[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 19 (Tuesday, January 31, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8865-8877]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-02034]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2017-0009]
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 31, 2016, to January 17, 2017. The
last biweekly notice was published on January 17, 2017.
DATES: Comments must be filed by March 2, 2017. A request for a hearing
must be filed by April 3, 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-2017-0009. 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: Lynn Ronewicz, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1927, email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments
A. Obtaining Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0009, 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-2017-0009.
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
[[Page 8866]]
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-2017-0009, facility name, unit
number(s), plant docket number, application date, and subject in your
comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact
information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your
comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov, as well as enter the comment submissions into
ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove
identifying or contact information.
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons
for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to
include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be
publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should
state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to
remove such information before making the comment submissions available
to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
II. Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility
Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses and Proposed No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under
the Commission's regulations in Sec. 50.92 of title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (10 CFR), this means that operation of the facility
in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated, or (2) create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or
(3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis
for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown
below.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final
determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period if circumstances change during the 30-day comment
period such that failure to act in a 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
[[Page 8867]]
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 April
3, 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 must 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
[[Page 8868]]
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
https://adams.nrc.gov/ehd, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the
Commission or the presiding officer. If you do not have an NRC-issued
digital ID certificate as described above, click cancel when the link
requests certificates and you will be automatically directed to the
NRC's electronic hearing dockets where you will be able to access any
publicly available documents in a particular hearing docket.
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.
Duke Energy Florida, Inc., et al., Docket No. 50-302, Crystal River
Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant, Citrus County, Florida
Date of amendment request: March 31, 2016. A publicly available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16091A318.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the
Physical Protection license condition for the facility operating
license to reflect a change to the Cyber Security Plan implementation
schedule. Specifically, the completion date for Milestone 8 is proposed
to be changed from December 31, 2017, to December 31, 2018.
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 one year extension to the Cyber Security Plan
implementation schedule for Milestone 8 does not alter the Fuel
Handling Accident analysis, add any initiators, or affect the
function of plant systems or the manner in which systems are
operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed
change does not require any plant modifications that affect the
performance capability of the structures, systems, and components
relied upon to mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents and
have no impact on the probability or consequences of an 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?
Response: No.
The proposed change to the Cyber Security Plan implementation
schedule for Milestone 8 does not alter accident analysis
assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the function of plant
systems or the manner in which systems are operated, maintained,
modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed change does not require
any plant modifications that affect the performance capability of
the structures, systems, and components relied upon to mitigate the
consequences of postulated accidents and does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
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.
Plant safety margins are established through limiting conditions
for operation and safety analysis described in the FSAR [final
safety analysis report]. The proposed change revises the Cyber
Security Plan implementation schedule. The proposed Cyber Milestone
8 schedule change does not involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety because the proposed change does not involve
changes to the initial conditions contributing to accident severity
or consequences, or reduce response or mitigation capabilities.
Because there is no change to these established safety margins as
result of this change, the proposed change does not involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of Sec. 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Lara S. Nichols, 550 South Tryon Street,
Charlotte, NC 28202.
NRC Branch Chief: Bruce A. Watson. CHP.
Duke Energy Florida, Inc., et al., Docket No. 50-302, Crystal River
Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant, Citrus County, Florida
Date of amendment request: December 9, 2016. A publicly available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16348A187.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the
Physical Protection license condition for the facility operating
license by removing the existing cyber security license condition from
the facility operating license.
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 removal of the Cyber Security Plan does not alter
the Fuel Handling Accident analysis, add any initiators, or affect
the function of plant systems or the manner in which systems are
operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed
change does not require any plant modifications that affect the
performance capability of the structures, systems, and components
relied upon to mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents and
have no impact on the probability or consequences of an 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?
Response: No.
The proposed removal of the Cyber Security Plan does not alter
accident analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the
function of plant systems or the manner in which systems are
operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed
change does not require any plant modifications that affect the
performance capability of the structures, systems, and components
relied upon to mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents and
does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously evaluated.
[[Page 8869]]
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.
Plant safety margins are established through limiting conditions
for operation and safety analysis described in the FSAR [final
safety analysis report]. The proposed removal of the Cyber Security
Plan does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety
because the proposed change does not involve changes to the initial
conditions contributing to accident severity or consequences, or
reduce response or mitigation capabilities. Because there is no
change to these established safety margins as result of this change,
the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of Sec. 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Lara S. Nichols, 550 South Tryon Street,
Charlotte, NC 28202.
