81 FR 32800 - Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 100 (May 24, 2016)
Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 100 (May 24, 2016)
| Page Range | 32800-32815 | |
| FR Document | 2016-11976 |
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 100 (Tuesday, May 24, 2016)] [Notices] [Pages 32800-32815] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2016-11976] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [NRC-2016-0100] 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 April 26, 2016, to May 9, 2016. The last biweekly notice was published on May 10, 2016 (81 FR 28891). DATES: Comments must be filed by June 23, 2016. A request for a hearing must be filed by July 25, 2016. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods (unless this document describes a different method for submitting comments on a specific subject):Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2016-0100. 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 [[Page 32801]] Submitting Comments'' in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mable Henderson, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-3760, email: [email protected]. I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments A. Obtaining Information Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0100 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods: Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2016-0100. 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 the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section. NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. B. Submitting Comments Please include Docket ID NRC-2016-0100, facility name, unit number(s), 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 should 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. Should the Commission take 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. Should 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 person(s) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and a petition to intervene with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license or combined license. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's ``Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure'' in 10 CFR part 2. Interested person(s) should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room O1- F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. The NRC's regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed within 60 days, the Commission or a presiding officer designated by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order. As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/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 requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must also set forth the specific contentions which the requestor/petitioner seeks to have litigated at the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the requestor/petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise [[Page 32802]] statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the requestor/petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The requestor/petitioner must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the requestor/petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the requestor/petitioner to relief. A requestor/ petitioner who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party. Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing with respect to resolution of that person's admitted contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence and to submit a cross-examination plan for cross-examination of witnesses, consistent with NRC regulations, policies and procedures. Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Requests for hearing, petitions for leave to intervene, and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the 60-day deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i) through (iii). If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2. A State, local governmental body, federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition should state the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission by July 25, 2016. 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 for leave to intervene set forth in this section, except that under Sec. 2.309(h)(2) a State, local governmental body, or Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof does not need to address the standing requirements in 10 CFR 2.309(d) if the facility is located within its boundaries. A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof may also have the opportunity to participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c). If a hearing is granted, any person who does not wish, or is not qualified, to become a party to the proceeding may, in the discretion of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited appearance pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person making a limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of position on the issues, but may not otherwise participate in the proceeding. A limited appearance may be made at any session of the hearing or at any prehearing conference, subject to the limits and conditions as may be imposed by the presiding officer. Persons desiring to make a limited appearance are requested to inform the Secretary of the Commission by July 25, 2016. B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing) All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in accordance with the procedures described below. To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least ten 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at [email protected], or by telephone at 301-415-1677, to request (1) a digital identification (ID) certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or representative) to digitally sign documents and access the E-Submittal server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a request or petition for hearing (even in instances in which the participant, or its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC- issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the hearing in this proceeding if the Secretary has not already established an electronic docket. Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/getting-started.html. System requirements for accessing the E-Submittal server are detailed in the NRC's ``Guidance for Electronic Submission,'' which is available on the agency's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants may attempt to use other software not listed on the Web site, but should note that the NRC's E-Filing system does not support unlisted software, and the NRC Meta System Help Desk will not be able to offer assistance in using unlisted software. If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to serve documents through the Electronic Information Exchange System, users will be required to install a Web browser plug-in from the NRC's Web site. Further information on the Web-based submission form, including the installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance [[Page 32803]] available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the time the documents are submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends the submitter an email notice confirming receipt of the document. The E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access to the document to the NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing request/petition to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access to the document via the E-Filing system. A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E- Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System 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 Meta System Help Desk is available between 8 a.m. and 8 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 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, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists. Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at http://ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the Commission, or the presiding officer. Participants are requested not to include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers, home addresses, or home phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC regulation or other law requires submission of such information. However, in some instances, a request to intervene will require including information on local residence in order to demonstrate a proximity assertion of interest in the proceeding. With respect to copyrighted works, except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use application, participants are requested not to include copyrighted materials in their submission. For further details with respect to these license amendment applications, see the application for amendment which is available for public inspection in ADAMS and at the NRC's PDR. For additional direction on accessing information related to this document, see the ``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' section of this document. Arizona Public Service Company, et al., Docket Nos. STN 50-528, STN 50- 529, and STN 50-530, Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 (PVNGS), Maricopa County, Arizona Date of amendment request: April 1, 2016. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16096A337. Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the technical specifications (TSs) for PVNGS, by modifying the requirements regarding the degraded and loss of voltage relays that are planned to be modified to be more aligned with designs generally implemented in the industry. Specifically, the licensing basis for degraded voltage protection will be changed from reliance on a TS initial condition that ensures adequate post-trip voltage support of accident mitigation equipment to crediting automatic actuation of the degraded and loss of voltage relays to ensure proper equipment performance. Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed change would revise the allowable values of the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS) Engineered Safety Features Actuation System (ESFAS) Class 1E 4.16 [kiloVolt (kV)] bus degraded voltage and loss of voltage relays. Specifically, the proposed change includes a two stage time delay for the degraded voltage relays and a fixed time delay for the loss of voltage relays with corresponding voltage settings. The proposed change is supported by design calculations and analyses to ensure that the Class 1E buses will be isolated from the normal off-site power source at the appropriate voltage level and time delay under either accident or non-accident sustained degraded voltage conditions. The normally operating safety-related motors will continue to operate without sustaining damage or tripping during the worst-case, accident (i.e., safety injection actuation signal, SIAS) or non- accident degraded voltage condition for the maximum possible time- delay. Thus, the safety-related loads will be available to perform their safety function if a loss-of coolant accident (LOCA) coincident with a loss-of-offsite power (LOOP) occurs following a degraded voltage condition. The proposed change implements a new design for a reduced (short stage) time delay to isolate safety buses from offsite power if a LOCA were to occur coincident with a sustained degraded voltage condition. This ensures that emergency core cooling system pumps inject water into the reactor vessel within the time assumed and evaluated in the accident analysis, consistent with current NRC requirements and 10 CFR part 50, Appendix A, General Design Criterion 17, Electric Power Systems. The proposed changes do not adversely affect accident initiators or precursors. The diesel generator start, due to a LOCA signal, and loading sequence are not affected by this change. During an actual loss of voltage or degraded voltage condition, the loss of voltage and/or degraded voltage time delay will isolate the Class 1E 4.16 kV distribution system from offsite power before the diesel is ready to assume the emergency loads, which is the limiting time basis for mitigating system responses to the accident. For this reason, the existing LOCA with coincident LOOP analysis continues to be valid. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of [[Page 32804]] accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed change would revise the allowable values of the PVNGS ESFAS Class 1E 4.16 kV bus degraded voltage and loss of voltage relays. Specifically, the proposed change includes a two stage time delay for the degraded voltage relays and a fixed time delay for the loss of voltage relays with corresponding voltage settings. The proposed change does not introduce any changes or mechanisms that create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident. While the proposed change does install new relays, with new settings and time delays, the relays are not new to the industry and are not being operated in a unique or different manner. No new effects on existing equipment are created nor are any new malfunctions introduced. The accidents and events previously analyzed remain bounding. 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 change would revise the allowable values of the PVNGS ESFAS Class 1E 4.16 kV bus degraded voltage and loss of voltage relays. Specifically, the proposed change includes a two stage time delay for the degraded voltage relays and a fixed time delay for the loss of voltage relays with corresponding voltage settings. The proposed change implements a new design for a reduced time delay to isolate safety buses from offsite power if a LOCA were to occur coincident with a sustained degraded voltage condition. This ensures that emergency core cooling system pumps inject water into the reactor vessel within the time assumed and evaluated in the accident analysis, consistent with current NRC requirements and 10 CFR part 50, Appendix A, General Design Criterion 17, Electric Power Systems. The proposed TS change to the maximum and minimum allowable voltages for the Class 1E 4.16 kV buses will allow all safety loads to have sufficient voltage to perform their intended safety functions while ensuring spurious trips are avoided. Thus, the results of the accident analyses will not be affected as the input assumptions are protected. The diesel generator start, due to a LOCA signal, is not affected by this change. During an actual loss of voltage or degraded voltage condition, the loss of voltage and/or degraded voltage relay voltage settings and time delays will continue to isolate the Class 1E 4.16 kV distribution system from offsite power before the emergency diesel generator is ready to assume the emergency loads. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on that review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the request for amendments involves no significant hazards consideration. 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. Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. (DNC), Docket No. 50-336, Millstone Power Station, Unit No. 2 (MPS2), New London County, Connecticut Date of amendment request: January 25, 2016. A publicly available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16029A168. Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise MPS2 Technical Specification (TS) 3.5.2, ``Emergency Core Cooling Systems, ECCS Subsystems--T avg > 300 [deg]F,'' to remove the charging system and eliminate Surveillance Requirement 4.5.2.e from the TSs. The proposed amendment would also revise MPS2 Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) Chapter 14, Section 14.6.1, ``Inadvertent Opening of a Pressurized Water Reactor Pressurizer Pressure Relief Valve,'' to reflect the results of a new long-term analysis for the Inadvertent Opening of Pressurizer Pressure Relief Valve (IOPPRV) event that does not credit charging flow. The proposed amendment would also revise MPS2 FSAR, Section 14.0.11, to clarify the existing discussion regarding the application of single failure criteria. Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below, with NRC staff revisions provided in [brackets]: 1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The FSAR Chapter 14 accident analyses for MPS2 do not take credit for the flow delivered by the charging pumps. Additionally, the proposed change does not modify any plant equipment or method of operation for any [structures, systems, and components] SSC[s] required for safe operation of the facility or mitigation of accidents assumed in the facility safety analyses. Therefore, the proposed amendment will not significantly increase the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed amendment does not modify any plant equipment or method of operation for any SSC required for safe operation of the facility or mitigation of accidents assumed in the facility safety analyses. As such, no new failure modes are introduced by the proposed change. Consequently, the proposed amendment does not introduce any accident initiators or malfunctions that would cause a new or different kind of accident. 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 amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety since the proposed changes do not affect equipment design or operation, and no changes are being made to the TS-required safety limits or safety system settings. The proposed changes involve a new safety analysis for the long-term event response for FSAR Chapter 14.6.1, ``Inadvertent Opening of a Pressurized Water Reactor Pressurizer Pressure Relief Valve.'' The analysis demonstrates that flow from two [high pressure safety injection] HPSI pumps, with no credit for the charging pumps, is sufficient to prevent long-term core uncovery, and thus there is no challenge to the specified acceptable fuel design limits. By meeting the MPS2 FSAR Chapter 14 acceptance criteria for a moderate frequency event, there is no significant reduction in the margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Attorney for licensee: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar Street, RS-2, Richmond, VA 23219. NRC Branch Chief: Travis L. Tate. Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. (DNC), Docket No. 50-336, Millstone Power Station, Unit No. 2 (MPS2), New London County, Connecticut Date of amendment request: January 26, 2016. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16034A358. Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise Section 9.5 of the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) to allow fuel movement to start 100 hours after reactor subcriticality and proceed at an average rate of six assemblies per hour provided the Reactor Building Closed Cooling Water (RBCCW) temperature to the spent fuel pool cooling and shutdown cooling heat exchangers is maintained at less than or equal to 75 [deg]F. If 75 [deg]F cooling water is not achievable, fuel movement at an [[Page 32805]] average rate of six fuel assemblies per hour could be permitted at 150 hours after subcriticality and then only with RBCCW temperatures less than or equal to 85[deg]F. The proposed changes to FSAR Section 9.5 would also address some typographical errors. Technical Specification Bases Section 3/4.9.3 would also be revised to remove reference to the MPS2 spent fuel pool (SFP) heat load analysis. Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below, with NRC staff revisions provided in [brackets]: 1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed amendment affects some assumptions in the MPS2 FSAR related to the performance of the SFP cooling system and cooling of the fuel in the refueling pool. However, the existing design limits for the SFP remain unchanged. Reducing the decay time from 150 hours to 100 hours prior to allowing fuel movement at an increased average rate of six fuel assemblies per hour does not adversely affect SFP design or operation, provided proposed RBCCW temperature limits are satisfied. The proposed amendment does not change the design or function of the SFP cooling system and is consistent with that previously approved by the NRC under License Amendment 240. The proposed amendment does not affect the temperature limits of the SFP. The thermal-hydraulic analyses supporting the amendment show that the SFP temperature limits continue to be met with increased heat loads due to reduced time to fuel movement and a higher rate of fuel movement. SFP heat load is not an initiator of any accident discussed in Chapter 14 of the MPS2 FSAR. The proposed amendment does not affect the capability of plant structures, systems, or components (SCCs) to perform their design function and does not increase the probability of a malfunction of any SSC. The MPS2 FSAR Chapter 14 accident analyses, including the FHA [fuel handling accident] presented in FSAR Section 14.7.4, are not affected by the proposed amendment. The proposed amendment does not increase the probability of a FHA, change the assumptions in the FHA, or affect the conclusions of the current FHA analysis of record. The current FHA analysis of record assumes a minimum 100- hour decay time, which is consistent with the minimum allowable decay time assumed in the thermal-hydraulic analyses that support this amendment. The dose results of the FHA analysis are unchanged, and remain within applicable regulatory limits. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed amendment would revise the minimum allowed start time to begin fuel movement from 150 hours to 100 hours after reactor subcriticality and increase the maximum allowable rate of fuel assembly movement from an average of four assemblies per hour to an average of six assemblies per hour. The revised decay time limit and fuel offload rates do not create the possibility of a new type of accident because the methods for moving fuel and the operation of equipment used for moving fuel are not changed. The proposed amendment does not add or modify any plant equipment. The design and testing of systems designed to maintain the SFP temperature within established limits are not affected by the proposed change. The proposed amendment does not create any credible new failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident initiators not considered in the design and licensing basis. 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 FHA analysis of record already accounts for irradiated fuel with at least 100 hours of decay. This approved analysis has shown that the projected doses will remain within applicable regulatory limits. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not reduce the margin of safety of the currently approved FHA analysis of record. The SFP heat load analyses submitted demonstrate that the impact of reduced decay time on SFP decay heat load is offset by the reduced cooling water temperatures such that the maximum normally allowed pool temperature is not exceeded. The slight 1.6 [deg]F increase in SFP temperature for full core off-load as a normal event (for 100 hour hold time with 75 [deg]F RBCCW temperature) is not a significant change and remains below the maximum normally allowed SFP temperature of 150 [deg]F. The peak temperature of the SFP during a loss of cooling event is unaffected and the peak temperature of the fuel cladding, or along the fuel, remains within acceptable limits. 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: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar Street, RS-2, Richmond, VA 23219. NRC Branch Chief: Travis L. Tate. Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50-397, Columbia Generating Station, Benton County, Washington Date of amendment request: March 3, 2016. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16067A390. Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the Technical Specification Surveillance Requirements for heaters in the Standby Gas Treatment (SGT) and Control Room Emergency Filtration (CREF) 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. 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 Requiremen[t] to operate the SGT System and CREF System equipped with electric heaters for a continuous 10 hour period every 31 days with a requirement to operate the systems for 15 continuous minutes with heaters operating. These systems are not accident initiators and therefore, these changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability of an accident. The proposed system and filter testing changes are consistent with current regulatory guidance for these systems and will continue to assure that these systems perform their design function which may include mitigating accidents. Thus the change does not involve a significant increase in the consequences of an accident. Therefore, 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 replaces an existing Surveillance Requiremen[t] to operate the SGT System and CREF System equipped with electric heaters for a continuous 10 hour period every 31 days with a requirement to operate the systems for 15 continuous minutes with heaters operating. The change proposed for these ventilation systems does not change any system operations or maintenance activities. Testing [[Page 32806]] 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, 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 replaces an existing Surveillance Requiremen[t] to operate the SGT System and CREF System equipped with electric heaters for a continuous 10 hour period every 31 days with a requirement to operate the systems for 15 continuous minutes with heaters operating. 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. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Attorney for licensee: William A. Horin, Esq., Winston & Strawn, 1700 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20006-3817. NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli. Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-317 and 50-318, Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Calvert County, Maryland Date of amendment request: February 4, 2016. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16035A227. Description of amendments request: The amendments would revise the Calvert Cliffs technical specifications (TSs) to correct an administrative error in the License Amendment Request (LAR) submitted in accordance with Technical Specification Task Force Traveler 523, ``Generic Letter 2008-01, Managing Gas Accumulation.'' The proposed change would add Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.5.2.10 to the list of applicable Surveillances of SR 3.5.3.1. 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 LAR is purely an administrative change; therefore, the probability of any accident previously evaluated is not significantly increased. The systems and components required by the TS for which SR 3.5.2.10 is applicable, continue to be operable and capable of performing any mitigation function assumed in the accident analysis. As a result, the consequences of any accident previously evaluated are not significantly increased. 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 previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed LAR is purely an administrative change. The proposed change to add SR 3.5.2.10 to the list of applicable surveillances in SR 3.5.3.1 does not create a new or different kind of accident previously evaluated. The change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant operation. In addition, the change 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 LAR is purely an administrative change to add SR 3.5.2.10 to the list of applicable surveillances in SR 3.5.3.1. 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) will continue to be met as described in the plant licensing basis (including the Final Safety Analysis Report and Bases to TS). Similarly, there is no impact to safety analysis acceptance criteria as described in the plant licensing basis. 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 amendments 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 Branch Chief: Travis L. Tate. Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-317 and 50-318, Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Calvert County, Maryland Date of amendment request: February 25, 2016. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16060A223. Description of amendments request: The amendments would revise the Calvert Cliffs technical specifications (TSs) to permit the use of Risk-Informed Completion Times in accordance with TSTF-505, Revision 1, ``Provide Risk-Informed Extended Completion Times--RITSTF Initiative 4b.'' The availability of this TS improvement was announced in the Federal Register on March 15, 2012 (77 FR 15399). 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 changes permit the extension of Completion Times provided the associated risk is assessed and managed in accordance with the NRC approved Risk-Informed Completion Time Program. The proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability of an accident previously evaluated because the changes involve no change to the plant or its modes of operation. The proposed changes do not increase the consequences of an accident because the design-basis mitigation function of the affected systems is not changed and the consequences of an accident during the extended Completion Time are no different from those during the existing Completion Time. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed changes do not change the design, configuration, or method of operation of the plant. The proposed changes do not involve a physical alteration of the plant (no new or different kind of equipment will be installed). [[Page 32807]] Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The proposed changes permit the extension of Completion Times provided that risk is assessed and managed in accordance with the NRC approved Risk-Informed Completion Time Program. The proposed changes implement a risk-informed configuration management program to assure that adequate margins of safety are maintained. Application of these new specifications and the configuration management program considers cumulative effects of multiple systems or components being out of service and does so more effectively than the current TS. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendments 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 Branch Chief: Travis L. Tate. Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353, Limerick Generating Station (LGS), Units 1 and 2, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania Date of amendment request: March 29, 2016. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Package Accession No. ML16090A286. Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the Technical Specification (TS) requirements for snubbers. Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed changes will revise TS 4.7.4 to conform the TS to the revised Snubber Program. Snubber examination, testing, and service life monitoring will continue to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a(g). Snubber examination, testing, and service life monitoring are not initiators of any accident previously evaluated. Therefore, the probability of an accident previously evaluated is not significantly increased. Snubbers will continue to be demonstrated OPERABLE by performance of a program for examination, testing, and service life monitoring in compliance with 10 CFR 50.55a or authorized alternatives. The proposed changes do not adversely affect plant operations, design functions, or analyses that verify the capability of systems, structures, and components to perform their design functions. Therefore, the consequences of accidents previously evaluated are not significantly increased. Based on the above, these proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed changes do not involve any physical alteration of plant equipment. The proposed changes do not alter the method by which any safety-related system performs its function. As such, no new or different types of equipment will be installed, and the basic operation of installed equipment is unchanged. The methods governing plant operation and testing remain consistent with current safety analysis assumptions. Therefore, it is concluded that these proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The proposed changes ensure snubber examination, testing, and service life monitoring will continue to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a(g). Snubbers will continue to be demonstrated OPERABLE by performance of a program for examination, testing, and service life monitoring in compliance with 10 CFR 50.55a or authorized alternatives. Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555. NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus. Nebraska Public Power District (NPPD), Docket No. 50-298, Cooper Nuclear Station (CNS), Nemaha County, Nebraska Date of amendment request: March 22, 2016. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16110A425. Description of amendment request: The amendment would modify the CNS technical specifications (TSs) by relocating specific surveillance frequencies to a licensee-controlled program consistent with NRC- approved Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-425, Revision 3, ``Relocate Surveillance Frequencies to Licensee Control-- RITSTF [Risk-Informed Technical Specifications Task Force] Initiative 5b,'' dated March 18, 2009 (ADAMS Accession No. ML090850642). The availability of this TS improvement program was announced in the Federal Register on July 6, 2009 (74 FR 31996). The NPPD has proposed certain plant-specific variations and deviations from TSTF-425, Revision 3, as described in its application dated March 22, 2016. 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, with NRC staff revisions provided in [brackets], which is presented below: 1. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed change relocates the specified frequencies for periodic surveillance requirements to licensee control under a new SFCP [Surveillance Frequency Control Program]. Surveillance frequencies are not an initiator to any accident previously evaluated. As a result, the probability of any accident previously evaluated is not significantly increased. The systems and components required by the technical specifications for which the surveillance frequencies are relocated are still required to be operable, meet the acceptance criteria for the surveillance requirements, and be capable of performing any mitigation function assumed in the accident analysis. As a result, the consequences of any accident previously evaluated are not significantly increased. Therefore, the proposed change does 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 previously evaluated? Response: No. No new or different accidents result from utilizing the proposed change. The change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant operation. In addition, the change does not impose any new or different requirements. The change does not alter assumptions made [[Page 32808]] 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. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety? Response: No. The design, operation, testing methods, and acceptance criteria for structures, systems, components, specified in applicable codes and standards (or alternatives approved for use by the NRC) will continue to be met as described in the plant licensing basis (including the final safety analysis report and bases to TS), since these are not affected by changes to the surveillance frequencies. Similarly, there is no impact to safety analysis acceptance criteria as described in the plant licensing basis. To evaluate a change in the relocated surveillance frequency, NPPD will perform a probabilistic risk evaluation using the guidance contained in NRC approved NEI [Nuclear Energy Institute] 04-10, Revision 1, in accordance with the TS SFCP. NEI 04-10, Revision 1, methodology provides reasonable acceptance guidelines and methods for evaluating the risk increase of proposed changes to surveillance frequencies consistent with Regulatory Guide 1.177. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Attorney for licensee: Mr. John C. McClure, Nebraska Public Power District, Post Office Box 499, Columbus, NE 68602-0499. NRC Branch Chief: Meena K. Khanna. NextEra Energy Seabrook LLC, Docket No. 50-443, Seabrook Station, Unit No. 1, Rockingham County, New Hampshire Date of amendment request: February 27, 2016. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16068A130. Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the emergency plan for Seabrook Station, Unit No. 1 (Seabrook), to adopt the emergency action level scheme pursuant to Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 99-01, Revision 6, ``Development of Emergency Action Levels for Non-Passive Reactors.'' 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? The proposed changes to the Seabrook emergency action levels neither involve any physical changes to plant equipment or systems nor do they alter the assumptions of any accident analyses. The proposed changes do not adversely affect accident initiators or precursors, and they do not alter design assumptions, plant configuration, or the manner in which the plant is operated and maintained. The proposed change does not adversely affect the ability of structures, systems or components (SSCs) to perform their intended safety functions in mitigating the consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? No new accident scenarios, failure mechanisms, or limiting single failures are introduced as a result of the proposed changes. The changes do not challenge the integrity or performance of any safety-related systems. No plant equipment is installed or removed, and the changes do not alter the design, physical configuration, or method of operation of any plant SSC. No physical changes are made to the plant, and emergency action levels are not accident initiators[,] so no new causal mechanisms are introduced. Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Margin of safety is associated with the ability of the fission product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, reactor coolant system pressure boundary, and containment structure) to limit the level of radiation dose to the public. The proposed changes do not impact operation of the plant and no accident analyses are affected by the proposed changes. The changes do not affect the Technical Specifications or the method of operating the plant. Additionally, the proposed changes will not relax any criteria used to establish safety limits and will not relax any safety system settings. The safety analysis acceptance criteria are not affected by these changes. The proposed changes will not result in plant operation in a configuration outside the design basis. The proposed changes do not adversely affect systems that respond to safely shut down the plant and to maintain the plant in a safe shutdown condition. Therefore, the proposed change do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Attorney for licensee: William Blair, Managing Attorney--Nuclear, Florida Power & Light Company, P.O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, FL 33408- 0420. NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus. Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50- 364, Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Houston County, Alabama Date of amendment request: March 16, 2016. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16076A217. Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the technical specifications to allow the use of Optimized ZIRLOTM as an approved fuel rod cladding. 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 Optimized ZIRLOTM clad nuclear fuel in the reactors. The NRC approved topical report WCAP-12610-P-A & CENPD-404-P-A, Addendum 1-A ``Optimized ZIRLOTM,'' prepared by Westinghouse Electric Company LLC (Westinghouse), addresses Optimized ZIRLOTM and demonstrates that Optimized ZIRLOTM has essentially the same properties as currently licensed ZIRLOTM. The fuel cladding itself is not an accident initiator and does not affect accident probability. Use of Optimized ZIRLOTM fuel cladding has been shown to meet all 10 CFR 50.46 acceptance criteria and, therefore, will not increase 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 change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. Use of Optimized ZIRLOTM clad fuel will not result in changes in the operation or configuration of the facility. Topical Report WCAP-12610-P-A and CENPD-404-P-A demonstrated that the material properties of Optimized ZIRLOTM are similar to those of ZIRLO[supreg]. Therefore, Optimized ZIRLOTM fuel rod cladding will perform similarly to those fabricated from ZIRLO[supreg], thus precluding the [[Page 32809]] possibility of the fuel becoming an accident initiator and causing a new or different type of accident. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The proposed change will not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety because it has been demonstrated that the material properties of the Optimized ZIRLOTM are not significantly different from those of ZIRLO[supreg]. Optimized ZIRLOTM is expected to perform similarly to ZIRLO[supreg] for all normal operating and accident scenarios, including both loss of coolant accident (LOCA) and non-LOCA scenarios. For LOCA scenarios, plant-specific evaluations have been performed which allow the use of fuel assemblies with fuel rods containing Optimized ZIRLOTM. These LOCA evaluations address the NRC SER [safety evaluation report] conditions and limitations for Optimized ZIRLOTM fuel rod cladding and provide continued compliance with the acceptance criteria of 10 CFR 50.46. 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, 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; 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: March 14, 2016. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16074A185. Description of amendment request: The amendments would adopt the NRC-approved Technical Task Force Traveler TSTF-65-A, Revision 1, ``Use of Generic Titles for Utility Positions.'' The proposed change would allow use of generic personnel titles in lieu of plant-specific titles. Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. This change has no effect on structures, systems, and components (SSCs) of the plants. There are no changes to plant operations, or to any design function or analysis that verifies the capability of an SSC to perform a design function. There are no previously evaluated accidents affected by this change. The proposed changes are administrative in nature, and as such, do not affect indicators of analyzed events or assumed mitigation of accidents or transients. 