manufacturer's consumption values for the run time of the
diesel generator. Because the requirement to maintain a 7-day supply
of diesel fuel oil and lube oil is not changed and is consistent
with the assumptions in the accident analyses, and the actions taken
when the volume of fuel oil and lube oil are less than a 6-day
supply have not changed, neither the probability nor the
consequences of any accident previously evaluated will be affected.
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 change does not involve a physical alteration of
the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be
installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant
operation. The change does not alter assumptions made in the safety
analysis but ensures that the diesel generator operates as assumed
in the accident analysis. The proposed change is consistent with the
safety analysis assumptions. Therefore, the proposed change does not
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from
any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No
The proposed change relocates the volume of diesel fuel oil and
lube oil required to support 7-day operation of each onsite diesel
generator, and the volume equivalent to a 6-day supply, to licensee
control. As the bases for the existing limits on diesel fuel oil,
and lube oil are not changed, no change is made to the accident
analysis assumptions and no margin of safety is reduced as part of
this change. 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: David W. Jenkins, Senior Attorney,
FirstEnergy Corporation, Mail Stop A-GO-15, 76 South Main Street,
Akron, OH 44308.
NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50-354, Hope Creek (Hope Creek) Generating
Station, Salem County, New Jersey
Date of amendment request: October 7, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16281A139.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the
Hope Creek Technical Specifications by incorporating Nuclear Energy
Institute (NEI) topical report 94-01, Revision 3-A, and the conditions
and limitations specified in NEI topical report 94-01, Revision 2-A, as
the implementation document for the Hope Creek performance-based
containment leakage rate testing program. Based on guidance in NEI 94-
01, Revision 3-A, the proposed change would allow the Hope Creek Type A
Test (Integrated Leak Rate Test, or ILRT) frequency to be extended from
10 to 15 years, and the Type C Tests (Local Leak Rate Tests, or LLRTs)
frequency to be extended from 60 to 75 months. In addition, the
amendment would delete a one-time extension of the test frequencies
previously granted in License Amendment No. 147.
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 activity involves revision of the Hope Creek
Generating Station (HCGS) Technical Specification (TS) 6.8.4.f,
Primary Containment Leakage Rate Testing Program, to allow the
extension of the HCGS Type A containment integrated leakage rate
test interval to 15 years, and the extension of the Type C local
leakage rate test interval to 75 months. The current Type A test
interval of 120 months (10 years) would be extended on a permanent
basis to no longer than 15 years from the last Type A test. The
existing Type C test interval of 60 months for selected components
would be extended on a performance basis to no longer than 75
months. Extensions of up to nine months (total maximum interval of
84 months for Type C tests) are permissible only for non-routine
emergent conditions.
The proposed extension does not involve either a physical change
to the plant or a change in the manner in which the plant is
operated or controlled. The containment is designed to provide an
essentially leak tight barrier against the uncontrolled release of
radioactivity to the environment for postulated accidents. As such,
the containment and the testing requirements invoked to periodically
demonstrate the integrity of the containment exist to ensure the
plant's ability to mitigate the consequences of an accident, and do
not involve the prevention or identification of any precursors of an
accident.
The change in dose risk for changing the Type A Integrated Leak
Rate Test (ILRT) interval from three-per-ten years to once-per-
fifteen-years, measured as an increase to the total integrated dose
risk for all internal events accident sequences, is 5.15E-03 person-
rem/yr (0.01%) using the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)
guidance with the base case corrosion included. This change meets
both of the related acceptance criteria for change in population
dose. The change in dose risk drops to 1.38E-03 person-rem/yr
(<0.01%) when using the EPRI Expert Elicitation methodology.
Therefore, this proposed extension does not involve a significant
increase in the probability of an accident previously evaluated.
As documented in NUREG-1493, ``Performance-Based Containment
Leak-Test
[[Page 92870]]
Program,'' dated January 1995, Types B and C tests have identified a
very large percentage of containment leakage paths, and the
percentage of containment leakage paths that are detected only by
Type A testing is very small. The HCGS Type A test history supports
this conclusion.
The integrity of the containment is subject to two types of
failure mechanisms that can be categorized as: (1) activity based,
and, (2) time based. Activity based failure mechanisms are defined
as degradation due to system and/or component modifications or
maintenance. Local leak rate test requirements and administrative
controls such as configuration management and procedural
requirements for system restoration ensure that containment
integrity is not degraded by plant modifications or maintenance
activities. The design and construction requirements of the
containment combined with the containment inspections performed in
accordance with American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)
Section XI, and TS requirements serve to provide a high degree of
assurance that the containment would not degrade in a manner that is
detectable only by a Type A test. Based on the above, the proposed
test interval extensions do not significantly increase the
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed amendment also deletes an exception previously
granted in amendment 147 to allow a one-time extension of the ILRT
test frequency for HCGS. This exception was for an activity that has
already taken place; therefore, this deletion is solely an
administrative action that does not result in any change in how HCGS
is operated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not result in a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment to TS 6.8.4.f, ``Primary Containment
Leakage Rate Testing Program,'' involves the extension of the HCGS
Type A containment test interval to 15 years and the extension of
the Type C test interval to 75 months. The containment and the
testing requirements to periodically demonstrate the integrity of
the containment exist to ensure the plant's ability to mitigate the
consequences of an accident.
The proposed change does not involve a physical modification to
the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be
installed), nor does it alter the design, configuration, or change
the manner in which the plant is operated or controlled beyond the
standard functional capabilities of the equipment.
The proposed amendment also deletes an exception previously
granted in amendment 147 to allow a one-time extension of the ILRT
test frequency for HCGS. This exception was for an activity that has
already taken place; therefore, this deletion is solely an
administrative action that does not result in any change in how HCGS
is operated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated
for HCGS.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment to TS 6.8.4.f involves the extension of
the HCGS Type A containment test interval to 15 years and the
extension of the Type C test interval to 75 months for selected
components. This amendment does not alter the manner in which safety
limits, limiting safety system set points, or limiting conditions
for operation are determined. The specific requirements and
conditions of the TS Containment Leak Rate Testing Program exist to
ensure that the degree of containment structural integrity and leak-
tightness that is considered in the plant safety analysis is
maintained. The overall containment leak rate limit specified by TS
is maintained.
The proposed change involves the extension of the interval
between Type A containment leak rate tests and Type C tests for
HCGS. The proposed surveillance interval extension is bounded by the
15-year ILRT interval and the 75-month Type C test interval
currently authorized within NEI 94-01, Revision 3-A. Industry
experience supports the conclusion that Type B and C testing detects
a large percentage of containment leakage paths and that the
percentage of containment leakage paths that are detected only by
Type A testing is small. The containment inspections performed in
accordance with ASME Section Xl and TS serve to provide a high
degree of assurance that the containment would not degrade in a
manner that is detectable only by Type A testing. The combination of
these factors ensures that the margin of safety in the plant safety
analysis is maintained. The design, operation, testing methods and
acceptance criteria for Types A, B, and C containment leakage tests
specified in applicable codes and standards would continue to be
met, with the acceptance of this proposed change, since these are
not affected by changes to the Type A and Type C test intervals.
The proposed amendment also deletes an exception previously
granted in amendment 147 to allow a one-time extension of the ILRT
test frequency for HCGS. This exception was for an activity that has
taken place; therefore, the deletion is solely an administrative
action and does not change how HCGS is operated and maintained.
Thus, there is no reduction in any margin of 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: Jeffrie J. Keenan, PSEG Nuclear LLC--N21,
P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Stephen S. Koenick.
South Carolina Electric & Gas Company and South Carolina Public Service
Authority, Docket Nos. 52-027 and 52-028, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear
Station (VCSNS), Units 2 and 3, Fairfield, South Carolina
Date of amendment request: September 29, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16273A557.
Description of amendment request: The changes would amend Combined
License Nos. NPF-93 and NPF-94 for the VCSNS, Units 2 and 3,
respectively. The amendments propose changes to the Updated Final
Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) in the form of departures from a plant-
specific Design Control Document Tier 2 figure and a Combined Operating
License (COL) Appendix C table. Specifically, the proposed departures
consist of changes to plant-specific UFSAR Figure 9.3.6-1, Sheet 2 of
2, and COL Appendix C, Table 2.3.2-4, related to the configuration of
the boric acid storage tank (BAST) suction point. The change also
aligns the Tier 1 Chemical and Volume Control System (CVS) makeup flow
rate with previously approved Tier 2 information.
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 alter the BAST suction point by relocating
the common inlet/outlet line from the bottom of the tank to the side
of the tank and to align the Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and
Acceptance Criteria (ITAAC) for the maximum CVS flow to the Reactor
Coolant System (RCS) with the previously approved Tier 2
descriptions and analyses. No change is made to the minimum required
volume of the BAST, the included concentrations, or the overall
operation of the system. The proposed changes do not alter any
safety related functions, and the analyses previously performed on
the potential for an inadvertent dilution event are not affected.
Consequently, there is no change to an accident initiator in the
UFSAR and accordingly, there is no change to the probabilities of
accident previously evaluated. The radioactive source terms and
release paths are unchanged, thus the radiological releases in the
UFSAR accident analyses are not affected.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of
[[Page 92871]]
accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change to alter the BAST suction point affects only
nonsafety-related equipment, reducing the possibility for leaks in
the BAST. The basic requirements, including the applicable codes and
standards, for the configuration of the BAST are unchanged. In
addition, the change to the ITAAC verified CVS makeup flow does not
alter the design of the CVS, which is currently limited in the
design to 175 gallons per minute of flow. The change to the ITAAC
aligns the test with the Tier 2 requirement. Consequently, because
the BAST codes and standards are unchanged and the CVS is otherwise
unchanged, there is no effect on accidents previously evaluated in
the UFSAR.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change to the BAST piping configuration and to the
CVS makeup flow ITAAC does not alter any safety-related equipment,
applicable design codes, code compliance, design function, or safety
analysis. Consequently, no safety analysis or design basis
acceptance limit is challenged or exceeded by the proposed changes,
and thus, the margin of safety is not reduced.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three 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 M. Sutton, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius,
LLC, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004-2514.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, Docket Nos. 52-027 and 52-028,
Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3, Fairfield, South
Carolina
Date of amendment request: September 2, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16246A214.
Description of amendment request: The amendment request proposes
changes to a plant-specific Tier 1 (and combined license Appendix C)
table and the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) tables to
clarify the flow area for the Automatic Depressurization System (ADS)
fourth stage squib valves and to reduce the minimum effective flow area
for the second and third stage ADS control valves. Pursuant to the
provisions of 10 CFR 52.63(b)(1), an exemption from elements of the
design as certified in the 10 CFR part 52, Appendix D, design
certification rule is also requested for the plant-specific Design
Control Document Tier 1 material departures.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not adversely affect the operation of
any systems or equipment that initiate an analyzed accident or alter
any structures, systems, and components (SSC) accident initiator or
initiating sequence of events. The proposed changes do not adversely
affect the physical design and operation of the second and third
stage ADS control valves and fourth stage ADS squib valves,
including as-installed inspections, testing, and maintenance
requirements, as described in the UFSAR. Therefore, the operation of
the second and third stage ADS control valves and fourth stage ADS
squib valves is not adversely affected. Inadvertent operation or
failure of the second and third stage ADS control valves and fourth
stage ADS squib valves are considered as accident initiators or part
of an initiating sequence of events for an accident previously
evaluated. However, the proposed changes do not adversely affect the
probability of inadvertent operation or failure, nor the
consequences of such accident precursor sequences. Therefore, the
probabilities of the accidents previously evaluated in the UFSAR are
not affected.
The proposed changes do not adversely affect the ability of the
second and third stage ADS control valves and fourth stage ADS squib
valves to perform their design functions. The designs of the second
and third stage ADS control valves and fourth stage ADS squib valves
continue to meet the same regulatory acceptance criteria, codes, and
standards as required by the UFSAR. In addition, the proposed
changes maintain the capabilities of the second and third stage ADS
control valves and fourth stage ADS squib valves to mitigate the
consequences of an accident and to meet the applicable regulatory
acceptance criteria. The proposed changes do not adversely affect
the prevention and mitigation of other abnormal events, e.g.,
anticipated operational occurrences, earthquakes, floods and turbine
missiles, or their safety or design analyses. Therefore, the
consequences of the accidents evaluated in the UFSAR are not
affected.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not affect the operation of any systems
or equipment that may initiate a new or different kind of accident,
or alter any SSC such that a new accident initiator or initiating
sequence of events is created. The proposed changes do not adversely
affect the physical design and operation of the second and third
stage ADS control valves and fourth stage ADS squib valves,
including as-installed inspections, testing, and maintenance
requirements, as described in the UFSAR. Therefore, the operation of
the second and third stage ADS control valves and fourth stage ADS
squib valves is not adversely affected. These proposed changes do
not adversely affect any other SSC design functions or methods of
operation in a manner that results in a new failure mode,
malfunction, or sequence of events that affect safety-related or
nonsafety-related equipment. Therefore, this activity does not allow
for a new fission product release path, result in a new fission
product barrier failure mode, or create a new sequence of events
that results in significant fuel cladding failures.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes maintain existing safety margins. The
proposed changes maintain the capabilities of the second and third
stage ADS control valves and fourth stage ADS squib valves to
perform their design functions. The proposed changes maintain
existing safety margin through continued application of the existing
requirements of the UFSAR, while updating the acceptance criteria
for verifying the design features necessary to confirm the second
and third stage ADS control valves and fourth stage ADS squib valves
perform the design functions required to meet the existing safety
margins in the safety analyses. Therefore, the proposed changes
satisfy the same design functions in accordance with the same codes
and standards as stated in the UFSAR. These changes do not adversely
affect any design code, function, design analysis, safety analysis
input or result, or design/safety margin.
No safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is
challenged or exceeded by the proposed changes, and no margin of
safety is reduced. Therefore, the requested amendment does not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Kathryn M. Sutton, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius,
LLC,
[[Page 92872]]
1111. Pennsylvania NW., Washington, DC 20004-2514.
NRC Branch Chief: Jennifer Dixon-Herrity.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., (SNC) Docket Nos. 50-348 and
50-364, Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Houston County,
Alabama
Date of amendment request: October 11, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16285A354.
Description of amendment request: SNC stated that the current
Technical Specification (TS) 3.8.9, ``Distribution Systems--
Operating,'' contains a conservative Completion Time of 8 hours for an
inoperable 600 Volt alternating current (AC) load center (LC) 1-2R. The
proposed change would add new Action Conditions to TS 3.8.9 and include
appropriate Required Actions and associated Completion Times for LC 1-
2R.
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. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis
against the standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c). The licensee's analysis 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 revises the TS requirements to include an
appropriate Condition, Required Actions and associated Completion
Times to address an inoperable 600 Volt AC LC 1-2R that is required
to be operable by TS 3.8.9 ``Distribution Systems--Operating.''
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of
the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed).
The 600V LC are not a precursor to any accident previously
evaluated. The proposed changes do not adversely affect accident
initiators or precursors nor alter the design assumptions,
conditions, and configuration of the facility or the manner in which
the plant is operated and maintained. The proposed changes do not
adversely affect the ability of structures, systems and components
(SSCs) to perform their intended safety function to mitigate the
consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance
limits. The LC 1-2R provides power to equipment that may be used to
mitigate the consequences of accidents previously evaluated. The
proposed change to TS 3.8.9, ``Distribution Systems--Operating''
provides assurance that the requirements of the TS appropriately
address all the equipment that is required to be operable by TS
3.8.9. Thus, the proposed change does not affect the probability or
the consequences of any accident previously evaluated.
Therefore, it is concluded that 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 amendment revises the TS to include an appropriate
Condition, Required Actions, and associated Completion Times to
address inoperable 600 Volt AC LC 1-2R that is required to be
operable by TS 3.8.9 ``Distribution Systems- Operating.''
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of
the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed)
or a change in the methods governing normal plant operation. The
proposed change to the TS assures that the TS appropriately
addresses all the equipment required to be operable to support the
electrical distribution system. Thus, the proposed change does not
adversely affect the design function or operation of any structures,
systems, and components important to safety.
Therefore, it is concluded that 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 amendment revises the TS requirements to include an
appropriate Condition, Required Actions, and associated Completion
Times to address inoperable 600 Volt AC LC 1-2R that is required to
be operable by TS 3.8.9 ``Distribution Systems--Operating.''
The proposed change to TS 3.8.9 ``Distribution Systems--
Operating'' provides assurance that all the requirements of the TS
are appropriately addressed in the Action Conditions. The proposed
change serves to make the TS more complete and appropriate for all
the equipment required to be operable to support the electrical
distribution system. Thus, the proposed change does not involve a
change in the margin of safety.
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: Jennifer M. Buettner, Associate General
Counsel, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 40 Inverness Center
Parkway, Birmingham, AL 35201.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-
026, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), Units 3 and 4, Burke
County, Georgia
Date of amendment request: October 26, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16300A325.
Description of amendment request: The proposed changes would amend
Combined License Nos. NPF-91 and NPF-92 for the VEGP, Units 3 and 4,
respectively. The amendments propose changes to the Updated Final
Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) in the form of departures from a plant-
specific Design Control Document Tier 2 figure and a Combined Operating
License (COL) Appendix C table. Specifically, the proposed departures
consist of changes to plant-specific UFSAR Figure 9.3.6-1, Sheet 2 of
2, and COL Appendix C, Table 2.3.2-4, related to the configuration of
the boric acid storage tank (BAST) suction point. The changes also
align the Tier 1 chemical and volume control system (CVS) makeup flow
rate with previously approved Tier 2 information.
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 alter the BAST suction point by relocating
the common inlet/outlet line from the bottom of the tank to the side
of the tank and aligns the Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and
Acceptance Criteria (ITAAC) for the maximum CVS flow to the reactor
coolant system (RCS) with the previously approved Tier 2
descriptions and analyses. No change is made to the minimum required
volume of the BAST, the included concentrations, or the overall
operation of the system. The proposed changes do not alter any
safety-related functions, and the analyses previously performed on
the potential for an inadvertent dilution event are not affected.
Consequently, there is no change to an accident initiator in the
UFSAR and accordingly, there is no change to the probabilities of
accident previously evaluated. The radioactive source terms and
release paths are unchanged, thus the radiological releases in the
UFSAR accident analyses are not affected.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
[[Page 92873]]
Response: No.
The proposed change to alter the BAST suction point affects only
nonsafety-related equipment, reducing the possibility for leaks in
the BAST. The basic requirements, including the applicable codes and
standards, for the configuration of the BAST are unchanged. In
addition, the change to the ITAAC verified CVS makeup flow does not
alter the design of the CVS, which is currently limited in the
design to 175 gallons per minute of flow. The change to the ITAAC
aligns the test with the Tier 2 requirement. Consequently, because
the BAST codes and standards are unchanged and the CVS is otherwise
unchanged, there is no effect on accidents previously evaluated in
the UFSAR.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change to the BAST piping configuration and to the
CVS makeup flow ITAAC does not alter any safety-related equipment,
applicable design codes, code compliance, design function, or safety
analysis. Consequently, no safety analysis or design basis
acceptance limit is challenged or exceeded by the proposed changes,
and thus, the margin of safety is not reduced.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety from any accident previously
evaluated.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: M. Stanford Blanton, Balch & Bingham LLP,
1710 Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 35203-2015.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026,
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4, Burke County, Georgia
Date of amendment request: August 31, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16244A253.
Description of amendment request: The amendment request proposes
changes to the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) in the form
of departures from the incorporated plant-specific Design Control
Document Tier 2 information and a combined license (COL) License
Condition which references one of the proposed changes. Additionally,
the proposed changes to the UFSAR eliminate pressurizer spray line
monitoring during pressurizer surge line first plant only testing. In
addition, these proposed changes correct inconsistencies in testing
purpose, testing duration, and the ability to leave equipment in place
following the data collection period. These changes involve material
which is specifically referenced in Section 2.D.(2) of the COLs. This
submittal requests approval of the license amendment necessary to
implement these changes.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below with Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) staff edits in square brackets:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The design functions of the [reactor coolant system (RCS)]
include providing an effective reactor coolant pressure boundary.
The proposed changes for removing the requirement to install
temporary instrumentation on the pressurizer spray line during the
monitoring of the pressurizer surge line for thermal stratification
and thermal cycling during hot functional testing and during the
first fuel cycle for the first plant only, proposed changes to
parameter retention requirements, and proposed change to remove the
pressurizer spray and surge l ine valve leakage requirement do not
impact the existing design requirements for the RCS. These changes
are acceptable as they are consistent with the commitments made for
the pressurizer surge line monitoring program for the first plant
only, and do not adversely affect the capability of the pressurizer
surge line and pressurizer spray lines to perform the required
reactor coolant pressure boundary design functions.
