[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 38 (Tuesday, February 28, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12130-12142]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-03806]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2017-0058]
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 January 31, 2017 to February 13, 2017. The
last biweekly notice was published on February 14, 2017.
DATES: Comments must be filed March 30, 2017. A request for a hearing
must be filed May 1, 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-2017-0058. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-
3463; email: [email protected]. For technical questions, contact
the individual or individuals listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this document.
Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Office of Administration,
Mail Stop: OWFN-12-H08, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555-0001.
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting
comments, see ``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beverly Clayton, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-3475, email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments
A. Obtaining Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0058, 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-2017-0058.
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.
[[Page 12131]]
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-2017-0058, facility name, unit
number(s), plant docket number, application date, and subject in your
comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact
information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your
comment submission. The NRC posts all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as entering the comment submissions into
ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove
identifying or contact information.
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons
for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to
include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be
publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should
state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to
remove such information before making the comment submissions available
to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.
II. Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility
Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses and Proposed No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under
the Commission's regulations in Sec. 50.92 of title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (10 CFR), this means that operation of the facility
in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated, or (2) create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or
(3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis
for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown
below.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final
determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period if circumstances change during the 30-day comment
period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for
example in derating or shutdown of the facility. If the Commission
takes action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or
the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a notice of
issuance. If the Commission makes a final no significant hazards
consideration determination, any hearing will take place after
issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will
occur very infrequently.
A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing and Petition for Leave To Intervene
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any
persons (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by this action may
file a request for a hearing and 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
[[Page 12132]]
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 May
1, 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 reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no
longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the
NRC's
[[Page 12133]]
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.
Florida Power & Light Company, et al., Docket No. 50-335 and 50-389,
St. Lucie Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, St. Lucie County, Florida
Date of amendment request: December 22, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17006A007.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would relocate the
Component Cyclic or Transient Limits Program requirements to the
Administrative Controls sections of the Technical Specifications (TSs),
and relocate the Component Cyclic or Transient Limits tables detailing
the allowable limits from the respective TSs to licensee-controlled
documents.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The relocation of Component Cyclic or Transient Limits Table
5.9-1 and Table 5.7-1 from the St. Lucie Unit 1 and Unit 2 TS[s], to
the St. Lucie Unit 1 and Unit 2 UFSARs [Updated Final Safety
Analysis Reports], and the relocation of the Component Cyclic or
Transient Limits Program requirements within the St. Lucie Unit 1
and Unit 2 TS[s] are administrative changes in nature. The TS
changes do not represent any physical change to plant systems,
structures, or components, or to procedures established for plant
operation. As such, the initial conditions associated with accidents
previously evaluated and plant systems credited for mitigating the
consequences of accidents previously evaluated remain unchanged.
Therefore, facility operation in accordance with the proposed
license amendments would 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 relocation of Component Cyclic or Transient Limits tables
from the St. Lucie Unit 1 and Unit 2 TS[s], to the St. Lucie Unit 1
and Unit 2 UFSARs, and the relocation of the Component Cyclic or
Transient Limits Program requirements within the St. Lucie Unit 1
and Unit 2 TS[s] are administrative changes in nature. No physical
change to plant systems, structures, or components, or the manner in
which they are operated and maintained will result from the proposed
license amendments.
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 relocation of Component Cyclic or Transient Limits tables
from the St. Lucie Unit 1 and Unit 2 TS[s], to the St. Lucie Unit 1
and Unit 2 UFSARs, and the relocation of the Component Cyclic or
Transient Limits Program requirements within the St. Lucie Unit 1
and Unit 2 TS[s] are administrative changes in nature. As such, the
proposed changes do not involve changes to any safety analyses
assumptions, safety limits, or limiting safety system settings nor
do they adversely impact plant operating margins or the reliability
of equipment credited in safety analyses.
Therefore, operation of the facility in accordance with the
proposed amendment will not involve a significant reduction in the
margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: William S. Blair, Managing Attorney--
Nuclear, Florida Power & Light Company, 700 Universe Boulevard, MS LAW/
JB, Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420.
NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin G. Beasley.
Indiana Michigan Power Company (I&M), Docket Nos. 50-315 and 50-316,
Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant (CNP), Units 1 and 2, Berrien County,
Michigan
Date of amendment request: December 14, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16351A198.
Description of amendment request: The proposed changes would revise
the note regarding applicability of the limiting condition for
operation (LCO) for CNP Technical Specification (TS) 3.9.3,
``Containment Penetrations.''