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? This change has no effect on the design function or operation of SSCs, and will not affect the SSCs' operation or ability to perform their design functions. This change does not involve a physical alteration of the plants, add any new equipment, or allow any existing equipment to be operated in a manner different from the present method of operation. 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 changes involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? This change is administrative in nature and has no effect on plant design margins. There are no changes being made to safety limits or limiting safety system settings that would adversely affect plant safety as a result of the proposed change. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 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: March 16, 2016. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16076A217. Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the technical specifications to allow the use of Optimized ZIRLOTM as an approved fuel rod cladding. 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 Optimized ZIRLOTM clad nuclear fuel in the reactors. The NRC approved topical report WCAP-12610-P-A & CENPD-404-P-A, Addendum 1-A ``Optimized ZIRLOTM,'' prepared by Westinghouse Electric Company LLC (Westinghouse), addresses Optimized ZIRLOTM and demonstrates that Optimized ZIRLOTM has essentially the same properties as currently licensed ZIRLOTM. The fuel cladding itself is not an accident initiator and does not affect accident probability. Use of Optimized ZIRLOTM fuel cladding has been shown to meet all 10 CFR 50.46 acceptance criteria and, therefore, will not increase 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 change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. Use of Optimized ZIRLOTM clad fuel will not result in changes in the operation or configuration of the facility. Topical Report WCAP-12610-P-A & CENPD- 404-P-A demonstrated that the material properties of Optimized ZIRLOTM are similar to those of ZIRLO[supreg]. Therefore, Optimized ZIRLOTM fuel rod cladding will perform similarly to those fabricated from ZIRLO[supreg], thus precluding the possibility of the fuel becoming an accident initiator and causing a new or different type of accident. 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 will not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety because it has been demonstrated that the material properties of the Optimized [[Page 32810]] ZIRLOTM are not significantly different from those of ZIRLO[supreg]. Optimized ZIRLOTM is expected to perform similarly to ZIRLO[supreg] for all normal operating and accident scenarios, including both loss of coolant accident (LOCA) and non- LOCA scenarios. For LOCA scenarios, plant-specific evaluations have been performed which allow the use of fuel assemblies with fuel rods containing Optimized ZIRLOTM. These LOCA evaluations address the NRC SER [safety evaluation report] conditions and limitations for Optimized ZIRLOTM fuel rod cladding and provide continued compliance with the acceptance criteria of 10 CFR 50.46. 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. Susquehanna Nuclear, LLC, Docket No. 50-388, Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Unit 2, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania Date of amendment request: January 28, 2016, as supplemented by letter dated April 6, 2016. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16029A031 and Package Accession No. ML16097A486, respectively. Description of amendment request: The amendment would modify the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station (SSES), Unit 2, Technical Specification (TS) 3.7.1, ``Residual Heat Removal Service Water (RHRSW) System and the Ultimate Heat Sink (UHS),'' and TS 3.8.7, ``Distribution Systems--Operating,'' to increase the completion time for Conditions A and B of TS 3.7.1 and Condition C of TS 3.8.7 from 72 hours to 7 days, in order to accommodate 480 volt (V) engineered safeguard system (ESS) load center (LC) transformer replacements on SSES, Unit 2. The proposed change is temporary and will be annotated by a note in each TS that specifies the allowance expires on June 15, 2020. 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, along with NRC edits in square brackets: 1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The temporary changes to the completion times for TS 3.8.7, Condition C and TS 3.7.1, Conditions A and B are necessary to implement plant changes, which replace the Unit 1--480 V ESS LC Transformers 1X210 and 1X220 in order to mitigate the loss of the transformer due to failure. The temporary change to the completion time for TS 3.8.7, Condition C is also necessary to implement plant changes, which replace the Unit 1--480 V ESS LC Transformers 1X230 and 1X240 in order to mitigate the loss of the transformer due to failure. These replacements decrease the probability of a transformer failure. The current assumptions in the safety analysis regarding accident initiators and mitigation of accidents are unaffected by these changes. No SSC [structure, system, or component] failure modes or mechanisms are being introduced, and the likelihood of previously analyzed failures remains unchanged. The proposed change requests the Completion Time to restore a Unit 2 RHRSW subsystem be extended to 7 days in order to replace Unit 1 transformers 1X210 and 1X220. The extended Completion Times for TS 3.7.1 Conditions A and B are only applicable when transformers 1X210 or 1X220 are out of service with the intent of replacing the transformer. During the replacements, the affected Unit 2 RHRSW subsystem will remain functional while the other subsystem of Unit 2 RHRSW will remain Operable. Operator action required to restore full capability of cooling provided by the Ultimate Heat Sink will only consist of manually operating two (2) valves; the Large Spray Array and the UHS bypass. This action can easily be completed within several hours and would restore full cooling to the RHRSW system. Therefore, this 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 changes involve the increase of TS Completion Times to allow replacement of four (4) Unit 1--480 V ESS LC Transformers. New transformers will be installed but will not be operated in a new or different manner. There are no setpoints at which protective or mitigative actions are initiated [which are] affected by this change. These changes do not alter the manner in which equipment operation is initiated, nor will the function demands on credited equipment be changed. No alterations to procedures that ensure the plant remains within analyzed limits are being proposed, and no major changes are being made to procedures relied upon during off- normal events as described in the FSAR [final safety analysis report]. 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. Operational safety margin is established through equipment design, operating parameters, and the setpoints at which automatic actions are initiated. The proposed changes are acceptable because the Completion Time extensions allow replacement of the Unit 1--480 V ESS LC Transformers, equipment essential to safe plant operation, while ensuring safety related functions of affected equipment are maintained. With the RHRSW Spray Pond Return Bypass Valves on the out of service loop electrically de-powered in the open position, a return flow path will be established. Since the RHRSW Pumps on Unit 2 are not impacted by the transformers outages, the affected RHRSW Loop on Unit 2 will be capable of providing cooling. This configuration will continue to provide the margin of safety assumed by the safety analysis, although the affected RHRSW loop will be administratively declared Inoperable. 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: Damon D. Obie, Esquire, Associate General Counsel, Talen Energy Supply, LLC, 835 Hamilton St., Suite 150, Allentown, PA 18101. NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus. 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: December 8, 2015, as supplemented by letter dated March 11, 2016. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML15342A477 and ML16071A456, respectively. The letter dated March 11, 2016, supersedes the December 8, 2015, amendment request in its entirety. Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant (WBN), Units 1 and 2, Technical Specification (TS) 3.8.1, ``AC Sources--Operating,'' to extend the Completion Time (CT) for one inoperable Diesel Generator (DG) from 72 hours to 14 days, based on the availability of an alternate alternating current (AC) power source (specifically, [[Page 32811]] the FLEX DG added as part of the mitigating strategies for beyond- design-basis events in response to NRC Order EA-12-049). The amendments would also make clarifying changes to certain TS 3.8.1 conditions, required actions, and surveillance requirements. 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 affect the design of the DGs, the operational characteristics or function of the DGs, the interfaces between the DGs and other plant systems, or the reliability of the DGs. Required Actions and their associated CTs are not considered initiating conditions for any UFSAR [Updated Final Safety Analysis Report] accident previously evaluated, nor are the DGs considered initiators of any previously evaluated accidents. The DGs are provided to mitigate the consequences of previously evaluated accidents, including a loss of off-site power. The consequences of previously evaluated accidents will not be significantly affected by the extended DG CT, because a sufficient number of onsite Alternating Current power sources will continue to remain available to perform the accident mitigation functions associated with the DGs, as assumed in the accident analyses. In addition, as a risk mitigation and defense-in-depth action, an independent AC power source, an available FLEX DG, will be available to support the ESF [engineered safety feature] bus with the inoperable DG during a SBO [station blackout]. Therefore, 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? Response: No. The proposed change does not involve a change in the permanent design, configuration, or method of operation of the plant. The proposed changes will not alter the manner in which equipment operation is initiated, nor will the functional demands on credited equipment be changed. The proposed changes allow operation of the unit to continue while a DG is repaired and retested with the FLEX DG in standby to mitigate a SBO event. The proposed extensions do not affect the interaction of a DG with any system whose failure or malfunction can initiate an accident. As such, no new failure modes are being introduced. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The proposed changes do not alter the permanent plant design, including instrument set points, nor does it change the assumptions contained in the safety analyses. The FLEX DG alternate AC system is designed with sufficient redundancy such that a DG may be removed from service for maintenance or testing. The remaining DGs are capable of carrying sufficient electrical loads to satisfy the UFSAR requirements for accident mitigation or unit safe shutdown. The proposed changes do not affect the redundancy or availability requirements of offsite power supplies or change the ability of the plant to cope with station blackout events. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Attorney for licensee: Sherry A. Quirk, Executive Vice President and General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West Summit Hill Dr., 6A West Tower, Knoxville, TN 37902. NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin G. Beasley. 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. 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: June 23, 2014, as supplemented by letters dated August 26, 2014; December 15, 2014; January 22, 2015; April 23, 2015; and November 16, 2015. Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and technical specifications (TSs) to implement a measurement uncertainty recapture (MUR) power uprate at Catawba Nuclear Station Unit 1 (Catawba 1) that increases the rated thermal power (RTP) from 3411 megawatts thermal (MWt) to 3469 MWt. This is an increase of approximately 1.7 percent RTP. This increase is based on the use of Cameron (a.k.a. Caldon) instrumentation to determine core power level with a power measurement uncertainty of approximately 0.3 percent. As noted in the licensee's application, although the MUR uprate was for Catawba 1, the amendment request was submitted for both units. This is because the TSs are common to both units. Date of issuance: April 29, 2016. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 90 days of issuance. Amendment Nos.: 281 (Unit 1) and 277 (Unit 2). A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16081A333; 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 and TSs. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 4, 2014 (79 FR 65429). The supplemental letters dated August 26, 2014; December 15, 2014; [[Page 32812]] January 22, 2015; April 23, 2015; and November 16, 2015, 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 April 29, 2016. 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; Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370 McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina; Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287, Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, Oconee County, South Carolina Date of amendment request: April 16, 2015. Brief description of amendments: The amendments modified the technical specification (TS) requirements regarding steam generator tube inspections and reporting as described in Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF)-510, Revision 2, ``Revision to Steam Generator Program Inspection Frequencies and Tube Sample Selection.'' Date of issuance: April 26, 2016. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 120 days of issuance. Amendment Nos.: 280, 276, 284, 263, 396, 398, and 397. A publicly- available version is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16075A301. Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-35, NPF-52, NPF-9, NPF- 17, DPR-38, DPR-47, and DPR-55: Amendments revised the licenses and TSs. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 23, 2015 (80 FR 35981). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated April 26, 2016. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287, Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, Oconee County, South Carolina Date of amendment request: May 19, 2015, as supplemented by letters dated August 20, 2015, and February 26, 2016. Brief description of amendments: The amendments add a Reactor Protective System Nuclear Overpower--High Setpoint trip for three (3) reactor coolant pump operation to Technical Specification Table 3.3.1- 1, ``Reactor Protective System Instrumentation.'' The existing overpower protection for three (3) reactor coolant pump operation is the Nuclear Overpower Flux/Flow/Imbalance trip function. The new setpoint provides an absolute setpoint that can be actuated regardless of the transient or Reactor Coolant System flow conditions and provides a significant margin gain for the small steam line break accident. Date of issuance: April 29, 2016. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 90 days. Amendment Nos.: 397 for Unit 1, 399 for Unit 2, and 398 for Unit 3. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16088A330; documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments. Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-38, DPR-47, and DPR-55: The amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and the TSs. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 27, 2015 (80 FR 65810). The supplemental letter dated February 26, 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 April 29, 2016. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Duke Energy Progress, Inc., Docket No. 50-261, H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant Unit No. 2, Hartsville, South Carolina Date of amendment request: May 13, 2015, as supplemented by letter dated November 19, 2015. Brief description of amendment: The amendment adopted the NRC- endorsed Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 99-01, Revision 6, ``Development of Emergency Action Levels for Non-Passive Reactors.'' Date of issuance: April 28, 2016. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 180 days of issuance. Amendment No.: 245. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16061A472; documents related to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment. Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-23: The amendment revised the emergency action level technical bases document. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 4, 2015 (80 FR 46348). The supplemental letter dated November 19, 2015, 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 April 28, 2016. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Duke Energy Progress, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-325 and 50-324; Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Brunswick County, North Carolina; Docket No. 50-400; Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, Wake County, North Carolina; Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414, Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York County, South Carolina; Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370, McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina; and Docket Nos. 50- 269, 50-270, and 50-287, Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, Oconee County, South Carolina Date of amendment request: June 24, 2015, as supplemented by letter dated January 18, 2016. Brief description of amendments: The amendments revise or add Surveillance Requirements to verify that the system locations susceptible to gas accumulation are sufficiently filled with water and to provide allowances which permit performance of the verification. The changes are being made to address the concerns discussed in NRC Generic Letter 2008-01, ``Managing Gas Accumulation in Emergency Core Cooling, Decay Heat Removal, and Containment Spray Systems'' (ADAMS Accession No. ML072910759). The amendments reference TSTF-523, Revision 2, ``Generic Letter 2008-01, Managing Gas Accumulation'' (79 FR 2700). Date of issuance: April 29, 2016. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 1 year. Amendment Nos.: 270 and 298, for the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2; 150, for the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1; 282 and 278, for the Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2; 285 and 264, for [[Page 32813]] the McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2; and 398, 400, and 399, for the Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16085A113; documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments. Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-71, DPR-62, for the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2; NPF-63, for the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1; NPF-35 and NPF-52, for the Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2; NPF-9 and NPF-17, for the McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2; and DPR-38, DPR-47, DPR-55, for the Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3: The amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and the TSs. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 14, 2015 (80 FR 48923). This Federal Register notice was corrected on August 20, 2015 (80 FR 50663). The supplemental letter dated January 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 determinations as published in the Federal Register. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated April 29, 2016. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-255, Palisades Nuclear Plant, Van Buren County, Michigan Date of amendment request: June 11, 2015. Brief description of amendment: This amendment revises the date of the Cyber Security Plan (CSP) Implementation Milestone 8 and the associated existing facility operating license condition regarding full implementation of the CSP. The CSP and associated implementation schedule was previously approved by the NRC staff by letter dated December 8, 2014 (ADAMS Accession No. ML14237A144). Date of issuance: May 2, 2016. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 30 days. Amendment No.: 259. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16078A068; documents related to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment. Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-20: Amendment revised the Renewed Facility Operating License. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 4, 2015 (80 FR 46349). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 2, 2016. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Exelon Generation Company, LLC and PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-277 and 50-278, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3, York and Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania Date of amendment request: December 15, 2015, as supplemented by letter dated March 15, 2016. Brief description of amendments: The amendments reduced the reactor steam dome pressure stated in the technical specifications (TSs) for the reactor core safety limits. The change addresses a 10 CFR part 21 issue concerning the potential to violate the safety limits during a pressure regulator failure maximum demand (open) transient. Date of issuance: April 27, 2016. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days of issuance. Amendments Nos.: 306 and 310. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16064A150; documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments. Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-44 and DPR-56: The amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 5, 2016 (81 FR 263). The supplemental letter dated March 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 amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated April 27, 2016. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Exelon Generation Company, LLC and PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-277 and 50-278, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3, York and Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania Date of amendment request: December 23, 2015. Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical Specification (TS) Limiting Condition for Operation 3.10.1, ``Inservice Leak and Hydrostatic Testing Operation,'' to allow more efficient testing during a refueling outage. The change is based on NRC-approved Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Improved Standard Technical Specifications Change Traveler, TSTF-484, Revision 0, ``Use of TS 3.10.1 for Scram Time Testing Activities.'' Date of issuance: May 9, 2016. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days of issuance. Amendments Nos.: 307 and 311. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16084A968; documents related to these amendments are listed in the safety evaluation enclosed with the amendments. Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-44 and DPR-56: The amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 1, 2016 (81 FR 10680). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 9, 2016. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-237 and 50-249, Dresden Nuclear Power Station (DNPS), Units 2 and 3, Grundy County, Illinois Date of application for amendment: December 30, 2014, as supplemented by letters dated May 8, 2015, July 30, 2015, October 15, 2015, and February 8, 2016. Brief description of amendment: The amendments allow revision to DNPS technical specifications (TSs) in support of a new nuclear criticality safety analysis methodology, use of a new fuel assembly design to store AREVA ATRIUM 10XM fuel in the DNPS spent fuel pools (SFPs), and addition of a new TS 4.3.1.1c criticality parameter related to the maximum in-rack infinite k-effective (kinf ) limit for fuel assemblies allowed to be stored in the SFP racks. Additionally, the DNPS licenses will be amended to ensure that any loss or reduction of SFP neutron-absorbing capacity will be promptly detected, and that the licensee will perform confirmatory testing to ensure that the minimum B-10 areal density continues to be met for the BORAL panels installed in the SFPs at DNPS. Date of issuance: April 29, 2016. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 30 days from the date of issuance. Amendment Nos.: 249 and 242. A publicly-available version is under ADAMS Accession No. ML15343A126; [[Page 32814]] documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments. Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-19 and DPR-25: The amendments revise the DNPS Technical Specifications and Licenses. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 5, 2015 (80 FR 68573). The supplements dated October 15, 2015, and February 8, 2016, contained clarifying information and did not change the NRC staff's initial proposed finding of no significant hazards consideration. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated April 29, 2016. No significant hazards consideration comments received: None. FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket No. 50-346, Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 1, Ottawa County, Ohio Date of application for amendment: April 1, 2015, as supplemented by letters dated October 14, 2015, and February 19, 2016. Brief description of amendment: This amendment revises certain technical specification minimum voltage and frequency acceptance criteria for emergency diesel generator testing. Date of issuance: April 27, 2016. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented by June 15, 2016. Amendment No.: 291. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16083A481. Documents related to this amendment are listed in the safely evaluation enclosed with the amendment. Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-3: Amendment revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications. Date of notice in Federal Register: July 7, 2015 (80 FR 38759). The supplemental letters dated October 14, 2015, and February 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 amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated April 27, 2016. 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 amendment request: April 16, 2015, as supplemented by letters dated December 7, 2015, and March 29, 2016. Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the technical specifications (TSs) related to the boric acid tank to reflect a correction to a calculation. Date of issuance: April 26, 2016. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days of issuance. Amendment Nos: 270 (Unit No. 3) and 265 (Unit No. 4). A publicly- available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16004A019; 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: September 1, 2015 (80 FR 52806). The supplements dated December 7, 2015, and March 29, 2016, provided additional information that clarified the application and did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated April 26, 2016. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Docket No. 50-133, Humboldt Bay Power Plant, Unit 3, Humboldt County, California Date of application for amendment: May 3, 2013, as supplemented February 14, 2014, April 2, 2014, May 13, 2014, August 13, 2014, and March 16, 2015. Brief description of amendment: The amendment adds License Condition 2.C.(5) to the Humboldt Bay license. This new license condition incorporates the NRC approved ``License Termination Plan'' (LTP), and associated addendum, into the Humboldt Bay license and specifies limits on the changes the licensee is allowed to make to the approved LTP without prior NRC review and approval. Date of issuance: May 4, 2016. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days. Amendment No.: 45. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15090A339; documents related to these amendments are listed in the safety evaluation enclosed with the amendments. Facility Operating License No. DPR-7: This amendment revises the License. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 3, 2013, (78 FR 54285). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 4, 2016. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. PSEG Nuclear LLC and Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-272 and 50-311, Salem Nuclear Generating Station (Salem), Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Salem County, New Jersey Date of amendment request: April 3, 2015, as supplemented by letters dated June 2, 2015; November 27, 2015; February 3, 2016; February 10, 2016; and March 4, 2016. Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical Specification (TS) 3/4.3.1, ``Reactor Trip System Instrumentation,'' to support planned plant modifications to replace the existing source range and intermediate range nuclear instrumentation with equivalent neutron monitoring systems to increase system reliability. Date of issuance: April 28, 2016. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented at Salem, Unit No. 1, during the fall 2017 refueling outage (1R25), and at Salem, Unit No. 2, during the spring 2017 refueling outage (2R22). Amendment Nos.: 313 (Unit No. 1) and 294 (Unit No. 2). A publicly- available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16096A419; documents related to these amendments are listed in the safety evaluation enclosed with the amendments. Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-70 and DPR-75: Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 4, 2015 (80 FR 46350). The supplemental letters dated November 27, 2015; February 3, 2016; February 10, 2016; and March 4, 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 April 28, 2016. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. [[Page 32815]] South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, South Carolina Public Service Authority, Docket No. 50-395, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1, Fairfield County, South Carolina Date of amendment request: September 29, 2015. Brief description of amendment: The amendment adopts the NRC- approved Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Improved Standard Technical Specifications Change Traveler TSTF-523, Revision 2, ``Generic Letter 2008-01, Managing Gas Accumulation.'' Date of issuance: May 6, 2016. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 90 days of issuance. Amendment No.: 204. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16104A295; documents related to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment. Facility Operating License No. NPF-12: Amendment revised the Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 24, 2015 (80 FR 73241). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 6, 2016. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. STP Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 50-498 and 50-499, South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, Matagorda County, Texas Date of amendment request: April 29, 2015, as supplemented by letters dated June 29, October 8, and November 11, 2015, and March 17, 2016. Brief description of amendment: The amendments revised Technical Specification 6.8.3.j, ``Containment Leakage Rate Testing Program,'' to allow a permanent extension of the Type A primary containment integrated leak rate testing frequency from once every 10 years to once every 15 years. Date of issuance: April 29, 2016. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 90 days of issuance. Amendment Nos.: Unit 1--210; Unit 2--197. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16116A007; documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments. Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-76 and NPF-80: The amendments revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 14, 2015 (80 FR 48942). The notice was corrected on August 20, 2015 (80 FR 50663). The supplemental letters dated October 8 and November 11, 2015, and March 17, 2016, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the Federal Register. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated April 29, 2016. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 50-259, Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Unit 1, Limestone County, Alabama Date of amendment request: September 25, 2015, as supplemented by letters dated December 28, 2015, and March 28, 2016. Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the technical specification (TS) Safety Limit Minimum Critical Power Ratio (SLMCPR) numeric values. The change decreased the numeric values of SLMCPR in TS Section 2.1.1.2 for single and two reactor recirculation loop operation based on the Cycle 12 SLMCPR evaluation. Date of issuance: April 26, 2016. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented during the Unit 1 refueling outage in the fall of 2016. Amendment No.: 295. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16028A414, documents related to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment. Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-33: Amendment revised the Facility Operating License and TS. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 5, 2016 (81 FR 276). The supplemental letters dated December 28, 2015, and March 28, 2016, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the Federal Register. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in an SE dated April 26, 2016. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 13th day of May 2016. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Anne T. Boland, Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. 2016-11976 Filed 5-23-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
![32800 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 24, 2016 / Notices
request for exemption from using E-Filing, Docket No. 50–416 Killona, LA 70057–0751
may require a participant or party to use E- License No. NPF–29 [FR Doc. 2016–12193 Filed 5–23–16; 8:45 am]
Filing if the presiding officer subsequently Mr. Kevin Mulligan, Site Vice President BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
determines that the reason for granting the Entergy Operations, Inc.
exemption from use of E-Filing no longer Grand Gulf Nuclear Station
exists. P.O. Box 756
Documents submitted in adjudicatory NUCLEAR REGULATORY
Port Gibson, MS 39150
proceedings will appear in the NRC’s COMMISSION
electronic hearing docket, which is available Indian Point Nuclear Generating, Units 2 and
3 [NRC–2016–0100]
to the public at http://ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/,
unless excluded pursuant to an order of the Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
Commission or the presiding officer. Docket Nos. 50–247 and 50–286 Applications and Amendments to
Participants are requested not to include License Nos. DPR–26 and DPR–64 Facility Operating Licenses and
personal privacy information, such as social Mr. Larry Coyle, Site Vice President Combined Licenses Involving No
security numbers, home addresses, or home Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. Significant Hazards Considerations
phone numbers in their filings, unless an Indian Point Energy Center
NRC regulation or other law requires 450 Broadway, GSB
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory
submission of such information. However, in Buchanan, NY 10511–0249 Commission.
some instances, a request to intervene will ACTION: Biweekly notice.
James A FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant
require including information on local
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
residence in order to demonstrate a SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 189a. (2)
Docket No. 50–333
proximity assertion of interest in the of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
License No. DPR–59
proceeding. With respect to copyrighted amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear
works, participants are requested not to Mr. Brian Sullivan, Site Vice President
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. Regulatory Commission (NRC) is
include copyrighted materials in their
submission, except for limited excerpts that James A FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant publishing this regular biweekly notice.
serve the purpose of the adjudicatory filings P.O. Box 110 The Act requires the Commission to
and would constitute a Fair Use application. Lycoming, NY 13093 publish notice of any amendments
If a person other than the Licensee requests Palisades Nuclear Plant issued, or proposed to be issued, and
a hearing, that person shall set forth with Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. grants the Commission the authority to
particularity the manner in which his interest Docket No. 50–255 issue and make immediately effective
is adversely affected by this Confirmatory License No. DPR–20 any amendment to an operating license
Order and shall address the criteria set forth Mr. Anthony Vitale, Vice President, or combined license, as applicable,
in 10 CFR 2.309(d) and (f).
Operations upon a determination by the
If a hearing is requested by a person whose
interest is adversely affected, the
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. Commission that such amendment
Palisades Nuclear Plant involves no significant hazards
Commission will issue a separate Order
27780 Blue Star Memorial Highway consideration, notwithstanding the
designating the time and place of any
Covert, Ml 49043 pendency before the Commission of a
hearings, as appropriate. If a hearing is held,
the issue to be considered at such hearing Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station request for a hearing from any person.
shall be whether this Confirmatory Order Entergy Nuclear Generation Company This biweekly notice includes all
should be sustained. Docket No. 50–293 notices of amendments issued, or
In the absence of any request for hearing, License No. DPR–35
proposed to be issued from April 26,
or written approval of an extension of time Mr. John Dent, Site Vice President 2016, to May 9, 2016. The last biweekly
in which to request a hearing, the provisions Entergy Nuclear Operations Inc.
specified in Section V above shall be final 30 notice was published on May 10, 2016
Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station
days after issuance of the Confirmatory Order (81 FR 28891).
600 Rocky Hill Road
without further order or proceedings. If an Plymouth, MA 02360–5508 DATES: Comments must be filed by June
extension of time for requesting a hearing has River Bend Station 23, 2016. A request for a hearing must
been approved, the provisions specified in be filed by July 25, 2016.
Entergy Operations, Inc.
Section V shall be final when the extension
Docket No. 50–458 ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
expires if a hearing request has not been
License No. NPF–47 by any of the following methods (unless
received.
Dated at Lisle, Illinois this 16 day of May, Mr. Eric W. Olson, Site Vice President this document describes a different
2016. Entergy Operations, Inc. method for submitting comments on a
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. River Bend Station specific subject):
Cynthia D. Pederson,
5485 US Highway 61 N • Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to
St. Francisville, LA 70775 http://www.regulations.gov and search
Regional Administrator. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station for Docket ID NRC–2016–0100. Address
ALL POWER REACTOR LICENSEES Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. questions about NRC dockets to Carol
OWNED AND OPERATED BY ENTERGY Docket No. 50–271 Gallagher; telephone: 301–415–3463;
NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC.; ENTERGY License No. DPR–28
email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For
OPERATIONS, INC.; AND ENTERGY Mr. Christopher Wamser, Site Vice President
NUCLEAR GENERATION COMPANY technical questions, contact the
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
Arkansas Nuclear One. Units 1 and 2 Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
Entergy Operations, Inc. P. O. Box 250
Docket Nos. 50–313, 50–368 Vernon, VT 05354 document.
• Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey,
sradovich on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
License Nos. DRP–51; NPF–6 Waterford Steam Electric Station. Unit 3
Mr. Jeremy Browning, Site Vice President Entergy Operations, Inc. Office of Administration, Mail Stop:
Arkansas Nuclear One Entergy Operations, Docket No. 50–382 OWFN–12–H08, U.S. Nuclear
Inc. License No. NPF–38 Regulatory Commission, Washington,
1448 SR 333 Mr. Michael R. Chisum, Site Vice President DC 20555–0001.
Russellville, AR 72802–0967 Entergy Operations, Inc. For additional direction on obtaining
Grand Gulf Nuclear Station Waterford Steam Electric Station information and submitting comments,
Entergy Operations, Inc. 17265 River Road see ‘‘Obtaining Information and
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:24 May 23, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24MYN1.SGM 24MYN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_32900/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 24, 2016 / Notices 32803
available on the NRC’s public Web site delivery service upon depositing the loss of voltage relays to ensure proper
at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e- document with the provider of the equipment performance.
submittals.html. A filing is considered service. A presiding officer, having Basis for proposed no significant
complete at the time the documents are granted an exemption request from hazards consideration determination:
submitted through the NRC’s E-Filing using E-Filing, may require a participant As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
system. To be timely, an electronic or party to use E-Filing if the presiding licensee has provided its analysis of the
filing must be submitted to the E-Filing officer subsequently determines that the issue of no significant hazards
system no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern reason for granting the exemption from consideration, which is presented
Time on the due date. Upon receipt of use of E-Filing no longer exists. below:
a transmission, the E-Filing system Documents submitted in adjudicatory 1. Does the proposed amendment involve
time-stamps the document and sends proceedings will appear in the NRC’s a significant increase in the probability or
the submitter an email notice electronic hearing docket which is consequences of an accident previously
confirming receipt of the document. The available to the public at http:// evaluated?
