[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 10 (Tuesday, January 17, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4926-4938]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-00909]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2017-0002]
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 December 20, 2016 to December 30, 2016. The
last biweekly notice was published on January 3, 2016.
DATES: Comments must be filed by February 16, 2017. A request for a
hearing must be filed by March 20, 2017.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2017-0002. 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: Kay Goldstein, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1506, email:
[email protected].
I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments
A. Obtaining Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0002 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-2017-0002.
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-2017-0002, 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
[[Page 4927]]
inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information
that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment
submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely
edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the
comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment
into ADAMS.
II. Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility
Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses and Proposed No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under
the Commission's regulations in Sec. 50.92 of title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (10 CFR), this means that operation of the facility
in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated, or (2) create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or
(3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis
for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown
below.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final
determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period if circumstances change during the 30-day comment
period such that failure to act in a 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 petition for leave 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. 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/. Alternatively, a copy of
the regulations is available at the NRC's Public Document Room, located
at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first
floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. If a petition is filed, the
Commission or a presiding officer will rule on the petition and, if
appropriate, a notice of a hearing will be issued.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309(d) the petition should specifically
explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with
particular reference to the following general requirements for
standing: (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.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f), the petition must also set
forth the specific contentions which the petitioner seeks to have
litigated in 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 must 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 the specific sources and
documents on which the petitioner intends to rely to support its
position on the issue. The petition must include sufficient information
to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant or licensee on
a material issue of law or fact. Contentions must 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 the requirements at 10 CFR 2.309(f) 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.
Parties have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the
hearing with respect to resolution of that party's admitted
contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence, consistent
with the NRC's regulations, policies, and procedures.
Petitions must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of
publication of this notice. Petitions and motions for leave to file new
or amended contentions that are filed after the 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). The petition must be filed in
accordance with the filing instructions in the ``Electronic Submissions
(E-Filing)'' section of this document.
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 establish 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 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 the 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 March
20, 2017. The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing
instructions in the
[[Page 4928]]
``Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)'' section of this document, and
should meet the requirements for petitions set forth in this section.
Alternatively, a State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized
Indian Tribe, or agency thereof may participate as a non-party under 10
CFR 2.315(c).
If a hearing is granted, any person who is not a party to the
proceeding and is not affiliated with or represented by a party may, at
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
his or her 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 and petition for leave to intervene (petition), any
motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the
submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and
documents filed by interested governmental entities that request to
participate 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. Detailed
guidance on making electronic submissions may be found in the Guidance
for Electronic Submissions to the NRC and on the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. 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 (1) request a digital identification (ID)
certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or
representative) to digitally sign submissions and access the E-Filing
system for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise
the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a petition or
other adjudicatory document (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. Once a participant has obtained a
digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant
can then submit adjudicatory documents. 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 document is 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 document on those participants separately. Therefore,
applicants and other participants (or their counsel or representative)
must apply for and receive a digital ID certificate before adjudicatory
documents are filed so that they can obtain access to the documents via
the E-Filing system.
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-
Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC's 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 6 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 adjudicatory documents 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 personal phone numbers in their filings, unless an
NRC regulation or other law requires submission of such information.
For example, in some instances, individuals provide home addresses in
order to demonstrate proximity to a facility or site. With respect to
copyrighted works, except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose
of the adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use
application, participants are requested not to include copyrighted
materials in their submission.
For further details with respect to these license amendment
applications, see the application for amendment which is available for
public inspection in ADAMS and at the NRC's PDR. For additional
direction on accessing information related to this document, see the
``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' section of this
document.
[[Page 4929]]
Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-325 and 50-324, Brunswick
Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2 (BSEP), Brunswick County, North
Carolina
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414, Catawba
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 (CNS), York County, South Carolina
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370, McGuire
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 (MNS), Mecklenburg County, North
Carolina
Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Docket No. 50-400, Shearon Harris Nuclear
Power Plant, Unit 1 (HNP), Wake County, North Carolina
Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Docket No. 50-261, H.B. Robinson Steam
Electric Plant, Unit No. 2 (RNP), Darlington County, South Carolina
Date of amendment request: September 27, 2016, as supplemented by
letter dated November 22, 2016. Publicly-available versions are in
ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML16273A042 and ML16327A325, respectively.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would
revise the Technical Specification (TS) Surveillance Requirements
(SRs), which currently require operating ventilation systems with
charcoal filters for a 10-hour period every 31 days. The SRs would be
revised to require operation of the systems for 15 continuous minutes
every 31 days. The proposed amendments are consistent with NRC-approved
Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-522, Revision
0, ``Revise Ventilation System Surveillance Requirements to Operate for
10 hours per Month,'' as published in the Federal Register on September
20, 2012 (77 FR 58428), with variations due to plant-specific
nomenclature.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis
against the standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c). The NRC staff's analysis 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 affects various BSEP, CNS, MNS, HNP, and RNP
SRs that currently require ventilation systems to be periodically
operated for 10 continuous hours. These SRs would be modified to
require operation for 15 continuous minutes.