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 accident in question for this submittal is the FHA [fuel-
handling accident]. The analysis for the FHA was recently reviewed
and approved by the NRC for a license amendment request regarding
use of alternative source term. The proposed amendment to TS 3.9.3
does not impact the assumed release pathway for the accident and has
no effect on the probability of the occurrence of any accident
previously evaluated. The proposed change does not alter any plant
equipment or operating practices in such a manner that the
probability of an accident previously evaluated is increased. The
consequences of [an] FHA inside the containment building with open
penetration flow paths is bounded by the current FHA analyses and
administrative controls, so the probability of an accident is not
affected by the status of the penetration flow paths.
Therefore, the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated will not be significantly increased.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
Allowing penetration flow paths to be open is not an initiator
for any accident. The change impacts the containment requirements
during refueling operations. The only accident which could result in
significant releases of radioactivity during refueling is the FHA.
The proposed change does not affect the design of containment, or
alter plant operating practices such that it creates the possibility
of a new or different
[[Page 12134]]
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. The
proposed allowance to open any containment penetration under
administrative controls during fuel movement will not adversely
affect plant safety functions such that a new or different accident
could be created. No other initiators or accident precursors are
created by this change.
Therefore, the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident not previously evaluated is not created.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
TS 3.9.3 closure requirements for containment penetrations
ensure that the consequences of a postulated FHA inside containment
during irradiated fuel handling activities are minimized. The LCO
establishes containment closure requirements, which limit the
potential escape paths for fission products by ensuring that there
is at least one barrier to the release of radioactive material. The
proposed change to allow any containment penetration flow path to be
open during refueling operations under administrative controls does
not significantly affect the expected dose consequences of [an] FHA
because the limiting FHA does not credit containment building
closure or filtration. The administrative controls provide assurance
that closure of the applicable penetration flow paths will be
accomplished and that the offsite dose consequences will be
minimized in the event of [an] FHA inside the containment building.
Therefore, this proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Robert B. Haemer, Senior Nuclear Counsel,
One Cook Place, Bridgman, MI 49106.
NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.
South Carolina Electric & Gas Company and South Carolina Public Service
Authority, Docket Nos. 52-027 and 52-028, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear
Station Units 2 and 3, Fairfield County, South Carolina
Date of amendment request: January 20, 2017. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17020A097.
Description of amendment request: The requested amendment proposes
to depart from Tier 2* information in the Updated Final Safety Analysis
Report to address the seismic Category and AP1000 equipment class of
nonsafety-related instrumentation that interfaces with safety-related
pressure boundaries.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to nonsafety-related instrument
classification methodology will allow nonsafety-related
instrumentation connected to safety-related systems to be
appropriately qualified to withstand a safe shutdown earthquake
without adversely affecting a safety-related pressure boundary. The
safe shutdown fire analysis is not affected, and the fire protection
analysis results are not adversely affected. The proposed changes do
not involve any accident, initiating event or component failure;
thus, the probabilities of the accidents previously evaluated are
not affected. The proposed change does not adversely affect
compliance with the maximum allowable reactor coolant system
operational leakage rates specified in the Technical Specifications,
and radiological material release source terms are not affected;
thus, the radiological releases in the accident analyses are not
affected.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to nonsafety-related instrument
classification methodology will allow nonsafety-related
instrumentation connected to safety-related systems to be
appropriately qualified to withstand a safe shutdown earthquake
without adversely affecting a safety-related pressure boundary. The
proposed changes do not adversely affect any safety-related system,
structure, or component. The nonsafety-related instrumentation
provides information for nonsafety-related display and does not
control any safety-related feature. Thus, the proposed changes do
not introduce a new failure mode. The proposed changes to the
nonsafety-related instrument classification methodology do not
create a new fault or sequence of events that could result in a
radioactive material release.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to nonsafety-related instrument
classification methodology will allow nonsafety-related
instrumentation connected to safety-related systems to be
appropriately qualified to withstand a safe shutdown earthquake
without adversely affecting a safety-related pressure boundary. The
upgrade in the qualification of the sensing lines and associated
instrument isolation valves does not affect the function of the
safety-related systems to which they are connected. No safety
analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is challenged or
exceeded by the proposed change, thus no margin of safety is
reduced.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Ms. Kathryn M. Sutton, Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius, LLC, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004-2514.
NRC Branch Chief: Jennifer Dixon-Herrity.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-
026, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 3 and 4, Burke County,
Georgia
Date of amendment request: December 16, 2016, as supplemented by
letter dated January 12, 2017. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS
under Accession Nos. ML16351A483 and ML17012A272, respectively.
Description of amendment request: The requested amendment proposes
to depart from Tier 2* information in the Updated Final Safety Analysis
Report to address the seismic Category and AP1000 equipment class of
nonsafety-related instrumentation that interfaces with safety-related
pressure boundaries.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to nonsafety-related instrument
classification methodology will allow nonsafety-related
instrumentation connected to safety-related systems to be
appropriately qualified to withstand a safe shutdown earthquake
without adversely affecting a safety-related pressure boundary. The
safe shutdown fire analysis is not affected, and the fire protection
analysis results are not adversely affected. The proposed changes do
not involve any accident, initiating event or component failure;
thus, the probabilities of the accidents previously evaluated are
not
[[Page 12135]]
affected. The proposed change does not adversely affect compliance
with the maximum allowable reactor coolant system operational
leakage rates specified in the Technical Specifications, and
radiological material release source terms are not affected; thus,
the radiological releases in the accident analyses are not affected.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to nonsafety-related instrument
classification methodology will allow nonsafety-related
instrumentation connected to safety-related systems to be
appropriately qualified to withstand a safe shutdown earthquake
without adversely affecting a safety-related pressure boundary. The
proposed changes do not adversely affect any safety-related system,
structure, or component. The nonsafety-related instrumentation
provides information for nonsafety-related display and does not
control any safety-related feature. Thus, the proposed changes do
not introduce a new failure mode. The proposed changes to the
nonsafety-related instrument classification methodology do not
create a new fault or sequence of events that could result in a
radioactive material release.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to nonsafety-related instrument
classification methodology will allow nonsafety-related
instrumentation connected to safety-related systems to be
appropriately qualified to withstand a safe shutdown earthquake
without adversely affecting a safety-related pressure boundary. The
upgrade in the qualification of the sensing lines and associated
instrument isolation valves does not affect the function of the
safety-related systems to which they are connected. No safety
analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is challenged or
exceeded by the proposed change, thus no margin of safety is
reduced.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Mr. M. Stanford Blanton, Balch & Bingham
LLP, 1710 Sixth Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203-2015.
NRC Branch Chief: Jennifer Dixon-Herrity.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-
425, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, Burke County,
Georgia; Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-364, Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant,
Units 1 and 2, Houston County, Alabama; Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366,
Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Appling County, Georgia
Date of amendment request: December 1, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16340A005.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would modify the
technical specifications requirements in Section 1.3 and Section 3.0
regarding Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) and Surveillance
Requirement (SR) usage. These changes are consistent with NRC-approved
Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-529, ``Clarify
Use and Application Rules.''
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to Section 1.3 and LCO 3.0.4 have no effect
on the requirement for systems to be Operable and have no effect on
the application of TS actions. The proposed change to SR 3.0.3
states that the allowance may only be used when there is a
reasonable expectation the surveillance will be met when performed.
Since the proposed change does not significantly affect system
Operability, the proposed change will have no significant effect on
the initiating events for accidents previously evaluated and will
have no significant effect on the ability of the systems to mitigate
accidents previously evaluated.
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 amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
The proposed change to the TS usage rules does not affect the
design or function of any plant systems. The proposed change does
not change the Operability requirements for plant systems or the
actions taken when plant systems are not operable.
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 changes involve a significant reduction in
a margin of safety?
The proposed change clarifies the application of Section 1.3 and
LCO 3.0.4 and does not result in changes in plant operation. SR
3.0.3 is revised to allow application of SR 3.0.3 when a SR has not
been previously performed if there is a reasonable expectation that
the SR will be met when performed. This expands the use of SR 3.0.3
while ensuring the affected system is capable of performing its
safety function. As a result, plant safety is either improved or
unaffected.
Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Jennifer M. Buettner, Associate General
Counsel of Operations and Nuclear, Southern Nuclear Operating Company,
40 Iverness Center Parkway, Birmingham, AL 35201.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-
425, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, Burke County,
Georgia
Date of amendment request: November 15, 2016, as supplemented by
letter dated January 13, 2017. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS
under Accession Nos. ML16320A207 and ML17013A603, respectively.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would modify the
TS requirements to operate ventilation systems with charcoal filters
from 10 hours to 15 minutes each month in accordance with TSTF-522,
Revision 0, ``Revise Ventilation System Surveillance Requirements to
Operate for 10 hours per Month.'' The NRC approved TSTF-522, Revision
0, as a part of the consolidated line item improvement process on
September 20, 2012 (77 FR 58421).
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 replaces an existing Surveillance
Requirement to operate the Westinghouse CREFS [Control Room
Emergency Filtration System] equipped with
[[Page 12136]]
electric heaters for a continuous 10 hour period at a frequency
specified in the SFCP [Surveillance Frequency Control Program] with
a requirement to operate the systems for 15 continuous minutes with
heaters operating, if needed.
This system is not an accident initiator 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?
The proposed change replaces an existing Surveillance
Requirement to operate the Westinghouse CREFS system equipped with
electric heaters for a continuous 10 hour period at a frequency
specified in the SFCP with a requirement to operate the system for
15 continuous minutes with heaters operating, if needed.
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?
The proposed change replaces an existing Surveillance
Requirement to operate the Westinghouse CREFS systems equipped with
electric heaters for a continuous 10 hour period at a frequency
specified in the SFCP with a requirement to operate the systems for
15 continuous minutes with heaters operating, if needed.