E-Filing system also distributes an email ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded Response: No.
notice that provides access to the pursuant to an order of the Commission, The proposed change would revise the
document to the NRC’s Office of the or the presiding officer. Participants are allowable values of the Palo Verde Nuclear
requested not to include personal Generating Station (PVNGS) Engineered
General Counsel and any others who
Safety Features Actuation System (ESFAS)
have advised the Office of the Secretary privacy information, such as social
Class 1E 4.16 [kiloVolt (kV)] bus degraded
that they wish to participate in the security numbers, home addresses, or voltage and loss of voltage relays.
proceeding, so that the filer need not home phone numbers in their filings, Specifically, the proposed change includes a
serve the documents on those unless an NRC regulation or other law two stage time delay for the degraded voltage
participants separately. Therefore, requires submission of such relays and a fixed time delay for the loss of
applicants and other participants (or information. However, in some voltage relays with corresponding voltage
their counsel or representative) must instances, a request to intervene will settings. The proposed change is supported
apply for and receive a digital ID require including information on local by design calculations and analyses to ensure
residence in order to demonstrate a that the Class 1E buses will be isolated from
certificate before a hearing request/
the normal off-site power source at the
petition to intervene is filed so that they proximity assertion of interest in the appropriate voltage level and time delay
can obtain access to the document via proceeding. With respect to copyrighted under either accident or non-accident
the E-Filing system. works, except for limited excerpts that sustained degraded voltage conditions. The
A person filing electronically using serve the purpose of the adjudicatory normally operating safety-related motors will
the NRC’s adjudicatory E-Filing system filings and would constitute a Fair Use continue to operate without sustaining
may seek assistance by contacting the application, participants are requested damage or tripping during the worst-case,
NRC Meta System Help Desk through not to include copyrighted materials in accident (i.e., safety injection actuation
the ‘‘Contact Us’’ link located on the their submission. signal, SIAS) or non-accident degraded
NRC’s public Web site at http:// For further details with respect to voltage condition for the maximum possible
these license amendment applications, time-delay. Thus, the safety-related loads
www.nrc.gov/site-help/e- will be available to perform their safety
submittals.html, by email to see the application for amendment function if a loss-of coolant accident (LOCA)
MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a toll- which is available for public inspection coincident with a loss-of-offsite power
free call at 1–866–672–7640. The NRC in ADAMS and at the NRC’s PDR. For (LOOP) occurs following a degraded voltage
Meta System Help Desk is available additional direction on accessing condition.
between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern information related to this document, The proposed change implements a new
Time, Monday through Friday, see the ‘‘Obtaining Information and design for a reduced (short stage) time delay
excluding government holidays. Submitting Comments’’ section of this to isolate safety buses from offsite power if
Participants who believe that they document. a LOCA were to occur coincident with a
sustained degraded voltage condition. This
have a good cause for not submitting
Arizona Public Service Company, et al., ensures that emergency core cooling system
documents electronically must file an pumps inject water into the reactor vessel
exemption request, in accordance with Docket Nos. STN 50–528, STN 50–529,
and STN 50–530, Palo Verde Nuclear within the time assumed and evaluated in
10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper the accident analysis, consistent with current
filing requesting authorization to Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3
NRC requirements and 10 CFR part 50,
continue to submit documents in paper (PVNGS), Maricopa County, Arizona Appendix A, General Design Criterion 17,
format. Such filings must be submitted Date of amendment request: April 1, Electric Power Systems.
by: (1) First class mail addressed to the 2016. A publicly-available version is in The proposed changes do not adversely
Office of the Secretary of the ADAMS under Accession No. affect accident initiators or precursors. The
ML16096A337. diesel generator start, due to a LOCA signal,
Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Description of amendment request: and loading sequence are not affected by this
Commission, Washington, DC 20555– change. During an actual loss of voltage or
0001, Attention: Rulemaking and The amendments would revise the degraded voltage condition, the loss of
Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, technical specifications (TSs) for voltage and/or degraded voltage time delay
express mail, or expedited delivery PVNGS, by modifying the requirements will isolate the Class 1E 4.16 kV distribution
service to the Office of the Secretary, regarding the degraded and loss of system from offsite power before the diesel
Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, voltage relays that are planned to be is ready to assume the emergency loads,
11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, modified to be more aligned with which is the limiting time basis for mitigating
Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking designs generally implemented in the system responses to the accident. For this
sradovich on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
and Adjudications Staff. Participants industry. Specifically, the licensing reason, the existing LOCA with coincident
LOOP analysis continues to be valid.
filing a document in this manner are basis for degraded voltage protection
Therefore, the proposed amendment does
responsible for serving the document on will be changed from reliance on a TS not involve a significant increase in the
all other participants. Filing is initial condition that ensures adequate probability or consequences of an accident
considered complete by first-class mail post-trip voltage support of accident previously evaluated.
as of the time of deposit in the mail, or mitigation equipment to crediting 2. Does the proposed amendment create
by courier, express mail, or expedited automatic actuation of the degraded and the possibility of a new or different kind of
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:24 May 23, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24MYN1.SGM 24MYN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_32900/page/4.svg)
![32804 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 24, 2016 / Notices
accident from any accident previously for amendments involves no significant The proposed amendment does not modify
evaluated? hazards consideration. any plant equipment or method of operation
Response: No. Attorney for licensee: Michael G. for any SSC required for safe operation of the
The proposed change would revise the Green, Senior Regulatory Counsel, facility or mitigation of accidents assumed in
allowable values of the PVNGS ESFAS Class the facility safety analyses. As such, no new
1E 4.16 kV bus degraded voltage and loss of
Pinnacle West Capital Corporation, P.O.
failure modes are introduced by the proposed
voltage relays. Specifically, the proposed Box 52034, Mail Station 8695, Phoenix, change. Consequently, the proposed
change includes a two stage time delay for AZ 85072–2034. amendment does not introduce any accident
the degraded voltage relays and a fixed time NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. initiators or malfunctions that would cause a
delay for the loss of voltage relays with Pascarelli. new or different kind of accident.
corresponding voltage settings. Therefore, the proposed amendment does
The proposed change does not introduce Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc.
not create the possibility of a new or different
any changes or mechanisms that create the (DNC), Docket No. 50–336, Millstone kind of accident from any accident
possibility of a new or different kind of Power Station, Unit No. 2 (MPS2), New previously evaluated.
accident. While the proposed change does London County, Connecticut 3. Does the proposed amendment involve
install new relays, with new settings and Date of amendment request: January a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
time delays, the relays are not new to the Response: No.
industry and are not being operated in a 25, 2016. A publicly available version is
The proposed amendment does not involve
unique or different manner. No new effects in ADAMS under Accession No.
a significant reduction in a margin of safety
on existing equipment are created nor are any ML16029A168. since the proposed changes do not affect
new malfunctions introduced. Description of amendment request: equipment design or operation, and no
The accidents and events previously The amendment would revise MPS2 changes are being made to the TS-required
analyzed remain bounding. Therefore, the Technical Specification (TS) 3.5.2, safety limits or safety system settings. The
proposed amendment does not create the ‘‘Emergency Core Cooling Systems, proposed changes involve a new safety
possibility of a new or different kind of ECCS Subsystems—Tavg > 300 °F,’’ to analysis for the long-term event response for
accident from any accident previously remove the charging system and FSAR Chapter 14.6.1, ‘‘Inadvertent Opening
evaluated. of a Pressurized Water Reactor Pressurizer
3. Does the proposed amendment involve
eliminate Surveillance Requirement
4.5.2.e from the TSs. The proposed Pressure Relief Valve.’’ The analysis
a significant reduction in a margin of safety? demonstrates that flow from two [high
Response: No. amendment would also revise MPS2 pressure safety injection] HPSI pumps, with
The proposed change would revise the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) no credit for the charging pumps, is sufficient
allowable values of the PVNGS ESFAS Class Chapter 14, Section 14.6.1, ‘‘Inadvertent to prevent long-term core uncovery, and thus
1E 4.16 kV bus degraded voltage and loss of Opening of a Pressurized Water Reactor there is no challenge to the specified
voltage relays. Specifically, the proposed Pressurizer Pressure Relief Valve,’’ to acceptable fuel design limits. By meeting the
change includes a two stage time delay for reflect the results of a new long-term MPS2 FSAR Chapter 14 acceptance criteria
the degraded voltage relays and a fixed time analysis for the Inadvertent Opening of for a moderate frequency event, there is no
delay for the loss of voltage relays with significant reduction in the margin of safety.
corresponding voltage settings. The proposed
Pressurizer Pressure Relief Valve
change implements a new design for a (IOPPRV) event that does not credit The NRC staff has reviewed the
reduced time delay to isolate safety buses charging flow. The proposed licensee’s analysis and, based on this
from offsite power if a LOCA were to occur amendment would also revise MPS2 review, it appears that the three
coincident with a sustained degraded voltage FSAR, Section 14.0.11, to clarify the standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
condition. This ensures that emergency core existing discussion regarding the satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
cooling system pumps inject water into the application of single failure criteria. proposes to determine that the
reactor vessel within the time assumed and Basis for proposed no significant amendment request involves no
evaluated in the accident analysis, consistent hazards consideration determination: significant hazards consideration.
with current NRC requirements and 10 CFR
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the Attorney for licensee: Lillian M.
part 50, Appendix A, General Design
Criterion 17, Electric Power Systems. The licensee has provided its analysis of the Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion
proposed TS change to the maximum and issue of no significant hazards Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar
minimum allowable voltages for the Class 1E consideration, which is presented Street, RS–2, Richmond, VA 23219.
4.16 kV buses will allow all safety loads to below, with NRC staff revisions NRC Branch Chief: Travis L. Tate.
have sufficient voltage to perform their provided in [brackets]:
intended safety functions while ensuring
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve (DNC), Docket No. 50–336, Millstone
spurious trips are avoided. Thus, the results a significant increase in the probability or
of the accident analyses will not be affected Power Station, Unit No. 2 (MPS2), New
consequences of an accident previously
as the input assumptions are protected. evaluated?
London County, Connecticut
The diesel generator start, due to a LOCA Response: No. Date of amendment request: January
signal, is not affected by this change. During The FSAR Chapter 14 accident analyses for 26, 2016. A publicly-available version is
an actual loss of voltage or degraded voltage MPS2 do not take credit for the flow
condition, the loss of voltage and/or in ADAMS under Accession No.
delivered by the charging pumps. ML16034A358.
degraded voltage relay voltage settings and Additionally, the proposed change does not
time delays will continue to isolate the Class Description of amendment request:
modify any plant equipment or method of
1E 4.16 kV distribution system from offsite operation for any [structures, systems, and The amendment would revise Section
power before the emergency diesel generator components] SSC[s] required for safe 9.5 of the Final Safety Analysis Report
is ready to assume the emergency loads. operation of the facility or mitigation of (FSAR) to allow fuel movement to start
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not accidents assumed in the facility safety 100 hours after reactor subcriticality and
involve a significant reduction in the margin analyses. proceed at an average rate of six
sradovich on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
of safety. Therefore, the proposed amendment will assemblies per hour provided the
The NRC staff has reviewed the not significantly increase the probability or Reactor Building Closed Cooling Water
consequences of an accident previously
licensee’s analysis and, based on that evaluated.
(RBCCW) temperature to the spent fuel
review, it appears that the three 2. Does the proposed amendment create pool cooling and shutdown cooling heat
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are the possibility of a new or different kind of exchangers is maintained at less than or
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff accident from any previously evaluated? equal to 75 °F. If 75 °F cooling water is
proposes to determine that the request Response: No. not achievable, fuel movement at an
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:24 May 23, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24MYN1.SGM 24MYN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_32900/page/5.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 24, 2016 / Notices 32805
average rate of six fuel assemblies per probability or consequences of an accident Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50–397,
hour could be permitted at 150 hours previously evaluated. Columbia Generating Station, Benton
after subcriticality and then only with 2. Does the proposed amendment create County, Washington
RBCCW temperatures less than or equal the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any previously evaluated? Date of amendment request: March 3,
to 85°F. The proposed changes to FSAR Response: No. 2016. A publicly-available version is in
Section 9.5 would also address some The proposed amendment would revise the ADAMS under Accession No.
typographical errors. Technical minimum allowed start time to begin fuel ML16067A390.
Specification Bases Section 3/4.9.3 movement from 150 hours to 100 hours after Description of amendment request:
would also be revised to remove reactor subcriticality and increase the The amendment would revise the
reference to the MPS2 spent fuel pool maximum allowable rate of fuel assembly Technical Specification Surveillance
(SFP) heat load analysis. movement from an average of four assemblies
Requirements for heaters in the Standby
per hour to an average of six assemblies per
Basis for proposed no significant hour. The revised decay time limit and fuel Gas Treatment (SGT) and Control Room
hazards consideration determination: offload rates do not create the possibility of Emergency Filtration (CREF) ventilation
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the a new type of accident because the methods systems. The proposed amendment is
licensee has provided its analysis of the for moving fuel and the operation of consistent with NRC-approved
issue of no significant hazards equipment used for moving fuel are not Technical Specifications Task Force
consideration, which is presented changed. The proposed amendment does not (TSTF) Traveler TSTF–522, Revision 0,
below, with NRC staff revisions add or modify any plant equipment. The ‘‘Revise Ventilation System Surveillance
provided in [brackets]: design and testing of systems designed to Requirements to Operate for 10 hours
maintain the SFP temperature within
1. Does the proposed amendment involve per Month,’’ as published in the Federal
established limits are not affected by the
a significant increase in the probability or proposed change. The proposed amendment Register on September 20, 2012 (77 FR
consequences of an accident previously does not create any credible new failure 58421), with variations due to plant-
evaluated? mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident specific nomenclature.
Response: No. initiators not considered in the design and Basis for proposed no significant
The proposed amendment affects some licensing basis. hazards consideration determination:
assumptions in the MPS2 FSAR related to the Therefore, the proposed amendment does As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
performance of the SFP cooling system and not create the possibility of a new or different licensee has provided its analysis of the
cooling of the fuel in the refueling pool. kind of accident from any accident
However, the existing design limits for the
issue of no significant hazards
previously evaluated. consideration, which is presented
SFP remain unchanged. Reducing the decay 3. Does the proposed amendment involve
time from 150 hours to 100 hours prior to a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
below:
allowing fuel movement at an increased Response: No. 1. Does the proposed change involve a
average rate of six fuel assemblies per hour The FHA analysis of record already significant increase in the probability or
does not adversely affect SFP design or accounts for irradiated fuel with at least 100 consequences of an accident previously
operation, provided proposed RBCCW hours of decay. This approved analysis has evaluated?
temperature limits are satisfied. The shown that the projected doses will remain Response: No.
proposed amendment does not change the within applicable regulatory limits. The proposed change replaces an existing
design or function of the SFP cooling system Therefore, the proposed amendment does not Surveillance Requiremen[t] to operate the
and is consistent with that previously reduce the margin of safety of the currently SGT System and CREF System equipped
approved by the NRC under License approved FHA analysis of record. with electric heaters for a continuous 10 hour
Amendment 240. The SFP heat load analyses submitted period every 31 days with a requirement to
The proposed amendment does not affect demonstrate that the impact of reduced decay operate the systems for 15 continuous
the temperature limits of the SFP. The time on SFP decay heat load is offset by the minutes with heaters operating.
thermal-hydraulic analyses supporting the reduced cooling water temperatures such that These systems are not accident initiators
amendment show that the SFP temperature the maximum normally allowed pool and therefore, these changes do not involve
limits continue to be met with increased heat temperature is not exceeded. The slight 1.6 a significant increase in the probability of an
loads due to reduced time to fuel movement °F increase in SFP temperature for full core accident. The proposed system and filter
and a higher rate of fuel movement. SFP heat off-load as a normal event (for 100 hour hold testing changes are consistent with current
load is not an initiator of any accident time with 75 °F RBCCW temperature) is not regulatory guidance for these systems and
discussed in Chapter 14 of the MPS2 FSAR. a significant change and remains below the will continue to assure that these systems
The proposed amendment does not affect the maximum normally allowed SFP temperature perform their design function which may
capability of plant structures, systems, or of 150 °F. The peak temperature of the SFP include mitigating accidents. Thus the
components (SCCs) to perform their design during a loss of cooling event is unaffected change does not involve a significant
function and does not increase the and the peak temperature of the fuel increase in the consequences of an accident.
probability of a malfunction of any SSC. cladding, or along the fuel, remains within Therefore, the proposed change does not
The MPS2 FSAR Chapter 14 accident acceptable limits. Therefore, the proposed involve a significant increase in the
analyses, including the FHA [fuel handling amendment does not involve a significant probability or consequences of an accident
accident] presented in FSAR Section 14.7.4, reduction in a margin of safety. previously evaluated.
are not affected by the proposed amendment. 2. Does the proposed change create the
The proposed amendment does not increase The NRC staff has reviewed the possibility of a new or different kind of
the probability of a FHA, change the licensee’s analysis and, based on this accident from any accident previously
assumptions in the FHA, or affect the review, it appears that the three evaluated?
conclusions of the current FHA analysis of standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are Response: No.
record. The current FHA analysis of record satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff The proposed change replaces an existing
assumes a minimum 100-hour decay time, proposes to determine that the Surveillance Requiremen[t] to operate the
sradovich on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
which is consistent with the minimum amendment request involves no SGT System and CREF System equipped
allowable decay time assumed in the with electric heaters for a continuous 10 hour
thermal-hydraulic analyses that support this
significant hazards consideration. period every 31 days with a requirement to
amendment. The dose results of the FHA Attorney for licensee: Lillian M. operate the systems for 15 continuous
analysis are unchanged, and remain within Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion minutes with heaters operating.
applicable regulatory limits. Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar The change proposed for these ventilation
Therefore, the proposed amendment does Street, RS–2, Richmond, VA 23219. systems does not change any system
not involve a significant increase in the NRC Branch Chief: Travis L. Tate. operations or maintenance activities. Testing
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:24 May 23, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24MYN1.SGM 24MYN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_32900/page/6.svg)
![32806 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 24, 2016 / Notices
requirements will be revised and will licensee has provided its analysis of the satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
continue to demonstrate that the Limiting issue of no significant hazards proposes to determine that the
Conditions for Operation are met and the consideration, which is presented amendments request involves no
system components are capable of
below: significant hazards consideration.
performing their intended safety functions.