These proposed changes to the monitoring of the pressurizer
surge line for thermal stratification and thermal cycling during hot
functional testing and during the first fuel cycle for the first
plant only, proposed changes to parameter retention requirements,
and proposed change to remove the pressurizer spray and surge line
valve leakage requirement as described in the current licensing
basis do not have an adverse effect on any of the design functions
of the systems. The proposed changes do not affect the support,
design, or operation of mechanical and fluid systems required to
mitigate the consequences of an accident. There is no change to
plant systems or the response of systems to postulated accident
conditions. There is no change to the predicted radioactive releases
due to postulated accident conditions. The plant response to
previously evaluated accidents or external events is not adversely
affected, nor do the proposed changes create any new accident
precursors.
Therefore, the requested amendment does not involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes for removing the requirement to install
temporary instrumentation on the pressurizer spray line during the
monitoring of the pressurizer surge line for thermal stratification
and thermal cycling during hot functional testing and during the
first fuel cycle for the first plant only, proposed changes to
parameter retention requirements, and proposed change to remove the
pressurizer spray and surge line valve leakage requirement as
described in the current licensing basis maintain the required
design functions, and are consistent with other Updated Final Safety
Analysis Report (UFSAR) information. The proposed changes do not
adversely affect the design requirements for the RCS, including the
pressurizer surge line and pressurizer spray lines. The proposed
changes do not adversely affect the design function, support,
design, or operation of mechanical and fluid systems. The proposed
changes do not result in a new failure mechanism or introduce any
new accident precursors. No design function described in the UFSAR
is adversely affected by the proposed changes.
Therefore, the requested amendment does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
No safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is
challenged or exceeded by the proposed changes, and no margin of
safety is reduced. Therefore, the requested amendment does not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: M. Stanford Blanton, Balch & Bingham LLP,
1710 Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 35203-2015.
NRC Branch Chief: Jennifer Dixon-Herrity.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026,
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4, Burke County, Georgia
Date of amendment request: October 14, 2016. Publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16288A810.
Description of amendment request: The requested amendment requires
a change to the Combined License (COL) Appendix A, as well as plant-
specific
[[Page 92874]]
Tier 2, Tier 2 *, and COL Appendix C (and corresponding plant-specific
Tier 1). The proposed changes would revise the licenses basis documents
to add design detail to the automatic depressurization system (ADS)
blocking device and to add the blocking device to the design of the in-
containment refueling water storage tank injection squib valves
actuation logic. An exemption request relating to the proposed changes
to the AP1000 Design Control Document Tier 1 is included with the
request.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below with Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) staff edits in square brackets:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The AP1000 accident analysis previously evaluated a loss of
coolant accident caused by an inadvertent ADS valve actuation.
Adding design detail to the ADS blocking device, and applying the
blocking device to the [in-containment refueling water storage tank
(IRWST)] injection valves, does not impact this analysis. Using a
blocking device on the ADS and IRWST injection valves is a design
feature which further minimizes the probability of a loss of coolant
accident caused by a spurious valve actuation. Furthermore, because
the blocking device is designed to prevent a spurious valve
actuation due to a software [common cause failure (CCF)] and does
not adversely impact any existing design feature, it does not
involve a significant increase in the probability of an accident
previously evaluated.
The proposed amendment does not affect the prevention and
mitigation of abnormal events, e.g., accidents, anticipated
operation occurrences, earthquakes, floods, turbine missiles, and
fires or their safety or design analyses. This change does not
involve containment of radioactive isotopes or any adverse effect on
a fission product barrier. There is no impact on previously
evaluated accidents source terms. The [protection and safety
monitoring system (PMS)] is still able to actuate ADS and IRWST
injection valves for plant conditions which require their actuation.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
increase in the consequences of an accident previously evaluated
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not involve a new failure mechanism or
malfunction, which affects an SSC accident initiator, or interface
with any [structure, system, or component (SSC)] accident initiator
or initiating sequence of events considered in the design and
licensing bases. There is no adverse effect on radioisotope barriers
or the release of radioactive materials. The proposed amendment does
not adversely affect any accident, including the possibility of
creating a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated. Therefore, the proposed changes do not create
the possibility of a new or different type of accident from any
accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The blocking device is independent of PMS processor hardware and
software. It is designed to allow for ADS and IRWST injection
actuations when the plant parameters indicate an actual [loss of
coolant accident (LOCA)] event. Therefore, the ADS and IRWST are
still able to perform their safety functions when required. A
postulated failure of a blocking device which would prevent
necessary ADS and IRWST injection valve opening would be detected by
the proposed periodic surveillance testing within the [Technical
Specifications (TS)]. Failure of the ADS actuation or IRWST
injection valve opening in a division could also result from
concurrent failure of the two Core Makeup Tanks (CMTs) level sensors
in one division, with both sensors reading above the blocking
setpoint. Failures of the level sensors would be immediately
detected due to the deviations in redundant measurements.
Furthermore, the proposed TS actions require that the four divisions
of blocking devices be capable of automatically unblocking for each
CMT. In addition, the TS require that the blocking devices be
unblocked in plant modes which allow for the operability of less
than two CMTs.
The blocking device will continue to comply with the existing
[Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR)] regulatory
requirements and industry standards. The proposed changes would not
affect any safety-related design code, function, design analysis,
safety analysis input or result, or existing design/safety margin.
No safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is
challenged or exceeded by the requested changes. Therefore the
proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: M. Stanford Blanton, Balch & Bingham LLP,
1710 Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 35203-2015.
NRC Branch Chief: Jennifer Dixon-Herrity.
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.
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Docket No. 50-336, Millstone Power
Station, Unit No. 2 (MPS2), New London County, Connecticut
Date of amendment request: January 26, 2016, as supplemented by
letter dated July 14, 2016.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the MPS2
licensing basis to change the spent fuel pool heat load analysis
description contained in the Final Safety Analysis Report.
Date of issuance: November 29, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
[[Page 92875]]
Amendment No.: 330. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML16277A680; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-65: Amendment revised
the Renewed Operating License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 24, 2016 (81 FR
32804). The supplemental letter dated July 14, 2016, provided
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change
the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated November 29, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Duke Energy Florida, Inc. (DEF), et al., Docket No. 50-302, Crystal
River Nuclear Generating Plant, Unit 3 (CR-3), Citrus County, Florida
Date of application for amendment: August 27, 2015, as supplemented
by letters dated March 2, 2016, and July 14, 2016.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment approves the CR-3
Permanently Defueled Emergency Plan, and Permanently Defueled Emergency
Action Level Bases Manual, for the Independent Spent Fuel Storage
Installation.
Date of issuance: December 5, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment No.: 252. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML16244A102; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Facility Operating License No. DPR-72: This amendment revises the
License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 10, 2015 (80
FR 69711).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 5, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Docket No. 50-261, H. B. Robinson Steam
Electric Plant, Unit No. 2, Darlington County, South Carolina
Date of amendment request: November 2, 2015, as supplemented by
letters dated December 22, 2015; and March 31, May 9, and September 14,
2016.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the reactor
coolant system (RCS) pressure and temperature limits by replacing
Technical Specification (TS) Section 3.4.3, ``RCS Pressure and
Temperature (P/T) Limits,'' Figures 3.4.3-1 and 3.4.3-2, with figures
that are applicable up to 50 effective full power years (EFPYs).
Date of issuance: November 22, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 120 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 248. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML16285A404; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-23: Amendment revised
the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 1, 2016 (81 FR
10678). The supplemental letters dated March 31, May 9, and September
14, 2016, provided additional information that clarified the
application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally
noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no
significant hazards consideration determination as published in the
Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated November 22, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Docket No. 50-400, Shearon Harris Nuclear
Power Plant, Unit 1, Wake and Chatham Counties, North Carolina
Date of amendment request: August 18, 2015, as supplemented by
letters dated September 29, 2015, February 5, 2016, April 28, 2016, and
May 19, 2016.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical
Specifications (TSs) by relocating specific surveillance frequencies to
a licensee-controlled program with the implementation of Nuclear Energy
Institute (NEI) 04-10, ``Risk-Informed Technical Specifications
Initiative 5b, Risk-Informed Method for Control of Surveillance
Frequencies.'' Additionally, the change added a new program, the
Surveillance Frequency Control Program, to TS Section 6,
``Administrative Controls.''
Date of issuance: November 29, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 120 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 154. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML16200A285; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation (SE) enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-63: Amendment revised
the Facility Operating License and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: The NRC staff initially
made a proposed determination that the amendment request dated August
18, 2015, as supplemented by letter dated September 29, 2015, involved
no significant hazards consideration (NSHC) (December 8, 2015, 80 FR
76319). By letters dated February 5, 2016, and April 28, 2016, the
licensee provided clarifying information that did not expand the scope
of the application and did not change the NRC staff's original proposed
NSHC determination, as published in the Federal Register (FR) on
December 8, 2015 (80 FR 76319). Subsequently, by letter dated May 19,
2016, the licensee supplemented its amendment request with a proposed
change that expanded the scope of the request. Therefore, the NRC
published a second proposed NSHC determination in the FR on July 15,
2016 (81 FR 46118), which superseded the notice dated December 8, 2015
(80 FR 76319).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in an SE dated November 29, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. STN 50-457, Braidwood
Station, Unit No. 2, Will County, Illinois
Date of application for amendment: September 30, 2016 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML16274A474), as supplemented by letters dated October 26
and 28, 2016, and November 14, 2016 (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML16301A073,
ML16302A468, and ML16319A397).
Brief description of amendment: The amendment allows a one-time
extension from 72 hours to 200 hours of the technical specification
completion time associated with the 2A service water (SX) pump in
support of maintenance activities.
Date of issuance: November 23, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
prior to the 2A SX pump work window.
Amendment No.: 191. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML16315A302; documents related to this amendment
[[Page 92876]]
are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No NPF-77: The amendment revises
the Technical Specifications and License
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 21, 2016 (81 FR
72838).
The October 26 and 28, 2016 supplements, contained clarifying
information and did not change the NRC staff's initial proposed finding
of no significant hazards consideration.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated November 23, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-237 and 50-249. Dresden
Nuclear Power Station (DNPS), Unit Nos. 2 and 3, Grundy County,
Illinois
Date of application for amendment: December 14, 2015, as
supplemented by letter dated
June 30, 2016.
Brief description of amendments: The amendment revises the
technical specification (TS) for DNPS, Units 2 and 3, standby or
emergency diesel generator (EDG) fuel oil day tank volume as described
in TS 3.81, ``AC Sources--Operating,'' surveillance requirement (SR)
3.8.1.4, from the current value of greater than or equal to (>) 205
gallons to >245 gallons. Raising the EDG fuel oil day tank volume
requirement will assure that each EDG can operate for one hour at the
maximum allowable operating conditions. The licensee has identified
this issue as a non-conservative Technical Specification and
administrative controls are currently in-place to assure sufficient
fuel oil is available in each fuel oil day tank.
Date of issuance: November 30, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
no later than 60 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 252 and 245. A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No. ML16305A212; documents related to this
amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the
amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-19 and DPR-25:
Amendment revises the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and Technical
Specification.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 1, 2016 (81 FR
10680). The supplemental letter dated 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 30, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353, Limerick
Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: January 15, 2016, as supplemented by
letters dated April 19, 2016; May 9, 2016; and June 21, 2016.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments reduce the reactor
vessel steam dome pressure specified in the technical specifications
(TSs) for the reactor core safety limits. The amendments also revise
the setpoint and allowable value for the main steam line low pressure
isolation function in the TSs.
Date of issuance: November 21, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 120 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 222 and 183. A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No. ML16272A319; documents related to these
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the
amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-39 and NPF-85:
Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 15, 2016 (81 FR
13842). The supplemental letters dated April 19, 2016; May 9, 2016; and
June 21, 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 21, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-410, Nine Mile Point
Nuclear Station, Unit 2, Oswego County, New York
Date of amendment request: February 23, 2016.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical
Specifications.
Date of issuance: November 22, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 159. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML16281A596; documents related to this amendment is
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with this amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-69: Amendment revised
the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 10, 2016, (81 FR
28897).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated November 22, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-219, Oyster Creek Nuclear
Generating Station (OCNGS), Ocean County, New Jersey
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-220, Nine Mile Point
Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (NMP1), Oswego County, New York
Date amendment request: August 1, 2016.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments would revise
OCNGS's Technical
Specification (TS) Section 2.1, ``Safety Limit--Fuel Cladding
Integrity,'' and NMP1's TS Section 2.1.1, ``Fuel Cladding Integrity,''
to reduce the steam dome pressure.
Date of issuance: November 29, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment Nos.: 289 for OCNGS and 225 for NMP1. A publicly-
available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16256A567;
documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety
Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-16 and DPR-63:
Amendments revised the Licenses and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 27, 2016 (81
FR 66307).
[[Page 92877]]
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated November 29, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
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: April 31, 2016, as supplemented by a
letter dated August 11, 2016.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Appendix B
(Environmental Protection Plan, Section 4.2) of the renewed operating
licenses to reflect the ``currently applicable'' Biological Opinion
issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service March 24, 2016.
Date of issuance: December 5, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 236 and 186. A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No. ML16251A128; documents related to these
amendments are listed in the safety evaluation enclosed with the
amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-67 and NPF-16:
Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and Appendix
B.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 7, 2016 (81 FR
36621). The supplemental letter dated August 11, 2016, provided
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change
the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a safety evaluation dated December 5, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
South Carolina Electric & Gas Company and South Carolina Public Service
Authority, Docket Nos. 52-027 and 52-028, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear
Station (VCSNS), Units 2 and 3, Fairfield County, South Carolina
Date of amendment request: December 17, 2015 as supplemented
January 11, 2016 and March 16, 2016.
Description of amendment: The amendment authorizes changes to the
VCSNS, Units 2 and 3, Updated Final Safety Analysis Report Tier 2*
information as well as a change to a license condition to, in part,
revise the Wall 11 structure by modifying openings, changing
reinforcement detailing, clarifying the classification of building
structures for high-energy line break events, crediting the north wall
of the Turbine Building first bay wall as a high energy line break
barrier and associated missile barriers for protection of Wall 11 from
tornado missiles.
Date of issuance: May 31, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 48. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML16109A298; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Facility Combined Licenses Nos. NPF-93 and NPF-94: Amendment
revised the Facility Combined Licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 2, 2016 (81 FR
5499). The supplemental letters dated January 11, 2016, and March 16,
2016, provided additional information that clarified the application,
did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and
did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in the Safety Evaluation dated May 31, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026,
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), Units 3 and 4, Burke County,
Georgia
Date of amendment request: May 18, 2016.
Description of amendment: The amendment authorizes changes to the
VEGP Units 3 and 4 listed minimum volume of the passive core cooling
system core makeup tanks (CMT) reflected in Appendix A, Technical
Specifications and the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report of the VEGP
Units 3 and 4 Combined Licenses. Specifically, the changes reflect a
correction to align licensing documents to reflect the CMT volume given
in the VEGP Combined License Tier 1 as 2487 cubic feet is based on and
supported by a small-break loss-of-coolant accident safety analysis.
Date of issuance: September 15, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 53. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML16216A394; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Facility Combined Licenses No. NPF-91 and NPF-92: Amendment revised
the Facility Combined Licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 5, 2016 (81 FR
43646).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in the Safety Evaluation dated September 15, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026,
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), Units 3 and 4, Burke County,
Georgia
Date of amendment request: January 29, 2016, and supplemented by
letter dated April 8, 2016.
Description of amendment: The amendment authorizes changes to the
VEGP, Units 3 and 4, Updated Final Safety Analysis Report in the form
of departures from the incorporated plant specific Design Control
Document Tier 2* and Tier 2 information. The changes are also approved
in plant-specific technical specifications. The changes incorporate
information in WCAP-17524-P-A, Revision 1, ``AP1000 Core Reference
Report,'' which was approved by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
on February 19, 2015.
Date of issuance: August 19, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 52. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML16201A435; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Facility Combined Licenses Nos. NPF-91 and NPF-92: Amendment
revised the Facility Combined Licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 29, 2016 (81 FR
17501). The supplemental letter dated April 8, 2016, provided
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand
the scope of the application request as originally noticed, and did not
change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in the Safety Evaluation dated August 19, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
[[Page 92878]]
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026,
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), Units 3 and 4, Burke County,
Georgia
Date of amendment request: December 22, 2015, and supplemented by
letters dated May 9, 2016, and May 27, 2016.
Description of amendment: The amendment authorizes changes to the
VEGP, Units 3 and 4, Updated Final Safety Analysis Report in the form
of departures from the incorporated plant- specific Design Control
Document Tier 2* and Tier 2 information with respect to proposed
changes to the design of auxiliary building Wall 11, and other changes
to the licensing basis for use of seismic Category II structures. It
also involves a change to a license condition.
Date of issuance: August 3, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 51. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML16201A298; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Facility Combined Licenses No. NPF-91 and NPF-92: Amendment revised
the Facility Combined Licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 16, 2016 (81
FR 7835). The supplemental letters dated May 9, 2016, and May 27, 2016,
provided additional information that clarified the application, did not
expand the scope of the application request as originally noticed, and
did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in the Safety Evaluation dated August 3, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
III. 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.
[[Page 92879]]
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition shall set forth with
particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how
that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The
petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention
should be permitted with particular reference to the following general
requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the
petitioner; (2) the nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to
be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the
petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding;
and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be
entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest. The petition
must also set forth the specific contentions which the petitioner seeks
to have litigated at the proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the
petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for the
contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert
opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner
intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The
petitioner must also provide references to those specific sources and
documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the petitioner
intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion to support
its position on the issue. The petition must include sufficient
information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on
a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to
matters within the scope of the proceeding. The contention must be one
which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner
who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one
contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding,
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene,
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the
hearing with respect to resolution of that person's admitted
contentions consistent with the NRC's regulations, policies, and
procedures.
Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60
days from the date of publication of this notice. Requests for hearing,
petitions for leave to intervene, and motions for leave to file new or
amended contentions that are filed after the 60-day deadline will not
be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the
filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10
CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i) through (iii).
If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the
Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no
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 21, 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
[[Page 92880]]
able to offer assistance in using unlisted software.
Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a
docket has been created, the participant can then submit a petition.
Submissions should be in Portable Document Format (PDF). Additional
guidance on PDF submissions is available on the NRC's public Web site
at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/electronic-sub-ref-mat.html. A filing
is considered complete at the time the documents are submitted through
the NRC's E-Filing system. To be timely, an electronic filing must be
submitted to the E-Filing system no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time
on the due date. Upon receipt of a transmission, the E-Filing system
time-stamps the document and sends the submitter an email notice
confirming receipt of the document. The E-Filing system also
distributes an email notice that provides access to the document to the
NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any others who have advised the
Office of the Secretary that they wish to participate in the
proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the documents on those
participants separately. Therefore, applicants and other participants
(or their counsel or representative) must apply for and receive a
digital ID certificate before a hearing petition to intervene is filed
so that they can obtain access to the document via the E-Filing system.
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-
Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Electronic
Filing Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC's
public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by
email to [email protected], or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-
7640. The NRC Electronic Filing Help Desk is available between 9 a.m.
and 7 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government
holidays.
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not
submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in
accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing
stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and
requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper
format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention:
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or
expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and
Adjudications Staff. Participants filing a document in this manner are
responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing
is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in
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 No. 50-410, Nine Mile Point
Nuclear Station, Unit 2, Oswego County, New York
Date of amendment request: November 26, 2016.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the High
Pressure Core Spray system and Reactor Core Isolation Cooling system
actuation instrumentation technical specifications by adding a footnote
indicating that the injection functions of Drywell Pressure-High and
Manual Initiation are not required to be operable under low reactor
pressure conditions.
Date of issuance: November 29, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 160. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML16333A000; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-69: Amendment revised
the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Public comments requested as to proposed no significant hazards
consideration (NSHC): No.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment, finding of
emergency circumstances, state consultation, and final NSHC
determination are contained in a Safety Evaluation dated November 29,
2016.
Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel,
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL
60555.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Douglas Pickett.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 8 day of December, 2016.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
George A. Wilson, Deputy,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2016-30438 Filed 12-19-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P