The design basis for the ventilation systems' heaters is to heat
the incoming air which reduces the relative humidity. The heater
testing change proposed will continue to demonstrate that the
heaters are capable of heating the air and will perform their design
function. The proposed change is consistent with regulatory
guidance.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Jennifer M. Buettner, Associate General
Counsel, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 40 Iverness Center
Parkway, Birmingham, AL 35242.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-
425, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, Burke County,
Georgia
Date of amendment request: November 15, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16320A214.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would modify the
technical specifications (TS) by relocating references to specific
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standards for fuel
oil testing to licensee-controlled documents and adding alternate
criteria to the ``clear and bright'' acceptance test for new fuel oil.
These TS changes will be performed in accordance with technical
specification task force (TSTF) traveler TSTF-374, Revision 0, ``Diesel
Fuel Oil Testing Program.'' The NRC approved TSTF-374, Revision 0, as a
part of the consolidated line item improvement process on April 21,
2006 (71 FR 20735).
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes relocate the specific ASTM standard
references from the Administrative Controls Section of TS to a
licensee-controlled document. Requirements to perform testing in
accordance with applicable ASTM standards are retained in the TS as
are requirements to perform surveillances of both new and stored
diesel fuel oil. Future changes to the licensee-controlled document
will be evaluated pursuant to the requirements of 10 CFR 50.59,
``Changes, tests and experiments,'' to ensure that such changes do
not result in more than a minimal increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously evaluated. In addition, the
``clear and bright'' test used to establish the acceptability of new
fuel oil for use prior to addition to storage tanks has been
expanded to recognize more rigorous testing of water and sediment
content. Relocating the specific ASTM standard references from the
TS to a licensee-controlled document and allowing a water and
sediment content test to be performed to establish the acceptability
of new fuel oil will not affect nor degrade the ability of the
emergency diesel generators (DGs) to perform their specified safety
function. Fuel oil quality will continue to meet ASTM requirements.
The proposed changes do not adversely affect accident initiators
or precursors nor alter the design assumptions, conditions, and
configuration of the facility or the manner in which the plant is
operated and maintained. The proposed changes do not adversely
affect the ability of structures, systems, and components (SSCs) to
perform their intended safety function to mitigate the consequences
of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits. The
proposed changes do not affect the source term, containment
isolation, or radiological release assumptions used in evaluating
the radiological consequences of any accident previously evaluated.
Further, the proposed changes do not increase the types and amounts
of radioactive effluent that may be released offsite, nor
significantly increase individual or cumulative occupational/public
radiation exposures.
Therefore, the changes do 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 accident previously
evaluated?
The proposed changes relocate the specific ASTM standard
references from the Administrative Controls Section of TS to a
licensee-controlled document. In addition, the ``clear and bright''
test used to establish the acceptability of new fuel oil for use
prior to addition to storage tanks has been expanded to allow a
water and sediment content test to be performed to establish the
acceptability of new fuel oil. The changes do not involve a physical
alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment
will be installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant
operation. The requirements retained in the TS continue to require
testing of the diesel fuel oil to ensure the proper functioning of
the DGs.
Therefore, the changes do not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in
a margin of safety?
The proposed changes relocate the specific ASTM standard
references from the Administrative Controls Section of TS to a
licensee-controlled document. Instituting the proposed changes will
continue to ensure the use of applicable ASTM standards to evaluate
the quality of both new and stored fuel oil designated for use in
the emergency DGs. Changes to the licensee-controlled document are
performed in accordance with the provisions of 10 CFR 50.59. This
approach provides an effective level of regulatory control and
ensures that diesel fuel oil testing is conducted such that there is
no significant reduction in a margin of safety. The ``clear and
bright'' test used to establish the acceptability of new fuel oil
for use prior to addition to storage tanks has been expanded to
allow a water and sediment content test to be performed to establish
the acceptability of new fuel oil.
[[Page 12137]]
The margin of safety provided by the DGs is unaffected by the
proposed changes since there continue to be TS requirements to
ensure fuel oil is of the appropriate quality for emergency DG use.
The proposed changes provide the flexibility needed to improve fuel
oil sampling and analysis methodologies while maintaining sufficient
controls to preserve the current margins of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Jennifer M. Buettner, Associate General
Counsel, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 40 Iverness Center
Parkway, Birmingham, AL 35242.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-
425, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, Burke County,
Georgia
Date of amendment request: November 15, 2016. A publicly-
available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16320A219.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would add
technical specifications (TS) Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO)
3.0.10 for unavailable barriers as described in TSTF-427, Revision
2, ``Allowance for Non Technical Specification Barrier Degradation
on Supported System OPERABILITY.'' The NRC approved TSTF-427,
Revision 2, as a part of the consolidated line item improvement
process on October 3, 2006 (71 FR 58444).
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:
Criterion 1--The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant
Increase in the Probability or Consequences of an Accident Previously
Evaluated
The proposed change allows a delay time for entering a supported
system technical specification (TS) when the inoperability is due
solely to an unavailable barrier if risk is assessed and managed.
The postulated initiating events which may require a functional
barrier are limited to those with low frequencies of occurrence, and
the overall TS system safety function would still be available for
the majority of anticipated challenges. Therefore, the probability
of an accident previously evaluated is not significantly increased,
if at all. The consequences of an accident while relying on the
allowance provided by proposed LCO 3.0.9 are no different than the
consequences of an accident while relying on the TS required actions
in effect without the allowance provided by proposed LCO 3.0.9.
Therefore, the consequences of an accident previously evaluated are
not significantly affected by this change. The addition of a
requirement to assess and manage the risk introduced by this change
will further minimize possible concerns.
Therefore, this change does not involve a significant increase
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.
Criterion 2--The Proposed Change Does Not Create the Possibility
of a New or Different Kind of Accident from any Previously Evaluated
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of
the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed).
Allowing delay times for entering supported system TS when
inoperability is due solely to an unavailable barrier, if risk is
assessed and managed, will not introduce new failure modes or
effects and will not, in the absence of other unrelated failures,
lead to an accident whose consequences exceed the consequences of
accidents previously evaluated. The addition of a requirement to
assess and manage the risk introduced by this change will further
minimize possible concerns.
Thus, this change does not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from an accident previously evaluated.
Criterion 3--The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant
Reduction in the Margin of Safety
The proposed change allows a delay time for entering a supported
system TS when the inoperability is due solely to an unavailable
barrier, if risk is assessed and managed. The postulated initiating
events which may require a functional barrier are limited to those
with low frequencies of occurrence, and the overall TS system safety
function would still be available for the majority of anticipated
challenges. The risk impact of the proposed TS changes was assessed
following the three-tiered approach recommended in RG [Regulatory
Guide] 1.177. A bounding risk assessment was performed to justify
the proposed TS changes. This application of LCO 3.0.9 is predicated
upon the licensee's performance of a risk assessment and the
management of plant risk. The net change to the margin of safety is
insignificant as indicated by the anticipated low levels of
associated risk (ICCDP [incremental conditional core damage
probability] and ICLERP [incremental conditional large early release
probability]) as shown in Table 1 of Section 3.1.1 in the Safety
Evaluation.
Therefore, this change does not involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Jennifer M. Buettner, Associate General
Counsel, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 40 Iverness Center
Parkway, Birmingham, AL 35242.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-390 and 50-391, Watts Bar
Nuclear Plant (WBN), Units 1 and 2, Rhea County, Tennessee
Date of amendment request: October 20, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16294A551.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the
Technical Specifications related to the auxiliary building gas
treatment system (ABGTS) to provide an action for when the auxiliary
building secondary containment enclosure (ABSCE) boundary is degraded,
and to allow the ABSCE boundary to be open intermittently under
administrative controls without entering the associated ABGTS limiting
condition for operation. The proposed changes are consistent with
NUREG-1431, ``Standard Technical Specifications Westinghouse Plants,''
Revision 4, dated April 2012 (ADAMS Accession No. ML12100A222).
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 consequence of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not require physical changes to plant
systems, structures, or components. The ABGTS is an accident
mitigating feature. As such, ABGTS is not associated with a
potential accident-initiating mechanism.
Therefore, the changes do not affect accident or transient
initiation or consequences.
The proposed new condition for the ABGTS TS would permit a 24
hour period to restore an inoperable pressure boundary to operable
status. The consequences of implementing the 24 hour completion time
are reasonable based upon the low probability of a design basis
accident occurring during this time period, and the availability of
a functional ABGTS train to provide a filtered release to the
environment (albeit with the potential for unfiltered leakage).
For cases where the ABSCE boundary is opened intermittently
under administrative controls, appropriate compensatory measures
would be required by the proposed TS to ensure the ABSCE boundary
can be rapidly restored and the dose analysis assumptions can be
supported. Based on the administrative controls required to rapidly
restore an opened ABSCE boundary, the accident consequences do not
cause an increase in dose above the applicable General Design
Criteria, Standard Review Plan, or 10 CFR 100 limits. The plant
operators will
[[Page 12138]]
continue to maintain the ability to mitigate a design basis event.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequence of an accident previously
evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes would not require any new or different
accidents to be postulated and subsequently evaluated, since no
changes are being made to the plant that would introduce any new
accident causal mechanisms. This license amendment request does not
impact any plant systems that are potential accident initiators; nor
does it have any significantly adverse impact on any accident
mitigating systems.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not alter the permanent plant design,
including instrument setpoints, nor does it change the assumptions
contained in the safety analyses. Margin of safety is related to the
ability of the fission product barriers to perform their design
functions during and following accident conditions. These barriers
include the fuel cladding, the reactor coolant system, and the
containment system. The performance of these barriers will not be
significantly degraded by the proposed changes. The proposed changes
would allow the ABSCE boundary to be degraded for a limited period
of time (24 hours). However, the probability of a design basis event
occurring during this time is low. Additionally, a functional ABGTS
train will be available to provide a filtered release to the
environment (albeit with the potential for unfiltered leakage). When
the ABSCE boundary is open on an intermittent basis, as permitted by
the changes proposed in this amendment request, administrative
controls would be in place to ensure that the integrity of the
pressure boundaries could be rapidly restored and the dose analysis
assumptions can be supported. Therefore, it is expected that the
plant and the operators would maintain the ability to mitigate
design basis events and none of the fission product barriers would
be affected by this change.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Ms. Sherry A. Quirk, Executive Vice
President and General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West
Summit Hill Drive, 6A Tower West, Knoxville, TN 37902.
NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin G. Beasley.
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: October 17, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16291A543.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the
Technical Specifications (TSs) to allow a one-time extension of the
frequency for performing certain TS Surveillance Requirements (SRs)
related to verifying the operability of alternating current electrical
power sources.
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 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 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 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: Sherry A. Quirk, Executive Vice President
and General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West Summit Hill
Drive, 6A West Tower, Knoxville, TN 37902.
NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin G. Beasley.
[[Page 12139]]
TEX Operations Company LLC, Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446, Comanche
Peak Nuclear Power Plant (CPNPP), Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Somervell County,
Texas
Date of amendment request: December 14, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16351A200.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the
licensee's name from ``TEX Operations Company LLC'' to ``Vistra
Operations Company LLC'' into the CPNPP Unit 1 Operating License (NPF-
87), CPNPP Unit 2 Operating License (NPF-89), and the title page of the
Environmental Protection Plan.
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. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment changes a name of a licensee. The
proposed name change is purely administrative. The functions of the
licensee will not change. The proposed amendment does not alter the
design, function, or operation of any plant equipment. As such, the
accident and transient analyses contained in the facility updated
final safety analysis reports will not be impacted.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment changes a name of a licensee. The
proposed name change is purely administrative. The functions of the
licensee will not change. The proposed amendment does not alter the
design, function, or operation of any plant equipment. As such, the
accident and transient analyses contained in the facility updated
final safety analysis reports will not be impacted.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment changes a name of a licensee. The
proposed name change is purely administrative. The functions of the
licensee will not change. The proposed amendment does not alter the
design, function, or operation of any plant equipment. As such, the
accident and transient analyses contained in the facility updated
final safety analysis reports will not be impacted.
Therefore the proposed change does not involve a 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: Timothy P. Matthews, Esq., Morgan, Lewis and
Bockius, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
III. Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses
and Combined Licenses
During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice,
the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has
determined for each of these amendments that the application complies
with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,
as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The
Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the
Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR chapter I, which are set
forth in the license amendment.
A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility
operating license or combined license, as applicable, proposed no
significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a
hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the Federal
Register as indicated.
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that
these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in
accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b),
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be
prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an
environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in
10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment,
it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the action see (1) the
applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's
related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as
indicated. All of these items can be accessed as described in the
``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' section of this
document.
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Docket No. 50-336, Millstone Power
Station, Unit No. 2 (MPS2), New London County, Connecticut
Date of amendment request: December 14, 2016.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the MPS2
Technical Specifications (TSs) to add a note to TS Surveillance
Requirement (SR) 4.1.3.1.2, control element assembly (CEA) freedom of
movement surveillance, such that CEA 39 may be excluded from the
remaining quarterly performance of the SR in Cycle 24. The amendment
allows the licensee to delay exercising CEA 39 until after repairs can
be made during the next outage.
Date of issuance: February 7, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 333. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML17018A000; 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 and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 3, 2017 (82 FR
157).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 7, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414, Catawba
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York County, South Carolina
Date of amendment request: September 25, 2013, as supplemented by
letters dated January 13, 2015; January 28, 2015; February 27, 2015;
March 30, 2015; April 28, 2015; July 15, 2015; August 14, 2015;
September 3, 2015; December 11, 2015; January 7, 2016; March 23, 2016;
June 15, 2016; August 2, 2016; September 7, 2016 and January 27, 2017.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the
condition for the Fire Protection Program (FPP) in the Renewed Facility
Operating Licenses such that the FPP is now based on the requirements
of 10 CFR 50.48(c), ``National Fire Protection Association Standard
NFPA 805.''
Date of issuance: February 8, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
as
[[Page 12140]]
stated within the revised License Condition 2.C.(5).
Amendment Nos.: 287 (Unit 1) and 283 (Unit 2). A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16137A308; documents related
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with
the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-35 and NPF-52: The
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 4, 2014 (79 FR
6641). The supplemental letters dated January 13, 2015; January 28,
2015; February 27, 2015; March 30, 2015; April 28, 2015; July 15, 2015;
August 14, 2015; September 3, 2015; December 11, 2015; January 7, 2016;
March 23, 2016; June 15, 2016; August 2, 2016; September 7, 2016 and
January 27, 2017, 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 February 8, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Docket No. 50-261, H. B. Robinson Steam
Electric Plant, Unit No. 2, Darlington County, South Carolina
Date of amendment request: September 16, 2013, as supplemented by
letters dated November 24, and December 22, 2014; January 22, March 16,
April 1, May 19, and July 31, 2015; March 16, May 25, July 25, and
October 5, 2016.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment authorized the
transition of the fire protection licensing basis, from 10 CFR
50.50.48(b) to 10 CFR 50.48(c), National Fire Protection Association
(NFPA) 805, ``Performance-Based Standard for Fire Protection for Light-
water Reactor Electric Generating Plants,'' 2001 edition. The revised
fire protection licensing basis complies with the requirements in 10
CFR 50.48(a), 10 CFR 50.48(c), the guidance in Regulatory Guide 1.205,
Revision 1, ``Risk-Informed Performance-Based Fire protection for
Existing Light-water Nuclear Power Plants, and NFPA 805, and follows
the applicable guidance in Nuclear Energy Institute 04-02, Revision 2.
Date of issuance: February 3, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
as described in the transition license conditions.
Amendment No.: 249. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML16337A264; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-23: Amendment revised
the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 26, 2013 (78
FR 78405). The supplemental letters dated November 24, and December 22,
2014; January 22, March 16, April 1, May 19, and July 31, 2015; March
16, May 25, July 25, and October 5, 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 February 3, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50-397, Columbia Generating Station,
Benton County, Washington
Date of application for amendment: March 3, 2016, as supplemented
by letter dated January 19, 2017.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical
Specification (TS) Surveillance Requirements for heaters in the Standby
Gas Treatment and Control Room Emergency Filtration ventilation
systems. The proposed amendment is 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 58421), with variations due to plant-specific
nomenclature.
Date of issuance: January 31, 2017.
Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 239. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML16357A646; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-21: The amendment
revised the Facility Operating License and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 24, 2016 (81 FR
32805). The supplemental letter dated January 19, 2017, provided
additional information that clarified the application, did not change
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change
the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated January 31, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-244, R. E. Ginna Nuclear
Power Plant, Wayne County, New York
Date of amendment request: February 4, 2016, as supplemented by
letters dated April 14, June 28, and November 30, 2016.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Reactor
Coolant System (RCS) Specific Activity definition and associated
surveillance requirements in the R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant
Technical Specifications (TSs). The amendment replaced the current TS
limit for RCS gross specific activity with a new limit for RCS noble
gas specific activity. The changes are consistent with Technical
Specification Task Force (TSTF) Improved Standard Technical
Specifications Change Traveler, TSTF-490, Revision 0, ``Deletion of E
Bar Definition and Revision to RCS Specific Activity Tech Spec.''
Date of issuance: February 9, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 123. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML16358A424; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-18: Amendment revised
the Renewed Facility Operating License and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 29, 2016 (81 FR
17506).
The supplemental letters dated April 4, June 28, and November 30,
2016, provided additional information that clarified the application,
did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and
did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards
[[Page 12141]]
consideration determination as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 9, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Florida Power & Light Company, Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251, Turkey
Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 3 and 4, Miami-Dade County, Florida
Date of application for amendments: April 4, 2016, as supplemented
by letters dated September 1, November 10, and December 2, 2016.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the
Technical Specifications (TSs) for snubbers and added a new TS to the
Administrative Controls section of the TSs describing the licensee's
Snubber Testing Program. The amendments revised the snubber TS
surveillance requirement (SR) by deleting specific requirements from
the SR and replacing them with a requirement to demonstrate snubber
operability in accordance with the licensee-controlled Snubber Testing
Program. The amendments deleted a portion of the SR that requires
inspections per another TS that is no longer applicable to snubbers.
The amendments included additions to, deletions from, and conforming
administrative changes to the TSs.
Date of issuance: February 9, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos: 272 and 267. A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No. ML17004A292; documents related to these
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the
amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-31 and DPR-41:
Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 5, 2016 (81 FR
43652). The supplement dated September 1, 2016, provided additional
information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of
the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's
original proposed no significant hazards consideration (NSHC)
determination as published in the Federal Register (FR). The licensee's
letter dated November 10, 2016, expanded the scope of its request as
originally noticed; therefore, the NRC published another notice in the
FR on December 6, 2016 (81 FR 87971), which replaced the original
notice in its entirety. The licensee's letter dated December 2, 2016,
did not expand the scope of the application as renoticed and did not
change the staff's NSHC determination that was published in the FR on
December 6, 2016.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a safety evaluation dated February 9, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
NextEra Energy Point Beach, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-266 and 50-301, Point
Beach Nuclear Plant (PBNP), Units 1 and 2, Town of Two Creeks,
Manitowoc County, Wisconsin
Date of amendment requests: January 15, 2016, as supplemented by
letters dated April 27, 2016 and July 27, 2016.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments eliminate technical
specification (TS) 3.7.14, Primary Auxiliary Building Ventilation
(VNPAB), for PBNP, Units 1 and 2. The amendments delete TS 3.7.14,
VNPAB in its entirety on the basis that the VNPAB is not credited for
accident mitigation and therefore does not meet the 10 CFR 50.36
criteria for inclusion in the TS.
Date of issuance: January 30, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 257 and 261. A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No. ML16349A080; documents related to these
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the
amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-24 and DPR-27:
Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical
Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 26, 2016 (81 FR
24662). The supplemental letters dated April 27, 2016 and July 27,
2016, provided additional information that clarified the application,
did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and
did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated January 30, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC, Docket No. 50-443, Seabrook Station, Unit
No. 1, Rockingham County, New Hampshire
Date of amendment request: February 27, 2016, as supplemented by
letters dated October 27, 2016, and December 15, 2016.
Description of amendment request: The amendment revised the current
emergency action level scheme to one based on Nuclear Energy Institute
(NEI) guidance in NEI 99-01, Revision 6, ``Development of Emergency
Action Levels for Non-Passive Reactors,'' dated November 2012.
Date of issuance: February 10, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 180 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 152. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML16358A411; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-86: Amendment revised the
Facility Operating License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 24, 2016 (81 FR
32808). The supplemental letters dated October 27, 2016, and December
15, 2016, provided additional information that clarified the
application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally
noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no
significant hazards consideration determination as published in the
Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 10, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-354, 50-272 and 50-311, Hope Creek
Generating Station (Hope Creek), and Salem Nuclear Generating Station
(Salem), Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Salem County, New Jersey
Date of amendment request: October 17, 2016, as supplemented by
letter dated December 19, 2016.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the
technical specifications (TSs) by removing certain training program
requirements. Specifically, the amendments removed TS requirements that
are redundant to, or superseded by, the requirements contained in 10
CFR part 55 and 10 CFR 50.120.
Date of issuance: February 6, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment Nos.: 201 (Hope Creek), 317 (Salem, Unit No. 1), and 298
(Salem, Unit No. 2). A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML17012A292; documents related to these amendments
[[Page 12142]]
are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-57, DPR-70, and DPR-75:
The amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and the
TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 22, 2016 (81
FR 83877). The supplemental letter dated December 19, 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 February 6, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Docket No. 52-025, Vogtle Electric
Generating Plant (VEGP), Unit 3, Burke County, Georgia
Date of amendment request: September 13, 2016.
Description of amendment: The amendment authorizes changes to the
VEGP Units 3 and 4 Updated Final Safety Analysis Report in the form of
departures from the incorporated plant specific Design Control Document
Tier 2* information. The departures change the provided minimum
reinforcement area in the VEGP Unit 3 column line 7.3 wall from
elevation 82'-6'' to elevation 100'-0''.
Date of issuance: January 30, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 68. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML16350A060; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Facility Combined Licenses No. NPF-91: Amendment revised the
Facility Combined License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 11, 2016 (81 FR
70175).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in the Safety Evaluation dated January 30, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026,
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), Units 3 and 4, Burke County,
Georgia
Date of amendment request: May 27, 2016.
Description of amendment: The amendment authorizes changes to the
VEGP Units 3 and 4 Updated Final Safety Analysis Report in the form of
departures from the incorporated plant specific Design Control Document
Tier 2 information and involves changes to COL Appendix A Technical
Specifications and associated Bases. The changes add reactor coolant
density compensation to the reactor coolant flow input signal to the
Reactor Trip System instrumentation for the low reactor coolant flow
reactor trip function and add Technical Specification Surveillance
Requirement 3.3.1.3 to the surveillances required for the Reactor
Coolant Flow-Low reactor trip.
Date of issuance: January 13, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 65. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML16348A073; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Facility Combined Licenses Nos. NPF-91 and NPF-92: Amendment
revised the Facility Combined License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 2, 2016 (81 FR
50729).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in the Safety Evaluation dated January 13, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 17th day of February 2017.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Kathryn M. Brock,
Deputy Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of
Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2017-03806 Filed 2-27-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P