The change does not create new failure 1. Does the proposed amendment involve Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer,
modes or mechanisms and no new accident a significant increase in the probability or Associate General Counsel, Exelon
precursors are generated. consequences of any accident previously Generation Company, LLC, 4300
Therefore, the proposed change does not evaluated? Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555.
create the possibility of a new or different Response: No. NRC Branch Chief: Travis L. Tate.
kind of accident from any accident The proposed LAR is purely an
previously evaluated. administrative change; therefore, the Exelon Generation Company, LLC,
3. Does the proposed change involve a probability of any accident previously Docket Nos. 50–317 and 50–318, Calvert
significant reduction in a margin of safety? evaluated is not significantly increased. The Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1
Response: No. systems and components required by the TS and 2, Calvert County, Maryland
The proposed change replaces an existing for which SR 3.5.2.10 is applicable, continue Date of amendment request: February
Surveillance Requiremen[t] to operate the to be operable and capable of performing any
SGT System and CREF System equipped 25, 2016. A publicly-available version is
mitigation function assumed in the accident
with electric heaters for a continuous 10 hour analysis. As a result, the consequences of any in ADAMS under Accession No.
period every 31 days with a requirement to accident previously evaluated are not ML16060A223.
operate the systems for 15 continuous significantly increased. Description of amendments request:
minutes with heaters operating. Therefore, the proposed change does not The amendments would revise the
The design basis for the ventilation involve a significant increase in the Calvert Cliffs technical specifications
systems’ heaters is to heat the incoming air probability or consequences of an accident (TSs) to permit the use of Risk-Informed
which reduces the relative humidity. The previously evaluated. Completion Times in accordance with
heater testing change proposed will continue 2. Does the proposed amendment create TSTF–505, Revision 1, ‘‘Provide Risk-
to demonstrate that the heaters are capable of the possibility of a new or different kind of
heating the air and will perform their design Informed Extended Completion Times—
accident from any previously evaluated?
function. The proposed change is consistent Response: No.
RITSTF Initiative 4b.’’ The availability
with regulatory guidance. The proposed LAR is purely an of this TS improvement was announced
Therefore, the proposed change does not administrative change. The proposed change in the Federal Register on March 15,
involve a significant reduction in a margin of to add SR 3.5.2.10 to the list of applicable 2012 (77 FR 15399).
safety. surveillances in SR 3.5.3.1 does not create a Basis for proposed no significant
The NRC staff has reviewed the new or different kind of accident previously hazards consideration determination:
licensee’s analysis and, based on this evaluated. As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
review, it appears that the three The change does not involve a physical licensee has provided its analysis of the
alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or issue of no significant hazards
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are different type of equipment will be installed)
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff consideration, which is presented
or a change in the methods governing normal
proposes to determine that the plant operation. In addition, the change does
below:
amendment request involves no not impose any new or different 1. Does the proposed amendment involve
significant hazards consideration. requirements. The change does not alter a significant increase in the probability or
Attorney for licensee: William A. assumptions made in the safety analysis. The consequences of any accident previously
Horin, Esq., Winston & Strawn, 1700 K proposed change is consistent with the safety evaluated?
Street NW., Washington, DC 20006– analysis assumptions and current plant Response: No.
3817. operating practice. The proposed changes permit the
Therefore, the proposed change does not extension of Completion Times provided the
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J.
create the possibility of a new or different associated risk is assessed and managed in
Pascarelli. accordance with the NRC approved Risk-
kind of accident from any accident
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, previously evaluated. Informed Completion Time Program. The
Docket Nos. 50–317 and 50–318, Calvert 3. Does the proposed amendment involve proposed changes do not involve a
a significant reduction in a margin of safety? significant increase in the probability of an
Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1
Response: No. accident previously evaluated because the
and 2, Calvert County, Maryland changes involve no change to the plant or its
The proposed LAR is purely an
Date of amendment request: February administrative change to add SR 3.5.2.10 to modes of operation. The proposed changes
4, 2016. A publicly-available version is the list of applicable surveillances in SR do not increase the consequences of an
in ADAMS under Accession No. 3.5.3.1. accident because the design-basis mitigation
ML16035A227. The design, operation, testing methods, function of the affected systems is not
Description of amendments request: and acceptance criteria for systems, changed and the consequences of an accident
structures, and components (SSCs), specified during the extended Completion Time are no
The amendments would revise the different from those during the existing
in applicable codes and standards (or
Calvert Cliffs technical specifications alternatives approved for use by the NRC) Completion Time.
(TSs) to correct an administrative error will continue to be met as described in the Therefore, the proposed changes do not
in the License Amendment Request plant licensing basis (including the Final involve a significant increase in the
(LAR) submitted in accordance with Safety Analysis Report and Bases to TS). probability or consequences of an accident
Technical Specification Task Force Similarly, there is no impact to safety previously evaluated.
Traveler 523, ‘‘Generic Letter 2008–01, analysis acceptance criteria as described in 2. Does the proposed amendment create
Managing Gas Accumulation.’’ The the plant licensing basis. the possibility of a new or different kind of
sradovich on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
proposed change would add Therefore, the proposed change does not accident from any previously evaluated?
involve a significant reduction in a margin of Response: No.
Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.5.2.10 The proposed changes do not change the
safety.
to the list of applicable Surveillances of design, configuration, or method of operation
SR 3.5.3.1. The NRC staff has reviewed the of the plant. The proposed changes do not
Basis for proposed no significant licensee’s analysis and, based on this involve a physical alteration of the plant (no
hazards consideration determination: review, it appears that the three new or different kind of equipment will be
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are installed).
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:24 May 23, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24MYN1.SGM 24MYN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_32900/page/7.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 24, 2016 / Notices 32807
Therefore, the proposed changes do not evaluated is not significantly increased. in ADAMS under Accession No.
create the possibility of a new or different Snubbers will continue to be demonstrated ML16110A425.
kind of accident from any accident OPERABLE by performance of a program for Description of amendment request:
previously evaluated. examination, testing, and service life The amendment would modify the CNS
3. Does the proposed amendment involve monitoring in compliance with 10 CFR
a significant reduction in a margin of safety? technical specifications (TSs) by
50.55a or authorized alternatives. The
Response: No. proposed changes do not adversely affect relocating specific surveillance
The proposed changes permit the plant operations, design functions, or frequencies to a licensee-controlled
extension of Completion Times provided that analyses that verify the capability of systems, program consistent with NRC-approved
risk is assessed and managed in accordance structures, and components to perform their Technical Specifications Task Force
with the NRC approved Risk-Informed design functions. Therefore, the (TSTF) Traveler TSTF–425, Revision 3,
Completion Time Program. The proposed consequences of accidents previously ‘‘Relocate Surveillance Frequencies to
changes implement a risk-informed evaluated are not significantly increased. Licensee Control—RITSTF [Risk-
configuration management program to assure Based on the above, these proposed
that adequate margins of safety are
Informed Technical Specifications Task
changes do not involve a significant increase
maintained. Application of these new Force] Initiative 5b,’’ dated March 18,
in the probability or consequences of an
specifications and the configuration accident previously evaluated. 2009 (ADAMS Accession No.
management program considers cumulative 2. Does the proposed amendment create ML090850642). The availability of this
effects of multiple systems or components the possibility of a new or different kind of TS improvement program was
being out of service and does so more accident from any accident previously announced in the Federal Register on
effectively than the current TS. evaluated? July 6, 2009 (74 FR 31996). The NPPD
Therefore, the proposed changes do not Response: No. has proposed certain plant-specific
involve a significant reduction in a margin of The proposed changes do not involve any
safety.
variations and deviations from TSTF–
physical alteration of plant equipment. The 425, Revision 3, as described in its
The NRC staff has reviewed the proposed changes do not alter the method by
application dated March 22, 2016.
licensee’s analysis and, based on this which any safety-related system performs its
function. As such, no new or different types
Basis for proposed no significant
review, it appears that the three hazards consideration determination:
of equipment will be installed, and the basic
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are operation of installed equipment is As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff unchanged. The methods governing plant licensee has provided its analysis of the
proposes to determine that the operation and testing remain consistent with issue of no significant hazards
amendments request involves no current safety analysis assumptions. consideration, with NRC staff revisions
significant hazards consideration. Therefore, it is concluded that these provided in [brackets], which is
Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer, proposed changes do not create the presented below:
Associate General Counsel, Exelon possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously 1. Do the proposed changes involve a
Generation Company, LLC, 4300
evaluated. significant increase in the probability or
Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555. consequences of any accident previously
NRC Branch Chief: Travis L. Tate. 3. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant reduction in a margin of safety? evaluated?
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Response: No. Response: No.
Docket Nos. 50–352 and 50–353, The proposed changes ensure snubber The proposed change relocates the
examination, testing, and service life specified frequencies for periodic
Limerick Generating Station (LGS),
monitoring will continue to meet the surveillance requirements to licensee control
Units 1 and 2, Montgomery County, under a new SFCP [Surveillance Frequency
requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a(g). Snubbers
Pennsylvania Control Program]. Surveillance frequencies
will continue to be demonstrated OPERABLE
Date of amendment request: March by performance of a program for are not an initiator to any accident previously
29, 2016. A publicly-available version is examination, testing, and service life evaluated. As a result, the probability of any
in ADAMS under Package Accession monitoring in compliance with 10 CFR accident previously evaluated is not
50.55a or authorized alternatives. significantly increased. The systems and
No. ML16090A286. components required by the technical
Description of amendment request: Therefore, it is concluded that the
proposed changes do not involve a specifications for which the surveillance
The amendments would revise the frequencies are relocated are still required to
significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Technical Specification (TS) be operable, meet the acceptance criteria for
requirements for snubbers. The NRC staff has reviewed the the surveillance requirements, and be
Basis for proposed no significant licensee’s analysis and, based on this capable of performing any mitigation
hazards consideration determination: review, it appears that the three function assumed in the accident analysis.
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are As a result, the consequences of any accident
licensee has provided its analysis of the satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff previously evaluated are not significantly
issue of no significant hazards proposes to determine that the increased.
consideration, which is presented Therefore, the proposed change does not
amendment request involves no
involve a significant increase in the
below: significant hazards consideration. probability or consequences of an accident
1. Does the proposed amendment involve Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer, previously evaluated.
a significant increase in the probability or Associate General Counsel, Exelon 2. Do the proposed changes create the
consequences of an accident previously Generation Company, LLC, 4300 possibility of a new or different kind of
evaluated? Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555. accident from any previously evaluated?
Response: No. NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Response: No.
The proposed changes will revise TS 4.7.4 Broaddus. No new or different accidents result from
sradovich on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
to conform the TS to the revised Snubber utilizing the proposed change. The change
Program. Snubber examination, testing, and Nebraska Public Power District (NPPD), does not involve a physical alteration of the
service life monitoring will continue to meet Docket No. 50–298, Cooper Nuclear plant (i.e., no new or different type of
the requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a(g). Station (CNS), Nemaha County, equipment will be installed) or a change in
Snubber examination, testing, and service life Nebraska the methods governing normal plant
monitoring are not initiators of any accident operation. In addition, the change does not
previously evaluated. Therefore, the Date of amendment request: March impose any new or different requirements.
probability of an accident previously 22, 2016. A publicly-available version is The change does not alter assumptions made
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:24 May 23, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24MYN1.SGM 24MYN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_32900/page/8.svg)
![32808 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 24, 2016 / Notices
in the safety analysis. The proposed change consideration, which is presented review, it appears that the three
is consistent with the safety analysis below: standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
assumptions and current plant operating satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
practice. 1. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant increase in the probability or proposes to determine that the
Therefore, the proposed change does not
create the possibility of a new or different consequences of an accident previously amendment request involves no
kind of accident from any accident evaluated? significant hazards consideration.
previously evaluated. The proposed changes to the Seabrook Attorney for licensee: William Blair,
3. Do the proposed changes involve a emergency action levels neither involve any Managing Attorney—Nuclear, Florida
significant reduction in the margin of safety? physical changes to plant equipment or Power & Light Company, P.O. Box
systems nor do they alter the assumptions of
Response: No.
any accident analyses. The proposed changes
14000, Juno Beach, FL 33408–0420.