NRC Branch Chief: Bruce A. Watson, CHP.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-333, James A.
FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant, Oswego County, New York
Date of amendment request: December 8, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16343A947.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the
Cyber Security Plan (CSP) Milestone 8 full implementation date as set
forth in the CSP Implementation Schedule as previously approved.
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 to the CSP Implementation Schedule is
administrative in nature. This change does not alter accident
analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the function of
plant systems or the manner in which systems are operated,
maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed change does
not require any plant modifications which affect the performance
capability of the structures, systems, and components relied upon to
mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents and has no impact
on the probability or consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
1. 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 to the CSP Implementation Schedule is
administrative in nature. This proposed change does not alter
accident analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the
function of plant systems or the manner in which systems are
operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed
change does not require any plant modifications which affect the
performance capability of the structures, systems, and components
relied upon to mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents and
does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
Plant safety margins are established through limiting conditions
for operation, limiting safety system settings, and safety limits
specified in the technical specifications. The proposed change to
the CSP Implementation Schedule is administrative in nature. In
addition, the milestone date delay for full implementation of the
CSP has no substantive impact because other measures have been taken
which provide adequate protection during this period of time.
Because there is no change to established safety margins as a result
of this change, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Jeanne Cho, Assistant General Counsel,
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 440 Hamilton Avenue, White Plains, NY
10601.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Stephen S. Koenick.
Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-368, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit
2 (ANO-2), Pope County, Arkansas
Date of amendment request: October 27, 2016, as supplemented by
letter dated December 2, 2016. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS
under Accession Nos. ML16302A227 and ML16340A018, respectively.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the
ANO-2 Renewed Facility Operating License NPF-6 specific to license
conditions and requirements related to the adoption of National Fire
Protection Association Standard 805 (NFPA 805), based on updated
information associated with the modifications that were described and
committed to in the ANO-2 license amendment request that was previously
approved by the NRC to adopt a new risk-informed, performance-based
fire protection licensing basis that complies with the requirements in
10 CFR 50.48(a) and 10 CFR 50.48(c). The amendment would also provide
updated information related to ignition frequencies, recovery actions,
use of an NRC-approved fire modeling tool not previously recognized as
being used by ANO, and dual unit control room abandonment.
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 purpose of this amendment is to provide updated information
associated with the modifications that were described and committed
to the ANO-2 license amendment request that was submitted and
subsequently approved by the NRC to adopt a new risk-informed,
performance-based fire protection licensing basis that complies with
the requirements in 10 CFR 50.48(a) and 10 CFR 50.48(c), as well as
the guidance contained in Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.205. The amendment
also provides updated information related to ignition frequencies,
recovery actions, use of an NRC-approved fire modeling tool not
previously recognized as being used by ANO, and dual unit control
room abandonment. The NRC considers that NFPA 805 provides an
acceptable methodology and performance criteria for licensees to
identify fire protection requirements that are an acceptable
alternative to the 10 CFR part 50, Appendix R, fire protection
features (69 FR 33536; June 16, 2004).
Operation of ANO-2 in accordance with the proposed amendment
does not result in a significant increase in the probability or
[[Page 8870]]
consequences of accidents previously evaluated. The proposed
amendment does not affect accident initiators or precursors as
described in the ANO-2 Safety Analysis Report (SAR), nor does it
adversely alter design assumptions, conditions, or configurations of
the facility, and it does not adversely impact the ability of
structures, systems, or components (SSCs) to perform their intended
function to mitigate the consequences of accidents described and
evaluated in the SAR. The proposed amendment does not adversely
alter safety-related systems nor affect the way in which safety-
related systems perform their functions as required by the accident
analysis. The SSCs required to safely shut down the reactor and to
maintain it in a safe shutdown condition will remain capable of
performing the associated design functions.
Therefore, 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.
Implementation of the new risk-informed, performance-based fire
protection licensing basis, with the revised modifications, recovery
actions, application of an NRC-approved fire modeling method for
ANO, and ignition frequencies, along with the demonstration of the
risk impact of dual unit abandonment, complies with the requirements
in 10 CFR 50.48(a) and 10 CFR 50.48(c), as well as the guidance
contained in RG 1.205, and will not result in new or different kinds
of accidents. The requirements in NFPA 805 address only fire
protection. The impacts of fire effects on the plant have been
evaluated. The proposed amendment does not involve new failure
mechanisms or malfunctions that could initiate a new or different
kind of accident beyond those already analyzed in the SAR.