These systems are not accident initiators and therefore, these
changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability of
an accident. The proposed system and filter testing changes are
consistent with current regulatory guidance for these systems and
will continue to assure that these systems perform their design
function, which may include mitigating accidents. Thus, the change
does not involve a significant increase in the consequences of an
accident.
Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change affects various BSEP, CNS, MNS, HNP, and RNP
SRs that currently require ventilation systems to be periodically
operated for 10 continuous hours. These SRs would be modified to
require operation for 15 continuous minutes.
The change proposed for these ventilation systems does not
change any system operations or maintenance activities. Testing
requirements will be revised and will continue to demonstrate that
the Limiting Conditions for Operation are met and the system
components are capable of performing their intended safety
functions. The change does not create new failure modes or
mechanisms and no new accident precursors are generated.
Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change affects various BSEP, CNS, MNS, HNP, and RNP
SRs that currently require ventilation systems to be periodically
operated for 10 continuous hours. These SRs would be modified to
require operation for 15 continuous minutes.
The design basis for the BSEP, HNP, and RNP ventilation systems'
heaters is to heat the incoming air, thereby reducing the relative
humidity. The proposed change will continue to demonstrate that the
heaters are capable of heating the air and will perform their design
function.
The CNS and MNS ventilation systems are tested at 95 percent
relative humidity, and, therefore, do not require heaters to heat
the incoming air and reduce the relative humidity.
These proposed changes are consistent with regulatory guidance,
and do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
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,
Duke Energy Corporation, 550 South Tyron Street, Mail Code DEC45A,
Charlotte, NC 28202.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Jeanne D. Johnston.
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: November 18, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16343A521.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would modify the
Technical Specification (TS) definition of Shutdown Margin (SDM) to
require calculation of the SDM at a reactor moderator temperature of 68
degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F), or a higher temperature that represents
the most reactive state throughout the operating cycle. This change is
needed to address new boiling water reactor (BWR) fuel designs, which
may be more reactive at shutdown temperatures above 68[emsp14][deg]F.
This proposed change is in accordance with the industry Technical
Specifications Task Force (TSTF) initiative identified as Change
Traveler TSTF-535, Revision 0, ``Revise Shutdown Margin Definition to
Address Advanced Fuel Designs.'' The availability of this TS
improvement was announced in the Federal Register published on February
26, 2013 (78 FR 13100), as part of NRC's Consolidated Line Item
Improvement Process.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises the definition of SDM. SDM is not an
initiator to any accident previously evaluated. Accordingly, the
proposed change to the definition of SDM has no effect on the
probability of any accident previously evaluated. SDM is an
assumption in the analysis of some previously evaluated accidents,
and inadequate SDM could lead to an increase in consequences for
those accidents. However, the proposed change revises the SDM
definition to ensure that the correct SDM is determined for all fuel
types at all times during the fuel cycle. As a result, the proposed
change does not adversely affect the consequences of any accident
previously evaluated.
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?
[[Page 4930]]
Response: No.
The proposed change revises the definition of SDM. The change
does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or
different type of equipment will be installed) or a change in the
methods governing normal plant operations. The change does not alter
assumptions made in the safety analysis regarding SDM.
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 revises the definition of SDM. The proposed
change does not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting
safety system settings or limiting conditions for operation are
determined. The proposed change ensures that the SDM assumed in
determining safety limits, limiting safety system settings or
limiting conditions for operation is correct for all BWR fuel types
at all times during the fuel cycle.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Kathryn B. Nolan, Deputy General Counsel,
550 South Tryon Street, M/C DEC45A, Charlotte NC 28202.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Jeanne D. Johnston.
Omaha Public Power District, Docket No. 50-285, Fort Calhoun Station,
Unit No. 1 (FCS), Washington County, Nebraska
Date of amendment request: October 25, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16299A275.
Description of amendment request: This licensee proposes to revise
the FCS Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR) to change the structural
design methodology for the Auxiliary Building at FCS. Specifically, the
licensee proposes the following changes: (1) Use the ultimate strength
design (USD) method from the industry standard American Concrete
Institute (ACI) 318-63, ``Publication SP-10, Commentary on Building
Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete,'' for normal operating/
service conditions for future designs and evaluations; (2) use higher
concrete compressive strength values for Class B concrete, based on
original strength test data; (3) use higher reinforcing steel yield
strength values, based on original strength test data; and (4) make
minor clarifications, including adding a definition of control fluids
to the dead load section of the USAR.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
This LAR [license amendment request] revises the methodology
used to re-evaluate or design new modifications to the existing
Auxiliary Building. All other structures will continue to utilize
the current license basis and thus are not affected by this change.
The proposed change allows evaluations of the Auxiliary Building to
apply the ultimate strength design (USD) method from the ACI 318-63
Code for normal operating/service load combinations.
The ACI USD method is an accepted industry standard used for the
design and analysis of reinforced concrete. A change in the
methodology that an analysis uses to verify structure qualifications
does not have any impact on the probability of accidents previously
evaluated. Designs performed with the ACI USD method will continue
to demonstrate that the Auxiliary Building meets industry accepted
ACI Code requirements. This LAR does not propose changes to the no
loss-of-function loads, loading combinations, or required USD
capacity.
The use of increased concrete strength based on original test
data for the areas identified in Section 2.3 of this document and
the use of higher steel yield strength maintain adequate structural
capacity. As such, these proposed changes do not pose a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated because the revised strength values are
determined based on actual original test data using a high level of
confidence.
The controlled hydrostatic load is changed from live load to
dead load for USD in the definition. This is consistent with ACI-
349-97 [American Concrete Institute Code Requirements for Nuclear
Safety Related Concrete Structures] and therefore does not pose a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
This LAR proposes no physical change to any plant system,
structure, or component. Similarly, no changes to plant operating
practices, operating procedures, computer firmware, or computer
software are proposed. This LAR does not propose changes to the
design loads used to design Class I structures. Application of the
new methodology to the design or evaluation of the Auxiliary
Building will continue to ensure the Auxiliary Building will
adequately house and protect equipment important to safety.
Calculations that use the ACI USD method for normal operating/
service load combinations will continue to demonstrate that the
concrete structures meet required design criteria. Use of the
increased compressive strength of concrete based on 28-day test data
(not age hardening) is permitted by the ACI 318-63 Code and ensures
that the concrete structure is capable of performing its design
function without alteration or compensatory actions of any kind. A
higher steel yield has minimal reduction on design margin. The
controlled hydrostatic load is changed from live load to dead load
for USD in the definition which is consistent with ACI-349-97.
The use of these alternative methodologies for qualifying the
Auxiliary Building does not have a negative impact on the ability of
the structure or its components to house and protect equipment
important to safety and thus, does not create the possibility of a
new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change is for the design of new modifications or
re-analysis of the Auxiliary Building.
Utilization of the ACI 318-63 Code USD method applies only to
the normal operating/service load cases and is already part of the
current license basis (CLB) for no loss-of-function load cases. No
changes to design basis loads are proposed; therefore, new designs
or re-evaluations of the Auxiliary Building shall still prove
capable of coping with design basis loads.
Use of the increased compressive strength of concrete based on
28-day test data is justified and further constrained by limiting
its application to areas where the concrete is not exposed to
excessive moisture (i.e. exterior walls below 1007' [foot]
elevation). The use of a higher steel yield is conservatively
derived from original test data and has minimal reduction on design
margin. The controlled hydrostatic load is changed from live load to
dead load for USD in the definition which is consistent with ACI-
349-97.
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: David A. Repka, Esq., Winston & Strawn, 1700
K Street NW., Washington, DC 20006-3817.
NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.
[[Page 4931]]
Omaha Public Power District, Docket No. 50-285, Fort Calhoun Station,
Unit No. 1 (FCS), Washington County, Nebraska
Date of amendment request: November 18, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16323A228.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
delete License Condition 3.D., ``Fire Protection Program,'' which
requires that FCS implement and maintain a fire protection program that
complies with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.48(a) and 10 CFR 50.48(c).
Since power operations are terminated at FCS and the reactor is
permanently defueled, FCS will maintain a fire protection program in
accordance with 10 CFR 50.48(f).
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 removes the Fire Protection License
Condition which is applicable to an operating reactor. Because FCS
is permanently defueled, the proposed change does not involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated because: (1) The proposed amendment
does not alter, degrade, or prevent action described or assumed in
any accident in the USAR [Updated Safety Analysis Report] from being
performed, (2) the proposed amendment does not alter any assumptions
previously made in evaluating radiological consequences, and (3) the
proposed amendment does not affect the integrity of any fission
product barrier.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not alter any, safety limits, or safety
analysis assumptions associated with the operation of the plant. The
proposed change does not introduce any new accident initiators, nor
does the change reduce or adversely affect the capabilities of any
plant structure or system in the performance of its safety function.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not alter the manner in which safety
limits or limiting safety system settings are determined. The safety
analysis acceptance criteria are not affected by the proposed
change. The proposed change does not change the design function of
any equipment assumed to operate in the event of an accident.
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 A. Repka, Esq., Winston & Strawn, 1700
K Street NW., Washington, DC 20006-3817.
NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.
PSEG Nuclear LLC, and Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-
272 and 50-311, Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2,
Salem County, New Jersey
Date of amendment request: November 17, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16323A279.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the
Salem Nuclear Generating Station (Salem), Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Accident
Monitoring Instrumentation Technical Specifications (TSs) and
Surveillance Requirements by modifying the list of instruments to be
operable based on implementation of Regulatory Guide 1.97, Revision 2,
``Instrumentation for Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Plants to Assess
Plant and Environs Conditions During and Following an Accident.'' In
addition, the amendments would revise the allowed outage times and
required actions for inoperable channels to be consistent with NUREG-
1431, Revision 4, ``Standard Technical Specifications--Westinghouse
Plants.'' TS 6.9.4, ``Special Reports,'' would also be revised to
reflect 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 NRC staff edits in square
brackets:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability
or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to the TS modify Accident Monitoring
Instrumentation TS Tables 3.3-11 and 4.3-11 of Salem Units 1 and 2
by removing or adding instruments as listed [in the amendment
request], and updating the AOT [allowed outage time] and required
actions to better align with the Westinghouse STS [Standard
Technical Specifications], NUREG-1431. The instruments listed [in
the amendment request] are not assumed to be initiators of any
analyzed event of Chapter 15 in the Updated Final Safety Analysis
Report (UFSAR). Therefore the probability of an accident previously
evaluated is not significantly increased.
The proposed changes do not alter the design of any system,
structure, or component (SSC). The proposed changes conform to NRC
regulatory guidance regarding the content of plant TS, as identified
in 10 CFR 50.36, NUREG-1431, and the NRC Final Policy Statement in
58 FR 39132.
TS Operability requirements are retained for Type A and Category
1 variables. Operability of these instruments ensures sufficient
information is available to monitor and assess plant status during
and following an accident. Alternate means for diagnosing and
responding to instrument malfunctions are unaffected by the proposed
change. Therefore, the consequences of an accident previously
evaluated are not significantly increased.
Therefore, these proposed changes do not represent a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to the TS would modify the TS Tables 3.3-11
and 4.3-11 of Salem Units 1 and 2, by removing or adding instruments
as listed [in the amendment request], and updating the AOT and
required actions to better align with the Westinghouse STS. The
proposed changes do not involve a modification to the physical
configuration of the plant or changes in the methods governing
normal plant operation. The proposed changes will not impose any new
or different requirement or introduce a new accident initiator,
accident precursor, or malfunction mechanism.
Additionally, there is no change in the types or increases in
the amounts of any effluent that may be released off-site and there
is no increase in individual or cumulative occupational exposure.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to the TS would modify the TS Tables 3.3-11
and 4.3-11 of Salem Units 1 and 2, by removing or adding instruments
as listed [in the amendment request], and updating the AOT and
required actions to better align with the Westinghouse STS. The
instruments removed from Tables 3.3-11 and 4.3-11 are not needed for
manual operator action necessary for safety systems
[[Page 4932]]
to accomplish their safety function for the design basis events. The
instruments listed for removal are indication-only with the
exception of containment pressure narrow range instruments; thus,
they do not provide an input to any automatic trip functions. In the
case where similar or related instruments (e.g., containment
pressure-narrow range) are associated with important trips (i.e.,
RPS or ESF trips), such instruments are governed by separate
existing TS sections which are not altered by this request.
Therefore, since the proposed changes do not impact the response
of the plant to a design basis accident, 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.
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50-354, Hope Creek Generating Station,
Salem County, New Jersey
Date of amendment request: May 11, 2016, as supplemented by letter
dated December 13, 2016. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS under
Accession Nos. ML16132A374 and ML16348A017, respectively.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the
Hope Creek Generating Station Technical Specification (TS) requirements
by deleting TS Action Statement 3.4.2.1.b concerning stuck open safety/
relief valves. In addition, TS 3.6.2.1 Action Statements regarding
suppression chamber water temperature would be revised to align with
NUREG-1433, Revision 4, ``Standard Technical Specifications--General
Electric Plants (BWR/4).''
The license amendment request was original noticed in the Federal
Register on July 19, 2016 (81 FR 46965). The notice is being reissued
in its entirety to include the revised scope, description of the
amendment request, and proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided, in its December 13, 2016, letter, 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 TS change deletes Action Statement 3.4.2.1.b
concerning safety/relief valves and revises TS Action Statement
3.6.2.1.b to be consistent with the BWR Standard Technical
Specifications (NUREG-1433, ``Standard Technical Specifications
General Electric Plants, BWR/4,'' Revision 4, dated April 2012). The
two (2) minute action represents detailed methods of responding to
an event, and therefore, if eliminated, would not result in
increasing the probability of the event, nor act as an initiator of
an event. Limiting condition for operation 3.6.2.1,
``Depressurization Systems--Suppression Chamber,'' and plant
procedures provide operators with appropriate direction for response
to a suppression pool high temperature (which could be caused by a
stuck open relief valve). Providing specific direction to close the
valve within two (2) minutes does not provide additional plant
protection beyond what is provided for in plant procedures and TS
3.6.2.1.
Therefore, this action can be eliminated, and will 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 TS change deletes Action Statement 3.4.2.1.b
concerning safety/relief valves and revises TS Action Statement
3.6.2.1.b to be consistent with the BWR Standard Technical
Specifications (NUREG-1433, ``Standard Technical Specifications
General Electric Plants, BWR/4,'' Revision 4, dated April 2012).
This change does not change the design or configuration of the
plant. No new operation or failure modes are created, nor is a
system-level failure mode created that is different than those that
already exist.
Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in
a margin of safety, nor does it affect any analytical limits. There
are no changes to accident or transient core thermal hydraulic
conditions, or fuel or reactor coolant boundary design limits, as a
result of the proposed change. The proposed change will not alter
the assumptions or results of the analysis contained in the Updated
Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR).
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: Jeffrie J. Keenan, PSEG Nuclear LLC-N21,
P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Stephen S. Koenick.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 50-391, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant
(WBN), Unit 2, Rhea County, Tennessee
Date of amendment request: November 23, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16333A250.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise
Technical Specification (TS) Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.0.2 to
extend, on a one-time basis, certain SRs that are normally performed on
an 18-month frequency in conjunction with a refueling outage. The
proposed change extends the due date for these SRs to October 31, 2017,
which allows these SRs to be performed during the first refueling
outage for WBN Unit 2.
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 requested action is a one-time extension to the performance
interval of a limited number of TS surveillance requirements. The
performance of these surveillances, or the extension of these
surveillances, is not a precursor to an accident. Performing these
surveillances or failing to perform these surveillances does not
affect the probability of an accident. Therefore, the proposed delay
in performance of the SRs in this amendment request does not
increase the probability of an accident previously evaluated.
A delay in performing these surveillances does not result in a
system being unable to perform its required function. In the case of
this one-time extension request, the short period of additional time
that the systems and components will be in service before the next
performance of the surveillance will not affect the ability of those
systems to operate as designed. Therefore, the systems required to
mitigate accidents will remain capable of performing their required
function. No new failure modes have been introduced because of this
action and the consequences remain consistent with previously
evaluated accidents. On this basis, the proposed delay in
performance of the SRs in this amendment request does not involve a
significant increase in the consequences of an accident.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the
[[Page 4933]]
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment does not involve a physical alteration of
any system, structure, or component (SSC) or a change in the way any
SSC is operated. The proposed amendment does not involve operation
of any SSCs in a manner or configuration different from those
previously recognized or evaluated. No new failure mechanisms will
be introduced by the one-time SR extensions being requested.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment is a one-time extension of the
performance interval of a limited number of TS surveillance
requirements. Extending these surveillance requirements does not
involve a modification of any TS limiting conditions for operation.
Extending these SRs does not involve a change to any limit on
accident consequences specified in the license or regulations.
Extending these SRs does not involve a change in how accidents are
mitigated or a significant increase in the consequences of an
accident. Extending these SRs does not involve a change in a
methodology used to evaluate consequences of an accident. Extending
these SRs does not involve a change in any operating procedure or
process.
The instrumentation and components involved in this request have
exhibited reliable operation based on current test results. The
current testing includes power ascension testing and surveillance
testing that either partially or fully exercised the components.
Some components have been evaluated for extended testing intervals
greater than 18 months but are set at WBN to an 18-month frequency.
Based on the limited additional period of time that the systems
and components will be in service before the surveillances are next
performed, as well as the operating experience that these
surveillances are typically successful when performed, it is
reasonable to conclude that the margins of safety associated with
these SRs will not be affected by the requested extension.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Sherry A. Quirk, Executive Vice President and
General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West Summit Hill Dr.,
6A West Tower, Knoxville, TN 37902. NRC Acting Branch Chief: Jeanne D.
Johnston.
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 25, 2016, as supplemented by
letters dated June 27 and October 12, 2016.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the MPS2
technical specifications (TSs) to remove the requirement for the
charging pumps to be operable in TS 3.5.2, ``Emergency Core Cooling
Systems, ECCS Subsystems--Tavg >= 300[emsp14][deg]F,'' by
eliminating surveillance requirement 4.5.2.e from the TSs. The proposed
change also revises the MPS2 final safety analysis report relative to
the long-term analysis of the inadvertent opening of a pressurized
water reactor pressurizer pressure relief valve event and clarifies the
existing discussion regarding the application of single failure
criteria.
Date of issuance: December 22, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 331. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML16308A485; 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 Facility Operating License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 24, 2016 (81 FR
32804). The supplemental letters dated June 27 and October 12, 2016,
provided additional information that clarified the application, did not
expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not
change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 22, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-368, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit
No. 2, Pope County, Arkansas
Date of application for amendment: December 22, 2015.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical
Specifications (TSs) to provide a short Allowed Outage Time to restore
an inoperable system for conditions under which the existing TSs
require a plant shutdown. The amendment is consistent with TS Task
Force (TSTF) traveler TSTF-426 Revision 5, ``Revise or Add Actions to
Preclude Entry into LCO [Limiting Condition for Operation] 3.0.3--
RITSTF [Risk-Informed TSTF] Initiatives 6b & 6c.''
Date of issuance: December 29, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 304. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML16267A139; documents related to this amendment
[[Page 4934]]
are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-6: The amendment revised
the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 16, 2016 (81
FR 7838).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 29, 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: March 29, 2016, as supplemented by
letter dated September 6, 2016.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the
technical specification (TS) requirements for snubbers.
Date of issuance: December 29, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 223 and 184. A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No. ML16335A038; 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: May 24, 2016 (81 FR
32807). The supplemental letter dated September 6, 2016, provided
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change
the 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 December 29, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323, Diablo
Canyon Nuclear Power Plant (DCPP), Units 1 and 2, San Luis Obispo
County, California
Date of application for amendments: October 26, 2011, as
supplemented by letters dated December 20, 2011; April 2, April 30,
June 6, August 2, September 11, November 27, and December 5, 2012;
March 7, March 25, April 30, May 9, May 30, and September 17, 2013;
April 24 and April 30, 2014; February 2 and June 22, 2015; and January
25, February 11, and August 17, 2016.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the
facility operating licenses to allow the permanent replacement of the
current DCPP Eagle 21 digital process protection system (PPS) with a
new digital PPS that is based on the Invensys Operations Management
Tricon Programmable Logic Controller (PLC), Version 10, and the CS
Innovations, LLC (a Westinghouse Electric Company), Advanced Logic
System. The amendments also incorporate a revised definition of Channel
Operational Test in Technical Specification (TS) 1.1, ``Definitions.''
Date of issuance: December 21, 2016.
Effective date: This license amendment is effective as of its date
of issuance and shall be implemented within 120 days from the date of
issuance.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 1--227; Unit 2--229. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16139A008; documents related
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with
the amendments.
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-80 and DPR-82: The amendments
revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 7, 2016 (81 FR
36606). The supplemental letter dated August 17, 2016, provided
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change
the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 21, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
STP Nuclear Operating Company, Docket No. 50-498, South Texas Project,
Unit 1, Matagorda County, Texas
Date of amendment request: April 7, 2016, as supplemented by
letters dated May 25 and September 28, 2016.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical
Specification 5.3.2, ``Control Rod Assemblies,'' to allow permanent
operation with 56 full-length control rods with no control rod assembly
in core location D-6.
Date of issuance: December 21, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
prior to entering Mode 5 from Mode 6 during startup from refueling
outage 1RE20.
Amendment No.: Unit 1--211. A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No. ML16319A010; documents related to this
amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the
amendment.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-76: The amendment revised the
Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 19, 2016 (81 FR
46967). The supplemental letter dated September 28, 2016, provided
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change
the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 21, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
ZionSolutions, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-295 and 50-304, Zion Nuclear Power
Station, Units 1 and 2, Lake County, Illinois
Date of application for amendment: January 7, 2016, as supplemented
by letter dated June 22, 2016, and December 1, 2016.
Brief description of amendment: This amendment revises the Zion
Nuclear Power Station Licenses to approve the Independent Spent Fuel
Installation (ISFSI) only Emergency Plan.
Date of issuance: December 20, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment Nos.: 190 and 177. A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No. ML16211A074; documents related to these
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the
amendments.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-39 and NPF-48: These amendments
revise the Licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 1, 2016, (81 FR
10683). The supplemental letters dated June 22, 2016, and December 1,
2016, provided additional information that clarified the application,
did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed,
[[Page 4935]]
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 20, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
IV. Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and
Combined Licenses and Final Determination of No Significant Hazards
Consideration and Opportunity for a Hearing (Exigent Public
Announcement or Emergency Circumstances)
During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice,
the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has
determined for each of these amendments that the application for the
amendment complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules
and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as
required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10
CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.
Because of exigent or emergency circumstances associated with the
date the amendment was needed, there was not time for the Commission to
publish, for public comment before issuance, its usual notice of
consideration of issuance of amendment, proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination, and opportunity for a hearing.
For exigent circumstances, the Commission has either issued a
Federal Register notice providing opportunity for public comment or has
used local media to provide notice to the public in the area
surrounding a licensee's facility of the licensee's application and of
the Commission's proposed determination of no significant hazards
consideration. The Commission has provided a reasonable opportunity for
the public to comment, using its best efforts to make available to the
public means of communication for the public to respond quickly, and in
the case of telephone comments, the comments have been recorded or
transcribed as appropriate, and the licensee has been informed of the
public comments.
In circumstances where failure to act in a timely way would have
resulted, for example, in derating or shutdown of a nuclear power plant
or in prevention of either resumption of operation or of increase in
power output up to the plant's licensed power level, the Commission may
not have had an opportunity to provide for public comment on its no
significant hazards consideration determination. In such case, the
license amendment has been issued without opportunity for comment. If
there has been some time for public comment but less than 30 days, the
Commission may provide an opportunity for public comment. If comments
have been requested, it is so stated. In either event, the State has
been consulted by telephone whenever possible.
Under its regulations, the Commission may issue and make an
amendment immediately effective, notwithstanding the pendency before it
of a request for a hearing from any person, in advance of the holding
and completion of any required hearing, where it has determined that no
significant hazards consideration is involved.
The Commission has applied the standards of 10 CFR 50.92 and has
made a final determination that the amendment involves no significant
hazards consideration. The basis for this determination is contained in
the documents related to this action. Accordingly, the amendments have
been issued and made effective as indicated.
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that
these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in
accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b),
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be
prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an
environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in
10 CFR 51.12(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment,
it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the action see (1) the
application for amendment, (2) the amendment to Facility Operating
License or Combined License, as applicable, and (3) the Commission's
related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment, as
indicated. All of these items can be accessed as described in the
``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' section of this
document.
A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing and Petition for Leave To Intervene
The Commission is also offering an opportunity for a hearing with
respect to the issuance of the amendment.
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any
persons (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by this action may
file a request for a hearing and petition for leave 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. 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/. Alternatively, a copy of
the regulations is available at the NRC's Public Document Room, located
at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first
floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. If a petition is filed, the
Commission or a presiding officer will rule on the petition and, if
appropriate, a notice of a hearing will be issued.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309(d) the petition should specifically
explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with
particular reference to the following general requirements for
standing: (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.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f), the petition must also set
forth the specific contentions which the petitioner seeks to have
litigated in 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 must 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 the specific sources and
documents on which the petitioner intends to rely to support its
position on the issue. The petition must include sufficient information
to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant or licensee on
a material issue of law or fact. Contentions must 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 the requirements at 10 CFR 2.309(f) with respect to at
least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
[[Page 4936]]
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding,
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene.
Parties have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the
hearing with respect to resolution of that party's admitted
contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence, consistent
with the NRC's regulations, policies, and procedures.
Petitions must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of
publication of this notice. Petitions and motions for leave to file new
or amended contentions that are filed after the 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). The petition must be filed in
accordance with the filing instructions in the ``Electronic Submissions
(E-Filing)'' section of this document.
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 establish 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 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 the 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 March
20, 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.
Alternatively, a State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized
Indian Tribe, or agency thereof may participate as a non-party under 10
CFR 2.315(c).
If a hearing is granted, any person who is not a party to the
proceeding and is not affiliated with or represented by a party may, at
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
his or her 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 and petition for leave to intervene (petition), any
motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the
submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and
documents filed by interested governmental entities that request to
participate 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. Detailed
guidance on making electronic submissions may be found in the Guidance
for Electronic Submissions to the NRC and on the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. 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 (1) request a digital identification (ID)
certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or
representative) to digitally sign submissions and access the E-Filing
system for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise
the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a petition or
other adjudicatory document (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. Once a participant has obtained a
digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant
can then submit adjudicatory documents. 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 document is 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 document on those participants separately. Therefore,
applicants and other participants (or their counsel or representative)
must apply for and receive a digital ID certificate before adjudicatory
documents are filed so that they can obtain access to the documents via
the E-Filing system.
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-
Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC's 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 6 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government
holidays.
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not
submitting
[[Page 4937]]
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 adjudicatory documents 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 personal phone numbers in their filings, unless an
NRC regulation or other law requires submission of such information.
For example, in some instances, individuals provide home addresses in
order to demonstrate proximity to a facility or site. 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.
Arizona Public Service Company, et al., Docket No. STN 50-530, Palo
Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No. 3, Maricopa County, Arizona
Date of application for amendment: December 21, 2016, as
supplemented by letter dated December 23, 2016.
Brief description of amendment: The emergency amendment revised the
Technical Specifications (TSs) for a one-time extension of the
emergency diesel generator (DG) completion time described in TS
3.8.1.B.4. Specifically, the emergency amendment extended the TS
required action 3.8.1.B.4 completion time from 10 days to 21 days for
the purpose of collecting and analyzing data associated with the
failure of train B DG and continuing with the repair of the DG. During
surveillance testing on December 15, 2016, the DG suffered a failure of
the number nine right cylinder connecting rod and piston. Current plans
to collect and analyze data associated with the engine failure and
continue with the repair will exceed the TS required action completion
time of 10 days. As a result, the licensee evaluated the defense-in-
depth and compensatory measures and is requesting a one-time
deterministic license amendment to extend the completion time based
upon the guidance of Standard Review Plan Branch Technical Position 8-
8, ``Onsite (Emergency Diesel Generators) and Offsite Power Sources
Allowed Outage Time Extensions.''
Date of issuance: December 23, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
prior to the expiration of the 10-days completion time, or December 25,
2016, at 3:56 a.m. PST.
Amendment No.: Unit 3--199. A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No. ML16358A676; documents related to this
amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the
amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-74: The amendment
revised the Operating License and TSs.
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 December 23,
2016.
Attorney for licensee: Michael G. Green, Senior Regulatory Counsel,
Pinnacle West Capital Corporation, P.O. Box 52034, Mail Station 8695,
Phoenix, Arizona 85072-2034.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket No. 50-425, Vogtle
Electric Generating Plant, Unit 2, Burke County, Georgia
Date of amendment request: December 13, 2016.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment modifies the Unit 2
Technical Specifications (TS) Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO)
3.7.9, ``Ultimate Heat Sink (UHS),'' to add a Note to extend the
completion time of Condition D.2.2 of LCO 3.7.9 to 77 days to allow for
refurbishing the 2A nuclear service cooling water transfer pump. This
TS change would be only for the 2A NSCW transfer pump during operating
Cycle 19.
Date of issuance: December 21, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 165. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML16354A133; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-81: Amendment revised
the Renewed Facility Operating License and TSs.
Public comments requested as to proposed no significant hazards
consideration (NSHC): Yes.
Public notice of the proposed amendment was published in The
Augusta Chronicle, located in Augusta, Georgia, on December 17 and
December 18, 2016. The notice provided an opportunity to submit
comments on the Commission's proposed NSHC determination. No Comments
were received.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment, finding of
exigent circumstances, state consultation, public comments, and final
NSHC determination are contained in a safety evaluation dated December
21, 2016.
Attorney for licensee: Jennifer M. Buettner, Associate General
Counsel, Southern Nuclear. Operating Company, Inc., 40 Inverness Center
Parkway, Birmingham, AL 35242.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 6th day of January 2017.
[[Page 4938]]
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
George A. Wilson,
Deputy Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of
Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2017-00909 Filed 1-13-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P