The design, operation, testing methods, NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A.
do not adversely affect accident initiators or
and acceptance criteria for structures, Broaddus.
precursors, and they do not alter design
systems, components, specified in applicable
assumptions, plant configuration, or the Southern Nuclear Operating Company,
codes and standards (or alternatives
manner in which the plant is operated and
approved for use by the NRC) will continue
maintained. The proposed change does not
Inc., Docket Nos. 50–348 and 50–364,
to be met as described in the plant licensing Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1
adversely affect the ability of structures,
basis (including the final safety analysis and 2, Houston County, Alabama
systems or components (SSCs) to perform
report and bases to TS), since these are not
their intended safety functions in mitigating Date of amendment request: March
affected by changes to the surveillance
the consequences of an initiating event 16, 2016. A publicly-available version is
frequencies. Similarly, there is no impact to
within the assumed acceptance limits.
safety analysis acceptance criteria as Therefore, the proposed change does not
in ADAMS under Accession No.
described in the plant licensing basis. To involve a significant increase in the ML16076A217.
evaluate a change in the relocated probability or consequences of an accident Description of amendment request:
surveillance frequency, NPPD will perform a previously evaluated. The amendment would revise the
probabilistic risk evaluation using the 2. Does the proposed amendment create technical specifications to allow the use
guidance contained in NRC approved NEI the possibility of a new or different kind of of Optimized ZIRLOTM as an approved
[Nuclear Energy Institute] 04–10, Revision 1, accident from any accident previously
in accordance with the TS SFCP. NEI 04–10, fuel rod cladding.
evaluated? Basis for proposed no significant
Revision 1, methodology provides reasonable No new accident scenarios, failure
acceptance guidelines and methods for hazards consideration determination:
mechanisms, or limiting single failures are
evaluating the risk increase of proposed introduced as a result of the proposed As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
changes to surveillance frequencies changes. The changes do not challenge the licensee has provided its analysis of the
consistent with Regulatory Guide 1.177. integrity or performance of any safety-related issue of no significant hazards
Therefore, the proposed changes do not systems. No plant equipment is installed or consideration, which is presented
involve a significant reduction in a margin of removed, and the changes do not alter the below:
safety. design, physical configuration, or method of
1. Does the proposed change involve a
The NRC staff has reviewed the operation of any plant SSC. No physical
significant increase in the probability or
licensee’s analysis and, based on this changes are made to the plant, and
consequences of an accident previously
emergency action levels are not accident
review, it appears that the three evaluated?
initiators[,] so no new causal mechanisms are
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are introduced. Response: No.
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff Therefore, the proposed changes do not The proposed change would allow the use
proposes to determine that the create the possibility of a new or different of Optimized ZIRLOTM clad nuclear fuel in
amendment request involves no kind of accident from any accident the reactors. The NRC approved topical
report WCAP–12610–P–A & CENPD–404–P–
significant hazards consideration. previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve A, Addendum 1–A ‘‘Optimized ZIRLOTM,’’
Attorney for licensee: Mr. John C. prepared by Westinghouse Electric Company
McClure, Nebraska Public Power a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Margin of safety is associated with the LLC (Westinghouse), addresses Optimized
District, Post Office Box 499, Columbus, ZIRLOTM and demonstrates that Optimized
NE 68602–0499. ability of the fission product barriers (i.e.,
fuel cladding, reactor coolant system ZIRLOTM has essentially the same properties
NRC Branch Chief: Meena K. Khanna. as currently licensed ZIRLOTM. The fuel
pressure boundary, and containment
structure) to limit the level of radiation dose cladding itself is not an accident initiator and
NextEra Energy Seabrook LLC, Docket does not affect accident probability. Use of
No. 50–443, Seabrook Station, Unit No. to the public. The proposed changes do not
impact operation of the plant and no accident Optimized ZIRLOTM fuel cladding has been
1, Rockingham County, New Hampshire shown to meet all 10 CFR 50.46 acceptance
analyses are affected by the proposed
Date of amendment request: February changes. The changes do not affect the criteria and, therefore, will not increase the
27, 2016. A publicly-available version is Technical Specifications or the method of consequences of an accident.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
in ADAMS under Accession No. operating the plant. Additionally, the
proposed changes will not relax any criteria involve a significant increase in the
ML16068A130. probability or consequences of an accident
Description of amendment request: used to establish safety limits and will not
relax any safety system settings. The safety previously evaluated.
The amendment would revise the 2. Does the proposed change create the
emergency plan for Seabrook Station, analysis acceptance criteria are not affected
by these changes. The proposed changes will possibility of a new or different kind of
Unit No. 1 (Seabrook), to adopt the not result in plant operation in a accident from any accident previously
emergency action level scheme pursuant configuration outside the design basis. The evaluated?
to Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 99–01, proposed changes do not adversely affect Response: No.
Revision 6, ‘‘Development of Emergency Use of Optimized ZIRLOTM clad fuel will
sradovich on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
systems that respond to safely shut down the
Action Levels for Non-Passive plant and to maintain the plant in a safe not result in changes in the operation or
shutdown condition. configuration of the facility. Topical Report
Reactors.’’ WCAP–12610–P–A and CENPD–404–P–A
Basis for proposed no significant Therefore, the proposed change do not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of demonstrated that the material properties of
hazards consideration determination: Optimized ZIRLOTM are similar to those of
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the safety.
ZIRLO®. Therefore, Optimized ZIRLOTM fuel
licensee has provided its analysis of the The NRC staff has reviewed the rod cladding will perform similarly to those
issue of no significant hazards licensee’s analysis and, based on this fabricated from ZIRLO®, thus precluding the
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:24 May 23, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24MYN1.SGM 24MYN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_32900/page/9.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 24, 2016 / Notices 32809
possibility of the fuel becoming an accident As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the Southern Nuclear Operating Company,
initiator and causing a new or different type licensee has provided its analysis of the Inc., Docket Nos. 50–424 and 50–425,
of accident. issue of no significant hazards Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1
Therefore, the proposed change does not
create the possibility of a new or different
consideration, which is presented and 2, Burke County, Georgia
kind of accident from any previously below: Date of amendment request: March
evaluated. 1. Does the proposed amendment involve 16, 2016. A publicly-available version is
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or in ADAMS under Accession No.
a significant reduction in a margin of safety? consequences of an accident previously ML16076A217.
Response: No. evaluated? Description of amendment request:
The proposed change will not involve a Response: No.
significant reduction in the margin of safety The amendments would revise the
This change has no effect on structures, technical specifications to allow the use
because it has been demonstrated that the
systems, and components (SSCs) of the of Optimized ZIRLOTM as an approved
material properties of the Optimized
plants. There are no changes to plant fuel rod cladding.
ZIRLOTM are not significantly different from
those of ZIRLO®. Optimized ZIRLOTM is operations, or to any design function or Basis for proposed no significant
expected to perform similarly to ZIRLO® for analysis that verifies the capability of an SSC
hazards consideration determination:
all normal operating and accident scenarios, to perform a design function. There are no
previously evaluated accidents affected by
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
including both loss of coolant accident licensee has provided its analysis of the
(LOCA) and non-LOCA scenarios. For LOCA this change. The proposed changes are
scenarios, plant-specific evaluations have administrative in nature, and as such, do not issue of no significant hazards
been performed which allow the use of fuel affect indicators of analyzed events or consideration, which is presented
assemblies with fuel rods containing assumed mitigation of accidents or below:
Optimized ZIRLOTM. These LOCA transients. 1. Does the proposed change involve a
evaluations address the NRC SER [safety Therefore, the proposed change does not significant increase in the probability or
evaluation report] conditions and limitations involve a significant increase in the consequences of an accident previously
for Optimized ZIRLOTM fuel rod cladding probability or consequences of an accident evaluated?
and provide continued compliance with the previously evaluated. Response: No.
acceptance criteria of 10 CFR 50.46. 2. Does the proposed amendment create The proposed change would allow the use
Therefore, the proposed change does not the possibility of a new or different kind of of Optimized ZIRLOTM clad nuclear fuel in
involve a significant reduction in a margin of accident from any accident previously the reactors. The NRC approved topical
safety. evaluated? report WCAP–12610–P–A & CENPD–404–P–
The NRC staff has reviewed the This change has no effect on the design A, Addendum 1–A ‘‘Optimized ZIRLOTM,’’
licensee’s analysis and, based on this function or operation of SSCs, and will not prepared by Westinghouse Electric Company
affect the SSCs’ operation or ability to LLC (Westinghouse), addresses Optimized
review, it appears that the three
perform their design functions. This change ZIRLOTM and demonstrates that Optimized
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are ZIRLOTM has essentially the same properties
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff does not involve a physical alteration of the
plants, add any new equipment, or allow any as currently licensed ZIRLOTM. The fuel
proposes to determine that the cladding itself is not an accident initiator and
existing equipment to be operated in a
amendment request involves no manner different from the present method of does not affect accident probability. Use of
significant hazards consideration. operation. Optimized ZIRLOTM fuel cladding has been
Attorney for licensee: Jennifer M. Therefore, the proposed change does not shown to meet all 10 CFR 50.46 acceptance
Buettner, Associate General Counsel, create the possibility of a new or different criteria and, therefore, will not increase the
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, consequences of an accident.
kind of accident from any accident
40 Iverness Center Parkway, Therefore, the proposed change does not
previously evaluated.
involve a significant increase in the
Birmingham, AL 35201. 3. Does the proposed changes involve a
probability or consequences of an accident
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. significant reduction in a margin of safety?
previously evaluated.
Markley. This change is administrative in nature and
2. Does the proposed change create the
has no effect on plant design margins. There possibility of a new or different kind of
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, are no changes being made to safety limits or
Inc., Docket Nos. 50–424 and 50–425, accident from any accident previously
limiting safety system settings that would evaluated?
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 adversely affect plant safety as a result of the Response: No.
and 2, Burke County, Georgia; Docket proposed change. Use of Optimized ZIRLOTM clad fuel will
Nos. 50–348 and 50–364, Joseph M. Therefore, the proposed change does not not result in changes in the operation or
Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, involve a significant reduction in the margin configuration of the facility. Topical Report
Houston County, Alabama; Docket Nos. of safety. WCAP–12610–P–A & CENPD– 404–P–A
50–321 and 50–366, Edwin I. Hatch demonstrated that the material properties of
The NRC staff has reviewed the Optimized ZIRLOTM are similar to those of
Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Appling
licensee’s analysis and, based on this ZIRLO®. Therefore, Optimized ZIRLOTM fuel
County, Georgia
review, it appears that the three rod cladding will perform similarly to those
Date of amendment request: March standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are fabricated from ZIRLO®, thus precluding the
14, 2016. A publicly-available version is satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff possibility of the fuel becoming an accident
in ADAMS under Accession No. proposes to determine that the initiator and causing a new or different type
ML16074A185. amendment request involves no of accident.
Description of amendment request: significant hazards consideration. Therefore, the proposed change does not
The amendments would adopt the NRC- create the possibility of a new or different
approved Technical Task Force Traveler Attorney for licensee: Jennifer M. kind of accident from any previously
sradovich on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
TSTF–65–A, Revision 1, ‘‘Use of Buettner, Associate General Counsel of evaluated.
Operations and Nuclear, Southern 3. Does the proposed change involve a
Generic Titles for Utility Positions.’’ The significant reduction in a margin of safety?
proposed change would allow use of Nuclear Operating Company, 40
Iverness Center Parkway, Birmingham, Response: No.
generic personnel titles in lieu of plant- The proposed change will not involve a
specific titles. AL 35201.
significant reduction in the margin of safety
Basis for proposed no significant NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. because it has been demonstrated that the
hazards consideration determination: Markley. material properties of the Optimized
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:24 May 23, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24MYN1.SGM 24MYN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_32900/page/10.svg)
![32810 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 24, 2016 / Notices
ZIRLOTM are not significantly different from below, along with NRC edits in square Therefore, the proposed change does not
those of ZIRLO®. Optimized ZIRLOTM is brackets: create the possibility of a new or different
expected to perform similarly to ZIRLO® for kind of accident from any previously
all normal operating and accident scenarios, 1. Does the proposed change involve a evaluated.
including both loss of coolant accident significant increase in the probability or 3. Does the proposed change involve a
(LOCA) and non-LOCA scenarios. For LOCA consequences of any accident previously significant reduction in a margin of safety?
scenarios, plant-specific evaluations have evaluated? Response: No.
been performed which allow the use of fuel Response: No. Operational safety margin is established
assemblies with fuel rods containing The temporary changes to the completion through equipment design, operating
Optimized ZIRLOTM. These LOCA times for TS 3.8.7, Condition C and TS 3.7.1, parameters, and the setpoints at which
evaluations address the NRC SER [safety Conditions A and B are necessary to automatic actions are initiated. The proposed
evaluation report] conditions and limitations implement plant changes, which replace the changes are acceptable because the
for Optimized ZIRLOTM fuel rod cladding Unit 1—480 V ESS LC Transformers 1X210 Completion Time extensions allow
and provide continued compliance with the and 1X220 in order to mitigate the loss of the replacement of the Unit 1—480 V ESS LC
acceptance criteria of 10 CFR 50.46. transformer due to failure. The temporary Transformers, equipment essential to safe
Therefore, the proposed change does not change to the completion time for TS 3.8.7, plant operation, while ensuring safety related
involve a significant reduction in a margin of Condition C is also necessary to implement functions of affected equipment are
safety. plant changes, which replace the Unit 1—480 maintained.
V ESS LC Transformers 1X230 and 1X240 in With the RHRSW Spray Pond Return
The NRC staff has reviewed the order to mitigate the loss of the transformer Bypass Valves on the out of service loop
licensee’s analysis and, based on this due to failure. These replacements decrease electrically de-powered in the open position,
review, it appears that the three the probability of a transformer failure. The a return flow path will be established. Since
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are current assumptions in the safety analysis the RHRSW Pumps on Unit 2 are not
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff regarding accident initiators and mitigation impacted by the transformers outages, the
proposes to determine that the of accidents are unaffected by these changes. affected RHRSW Loop on Unit 2 will be
No SSC [structure, system, or component] capable of providing cooling. This
amendment request involves no configuration will continue to provide the
failure modes or mechanisms are being
significant hazards consideration. introduced, and the likelihood of previously margin of safety assumed by the safety
Attorney for licensee: Jennifer M. analyzed failures remains unchanged. analysis, although the affected RHRSW loop
Buettner, Associate General Counsel, The proposed change requests the will be administratively declared Inoperable.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Completion Time to restore a Unit 2 RHRSW Therefore, the proposed change does not
Inc., 40 Inverness Center Parkway, subsystem be extended to 7 days in order to involve a significant reduction in a margin of
Birmingham, AL 35242. replace Unit 1 transformers 1X210 and safety.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. 1X220. The extended Completion Times for The NRC staff has reviewed the
Markley. TS 3.7.1 Conditions A and B are only licensee’s analysis and, based on this
applicable when transformers 1X210 or
Susquehanna Nuclear, LLC, Docket No. review, it appears that the three
1X220 are out of service with the intent of
50–388, Susquehanna Steam Electric replacing the transformer. standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
Station, Unit 2, Luzerne County, During the replacements, the affected Unit satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
Pennsylvania 2 RHRSW subsystem will remain functional proposes to determine that the
while the other subsystem of Unit 2 RHRSW amendment request involves no
Date of amendment request: January will remain Operable. Operator action significant hazards consideration.