Therefore, this change does not create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from an accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment has been evaluated to ensure that risk
and safety margins are maintained within acceptable limits. The risk
evaluations for plant changes in relation to the potential for
reducing a safety margin, were measured quantitatively for
acceptability using the delta risk (i.e., change in core damage
frequency and change in large early release frequency) criteria from
Section 5.3.5, ``Acceptance Criteria,'' of NEI [Nuclear Energy
Institute] 04-02, ``Guidance for Implementing a Risk-Informed,
Performance-based Fire Protection Program under 10 CFR 50.48(c),''
as well as the guidance contained in RG 1.205. Engineering analyses,
which may include engineering evaluations, probabilistic safety
assessments, and fire modeling calculations, have been performed to
demonstrate that the performance-based methods of NFPA-805 do not
result in a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
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 Glew, Associate General Counsel--
Nuclear Legal, Nuclear and Environmental Entergy Services, Inc., 440
Hamilton Avenue, White Plains, NY 10601.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-317 and 50-318, Calvert
Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, Calvert County, Maryland
Date of amendment request: September 22, 2016, as supplemented by
letter dated November 10, 2016. Publicly available versions are in
ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML16266A086 and ML16315A112, respectively.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the
Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, Technical
Specification (TS) 3.3.8, ``Control Room Recirculation Signal (CRRS),''
and TS 3.7.8, ``Control Room Emergency Ventilation System (CREVS),'' to
remove certain CREV system components and their associated testing,
which no longer serve the purpose of establishing and isolating the
control room boundary.
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 any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment eliminates certain CREV system components
from the Technical Specifications that no longer serve the purpose
of establishing and isolating the Control Room (CR) boundary. The
testing related to those components would be eliminated as well.
The CREV system and its components are not an accident
initiator. The CREV system and its components required to be
operable and capable of performing any mitigation function assumed
in the accident analysis continue to be operated and tested in
accordance with the applicable TS requirements.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of [any] 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 eliminates certain CREV system components
that no longer serve the purpose of establishing and isolating the
Control Room boundary.
The proposed amendment does not impose any new or different
requirements. The change does not alter assumptions made in the
safety analysis. The proposed change is consistent with the safety
analysis assumptions and current plant operating practice.
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 eliminates certain CREV system components
that no longer serve the purpose of establishing and isolating the
CR boundary. The testing related to those components would be
eliminated as well.
The proposed amendment does not affect the design, operation,
testing methods, and acceptance criteria for systems, structures,
and components (SSCs), specified in applicable codes and standards
(or alternatives approved for use by the NRC). The elimination of
components that no longer serve the original purpose of establishing
the CR envelope and isolating the control room from the outside
atmosphere by placing the CREV system in full recirculation mode
improves the overall mitigating capabilities of the system by
eliminating the consequences of any potential failure of a component
to realign. The CREV system will continue to meet all of its
requirements as described in the plant licensing basis (including
the Final Safety Analysis Report and TS Bases). Similarly, there is
no impact to safety analysis acceptance criteria as described in the
plant licensing basis.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel,
Exelon Generation, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Stephen S. Koenick.
[[Page 8871]]
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-353, Limerick Generating
Station, Unit 2, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: December 20, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16355A263.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would allow the use
of the release fractions listed in Tables 1 and 3 of NRC Regulatory
Guide (RG) 1.183, ``Alternative Radiological Source Terms for
Evaluating Design Basis Accidents at Nuclear Power Reactors,'' for
partial length rods that are currently in the Limerick Generating
Station (LGS) Unit 2 Cycle 14 reactor core for the remainder of the
current operating cycle. These partial length rods are expected to
exceed 62,000 megawatt days per metric ton of uranium (MWD/MTU), which
is the current rod average burnup limit specified in Footnotes 10 and
11 of NRC RG 1.183, prior to the end of the operating cycle. In
addition, the change will revise the LGS licensing basis to allow
movement of irradiated fuel bundles containing partial length rods that
have been in operation above the 62,000 MWD/MTU limit.
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 would allow the use of the release fractions
listed in Tables 1 and 3 of NRC Regulatory Guide 1.183 for partial
length rods which are currently in the LGS Unit 2 Cycle 14 reactor
core that are expected to exceed the 62,000 MWD/MTU rod peak burnup
limit specified in Footnotes 10 and 11 of NRC Regulatory Guide 1.183
prior to the end of the operating cycle. In addition, the proposed
change would revise the LGS licensing basis to allow movement of
irradiated fuel bundles containing partial length rods that have
been in operation above the 62,000 MWD/MTU limit. The proposed
change does not involve any physical changes to the plant design and
is not an initiator of an accident. The proposed change does not
adversely affect accident initiators or precursors, and does not
alter the design assumptions, conditions, or configuration of the
plant or the manner in which the plant is operated or maintained.
Therefore, the proposed change does not affect the probability of a
loss-of-coolant accident. In addition, the proposed change does not
affect the probability of a fuel handling accident or control rod
drop accident because the method and frequency of initiating
activities are not changing.
Analyses have been performed that demonstrate that the power and
burnup for a partial length rod is within 2.4% of the power and
burnup in the same axial portion of neighboring full length rods,
which is minor. Therefore, since the power and burnup of the full
length rods comply with the limits specified in Footnotes 10 and 11
of NRC Regulatory Guide 1.183, the partial length rods may operate
beyond the 62,000 MWD/MTU burnup limit and meet the intent of NRC
Regulatory Guide 1.183. There are no changes in the dose
consequences of the analyses of record for the fuel handling
accident, control rod drop accident, and loss-of-coolant accident.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change would allow the use of the release fractions
listed in Tables 1 and 3 of NRC Regulatory Guide 1.183 for partial
length rods which are currently in the LGS Unit 2 Cycle 14 reactor
core that are expected to exceed the 62,000 MWD/MTU rod peak burnup
limit specified in Footnotes 10 and 11 of NRC Regulatory Guide 1.183
prior to the end of the operating cycle. In addition, the proposed
change would revise the LGS licensing basis to allow movement of
irradiated fuel bundles containing partial length rods that have
been in operation above the 62,000 MWD/MTU limit. 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 change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change would allow the use of the release fractions
listed in Tables 1 and 3 of NRC Regulatory Guide 1.183 for partial
length rods which are currently in the LGS Unit 2 Cycle 14 reactor
core that are expected to exceed the 62,000 MWD/MTU rod peak burnup
limit specified in Footnotes 10 and 11 of NRC Regulatory Guide 1.183
prior to the end of the operating cycle. In addition, the proposed
change would revise the LGS licensing basis to allow movement of
irradiated fuel bundles containing partial length rods that have
been in operation above the 62,000 MWD/MTU limit. Analyses have been
performed that demonstrate that the power and burnup for a partial
length rod is within 2.4% of the power and burnup in the same axial
portion of neighboring full length rods, which is minor. There is no
change in the dose consequences of the fuel handling accident,
control rod drop accident, or loss-of-coolant accident analyses of
record. The margin of safety, as defined by 10 CFR 50.67 and NRC
Regulatory Guide 1.183, has been maintained.
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: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel,
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL
60555.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Stephen S. Koenick.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-220, Nine Mile Point
Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (NMP1), Oswego, New York
Date of amendment request: January 3, 2017. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17003A065.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the
NMP1 licensing basis related to alternate source term analysis in the
updated final safety analysis report to allow the use of the release
fractions listed in Tables 1 and 3 of NRC Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.183,
``Alternative Radiological Source Terms for Evaluating Design Basis
Accidents at Nuclear Power Reactors,'' July 2000 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML003716792), for partial length fuel rods (PLRs) that are operating
above the peak burnup limit for the remainder of the current operating
cycle. In addition, the proposed change would revise the NMP1 licensing
basis to allow movement of irradiated fuel bundles containing PLRs that
have been in operation above 62,000 megawatt-days per metric tons of
uranium (MWD/MTU).
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 would allow the use of the release fractions
listed in Tables 1 and 3 of NRC RG 1.183 for PLRs which are
currently in the NMP1 Cycle 22 reactor core that are expected to
exceed the 62,000 MWD/
[[Page 8872]]
MTU rod peak burnup limit specified in Footnotes 10 and 11 of NRC RG
1.183 prior to the end of the operating cycle. In addition, the
proposed change would revise the NMP1 licensing basis to allow
movement of irradiated fuel bundles containing PLRs that have been
in operation above the 62,000 MWD/MTU limit. The proposed change
does not involve any physical changes to the plant design and is not
an initiator of an accident. The proposed change does not adversely
affect accident initiators or precursors, and does not alter the
design assumptions, conditions, or configuration of the plant or the
manner in which the plant is operated or maintained. Therefore, the
proposed change does not affect the probability of a loss-of-coolant
accident or control rod drop accident. In addition, the proposed
change does not affect the probability of a fuel handling accident
because the method and frequency of fuel movement activities are not
changing.
Analyses have been performed that demonstrate that the power and
burnup for a PLR is bounded by the power and burnup in the same
axial portion of neighboring [full length fuel rods] FLRs.
Therefore, since the FLR operating characteristics bound the PLR,
and since the power and burnup of the FLRs comply with the limits
specified in Footnotes 10 and 11 of NRC RG 1.183, the PLRs may
operate beyond the 62,000 MWD/MTU burnup limit and meet the intent
of NRC RG 1.183. There are no changes in the dose consequences of
the analyses of record for the fuel handling accident, control rod
drop accident and loss-of-coolant accident.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change would allow the use of the release fractions
listed in Tables 1 and 3 of NRC RG 1.183 for PLRs which are
currently in the NMP1 Cycle 22 reactor core that are expected to
exceed the 62,000 MWD/MTU rod peak burnup limit specified in
Footnotes 10 and 11 of NRC RG 1.183 prior to the end of the
operating cycle. In addition, the proposed change would revise the
NMP1 licensing basis to allow movement of irradiated fuel bundles
containing PLRs that have been in operation above the 62,000 MWD/MTU
limit. 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 change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change would allow the use of the release fractions
listed in Tables 1 and 3 of NRC RG 1.183 for PLRs which are
currently in the NMP1 Cycle 22 reactor core that are expected to
exceed the 62,000 MWD/MTU rod peak burnup limit specified in
Footnotes 10 and 11 of NRC RG 1.183 prior to the end of the
operating cycle. In addition, the proposed change would revise the
NMP1 licensing basis to allow movement of irradiated fuel bundles
containing PLRs that have been in operation above the 62,000 MWD/MTU
limit. Analyses have been performed that demonstrate that the power
and burnup for a PLR is bounded by the power and burnup in the same
axial portion of neighboring FLRs. There is no change in the dose
consequences of the fuel handling accident, control rod drop
accident or loss-of-coolant accident analyses of record. The margin
of safety, as defined by 10 CFR 50.67 and NRC RG 1.183, has been
maintained.
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: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel,
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL
60555.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Stephen S. Koenick.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-
364, Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Houston County,
Alabama, Docket Nos. 50-424, 50-425, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant,
Units 1 and 2, Burke County, Georgia
Date of amendment request: November 21, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16326A256.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would
revise the requirements on control and shutdown rods, and rod and bank
position indication in Technical Specification (TS) 3.1.4, ``Rod Group
Alignment Limits''; TS 3.1.5, ``Shutdown Bank Insertion Limits''; TS
3.1.6, ``Control Bank Insertion Limits''; and TS 3.1.7, ``Rod Position
Indication,'' consistent with NRC-approved Technical Specifications
Task Force Traveler (TSTF)-547, Revision 1, ``Clarification of Rod
Position Requirements,'' dated March 4, 2016 (ADAMS Accession Package
No. ML16012A126).
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.
Control and shutdown rods are assumed to insert into the core to
shut down the reactor in evaluated accidents. Rod insertion limits
ensure that adequate negative reactivity is available to provide the
assumed shutdown margin (SDM). Rod alignment and overlap limits
maintain an appropriate power distribution and reactivity insertion
profile.
Control and shutdown rods are initiators to several accidents
previously evaluated, such as rod ejection. The proposed change does
not change the limiting conditions for operation for the rods or
make any technical changes to the Surveillance Requirements (SRs)
governing the rods. Therefore, the proposed change has no
significant effect on the probability of any accident previously
evaluated.
Revising the TS Actions to provide a limited time to repair rod
movement control has no effect on the SDM assumed in the accident
analysis as the proposed Action require verification that SDM is
maintained. The effects on power distribution will not cause a
significant increase in the consequences of any accident previously
evaluated as all TS requirements on power distribution continue to
be applicable.
Revising the TS Actions to provide an alternative to frequent
use of the moveable incore detector system to verify the position of
rods with inoperable rod position indicator does not change the
requirement for the rods to be aligned and within the insertion
limits.
Therefore, the assumptions used in any accidents previously
evaluated are unchanged and there is no significant increase in the
consequences.
The proposed change to resolve the conflicts in the TS ensure
that the intended Actions are followed when equipment is inoperable.
Actions taken with inoperable equipment are not assumptions in the
accidents previously evaluated and have no significant effect on the
consequences.
The proposed change to eliminate an unnecessary action has no
effect on the consequences of accidents previously evaluated as the
analysis of those accidents did not consider the use of the action.
The proposed change to increase consistency within the TS has no
effect on the consequences of accidents previously evaluated as the
proposed change clarifies the application of the existing
requirements and does not change the intent.
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.
[[Page 8873]]
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of
the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be
installed). The change does not alter assumptions made in the safety
analyses. The proposed change does not alter the limiting conditions
for operation for the rods or make any technical changes to the SRs
governing the rods. The proposed change to actions maintains or
improves safety when equipment is inoperable and does not introduce
new failure modes.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change to allow time for rod position indication to
stabilize after rod movement and to allow an alternative method of
verifying rod position has no effect on the safety margin as actual
rod position is not affected. The proposed change to provide time to
repair rods that are Operable but immovable does not result in a
significant reduction in the margin of safety because all rods must
be verified to be Operable, and all other banks must be within the
insertion limits. The remaining proposed changes to make the
requirements internally consistent and to eliminate unnecessary
actions do not affect the margin of safety as the changes do not
affect the ability of the rods to perform their specified safety
function.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Jennifer M. Buettner, Associate General
Counsel, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., 40 Inverness Center
Parkway, Birmingham, AL 35242.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
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.
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket No. 50-346,
Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 1, Ottawa County, Ohio
Date of amendment request: February 9, 2016.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the technical
specification requirements for limitations on the radioactive material
released in liquid and gaseous effluents and the references for the
radioactive material effluent requirements.
Date of issuance: January 11, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 293. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML16298A349; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safely Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-3: The amendment revised
the Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 29, 2016 (81 FR
17506).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated January 11, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323, Diablo
Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, San Luis Obispo County,
California
Date of amendment request: January 21, 2016, as supplemented by
letter dated December 27, 2016.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical
Specification (TS) 3.4.6, ``RCS [Reactor Coolant System] Loops--MODE
4''; TS 3.4.7, ``RCS Loops--MODE 5, Loops Filled''; TS 3.4.8, ``RCS
Loops--MODE 5, Loops Not Filled''; TS 3.5.2, ``ECCS [Emergency Core
Cooling System]--Operating''; TS 3.6.6, ``Containment Spray and Cooling
Systems''; TS 3.9.5, ``Residual Heat Removal (RHR) and Coolant
Circulation--High Water Level''; and TS 3.9.6, ``Residual Heat Removal
(RHR) and Coolant Circulation--Low Water Level.'' The amendments
modified the TS requirements to address Generic Letter 2008-01,
``Managing Gas Accumulation in Emergency Core Cooling, Decay Heat
Removal, and Containment Spray Systems'' (ADAMS Accession No.
ML072910759), as described in Technical Specifications Task Force
Traveler (TSTF)-523, Revision 2, ``Generic Letter 2008-01, Managing Gas
Accumulation'' (ADAMS Accession No. ML13053A075).
Date of issuance: January 5, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 180 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 228 (Unit 1); 230 (Unit 2). A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16330A672; 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 TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 15, 2016 (81 FR
13844). The supplemental letter dated December 27, 2016, provided
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change
the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination as published in the Federal Register.
[[Page 8874]]
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated January 5, 2017.
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: May 12, 2016.
Description of amendment: The amendment authorized changes to the
VCSNS, Units 2 and 3, changing the listed minimum volume of the passive
core cooling system core makeup tanks (CMT) as reflected in the
Combined License (COL) Appendix A, Technical Specifications (TSs), and
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) for VCSNS, Units 2 and 3.
Specifically, this amendment is a departure from the generic AP1000
Design Control Document Tier 2 information as implemented in the plant-
specific UFSAR, changing the minimum CMT volume from 2,500 ft\3\ to
2,487 ft\3\. The amendment resolves an inconsistency in the licensing
documents by aligning the listed minimum CMT volume with that provided
in the VCSNS COL Tier 1 information. The amendment also includes an
addition to the TS Bases stating that the volume of one CMT is adequate
for safety injection in the case of small-break loss-of-coolant
accident. No changes were proposed to COL Tier 1 information.
Date of issuance: January 10, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 57. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML16327A646; 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: July 5, 2016 (81 FR
43646).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in the Safety Evaluation dated January 10, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Georgia Power Company,
Oglethorpe Power Corporation, Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia,
City of Dalton, Georgia, Docket No. 50-366, Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear
Plant, Unit No. 2, Appling County, Georgia
Date of amendment request: August 29, 2016, as supplemented by
letter dated November 18, 2016.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the values
for the Safety Limit Minimum Critical Power Ratios for both single and
dual recirculation loop operation.
Date of issuance: January 6, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
prior to reactor startup from the spring 2017 refueling outage.
Amendment No.: 226. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML16344A126; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-5: Amendment revised the
Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 11, 2016 (81 FR
70184). The supplemental letter dated November 18, 2016, provided
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change
the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated January 6, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 50-391, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant,
Unit 2, Rhea County, Tennessee
Date of amendment request: September 30, 2016.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical
Specification 3.0.2 to allow for a one-time extension of the intervals
for Surveillance Requirements 3.6.11.2 and 3.6.11.3.
Date of issuance: January 5, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 7 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 3. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML16343A814; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-96: Amendment revised the
Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 25, 2016 (81 FR
73442).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated January 5, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-390 and 50-391, Watts Bar
Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Rhea County, Tennessee
Date of amendment request: September 23, 2016.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the
completion date for License Condition 2.C.(9)b for Watts Bar Nuclear
Plant, Unit 1, and License Condition 2.C.(3) for Watts Bar Nuclear
Plant, Unit 2, regarding the completion of permanent modifications to
the Fort Loudoun Dam from February 1, 2017, to June 30, 2018.
Date of issuance: January 11, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 15 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 109 (Unit 1); 4 (Unit 2). A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16354A024; documents related
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with
the amendments.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-90 and NPF-96: Amendments
revised the Facility Operating Licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 8, 2016 (81 FR
78653).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated January 11, 2017.
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
[[Page 8875]]
(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.
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
[[Page 8876]]
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 April
3, 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 must 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
[[Page 8877]]
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
https://adams.nrc.gov/ehd, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the
Commission or the presiding officer. If you do not have an NRC-issued
digital ID certificate as described above, click cancel when the link
requests certificates and you will be automatically directed to the
NRC's electronic hearing dockets where you will be able to access any
publicly available documents in a particular hearing docket.
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.
Arizona Public Service Company (APS), et al., Docket No. STN 50-530,
Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No. 3, Maricopa County,
Arizona
Date of amendment request: December 30, 2016, as supplemented by
letters dated January 2, 2017, and January 4, 2017.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical
Specifications (TSs) for a one-time extension of the Unit 3 emergency
diesel generator (3B DG) completion time described in TS 3.8.1.B.4.
Specifically, the emergency risk-informed amendment extended, on a one-
time basis, the TS required action 3.8.1.B.4 completion time from 21
days to 62 days for the purpose of completing repairs and testing to
reestablish operability of the 3B DG.
During surveillance testing on December 15, 2016, the DG suffered a
failure of the number nine right cylinder connecting rod and piston.
Disassembly and inspection of the damaged 3B DG has been aggressively
and continuously pursued since initial failure on December 15, 2016.
APS established an Outage Control Center to schedule, manage, and
oversee the work activities needed for the repairs. Multi-discipline
teams were formed to assess the extent of damage, inspect and recover
parts, and determine the cause of failure. APS has determined that the
cause of failure of the 3B DG is attributed to high-cycle fatigue and
that the mode of failure is not common to the ``A'' train DG or the DGs
in Units 1 and 2.
Date of issuance: January 4, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
prior to the expiration of the 21-day completion time, or January 5,
2017, at 3:56 a.m. Mountain Time.
Amendment No.: 200. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML17004A020; 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 Facility 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 January 4,
2017.
Attorney for licensee: Michael G. Green, Senior Regulatory Counsel,
Pinnacle West Capital Corporation, P.O. Box 52034, Mail Station 8695,
Phoenix, AZ 85072-2034.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 23rd day of January 2017.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Anne T. Boland,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2017-02034 Filed 1-30-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P