28, 2016, as supplemented by letter required to restore full capability of cooling Attorney for licensee: Damon D. Obie,
dated April 6, 2016. Publicly-available provided by the Ultimate Heat Sink will only Esquire, Associate General Counsel,
versions are in ADAMS under consist of manually operating two (2) valves; Talen Energy Supply, LLC, 835
Accession No. ML16029A031 and the Large Spray Array and the UHS bypass. Hamilton St., Suite 150, Allentown, PA
Package Accession No. ML16097A486, This action can easily be completed within
several hours and would restore full cooling
18101.
respectively. NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A.
Description of amendment request: to the RHRSW system.
Therefore, this proposed change does not Broaddus.
The amendment would modify the involve a significant increase in the
Susquehanna Steam Electric Station Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket
probability or consequences of an accident Nos. 50–390 and 50–391, Watts Bar
(SSES), Unit 2, Technical Specification previously evaluated.
(TS) 3.7.1, ‘‘Residual Heat Removal 2. Does the proposed change create the
Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Rhea
Service Water (RHRSW) System and the possibility of a new or different kind of County, Tennessee
Ultimate Heat Sink (UHS),’’ and TS accident from any accident previously Date of amendment request:
3.8.7, ‘‘Distribution Systems— evaluated? December 8, 2015, as supplemented by
Operating,’’ to increase the completion Response: No. letter dated March 11, 2016. Publicly-
time for Conditions A and B of TS 3.7.1 The proposed changes involve the increase available versions are in ADAMS under
of TS Completion Times to allow
and Condition C of TS 3.8.7 from 72 replacement of four (4) Unit 1—480 V ESS LC
Accession Nos. ML15342A477 and
hours to 7 days, in order to Transformers. New transformers will be ML16071A456, respectively. The letter
accommodate 480 volt (V) engineered installed but will not be operated in a new dated March 11, 2016, supersedes the
safeguard system (ESS) load center (LC) or different manner. There are no setpoints December 8, 2015, amendment request
transformer replacements on SSES, Unit at which protective or mitigative actions are in its entirety.
2. The proposed change is temporary initiated [which are] affected by this change. Description of amendment request:
and will be annotated by a note in each These changes do not alter the manner in The amendments would revise the
TS that specifies the allowance expires which equipment operation is initiated, nor Watts Bar Nuclear Plant (WBN), Units 1
sradovich on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
on June 15, 2020. will the function demands on credited and 2, Technical Specification (TS)
equipment be changed. No alterations to
Basis for proposed no significant 3.8.1, ‘‘AC Sources—Operating,’’ to
procedures that ensure the plant remains
hazards consideration determination: within analyzed limits are being proposed, extend the Completion Time (CT) for
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the and no major changes are being made to one inoperable Diesel Generator (DG)
licensee has provided its analysis of the procedures relied upon during off-normal from 72 hours to 14 days, based on the
issue of no significant hazards events as described in the FSAR [final safety availability of an alternate alternating
consideration, which is presented analysis report]. current (AC) power source (specifically,
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:24 May 23, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24MYN1.SGM 24MYN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_32900/page/11.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 24, 2016 / Notices 32811
the FLEX DG added as part of the 3. Does the proposed amendment involve impact statement or environmental
mitigating strategies for beyond-design- a significant reduction in a margin of safety? assessment need be prepared for these
basis events in response to NRC Order Response: No. amendments. If the Commission has
The proposed changes do not alter the
EA–12–049). The amendments would permanent plant design, including
prepared an environmental assessment
also make clarifying changes to certain instrument set points, nor does it change the under the special circumstances
TS 3.8.1 conditions, required actions, assumptions contained in the safety analyses. provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has
and surveillance requirements. The FLEX DG alternate AC system is made a determination based on that
Basis for proposed no significant designed with sufficient redundancy such assessment, it is so indicated.
hazards consideration determination: that a DG may be removed from service for For further details with respect to the
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the maintenance or testing. The remaining DGs action see (1) the applications for
licensee has provided its analysis of the are capable of carrying sufficient electrical amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3)
loads to satisfy the UFSAR requirements for
issue of no significant hazards the Commission’s related letter, Safety
accident mitigation or unit safe shutdown.
consideration, which is presented The proposed changes do not affect the Evaluation and/or Environmental
below: redundancy or availability requirements of Assessment as indicated. All of these
1. Does the proposed amendment involve offsite power supplies or change the ability items can be accessed as described in
a significant increase in the probability or of the plant to cope with station blackout the ‘‘Obtaining Information and
consequence of an accident previously events. Submitting Comments’’ section of this
evaluated? Therefore, the proposed changes do not document.
Response: No. involve a significant reduction in a margin of
The proposed changes do not affect the safety. Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket
design of the DGs, the operational The NRC staff has reviewed the Nos. 50–413 and 50–414, Catawba
characteristics or function of the DGs, the licensee’s analysis and, based on this Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York
interfaces between the DGs and other plant County, South Carolina
systems, or the reliability of the DGs.
review, it appears that the three
Required Actions and their associated CTs standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are Date of amendment request: June 23,
are not considered initiating conditions for satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 2014, as supplemented by letters dated
any UFSAR [Updated Final Safety Analysis proposes to determine that the August 26, 2014; December 15, 2014;
Report] accident previously evaluated, nor amendment request involves no January 22, 2015; April 23, 2015; and
are the DGs considered initiators of any significant hazards consideration. November 16, 2015.
previously evaluated accidents. The DGs are Attorney for licensee: Sherry A. Quirk, Brief description of amendments: The
provided to mitigate the consequences of Executive Vice President and General amendments revised the Renewed
previously evaluated accidents, including a
loss of off-site power.
Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, Facility Operating Licenses and
The consequences of previously evaluated 400 West Summit Hill Dr., 6A West technical specifications (TSs) to
accidents will not be significantly affected by Tower, Knoxville, TN 37902. implement a measurement uncertainty
the extended DG CT, because a sufficient NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin G. recapture (MUR) power uprate at
number of onsite Alternating Current power Beasley. Catawba Nuclear Station Unit 1
sources will continue to remain available to (Catawba 1) that increases the rated
perform the accident mitigation functions III. Notice of Issuance of Amendments
to Facility Operating Licenses and thermal power (RTP) from 3411
associated with the DGs, as assumed in the megawatts thermal (MWt) to 3469 MWt.
accident analyses. In addition, as a risk Combined Licenses
mitigation and defense-in-depth action, an This is an increase of approximately 1.7
During the period since publication of percent RTP. This increase is based on
independent AC power source, an available
FLEX DG, will be available to support the the last biweekly notice, the the use of Cameron (a.k.a. Caldon)
ESF [engineered safety feature] bus with the Commission has issued the following instrumentation to determine core
inoperable DG during a SBO [station amendments. The Commission has power level with a power measurement
blackout]. determined for each of these uncertainty of approximately 0.3
Therefore, this change does not involve a amendments that the application percent. As noted in the licensee’s
significant increase in the probability or complies with the standards and
consequences of an accident previously
application, although the MUR uprate
requirements of the Atomic Energy Act was for Catawba 1, the amendment
evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create
of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the request was submitted for both units.
the possibility of a new or different kind of Commission’s rules and regulations. This is because the TSs are common to
accident from any accident previously The Commission has made appropriate both units.
evaluated? findings as required by the Act and the Date of issuance: April 29, 2016.
Response: No. Commission’s rules and regulations in Effective date: As of the date of
The proposed change does not involve a 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in issuance and shall be implemented
change in the permanent design, the license amendment. within 90 days of issuance.
configuration, or method of operation of the A notice of consideration of issuance Amendment Nos.: 281 (Unit 1) and
plant. The proposed changes will not alter
of amendment to facility operating 277 (Unit 2). A publicly-available
the manner in which equipment operation is
initiated, nor will the functional demands on license or combined license, as version is in ADAMS under Accession
credited equipment be changed. The applicable, proposed no significant No. ML16081A333; documents related
proposed changes allow operation of the unit hazards consideration determination, to these amendments are listed in the
to continue while a DG is repaired and and opportunity for a hearing in Safety Evaluation enclosed with the
retested with the FLEX DG in standby to connection with these actions, was amendments.
mitigate a SBO event. The proposed published in the Federal Register as Renewed Facility Operating License
sradovich on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
extensions do not affect the interaction of a indicated. Nos. NPF–35 and NPF–52: The
DG with any system whose failure or Unless otherwise indicated, the amendments revised the Renewed
malfunction can initiate an accident. As
such, no new failure modes are being
Commission has determined that these Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
introduced. Therefore, the proposed change amendments satisfy the criteria for Date of initial notice in Federal
does not create the possibility of a new or categorical exclusion in accordance Register: November 4, 2014 (79 FR
different kind of accident from any accident with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant 65429). The supplemental letters dated
previously evaluated. to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental August 26, 2014; December 15, 2014;
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:24 May 23, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24MYN1.SGM 24MYN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_32900/page/12.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 24, 2016 / Notices 32815
South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, Date of initial notice in Federal For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
South Carolina Public Service Register: August 14, 2015 (80 FR Anne T. Boland,
Authority, Docket No. 50–395, Virgil C. 48942). The notice was corrected on Director, Division of Operating Reactor
Summer Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1, August 20, 2015 (80 FR 50663). The Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Fairfield County, South Carolina supplemental letters dated October 8 Regulation.
Date of amendment request: and November 11, 2015, and March 17, [FR Doc. 2016–11976 Filed 5–23–16; 8:45 am]
September 29, 2015. 2016, provided additional information BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
Brief description of amendment: The that clarified the application, did not
amendment adopts the NRC-approved expand the scope of the application as
Technical Specifications Task Force originally noticed, and did not change NUCLEAR REGULATORY
(TSTF) Improved Standard Technical the staff’s original proposed no COMMISSION
Specifications Change Traveler TSTF– significant hazards consideration
[NRC–2016–0001]
523, Revision 2, ‘‘Generic Letter 2008– determination as published in the
01, Managing Gas Accumulation.’’ Federal Register. Sunshine Act Meeting Notice
The Commission’s related evaluation
Date of issuance: May 6, 2016.
Effective date: As of the date of of the amendments is contained in a DATE: May 23, 30, June, 6, 13, 20, 27,
issuance and shall be implemented Safety Evaluation dated April 29, 2016. 2016.
No significant hazards consideration
within 90 days of issuance. PLACE:Commissioners’ Conference
comments received: No.
Amendment No.: 204. A publicly- Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
available version is in ADAMS under Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. Maryland.
Accession No. ML16104A295; 50–259, Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, STATUS: Public and Closed.
documents related to this amendment Unit 1, Limestone County, Alabama
are listed in the Safety Evaluation Week of May 23, 2016
Date of amendment request:
enclosed with the amendment. September 25, 2015, as supplemented There are no meetings scheduled for
Facility Operating License No. NPF– by letters dated December 28, 2015, and the week of May 23, 2016.
12: Amendment revised the Facility March 28, 2016.
Operating License and Technical Week of May 30, 2016—Tentative
Brief description of amendment: The
Specifications. amendment revised the technical Wednesday, June 1, 2016
Date of initial notice in Federal specification (TS) Safety Limit 9:00 a.m. Briefing on Security Issues
Register: November 24, 2015 (80 FR Minimum Critical Power Ratio (Closed Ex. 1).
73241). (SLMCPR) numeric values. The change
The Commission’s related evaluation decreased the numeric values of Thursday, June 2, 2016
of the amendment is contained in a SLMCPR in TS Section 2.1.1.2 for single 9:00 a.m. Briefing on Results of the
Safety Evaluation dated May 6, 2016. and two reactor recirculation loop Agency Action Review Meeting (Public
No significant hazards consideration operation based on the Cycle 12 Meeting) (Contact: Andrew Waugh:
comments received: No. SLMCPR evaluation. 301–415–5601).
STP Nuclear Operating Company, Date of issuance: April 26, 2016. This meeting will be webcast live at
Docket Nos. 50–498 and 50–499, South Effective date: As of the date of the Web address—http://www.nrc.gov/.
Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, Matagorda issuance and shall be implemented 2:00 p.m. Discussion of Management
County, Texas during the Unit 1 refueling outage in the and Personnel Issues (Closed—Ex. 2 &
fall of 2016. 6).
Date of amendment request: April 29, Amendment No.: 295. A publicly-
2015, as supplemented by letters dated available version is in ADAMS under Week of June 6, 2016—Tentative
June 29, October 8, and November 11, Accession No. ML16028A414, There are no meetings scheduled for
2015, and March 17, 2016. documents related to this amendment the week of June 6, 2016.
Brief description of amendment: The are listed in the Safety Evaluation
amendments revised Technical enclosed with the amendment. Week of June 13, 2016—Tentative
Specification 6.8.3.j, ‘‘Containment Renewed Facility Operating License There are no meetings scheduled for
Leakage Rate Testing Program,’’ to allow No. DPR–33: Amendment revised the the week of June 13, 2016.
a permanent extension of the Type A Facility Operating License and TS.
primary containment integrated leak Date of initial notice in Federal Week of June 20, 2016—Tentative
rate testing frequency from once every Register: January 5, 2016 (81 FR 276). Monday, June 20, 2016
10 years to once every 15 years. The supplemental letters dated
Date of issuance: April 29, 2016. December 28, 2015, and March 28, 2016, 9:00 a.m. Meeting with Department of
Effective date: As of the date of provided additional information that Energy Office of Nuclear Energy (Public
issuance and shall be implemented clarified the application, did not expand Meeting) (Contact: Albert Wong: 301–
within 90 days of issuance. the scope of the application as originally 415–3081).
Amendment Nos.: Unit 1—210; Unit noticed, and did not change the staff’s This meeting will be webcast live at
2—197. A publicly-available version is original proposed no significant hazards the Web address—http://www.nrc.gov/.
in ADAMS under Accession No. consideration determination as Thursday, June 23, 2016
ML16116A007; documents related to published in the Federal Register.
sradovich on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
these amendments are listed in the The Commission’s related evaluation 9:00 a.m. Discussion of Security
Safety Evaluation enclosed with the of the amendments is contained in an Issues (Closed Ex. 3).
amendments. SE dated April 26, 2016. Week of June 27, 2016—Tentative
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF– No significant hazards consideration
76 and NPF–80: The amendments comments received: No. Tuesday, June 28, 2016
revised the Facility Operating Licenses Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 13th day 9:30 a.m. Briefing on Human Capital
and Technical Specifications. of May 2016. and Equal Opportunity Employment
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:24 May 23, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00098 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\24MYN1.SGM 24MYN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_32900/page/16.svg)
Document Created: 2016-05-24 05:21:12
Document Modified: 2016-05-24 05:21:12
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Notices | |
| Action | Biweekly notice. | |
| Dates | Comments must be filed by June 23, 2016. A request for a hearing must be filed by July 25, 2016. | |
| Contact | Mable Henderson, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-3760, email: [email protected] | |
| FR Citation | 81 FR 32800 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR