81 FR 36613 - Biweekly Notice, Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 109 (June 7, 2016)
Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 109 (June 7, 2016)
| Page Range | 36613-36626 | |
| FR Document | 2016-13255 |
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 109 (Tuesday, June 7, 2016)] [Notices] [Pages 36613-36626] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2016-13255] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [NRC-2016-0107] Biweekly Notice, Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Biweekly notice. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 189a. (2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is publishing this regular biweekly notice. The Act requires the Commission to publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to be issued, and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license or combined license, as applicable, upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person. This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or proposed to be issued from May 10, 2016, to May 23, 2016. The last biweekly notice was published on May 24, 2016 (81 FR 32800). DATES: Comments must be filed by July 7, 2016. A request for a hearing must be filed by August 8, 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-2016-0107. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415- 3463; email: [email protected]. For technical questions, contact the individuals listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document. Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Office of Administration, Mail Stop: OWFN-12-H08, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see ``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kay Goldstein, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, telephone: 301-415-1506, email: [email protected] and Lynn Ronewicz, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, telephone: 301-415-1927, email: [email protected]. Both are staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments A. Obtaining Information Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0107 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-2016-0107. 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 of this document. NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. B. Submitting Comments Please include Docket ID NRC-2016-0107, 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 [[Page 36614]] they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS. II. Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses and Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in Sec. 50.92 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated, or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown below. The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination. Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60- day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30- day comment period if circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. If the Commission takes action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a notice of issuance. If the Commission makes a final no significant hazards consideration determination, any hearing will take place after issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will occur very infrequently. A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing and Petition for Leave To Intervene Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any 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 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)-(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 [[Page 36615]] 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 August 8, 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 August 8, 2016. 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 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 [[Page 36616]] 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. DTE Electric Company, Docket No. 50-341, Fermi 2, Monroe County, Michigan Date of amendment request: March 22, 2016. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16082A309. Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would allow for permanent extension of the Type A primary containment integrated leak rate test interval to 15 years and extension of the Type C test interval up to 75 months. The amendment also proposes two administrative changes to remove text that is no longer applicable. The first change revises technical specification (TS) 5.5.12 to remove a one-time extension of the Type A test frequency. The second change would revise the Fermi 2 Operating License, Section D, to remove a reference to an exemption regarding Appendix J testing of containment air locks. 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 amendment to the TS involves the extension of Fermi 2 Type A containment test interval to 15 years and the extension of the Type C test interval to 75 months. The current Type A test interval of 10 years would be extended on a permanent basis to no longer than 15 years from the last Type A test. The current Type C test interval of 60 months for selected components would be extended on a performance basis to no longer than 75 months. Extensions of up to nine months (total maximum interval of 84 months for Type C tests) are permissible only for non-routine emergent conditions. The proposed amendment does not involve either a physical change to the plant or a change in the manner in which the plant is operated or controlled. The primary containment is designed to provide an essentially leak tight barrier against the uncontrolled release of radioactivity to the environment for postulated accidents. As such, the containment and the testing requirements invoked to periodically demonstrate the integrity of the containment exist to ensure the plant's ability to mitigate the consequences of an accident, and do not involve any accident precursors or initiators. RG [Regulatory Guide] 1.174 [sic] [ADAMS Accession No. ML023240437] provides guidance for determining the risk impact of plant-specific changes to the licensing basis. RG 1.174 defines very small changes in risk as resulting in increases of CDF [core damage frequency] below 1.0E- 06/yr and increases in LERF [large early release frequency] below 1.0E-07/yr. Since the ILRT [integrated leak rate test] does not impact CDF, the relevant criterion is LERF. The increase in LERF resulting from a change in the Type A ILRT test interval from three in ten years to one in fifteen years is very conservatively estimated as 1.27E-08/yr using the EPRI [Electric Power Research Institute] guidance as written. As such, the estimated change in LERF is determined to be ``very small'' using the acceptance guidelines of RG 1.174. RG 1.174 also states that when the calculated increase in LERF is in the range of 1.0E-06 per reactor year to 1.0E-07 per reactor year, applications will be considered only if it can be reasonably shown that the total LERF is less than 1.0E-05 per reactor year. An additional assessment of the impact from external events was also made. In this case, the total LERF increase was conservatively estimated (with an external event multiplier of 15) as 1.90E-07 for Fermi 2 (the baseline total LERF for this case is 7.88E- 06/yr). This is well below the RG 1.174 acceptance criteria for total LERF of 1.0E-05. The change in Type A test frequency to once per 15 years, measured as an increase to the total integrated plant risk for those accident sequences influenced by Type A testing, is 1.14E-4 person- rem/yr (a 0.00184% increase). EPRI Report No. 1009325, Revision 2-A, states that a very small population dose is defined as an increase of <=1.0 person-rem per year or <=1% of the total population dose, whichever is less restrictive for the risk impact assessment of the extended ILRT intervals. Moreover, the risk impact when compared to other severe accident risks is negligible. The increase in the CCFP [conditional containment failure probability] from the three in 10 year [sic] interval to one in 15 year interval is 0.73%. EPRI Report No. 1009325, Revision 2-A, states that increases in CCFP of less than or equal to 1.5 percentage points are very small. Therefore, this increase judged to be very small. The other two changes, to TS 5.5.12, item a, and Operating License, Provision D, are administrative in nature to remove old text that is no longer applicable. 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 amendment to the TS involves the extension of the Fermi 2 Type A containment test interval to 15 years and the extension of the Type C test interval to 75 months. The containment and the testing requirements to periodically demonstrate the integrity of the containment exist to ensure the plant's ability to mitigate the consequences of an accident and do not involve any accident precursors or initiators. The proposed change does not involve a physical change to the plant (e.g., no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a change to the manner in which the plant is operated or controlled. The other two changes to TS 5.5.12, item a, and Operating License, Provision D, are administrative in nature to remove old text that is no longer needed. Therefore, these changes have no impact on the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 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 amendment to TS 5.5.12 involves the extension of the Fermi 2 Type A containment test interval to 15 years and the extension of the Type C test interval to 75 months for selected components. This amendment does not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system set points, or limiting conditions for operation are determined. The specific requirements and conditions of the TS Containment Leak Rate Testing Program exist to ensure that the [[Page 36617]] degree of containment structural integrity and leak-tightness that is considered in the plant safety analysis is maintained. The overall containment leak rate limit specified by TS is maintained. The proposed surveillance interval extension is bounded by the 15 year ILRT interval and the 75 month Type C test interval currently authorized within NEI 94-01, Revision 3-A. Industry experience supports the conclusion that Type B and Type C testing detects a large percentage of containment leakage paths and the percentage of containment leakage paths that are detected only by Type A testing is small. The containment inspections preformed in accordance with ASME [American Society of Mechanical Engineers] Section XI, Maintenance Rule, and TS serve to provide a high degree of assurance that the containment would not degrade in a manner that is detectable only by Type A testing. The combination of these factors ensures that the margin of safety in the plant safety analysis is maintained. The design, operation, testing methods, and acceptance criteria for Type A, Type B, and Type C containment leakage tests specified in applicable codes and standards would continue to be met with the acceptance of this proposed change since these are not affected by the changes to the Type A and Type C test intervals. The other two changes to TS 5.5.12, item a, and Operating License, Provision D, are administrative in nature to remove old text that is no longer needed. Therefore, these changes have no impact on the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 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: Jon P. Christinidis, DTE Energy, Expert Attorney--Regulatory, 688 WCB, One Energy Plaza, Detroit, MI 48226- 1279. NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona. Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370, McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina Date of amendment request: March 24, 2016. A publicly available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16089A228. Description of amendment request: The amendments would modify Technical Specification 3.6.13, ``Ice Condenser Doors,'' to revise Condition B for an ice condenser lower inlet door invalid open alarm to preclude plant shutdown caused by an invalid ``OPEN'' alarm from the ``Inlet Door Position Monitoring System.'' 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 of occurrence or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed change will not increase the probability of accident previously evaluated. The Ice Condenser performs an entirely mitigative function. The proposed change does not result in any physical change to the plant which would affect any accident initiators. No structures, systems, or components (SSCs) involved in the initiation of postulated accidents will be operated in any different manner. The probability of occurrence of a previously evaluated accident will not be significantly increased. The proposed change involves use of an alternate method of verifying that the lower inlet doors to the ice condenser are closed. This proposed change has no effect on the ability of the ice condenser to perform its function. 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 does not alter the design function or operation of any SSC that may be involved in the initiation of an accident. The Ice Condenser will not become the source of a new type of accident. No new accident causal mechanisms will be created. The proposed change does not create new failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident initiators. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety? Response: No. Margin of safety is related to the confidence in the ability of the fission product barriers to perform their intended functions. These barriers include the fuel cladding, the reactor coolant system pressure boundary, and the containment barriers. The proposed change involves use of a method to verify the lower inlet doors to the ice condenser are closed when an invalid alarm is providing indication of an open door. This proposed change has no effect on the ability of the ice condenser to perform its function. Hence, the proposed change will not affect containment barriers. Nor does the proposed change have any effect on fuel cladding or the reactor coolant pressure boundary. Therefore, existing safety margins will be preserved, and 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: Lara S. Nichols, Deputy General Counsel, Duke Energy Corporation, 526 South Church Street--EC07H, Charlotte, NC 28202. Duke Energy Progress, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-325 and 50-324, Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, Brunswick County, North Carolina Date of amendment request: April 13, 2016. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16111B203. Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the Allowable Values (AVs) of Surveillance Requirements (SRs) contained in Technical Specification 3.3.8.2, ``RPS Electric Power Monitoring,'' by amending the Reactor Protection System electric power monitoring assembly AVs for overvoltage and undervoltage contained within SRs 3.3.8.2.2 and 3.3.8.2.3. Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No The proposed change to the Allowable Values of Surveillance Requirements contained in Technical Specifications 3.3.8.2 does not impact the physical function of plant structures, systems, or components (SSC) or the manner in which SCCs [sic] perform their design function. The proposed change does not authorize the addition of any new plant equipment or systems, nor does it alter the assumptions of any accident analyses. The Electrical Protection Assemblies are not accident initiators. They operate in response to off-normal voltage conditions on Class 1E buses to protect the connected loads. The proposed change does not adversely affect accident initiators or precursors, nor does it alter the design assumptions, conditions, and configuration or the manner in which the plant is operated and maintained. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. [[Page 36618]] 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 to the Allowable Values of Surveillance Requirements contained in Technical Specifications 3.3.8.2 does not require any modification to the plant (i.e., other than the setpoint changes) or change equipment operation or testing. The proposed change will not introduce failure modes that could result in a new accident, and the change does not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis. The proposed change will not alter the design configuration, or method of operation of plant equipment beyond its normal functional capabilities. The proposed change does not create any new credible failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident initiators. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from those that have been previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No The proposed change to the Allowable Values of Surveillance Requirements contained in Technical Specifications 3.3.8.2 does not alter or exceed a design basis or safety limit. There is no change being made to safety analysis assumptions or the safety limits that would adversely affect plant safety as a result of the proposed change. Margins of safety are unaffected by the proposed change and the applicable requirements of 10 CFR 50.36(c)(2)(ii) and 10 CFR 50, Appendix A will continue to be met. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve any reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Attorney for licensee: Kathryn B. Nolan, Deputy General Counsel, 550 South Tryon Street, M/C DEC45A, Charlotte NC 28202. NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin G. Beasley. Entergy Operations, Inc. (Entergy), Docket No. 50-368, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit No. 2 (ANO-2), Pope County, Arkansas Date of amendment request: March 25, 2016. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16088A186. Description of amendment request: The amendment will revise the Technical Specifications (TSs) to eliminate TS 6.5.8, ``Inservice Testing Program.'' A new defined term, ``Inservice Testing [IST] Program,'' will be added to TS 1.0, ``Definitions,'' section. The licensee has noted that while the request is consistent with TS Task Force (TSTF)-545, Revision 3, ``TS Inservice Testing Program Removal & Clarify SR [Surveillance Requirement] Usage Rule Application to Section 5.5 Testing,'' there are various deviations from the TSTF-545, Revision 3. ANO-2 TSs are of an older standard version and have not been converted to the improved standard TSs (ISTSs) based on NUREG 1432, ``Standard Technical Specifications--Combustion Engineering Plants,'' Revision 4. As such, Entergy stated there are several administrative- type variations (TS numbering, wording, etc.) but these variations do not result in any technical conflict with the intent of TSTF-545, Revision 3 or the associated model safety evaluation. 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 edits in [brackets], which is presented below: 1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed change revises TS Chapter 6, ``Administrative Controls,'' Section 6.5, ``Programs and Manuals,'' by eliminating the ``Inservice Testing Program'' specification. Most requirements in the IST Program are removed, as they are duplicative of requirements in the ASME [American Society of Mechanical Engineers] OM Code [ASME Code for Operation and Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants], as clarified by Code Case OMN-20, ``Inservice Test Frequency.'' The remaining requirements in the Section 6.5 IST Program are eliminated because the NRC has determined their inclusion in the TS is contrary to regulations. A new defined term, ``Inservice Testing Program,'' is added to the TS, which references the requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a(f). Performance of inservice testing is not an initiator to any accident previously evaluated. As a result, the probability of occurrence of an accident is not significantly affected by the proposed change. Inservice test frequencies under Code Case OMN-20 are equivalent to the current testing period allowed by the TS with the exception that testing frequencies greater than 2 years may be extended by up to 6 months to facilitate test scheduling and consideration of plant operating conditions that may not be suitable for performance of the required testing. The testing frequency extension will not affect the ability of the components to mitigate any accident previously evaluated as the components are required to be operable during the testing period extension. Performance of inservice tests utilizing the allowances in OMN-20 will not significantly affect the reliability of the tested components. As a result, the availability of the affected components, as well as their ability to mitigate the consequences of accidents previously evaluated, is not affected. 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 does not alter the design or configuration of the plant. The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant; no new or different kind of equipment will be installed. The proposed change does not alter the types of inservice testing performed. In most cases, the frequency of inservice testing is unchanged. However, the frequency of testing would not result in a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated since the testing methods are not altered. 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 eliminates some requirements from the TS in lieu of requirements in the ASME Code, as modified by use of Code Case OMN-20. Compliance with the ASME Code is required by 10 CFR 50.55a. The proposed change also allows inservice tests with frequencies greater than 2 years to be extended by 6 months to facilitate test scheduling and consideration of plant operating conditions that may not be suitable for performance of the required testing. The testing frequency extension will not affect the ability of the components to respond to an accident as the components are required to be operable during the testing period extension. The proposed change will eliminate the existing TS Surveillance Requirement (SR) 4.0.3 (referenced as SR 3.0.3 in the ISTS) allowance to defer performance of missed inservice tests up to the duration of the specified testing frequency, and instead will require an assessment of the missed test on equipment operability. This assessment will consider the effect on a margin of safety (equipment operability). Should the component be inoperable, the Technical Specifications provide actions to ensure that the margin of safety is protected. The proposed change also eliminates a statement that nothing in the ASME Code should be construed to supersede the requirements of any TS. The NRC has determined that statement to be incorrect. However, elimination of the statement will have no effect on plant operation or safety. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. [[Page 36619]] 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: Joseph A. Aluise, Associate General Counsel--Nuclear, Entergy Services, Inc., 639 Loyola Avenue, New Orleans, Louisiana 70113. NRC Branch Chief: Meena K. Khanna. Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-313, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit No. 1, Pope County, Arkansas Date of amendment request: March 25, 2016. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16088A181. Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the Technical Specifications (TSs) to eliminate TS Section 5.5.8, ``Inservice Testing [IST] Program.'' A new defined term, ``Inservice Testing Program,'' will be added to TS 1.1, ``Definitions.'' This amendment request is consistent with TS Task Force (TSTF)-545, Revision 3, ``TS Inservice Testing Program Removal & Clarify SR [Surveillance Requirement] Usage Rule Application to Section 5.5 Testing,'' under the consolidated line item improvement process. Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, with NRC edits in [brackets], which is presented below: 1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed change revises TS Chapter 5, ``Administrative Controls,'' Section 5.5, ``Programs and Manuals,'' by eliminating the ``Inservice Testing Program'' specification. Most requirements in the IST Program are removed, as they are duplicative of requirements in the ASME [American Society of Mechanical Engineers] OM Code [ASME Code for Operation and Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants], as clarified by Code Case OMN-20, ``Inservice Test Frequency.'' The remaining requirements in the Section 5.5 IST Program are eliminated because the NRC has determined their inclusion in the TS is contrary to regulations. A new defined term, ``Inservice Testing Program,'' is added to the TS, which references the requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a(f). Performance of inservice testing is not an initiator to any accident previously evaluated. As a result, the probability of occurrence of an accident is not significantly affected by the proposed change. Inservice test frequencies under Code Case OMN-20 are equivalent to the current testing period allowed by the TS with the exception that testing frequencies greater than 2 years may be extended by up to 6 months to facilitate test scheduling and consideration of plant operating conditions that may not be suitable for performance of the required testing. The testing frequency extension will not affect the ability of the components to mitigate any accident previously evaluated as the components are required to be operable during the testing period extension. Performance of inservice tests utilizing the allowances in OMN-20 will not significantly affect the reliability of the tested components. As a result, the availability of the affected components, as well as their ability to mitigate the consequences of accidents previously evaluated, is not affected. 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 does not alter the design or configuration of the plant. The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant; no new or different kind of equipment will be installed. The proposed change does not alter the types of inservice testing performed. In most cases, the frequency of inservice testing is unchanged. However, the frequency of testing would not result in a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated since the testing methods are not altered. 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 eliminates some requirements from the TS in lieu of requirements in the ASME Code, as modified by use of Code Case OMN-20. Compliance with the ASME Code is required by 10 CFR 50.55a. The proposed change also allows inservice tests with frequencies greater than 2 years to be extended by 6 months to facilitate test scheduling and consideration of plant operating conditions that may not be suitable for performance of the required testing. The testing frequency extension will not affect the ability of the components to respond to an accident as the components are required to be operable during the testing period extension. The proposed change will eliminate the existing TS Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.0.3 allowance to defer performance of missed inservice tests up to the duration of the specified testing frequency, and instead will require an assessment of the missed test on equipment operability. This assessment will consider the effect on a margin of safety (equipment operability). Should the component be inoperable, the Technical Specifications provide actions to ensure that the margin of safety is protected. The proposed change also eliminates a statement that nothing in the ASME Code should be construed to supersede the requirements of any TS. The NRC has determined that statement to be incorrect. However, elimination of the statement will have no effect on plant operation or safety. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Attorney for licensee: Joseph A. Aluise, Associate General Counsel--Nuclear, Entergy Services, Inc., 639 Loyola Avenue, New Orleans, Louisiana 70113. NRC Branch Chief: Meena K. Khanna. 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: March 24, 2016, as supplemented by letter dated May 11, 2016. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML16084A567 and ML16132A440. Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the frequency for cycling of the recirculation pump discharge valves as specified in Technical Specification (TS) Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.5.1.5. Specifically, SR 3.5.1.5 requires verification that each recirculation pump discharge valve cycles through one complete cycle of full travel or is de-energized in the closed position. Currently, this SR needs to be performed once each plant startup prior to exceeding 23 percent rated thermal power (RTP), if the SR had not been performed within the previous 31 days. The amendments would change the frequency for the SR such that it is performed in accordance with the Inservice Testing Program. 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: [[Page 36620]] 1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed change revises the frequency for cycling the recirculation pump discharge valves from ``Once each startup prior to exceeding 23% RTP,'' as modified by a Note stating, ``Not required to be performed if performed within the previous 31 days'' to ``In accordance with the Inservice Testing Program''. Testing of the recirculation pump discharge valves is not an initiator of any accident previously evaluated. As the recirculation pump discharge valves are still required to be Operable, the ability to mitigate any accident previously evaluated is not affected. The proposed change does not adversely affect the design assumptions, conditions, or configuration of the facility. The proposed change does not alter or prevent the ability of structures, systems, and components (SSCs) from performing their intended function. Therefore, this change does not significantly increase 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 revises the frequency for cycling the recirculation pump discharge valves from ``Once each startup prior to exceeding 23% RTP,'' as modified by a Note stating, ``Not required to be performed if performed within the previous 31 days'' to ``In accordance with the Inservice Testing Program''. This revision will not impact the accident analysis. The change will not alter the methods of operation of the recirculation pump discharge valves. No new or different accidents result. 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 significant change in the methods governing normal plant operation. The change does not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis. Therefore, the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated is not created. 3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The proposed change revises the frequency for cycling the recirculation pump discharge valves from ``Once each startup prior to exceeding 23% RTP,'' as modified by a Note stating, ``Not required to be performed if performed within the previous 31 days'' to ``In accordance with the Inservice Testing Program.'' The proposed change does not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system settings or limiting conditions for operation are determined. The safety analysis acceptance criteria are not affected by this change. The proposed change will not result in plant operation in a configuration outside the design basis. The frequency of testing the recirculation pump discharge valves will be consistent with the frequency of testing other valves in the Emergency Core Cooling System. Therefore, this change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Rd., Warrenville, IL 60555. NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus. Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-461, Clinton Power Station, Unit No.1, DeWitt County, Illinois Date of amendment request: April 4, 2016. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16095A285. Description of amendment request: The proposed changes would revise technical specification (TS) limiting condition for operation (LCO) 3.10.1, and the associated Bases, to expand its scope to include provisions for temperature excursions greater than 200 degrees Fahrenheit as a consequence of in-service leak and hydrostatic testing, and as a consequence of scram time testing initiated in conjunction with an in-service leak or hydrostatic test, while considering operational conditions to be in Mode 4. 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. Technical Specifications currently allow for operation at greater than 200 degrees F while imposing MODE 4 requirements in addition to the secondary containment requirements required to be met. Extending the activities that can apply this allowance will not adversely impact the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. Technical Specifications currently allow for operation at greater than 200 degrees F while imposing MODE 4 requirements in addition to the secondary containment requirements required to be met. No new operational conditions beyond those currently allowed by LCO 3.10.1 are introduced. The changes do not involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant operation. In addition, the changes do not impose any new or different requirements or eliminate any existing requirements. The changes do not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis. The proposed changes are 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 previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. Technical Specifications currently allow for operation at greater than 200 degrees F while imposing MODE 4 requirements in addition to the secondary containment requirements required to be met. Extending the activities that can apply this allowance will not adversely impact any margin of safety. Allowing completion of inspections and testing and supporting completion of scram time testing initiated in conjunction with an in-service leak or hydrostatic test prior to power operation results in enhanced safe operations by eliminating unnecessary maneuvers to control reactor temperature and pressure. 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: Bradley J. Fewell, Associate General Counsel, Exelon Nuclear, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555. NRC Branch Chief: G. Ed Miller (Acting) 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: April 4, 2016. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16095A275. Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the high pressure coolant injection (HPCI) and reactor core isolation cooling (RCIC) [[Page 36621]] system actuation instrumentation Technical Specification (TS) 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. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed changes involve the addition of clarifying footnotes to the HPCI and RCIC actuation instrumentation TS to reflect the as-built plant design and operability requirements of HPCI and RCIC instrumentation as described in the LGS Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). HPCI and RCIC are not an initiator of any accident previously evaluated. As a result, the probability of any accident previously evaluated is not increased. In addition, the automatic start of HPCI on high drywell pressure, and the manual initiation of HPCI and RCIC, are not credited to mitigate the consequences of design basis accidents, transients or special events within the current LGS design and licensing basis. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed changes do not alter the protection system design, create new failure modes, or change any modes of operation. The proposed changes do not involve a physical alteration of the plant, and no new or different kind of equipment will be installed. Consequently, there are no new initiators that could result in a new or different kind of accident. Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The proposed changes have no adverse effect on plant operation. The plant response to the design basis accidents does not change. The proposed changes do not adversely affect existing plant safety margins or the reliability of the equipment assumed to operate in the safety analyses. There is no change being made to safety analysis assumptions, safety limits or limiting safety system settings that would adversely affect plant safety as a result of the proposed changes. 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: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555. NRC Acting Branch Chief: Andrew Hon. Florida Power & Light Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389, St. Lucie Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, St. Lucie County, Florida Date of amendment request: April 29, 2016. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16125A253. Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise Appendix B (Environmental Protection Plan (EPP)) of the Unit 1 and Unit 2 Operating Licenses to incorporate the revised Section 8.4, ``Terms and Conditions'' of the currently applicable Biological Opinion issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) on March 24, 2016. In addition, the amendments would clarify in the EPP that the licensee must adhere to the currently applicable Biological Opinion. This clarification would preclude the need for a new license amendment in the event that NMFS issues a new Biological Opinion. 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. Operation of the Facility in Accordance With the Proposed Amendments Would Not Involve a Significant Increase in the Probability or Consequences of an Accident Previously Evaluated The changes are administrative in nature and would in no way affect the initial conditions, assumptions, or conclusions of the St. Lucie Unit 1 or Unit 2 accident analyses. In addition, the proposed changes would not affect the operation or performance of any equipment assumed in the accident analyses. Based on the above information, we conclude that the proposed changes would not significantly increase the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Use of the Modified Specification Would Not Create the Possibility of a New or Different Kind of Accident From any Previously Evaluated The changes are administrative in nature and would in no way impact or alter the configuration or operation of the facilities and would create no new modes of operation. We conclude that the proposed changes would not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident. 3. Use of the Modified Specification Would Not Involve a Significant Reduction in a Margin of Safety The changes are administrative in nature and would in no way affect plant or equipment operation or the accident analysis. We conclude that the proposed changes would not result in a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Attorney for licensee: William S. Blair, Managing Attorney-- Nuclear, Florida Power & Light Company, 700 Universe Boulevard, MS LAW/ JB, Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420. NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin G. Beasley. Northern States Power Company--Minnesota (NSPM), Docket No. 50-263, Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, Wright County, Minnesota Date of amendment request: April 4, 2016. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16099A097. Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would revise technical specification (TS) 3.8.4, ``DC Sources--Operating,'' Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.8.4.2 to increase the required 125 Volt (V) Direct Current (DC) subsystems battery charger output current and to remove the second method specified to perform the surveillance. The first proposed change is to increase the required 125 Volt VDC battery charger output current specified as the first option under SR 3.8.4.2 to resolve a non-conservative TS condition. The second proposed change is to remove from SR 3.8.4.2 an alternative option for meeting the surveillance requirement. This alternative requires verifying each battery charger can recharge the battery to the fully charged state within the required time period, 24 hours for the 250 VDC and 8 hours for the 125 VDC subsystems, respectively, while supplying the largest combined continuous steady state loads, after a battery discharge to the bounding design basis event discharge state. Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the [[Page 36622]] 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 TS changes revise the battery charger surveillance requirements in SR 3.8.4.2. The DC electrical power system, including associated battery chargers, is not an initiator of any accident sequence analyzed in the Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR). Rather, the DC electrical power system supports operation of equipment used to mitigate accidents. Operation in accordance with the proposed TS continues to ensure that the DC electrical power system is capable of performing its specified safety functions as described in the USAR. Therefore, the mitigating functions supported by the DC electrical power system will continue to provide the protection assumed by the analysis. Accidents are initiated by the malfunction of plant equipment, or the catastrophic failure of plant structures, systems, or components (SSCs). Performance of battery testing is not a precursor to any accident previously evaluated, nor does it change the manner in which the batteries and battery chargers are operated. The proposed testing requirements will not contribute to the failure of the batteries nor any plant SSC. NSPM has determined that the proposed TS changes provide an equivalent level of assurance that the batteries and battery chargers are capable of performing their intended safety functions. Thus, the proposed changes do not affect the probability of an accident previously evaluated. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The DC electrical power system, including the associated battery chargers, is not an initiator of any accident sequence analyzed in the USAR. The proposed TS changes do not involve operation of the DC electrical power system in a manner or configuration different from those previously evaluated. Performance of battery testing is not a precursor to any accident previously evaluated. NSPM has determined that the proposed TS changes provide an equivalent level of assurance that the batteries and battery chargers are capable of performing their intended safety functions. Therefore, the mitigating functions supported by the DC electrical power system will continue to provide the protection assumed in the safety analyses. 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 margin of safety is established through the equipment design, the operating parameters, and the setpoints at which automatic actions are initiated. The equipment margins will be maintained in accordance with the plant-specific design bases as a result of the proposed changes. The proposed changes do not adversely affect operation of plant equipment. The proposed TS changes do not result in a change to the setpoints at which protective actions are initiated. Sufficient DC capacity to support operation of mitigation equipment continues to be ensured. The equipment fed by the DC electrical sources will continue to provide adequate power to safety-related loads in accordance with safety analysis assumptions. 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: Peter M. Glass, Assistant General Counsel, Xcel Energy Services, Inc., 414 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, MN 55401. NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona. South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, South Carolina Public Service Authority, Docket No. 50-395, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Fairfield County, South Carolina Date of amendment request: April 7, 2016. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16104A027. Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the Emergency Feedwater System pump performance testing requirements in Technical Specification (TS) 3/4.7.1.2, ``Emergency Feedwater System,'' Surveillance Requirements 4.7.1.2.a.1 and 4.7.1.2.a.2. Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below with NRC staff edits in square brackets: 1. Do the proposed changes [sic] involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed change deletes an allowed outage time that is no longer applicable and revises the Surveillance Requirements (SRs) that confirm the Emergency Feedwater (EFW) pump performance to be more consistent with the STS [Standard Technical Specifications-- Westinghouse Plants]. The change has been determined not to adversely affect the safe operation of the plant. The affected TS requirements are not initiating conditions for any accident previously evaluated. In addition, changes that are consistent with the STS have been previously evaluated by plants adopting the STS and found not to adversely affect the safe operation of Westinghouse NSSS [Nuclear Steam Supply System] plants. Based on the conclusions of the plant specific evaluation associated with the change and the evaluations performed in developing the STS, the proposed change does not result in operating conditions that will significantly increase the probability of initiating an analyzed event. The proposed change was also evaluated to assure that it does not alter the safety analysis assumptions relative to mitigation of an accident or transient event and that the resulting TS requirements continue to ensure the necessary equipment is operable consistent with the safety analyses or that the plant is placed in an operating Mode where the system is no longer required operable. As such the proposed change also does not result in operating conditions that will significantly increase the consequences of an analyzed event. 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 includes the deletion of an expired allowed outage time extension and the revision of the SRs that confirm the EFW pump performance to be more consistent with the corresponding STS SR. Consistent with the STS SR, the proposed change would remove the specific pump head and flow values from the current SRs and require that the SR be performed in accordance with the Inservice Testing Program. The removal of the specific pump head and flow values from the SR is necessary to support the implementation of a plant modification that would change the current EFW pump head and flow values in the SR. The plant modification is being performed under the provisions of 10CFR50.59. The proposed TS change does not involve a change in the methods governing normal plant operation. The proposed change also does not change any system functions nor does the proposed TS change affect any safety analysis or design basis requirements. The proposed TS change will continue to ensure the EFW System is operable in a similar manner as before. As such, the proposed change does not create new failure modes or mechanisms that are not identifiable during testing, and no new accident precursors are generated. Therefore, the proposed changes do [sic] not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated. [[Page 36623]] 3. Does this [proposed] change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The margin of safety is established through equipment design, operating parameters, and the setpoints at which automatic actions are initiated. The proposed change does not physically alter safety- related systems, nor does it affect the way in which safety related systems perform their functions. The setpoints at which protective actions are initiated are not altered by the proposed change. Therefore, in a similar manner as before, sufficient equipment remains available to actuate upon demand for the purpose of mitigating an analyzed event. The proposed change results in TS requirements that are consistent with the plant safety analyses. As such, the change does not result in operating conditions that significantly reduce any margin of safety. Therefore, the proposed changes do [sic] 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: J. Hagood Hamilton, Jr., South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, Post Office Box 764, Columbia, South Carolina 29218. NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley. Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.; Georgia Power Company; Oglethorpe Power Corporation; Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia; City of Dalton, Georgia, Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366, Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Appling County, Georgia Date of amendment request: August 11, 2015, as supplemented by letters dated March 16, 2014, and April 4, 2016. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML15226A276, ML16076A453, and ML16095A373, respectively. Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the technical specification (TS) requirements related to direct current (DC) electrical systems in TS Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) 3.8.4, ``DC Sources--Operating''; LCO 3.8.5, ``DC Sources--Shutdown''; and LCO 3.8.6, ``Battery Cell Parameters.'' A new battery monitoring and maintenance program is being proposed for Section 5.5, ``Administrative Controls--Programs and Manuals.'' 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 any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed changes restructure the Technical Specifications (TS) for the direct current (DC) electrical power system and are consistent with TSTF-500, Revision 2. The proposed changes modify TS Actions relating to battery and battery charger inoperability. The DC electrical power system, including associated battery chargers, is not an initiator of any accident sequence analyzed in the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR). Rather, the DC electrical power system supports equipment used to mitigate accidents. The proposed changes to restructure TS and change surveillances for batteries and chargers to incorporate the updates included in TSTF-500, Revision 2, will maintain the same level of equipment performance required for mitigating accidents assumed in the FSAR. Operation in accordance with the proposed TS would ensure that the DC electrical power system is capable of performing its specified safety function as described in the FSAR. Therefore, the mitigating functions supported by the DC electrical power system will continue to provide the protection assumed by the analysis. The relocation of preventive maintenance surveillances, and certain operating limits and actions, to a licensee-controlled Battery Monitoring and Maintenance Program will not challenge the ability of the DC electrical power system to perform its design function. Appropriate monitoring and maintenance that are consistent with industry standards will continue to be performed. In addition, the DC electrical power system is within the scope of 10 CFR 50.65, ``Requirements for monitoring the effectiveness of maintenance at nuclear power plants,'' which will ensure the control of maintenance activities associated with the DC electrical power system. The integrity of fission product barriers, plant configuration, and operating procedures as described in the FSAR will not be affected by the proposed changes. Therefore, the consequences of previously analyzed accidents will not increase by implementing these changes. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed changes involve restructuring the TS for the DC electrical power system. The DC electrical power system, including associated battery chargers, is not an initiator to any accident sequence analyzed in the FSAR. Rather, the DC electrical power system supports equipment used to mitigate accidents. The proposed changes to restructure the TS and change surveillances for batteries and chargers to incorporate the updates included in TSTF-500, Revision 2, will maintain the same level of equipment performance required for mitigating accidents assumed in the FSAR. Administrative and mechanical controls are in place to ensure the design and operation of the DC systems continues to meet the plant design basis described in the FSAR. Therefore, operation of the facility in accordance with this proposed change will 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 the margin of safety? Response: No. The margin of safety is established through equipment design, operating parameters, and the setpoints at which automatic actions are initiated. The equipment margins will be maintained in accordance with the plant-specific design bases as a result of the proposed changes. The proposed changes will not adversely affect operation of plant equipment. These changes will not result in a change to the setpoints at which protective actions are initiated. Sufficient DC capacity to support operation of mitigation equipment is ensured. The changes associated with the new Battery Monitoring and Maintenance Program will ensure that the station batteries are maintained in a highly reliable manner. The equipment fed by the DC electrical sources will continue to provide adequate power to safety-related loads in accordance with analysis assumptions. TS changes made in accordance with TSTF-500, Revision 2, maintain the same level of equipment performance stated in the FSAR and the current TSs. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction 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 Iverness Center Parkway, Birmingham, AL 35242. NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley. Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50- 364, Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant (FNP), Units 1 and 2, Houston County, Alabama Date of amendment request: April 25, 2016. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16120A294. Description of amendment request: The license proposed three changes to [[Page 36624]] modifications specified in the March 10, 2015, NFPA [National Environmental Policy Act]-805 amendment, Attachment S, Table S-2, ``Plant Modifications Committed.'' The three proposed modifications are: (1) Delete Fire Area 1-041 information from Table S-2, (2) add information on item 11, Pyro Panel modification, and, (3) change cable 2VCHAL07P to cable 2VCFARK2P. Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis against the standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c). The licensee's analysis is presented below: 1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed amendment updates Attachments M, S, and W of the previously approved NFPA-805 LAR [license amendment request] submittal for FNP. The attachment revisions are based on the three changes to Table S-2 proposed in this LAR. One of the changes is justified based on negligible risk impact to Core Damage Frequency or Large Early Release Frequency associated with not performing the committed modification. The other two changes have no impact on accident analysis as they are clarifying or administrative in nature. The proposed change does not adversely affect accident initiators or precursors nor alter the design assumptions, conditions, and configuration of the facility or the manner in which the plant is operated and maintained. The proposed changes do not adversely affect the ability of structures, systems and components (SSCs) to perform their intended safety function to mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits. The proposed change does not increase the probability or consequence of an accident as verified by the risk analysis performed. Therefore, this proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously identified. 2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed amendment updates Attachments M, S, and W of the previously approved NFPA-805 LAR submittal for FNP. The attachment revisions are based on the three changes to Table S-2 proposed in this LAR. One of the changes is justified based on negligible risk impact to Core Damage Frequency or Large Early Release Frequency associated with not performing the committed modification. The other two changes have no impact on accident analysis as they are clarifying or administrative in nature. The proposed change relates to the availability of fire PRA [probabilistic risk analysis] credited component in given fire scenarios. Therefore, this proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The proposed amendment updates Attachments M, S, and W of the previously approved NFPA-805 LAR submittal for FNP. The attachment revisions are based on the three changes to Table S-2 proposed in this LAR. One of the changes is justified based on negligible risk impact to Core Damage Frequency or Large Early Release Frequency associated with not performing the committed modification. The other two changes have no impact on accident analysis as they are clarifying or administrative in nature. The proposed change does not increase the probability or consequence of an accident and does not reduce the margin of safety as verified by the risk analysis performed. Therefore, this proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Attorney for licensee: Jennifer M. Buettner, Associate General Counsel, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 40 Iverness Center Parkway, Birmingham, AL 35201. NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley. III. Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has determined for each of these amendments that the application complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment. A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility operating license or combined license, as applicable, proposed no significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the Federal Register as indicated. Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, it is so indicated. For further details with respect to the action see (1) the applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as indicated. All of these items can be accessed as described in the ``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' section of this document. Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-382, Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3, St. Charles Parish, Louisiana Date of amendment request: June 29, 2015. Brief description of amendment: The amendment approved a change to the Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3, Cyber Security Plan Implementation Schedule Milestone 8 full implementation date and a related change to the existing operating license physical protection license condition. Date of issuance: May 10, 2016. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 30 days of issuance. Amendment No.: 247. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16077A270; documents related to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment. Facility Operating License No. NPF-38: The amendment revised the facility operating license. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 1, 2015 (80 FR 52805). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 10, 2016. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. [[Page 36625]] Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-461, Clinton Power Station, Unit No. 1, DeWitt County, Illinois Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-237 and 50-249, Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3, Grundy County, Illinois Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-254 and 50-265, Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Rock Island County, Illinois Date of application for amendments: August 18, 2015, as supplemented by letter dated April 14, 2016. Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the reactor steam dome pressure specified in the technical specification safety limits. Date of issuance: May 11, 2016. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days from the date of issuance. Amendment Nos.: 209, 250, 243, 262, and 257. A publicly-available versions is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16111A104. Documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments. Facility Operating License Nos. : NPF-62, DPR-19, DPR-25, DPR-29, and DPR-30. Amendments revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 27, 2015 (80 FR 65812). The supplemental letter dated April 14, 2016, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the Federal Register. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a safety evaluation dated May 11, 2016. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323, Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant (DCPP), Units 1 and 2, San Luis Obispo County, California Date of application for amendments: September 16, 2015. Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical Specification (TS) 3.4.1, ``RCS [Reactor Coolant System] Pressure, Temperature, and Flow Departure from Nucleate Boiling (DNB) Limits,'' to delete current Tables 3.4.1-1, ``Reduction in Percent RATED THERMAL POWER for Reduced RCS Flow Rate, Unit 1,'' and 3.4.1-2, ``Reduction in Percent RATED THERMAL POWER for Reduced RCS Flow Rate, Unit 2,'' and add RCS thermal design flow (TDF) values to the requirements of TS 3.4.1. The change also relocates the RCS minimum measured flow (MMF) values to the DCPP, Units 1 and 2, core operating limits reports (COLR) with a reference to the MMF values in TS 3.4.1 and Surveillance Requirements 3.4.1.3 and 3.4.1.4. Figure 2.1.1-1, ``Reactor Core Safety Limit,'' has been revised to delete a footnote with references to Tables 3.4.1-1 and 3.4.1-2. The change is consistent with NUREG-1431, Volume 1, Revision 4.0, ``Standard Technical Specifications, Westinghouse Plants,'' April 2012; NRC-approved Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Change Traveler 339-A, Revision 2, ``Relocate TS Parameters to COLR,'' dated June 13, 2000; and NRC-approved WCAP-14483- A, ``Generic Methodology for Expanded Core Operating Limits Report,'' January 1999. The change is necessary to correct a non-conservative TS 3.4.1 total RCS flow rate value for DCPP, Unit 1. The change also ensures that the TS stays conservative, if the cycle-specific minimum RCS flow is higher than the minimum TDF. Date of issuance: May 19, 2016. Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented within 120 days from the date of issuance. Amendment Nos.: Unit 1--226; Unit 2--228. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16117A252; documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments. Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-80 and DPR-82: The amendments revised the Facility Operating Licenses and TSs. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 10, 2015 (80 FR 69714). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 19, 2016. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. 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: August 27, 2014, as supplemented by letters dated October 31, 2014; February 12, May 12, September 10, and November 5, 2015; and January 14 and March 4, 2016. Brief description of amendment: The amendment approved a change to the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station licensing basis to incorporate a supplemental analysis for the steam generator tube rupture accident. Date of issuance: May 16, 2016. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within120 days of issuance. Amendment No.: 205. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15231A605; 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. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 14, 2014 (79 FR 61661). The supplemental letters dated October 31, 2014; February 12, May 12, September 10, and November 5, 2015; and January 14 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 amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 16, 2016. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-364, Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Houston County, Alabama Date of amendment request: August 31, 2015, as supplemented by letters dated January 28, 2016, and March 11, 2016. Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical Specification (TS) 3.4.14, ``RCS Pressure Isolation Valve (PIV) Leakage,'' to eliminate the requirements for the residual heat removal system suction valve auto closure interlock function. Date of issuance: May 17, 2016. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented as follows: Unit 1--prior to the first entry into Mode 4, following the end-of-cycle refueling outage 27 (scheduled for fall 2016), and Unit 2--prior to the first entry into Mode 4, following the end-of-cycle refueling outage 25 (scheduled for fall 2017). Amendment Nos.: 201 (Unit 1) and 197 (Unit 2). A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16083A265; documents related [[Page 36626]] to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments. Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-2 and NPF-8: The amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 27, 2015 (80 FR 65815). The supplemental letters dated January 28, 2016, and March 11, 2016, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the Federal Register. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 17, 2016. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Susquehanna Nuclear, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-387 and 50-388, Susquehanna Steam Electric Station (SSES), Units 1 and 2, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania Date of amendment request: October 27, 2014, as supplemented by letters dated July 2, 2015; September 21, 2015; November 11, 2015; and January 29, 2016. Brief description of amendments: The amendments modified the SSES technical specifications (TSs). Specifically, the amendments modified the TSs by relocating specific surveillance frequencies to a licensee- controlled program, the Surveillance Frequency Control Program, with implementation of Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 04-10, Revision 1, ``Risk-Informed Technical Specifications Initiative 5b, Risk-Informed Method for Control of Surveillance Frequencies.'' The changes are consistent with NRC-approved Technical Specification Task Force Improved Standard Technical Specifications Change Traveler (TSTF)-425, Revision 3, ``Relocate Surveillance Frequencies to Licensee Control-- RITSTF Initiative 5b.'' The Federal Register notice published on July 6, 2009 (74 FR 31996), announced the availability of this TSTF improvement and included a model no significant hazards consideration and safety evaluation (SE). This license amendment request was submitted by PPL Susquehanna, LLC; however, on June 1, 2015, the NRC staff issued an amendment changing the name on the SSES license from PPL Susquehanna, LLC to Susquehanna Nuclear, LLC (ADAMS Accession No. ML15054A066). These amendments were issued subsequent to an order issued on April 10, 2015, to SSES, approving an indirect license transfer of the SSES license to Talen Energy Corporation (ADAMS Accession No. ML15058A073). Date of issuance: May 20, 2016. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 180 days of issuance. Amendment Nos.: 266 (Unit 1) and 247 (Unit 2). A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16005A234; documents related to these amendments are listed in the SE enclosed with the amendments. Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-14 and NPF-22: Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 3, 2015 (80 FR 11479). The supplemental letters dated July 2, 2015; September 21, 2015; November 11, 2015; and January 29, 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 May 20, 2016. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 27th 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. 2016-13255 Filed 6-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 7, 2016 / Notices 36613
and SRP–LR. In this way, the NRC staff NUCLEAR REGULATORY Regulation, telephone: 301–415–1506,
and stakeholders may use the guidance COMMISSION email: Kay.Goldstein@nrc.gov and Lynn
in an LR–ISG document before it is Ronewicz, Office of Nuclear Reactor
[NRC–2016–0107]
incorporated into a formal license Regulation, telephone: 301–415–1927,
renewal guidance document revision. Biweekly Notice, Applications and email: Lynn.Ronewicz@nrc.gov. Both are
The NRC staff issues LR–ISGs in Amendments to Facility Operating staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
accordance with the LR–ISG Process, Licenses and Combined Licenses Commission, Washington DC 20555–
Revision 2 (ADAMS Accession No. Involving No Significant Hazards 0001.
ML100920158), for which a notice of Considerations SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
availability was published in the
Federal Register on June 22, 2010 (75 AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory I. Obtaining Information and
FR 35510). Commission. Submitting Comments
The NRC also plans to consider the ACTION: Biweekly notice.
A. Obtaining Information
information in this LR–ISG and make
SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 189a. (2) Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2016–
corresponding changes when finalizing
of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 0107 when contacting the NRC about
the draft aging management guidance
amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear the availability of information for this
for the subsequent license renewal
Regulatory Commission (NRC) is action. You may obtain publicly-
period (i.e., up to 80 years of operation),
publishing this regular biweekly notice. available information related to this
which is documented in draft NUREG– The Act requires the Commission to
2191, ‘‘Generic Aging Lessons Learned action by any of the following methods:
for Subsequent License Renewal
publish notice of any amendments • Federal rulemaking Web site: Go to
issued, or proposed to be issued, and http://www.regulations.gov and search
(GALL–SLR) Report,’’ and draft grants the Commission the authority to
NUREG–2192, ‘‘Standard Review Plan for Docket ID NRC–2016–0107.
issue and make immediately effective • NRC’s Agencywide Documents
for Review of Subsequent License any amendment to an operating license Access and Management System
Renewal Applications for Nuclear or combined license, as applicable, (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-
Power Plants,’’ if it is practicable to do upon a determination by the available documents online in the
so in terms of the guidance development Commission that such amendment ADAMS Public Documents collection at
schedule. involves no significant hazards http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/
III. Proposed Action consideration, notwithstanding the adams.html. To begin the search, select
pendency before the Commission of a ‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and then
By this action, the NRC is requesting request for a hearing from any person.
public comments on draft LR–ISG– select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS
This biweekly notice includes all Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS,
2016–01. This LR–ISG proposes certain notices of amendments issued, or
revisions to NRC guidance on please contact the NRC’s Public
proposed to be issued from May 10, Document Room (PDR) reference staff at
implementation of the requirements in 2016, to May 23, 2016. The last
10 CFR part 54. The NRC staff will make 1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by
biweekly notice was published on May email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The
a final determination regarding issuance 24, 2016 (81 FR 32800).
of the LR–ISG after it considers any ADAMS accession number for each
DATES: Comments must be filed by July document referenced (if it is available in
public comments received in response 7, 2016. A request for a hearing must be
to this request. ADAMS) is provided the first time that
filed by August 8, 2016. it is mentioned in the SUPPLEMENTARY
IV. Backfitting ADDRESSES: You may submit comments INFORMATION section of this document.
Issuance of this LR–ISG in final form
by any of the following methods (unless • NRC’s PDR: You may examine and
this document describes a different purchase copies of public documents at
would not constitute backfitting as
method for submitting comments on a the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One
defined in 10 CFR 50.109 (the Backfit
specific subject): White Flint North, 11555 Rockville
Rule). As discussed in the ‘‘Backfitting’’ • Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to
section of draft LR–ISG–2016–01, the Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
http://www.regulations.gov and search
LR–ISG is directed to holders of for Docket ID NRC–2016–0107. Address B. Submitting Comments
operating licenses who are currently in questions about NRC dockets to Carol Please include Docket ID NRC–2016–
the license renewal process. The LR– Gallagher; telephone: 301–415–3463; 0107, facility name, unit number(s),
ISG is not directed to holders of email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For application date, and subject in your
operating licenses or combined licenses technical questions, contact the comment submission.
until they apply for license renewal. individuals listed in the FOR FURTHER The NRC cautions you not to include
The LR–ISG also is not directed to INFORMATION CONTACT section of this identifying or contact information that
licensees who already hold renewed document. you do not want to be publicly
operating licenses. However, the NRC • Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, disclosed in your comment submission.
could also use the LR–ISG in evaluating Office of Administration, Mail Stop: The NRC will post all comment
voluntary, licensee-initiated changes to OWFN–12–H08, U.S. Nuclear submissions at http://
previously-approved AMPs. Regulatory Commission, Washington, www.regulations.gov as well as enter the
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 31st day DC 20555–0001. comment submissions into ADAMS.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
of May, 2016. For additional direction on obtaining The NRC does not routinely edit
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. information and submitting comments, comment submissions to remove
Dennis C. Morey, see ‘‘Obtaining Information and identifying or contact information.
Acting Deputy Director, Division of License Submitting Comments’’ in the If you are requesting or aggregating
Renewal, Office of Nuclear Reactor SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of comments from other persons for
Regulation. this document. submission to the NRC, then you should
[FR Doc. 2016–13388 Filed 6–6–16; 8:45 am] FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kay inform those persons not to include
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P Goldstein, Office of Nuclear Reactor identifying or contact information that
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:13 Jun 06, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00098 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07JNN1.SGM 07JNN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_36722/page/1.svg)
![36616 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 7, 2016 / Notices
expedited delivery service upon Basis for proposed no significant The change in Type A test frequency to
depositing the document with the hazards consideration determination: once per 15 years, measured as an increase
provider of the service. A presiding As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the to the total integrated plant risk for those
accident sequences influenced by Type A
officer, having granted an exemption licensee has provided its analysis of the
testing, is 1.14E–4 person-rem/yr (a
request from using E-Filing, may require issue of no significant hazards 0.00184% increase). EPRI Report No.
a participant or party to use E-Filing if consideration, which is presented 1009325, Revision 2–A, states that a very
the presiding officer subsequently below: small population dose is defined as an
determines that the reason for granting increase of ≤1.0 person-rem per year or ≤1%
the exemption from use of E-Filing no 1. Does the proposed amendment involve a of the total population dose, whichever is
significant increase in the probability or less restrictive for the risk impact assessment
longer exists.
consequences of an accident previously of the extended ILRT intervals. Moreover, the
Documents submitted in adjudicatory
evaluated? risk impact when compared to other severe
proceedings will appear in the NRC’s
electronic hearing docket which is Response: No. accident risks is negligible.
The proposed amendment to the TS The increase in the CCFP [conditional
available to the public at http:// containment failure probability] from the
involves the extension of Fermi 2 Type A
ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded containment test interval to 15 years and the three in 10 year [sic] interval to one in 15
pursuant to an order of the Commission, extension of the Type C test interval to 75 year interval is 0.73%. EPRI Report No.
or the presiding officer. Participants are months. The current Type A test interval of 1009325, Revision 2–A, states that increases
requested not to include personal 10 years would be extended on a permanent in CCFP of less than or equal to 1.5
privacy information, such as social basis to no longer than 15 years from the last percentage points are very small. Therefore,
security numbers, home addresses, or Type A test. The current Type C test interval this increase judged to be very small.
home phone numbers in their filings, of 60 months for selected components would The other two changes, to TS 5.5.12, item
unless an NRC regulation or other law be extended on a performance basis to no a, and Operating License, Provision D, are
longer than 75 months. Extensions of up to administrative in nature to remove old text
requires submission of such that is no longer applicable.
nine months (total maximum interval of 84
information. However, in some months for Type C tests) are permissible only Therefore, the proposed change does not
instances, a request to intervene will for non-routine emergent conditions. The involve a significant increase in the
require including information on local proposed amendment does not involve either probability or consequences of an accident
residence in order to demonstrate a a physical change to the plant or a change in previously evaluated.
proximity assertion of interest in the the manner in which the plant is operated or 2. Does the proposed change create the
proceeding. With respect to copyrighted controlled. The primary containment is possibility of a new or different kind of
works, except for limited excerpts that designed to provide an essentially leak tight accident from any accident previously
serve the purpose of the adjudicatory barrier against the uncontrolled release of evaluated?
filings and would constitute a Fair Use radioactivity to the environment for
Response: No.
postulated accidents. As such, the
application, participants are requested The proposed amendment to the TS
containment and the testing requirements
not to include copyrighted materials in invoked to periodically demonstrate the
involves the extension of the Fermi 2 Type
their submission. A containment test interval to 15 years and
integrity of the containment exist to ensure
For further details with respect to the extension of the Type C test interval to
the plant’s ability to mitigate the
these license amendment applications, 75 months. The containment and the testing
consequences of an accident, and do not
see the application for amendment requirements to periodically demonstrate the
involve any accident precursors or initiators.
integrity of the containment exist to ensure
which is available for public inspection RG [Regulatory Guide] 1.174 [sic] [ADAMS the plant’s ability to mitigate the
in ADAMS and at the NRC’s PDR. For Accession No. ML023240437] provides consequences of an accident and do not
additional direction on accessing guidance for determining the risk impact of involve any accident precursors or initiators.
information related to this document, plant-specific changes to the licensing basis. The proposed change does not involve a
see the ‘‘Obtaining Information and RG 1.174 defines very small changes in risk physical change to the plant (e.g., no new or
as resulting in increases of CDF [core damage different type of equipment will be installed)
Submitting Comments’’ section of this frequency] below 1.0E–06/yr and increases in
document. or a change to the manner in which the plant
LERF [large early release frequency] below is operated or controlled.
DTE Electric Company, Docket No. 50– 1.0E–07/yr. Since the ILRT [integrated leak The other two changes to TS 5.5.12, item
341, Fermi 2, Monroe County, Michigan rate test] does not impact CDF, the relevant a, and Operating License, Provision D, are
criterion is LERF. The increase in LERF administrative in nature to remove old text
Date of amendment request: March resulting from a change in the Type A ILRT that is no longer needed. Therefore, these
22, 2016. A publicly-available version is test interval from three in ten years to one in changes have no impact on the probability or
in ADAMS under Accession No. fifteen years is very conservatively estimated consequences of an accident previously
ML16082A309. as 1.27E–08/yr using the EPRI [Electric evaluated.
Description of amendment request: Power Research Institute] guidance as Therefore, the proposed change does not
The proposed amendment would allow written. As such, the estimated change in create the possibility of a new or different
LERF is determined to be ‘‘very small’’ using kind of accident from any previously
for permanent extension of the Type A
the acceptance guidelines of RG 1.174. evaluated.
primary containment integrated leak RG 1.174 also states that when the
rate test interval to 15 years and calculated increase in LERF is in the range 3. Does the proposed change involve a
extension of the Type C test interval up of 1.0E–06 per reactor year to 1.0E–07 per significant reduction in a margin of safety?
to 75 months. The amendment also reactor year, applications will be considered Response: No.
proposes two administrative changes to only if it can be reasonably shown that the The proposed amendment to TS 5.5.12
remove text that is no longer applicable. total LERF is less than 1.0E–05 per reactor involves the extension of the Fermi 2 Type
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
The first change revises technical year. An additional assessment of the impact A containment test interval to 15 years and
specification (TS) 5.5.12 to remove a from external events was also made. In this the extension of the Type C test interval to
case, the total LERF increase was 75 months for selected components. This
one-time extension of the Type A test
conservatively estimated (with an external amendment does not alter the manner in
frequency. The second change would event multiplier of 15) as 1.90E–07 for Fermi which safety limits, limiting safety system set
revise the Fermi 2 Operating License, 2 (the baseline total LERF for this case is points, or limiting conditions for operation
Section D, to remove a reference to an 7.88E- 06/yr). This is well below the RG are determined. The specific requirements
exemption regarding Appendix J testing 1.174 acceptance criteria for total LERF of and conditions of the TS Containment Leak
of containment air locks. 1.0E–05. Rate Testing Program exist to ensure that the
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:13 Jun 06, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00101 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07JNN1.SGM 07JNN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_36722/page/4.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 7, 2016 / Notices 36617
degree of containment structural integrity Basis for proposed no significant involve a significant reduction in the margin
and leak-tightness that is considered in the hazards consideration determination: of safety.
plant safety analysis is maintained. The As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
overall containment leak rate limit specified The NRC staff has reviewed the
by TS is maintained.
licensee has provided its analysis of the licensee’s analysis and, based on this
The proposed surveillance interval issue of no significant hazards review, it appears that the three
extension is bounded by the 15 year ILRT consideration, which is presented standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
interval and the 75 month Type C test below: satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
interval currently authorized within NEI 94– proposes to determine that the
01, Revision 3–A. Industry experience 1. Does the proposed change involve a
significant increase in the probability of amendment request involves no
supports the conclusion that Type B and
Type C testing detects a large percentage of occurrence or consequences of an accident significant hazards consideration.
containment leakage paths and the previously evaluated? Attorney for licensee: Lara S. Nichols,
percentage of containment leakage paths that Response: No. Deputy General Counsel, Duke Energy
are detected only by Type A testing is small. The proposed change will not increase the Corporation, 526 South Church Street—
The containment inspections preformed in probability of accident previously evaluated. EC07H, Charlotte, NC 28202.
accordance with ASME [American Society of The Ice Condenser performs an entirely
Mechanical Engineers] Section XI, mitigative function. The proposed change Duke Energy Progress, Inc., Docket Nos.
Maintenance Rule, and TS serve to provide does not result in any physical change to the 50–325 and 50–324, Brunswick Steam
a high degree of assurance that the plant which would affect any accident Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, Brunswick
containment would not degrade in a manner initiators. No structures, systems, or County, North Carolina
that is detectable only by Type A testing. The components (SSCs) involved in the initiation
combination of these factors ensures that the of postulated accidents will be operated in Date of amendment request: April 13,
margin of safety in the plant safety analysis any different manner. The probability of 2016. A publicly-available version is in
is maintained. The design, operation, testing occurrence of a previously evaluated ADAMS under Accession No.
methods, and acceptance criteria for Type A, accident will not be significantly increased. ML16111B203.
Type B, and Type C containment leakage The proposed change involves use of an Description of amendment request:
tests specified in applicable codes and alternate method of verifying that the lower The amendments would revise the
standards would continue to be met with the inlet doors to the ice condenser are closed. Allowable Values (AVs) of Surveillance
acceptance of this proposed change since This proposed change has no effect on the
these are not affected by the changes to the
Requirements (SRs) contained in
ability of the ice condenser to perform its
Type A and Type C test intervals. function. Technical Specification 3.3.8.2, ‘‘RPS
The other two changes to TS 5.5.12, item Therefore, the proposed change does not Electric Power Monitoring,’’ by
a, and Operating License, Provision D, are involve a significant increase in the amending the Reactor Protection System
administrative in nature to remove old text probability or consequences of an accident electric power monitoring assembly AVs
that is no longer needed. Therefore, these previously evaluated. for overvoltage and undervoltage
changes have no impact on the probability or 2. Does the proposed change create the contained within SRs 3.3.8.2.2 and
consequences of an accident previously 3.3.8.2.3.
possibility of a new or different kind of
evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
accident from any accident previously Basis for proposed no significant
evaluated? hazards consideration determination:
involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety. Response: No. As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
The proposed change does not alter the licensee has provided its analysis of the
The NRC staff has reviewed the design function or operation of any SSC that issue of no significant hazards
licensee’s analysis and, based on this may be involved in the initiation of an consideration, which is presented
review, it appears that the three accident. The Ice Condenser will not become
below:
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are the source of a new type of accident. No new
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff accident causal mechanisms will be created. 1. Does the proposed amendment involve a
proposes to determine that the The proposed change does not create new significant increase in the probability or
amendment request involves no failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or consequences of an accident previously
accident initiators. evaluated?
significant hazards consideration. Therefore, the proposed change does not
Attorney for licensee: Jon P. create the possibility of a new or different Response: No
Christinidis, DTE Energy, Expert kind of accident from any accident The proposed change to the Allowable
Attorney—Regulatory, 688 WCB, One previously evaluated. Values of Surveillance Requirements
Energy Plaza, Detroit, MI 48226–1279. contained in Technical Specifications 3.3.8.2
3. Does the proposed change involve a does not impact the physical function of
NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona. significant reduction in the margin of safety? plant structures, systems, or components
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Response: No. (SSC) or the manner in which SCCs [sic]
Nos. 50–369 and 50–370, McGuire Margin of safety is related to the perform their design function. The proposed
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, confidence in the ability of the fission change does not authorize the addition of any
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina product barriers to perform their intended new plant equipment or systems, nor does it
functions. These barriers include the fuel alter the assumptions of any accident
Date of amendment request: March cladding, the reactor coolant system pressure analyses. The Electrical Protection
24, 2016. A publicly available version is boundary, and the containment barriers. The Assemblies are not accident initiators. They
in ADAMS under Accession No. proposed change involves use of a method to operate in response to off-normal voltage
ML16089A228. verify the lower inlet doors to the ice conditions on Class 1E buses to protect the
Description of amendment request: condenser are closed when an invalid alarm connected loads. The proposed change does
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
The amendments would modify is providing indication of an open door. This not adversely affect accident initiators or
Technical Specification 3.6.13, ‘‘Ice proposed change has no effect on the ability precursors, nor does it alter the design
of the ice condenser to perform its function. assumptions, conditions, and configuration
Condenser Doors,’’ to revise Condition B
Hence, the proposed change will not affect or the manner in which the plant is operated
for an ice condenser lower inlet door containment barriers. Nor does the proposed and maintained.
invalid open alarm to preclude plant change have any effect on fuel cladding or Therefore, the proposed change does not
shutdown caused by an invalid ‘‘OPEN’’ the reactor coolant pressure boundary. involve a significant increase in the
alarm from the ‘‘Inlet Door Position Therefore, existing safety margins will be probability or consequences of an accident
Monitoring System.’’ preserved, and the proposed change does not previously evaluated.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:13 Jun 06, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00102 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07JNN1.SGM 07JNN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_36722/page/5.svg)
![36618 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 7, 2016 / Notices
2. Does the proposed amendment create the be added to TS 1.0, ‘‘Definitions,’’ affect the reliability of the tested
possibility of a new or different kind of section. The licensee has noted that components. As a result, the availability of
accident from any accident previously while the request is consistent with TS the affected components, as well as their
evaluated? Task Force (TSTF)–545, Revision 3, ‘‘TS ability to mitigate the consequences of
Response: No accidents previously evaluated, is not
Inservice Testing Program Removal & affected.
The proposed change to the Allowable Clarify SR [Surveillance Requirement]
Values of Surveillance Requirements Therefore, the proposed change does not
Usage Rule Application to Section 5.5 involve a significant increase in the
contained in Technical Specifications 3.3.8.2
does not require any modification to the Testing,’’ there are various deviations probability or consequences of an accident
plant (i.e., other than the setpoint changes) or from the TSTF–545, Revision 3. ANO– previously evaluated.
change equipment operation or testing. The 2 TSs are of an older standard version 2. Does the proposed change create the
proposed change will not introduce failure and have not been converted to the possibility of a new or different kind of
modes that could result in a new accident, improved standard TSs (ISTSs) based on accident from any accident previously
and the change does not alter assumptions NUREG 1432, ‘‘Standard Technical evaluated?
made in the safety analysis. The proposed Specifications—Combustion
change will not alter the design Response: No.
Engineering Plants,’’ Revision 4. As The proposed change does not alter the
configuration, or method of operation of
plant equipment beyond its normal such, Entergy stated there are several design or configuration of the plant. The
functional capabilities. The proposed change administrative-type variations (TS proposed change does not involve a physical
does not create any new credible failure numbering, wording, etc.) but these alteration of the plant; no new or different
mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident variations do not result in any technical kind of equipment will be installed. The
initiators. conflict with the intent of TSTF–545, proposed change does not alter the types of
Therefore, the proposed change does not inservice testing performed. In most cases,
Revision 3 or the associated model
create the possibility of a new or different the frequency of inservice testing is
safety evaluation. unchanged. However, the frequency of
kind of accident from those that have been Basis for proposed no significant
previously evaluated. testing would not result in a new or different
hazards consideration determination: kind of accident from any previously
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the evaluated since the testing methods are not
significant reduction in a margin of safety? licensee has provided its analysis of the altered.
Response: No issue of no significant hazards Therefore, the proposed change does not
The proposed change to the Allowable consideration, with NRC edits in create the possibility of a new or different
Values of Surveillance Requirements [brackets], which is presented below: kind of accident from any previously
contained in Technical Specifications 3.3.8.2 evaluated.
does not alter or exceed a design basis or 1. Does the proposed change involve a
safety limit. There is no change being made 3. Does the proposed change involve a
significant increase in the probability or significant reduction in a margin of safety?
to safety analysis assumptions or the safety consequences of an accident previously
limits that would adversely affect plant safety evaluated? Response: No.
as a result of the proposed change. Margins The proposed change eliminates some
Response: No.
of safety are unaffected by the proposed requirements from the TS in lieu of
The proposed change revises TS Chapter 6,
change and the applicable requirements of 10 requirements in the ASME Code, as modified
‘‘Administrative Controls,’’ Section 6.5,
CFR 50.36(c)(2)(ii) and 10 CFR 50, Appendix by use of Code Case OMN–20. Compliance
‘‘Programs and Manuals,’’ by eliminating the
A will continue to be met. with the ASME Code is required by 10 CFR
‘‘Inservice Testing Program’’ specification.
Therefore, the proposed change does not 50.55a. The proposed change also allows
Most requirements in the IST Program are
involve any reduction in a margin of safety. inservice tests with frequencies greater than
removed, as they are duplicative of
The NRC staff has reviewed the requirements in the ASME [American Society 2 years to be extended by 6 months to
of Mechanical Engineers] OM Code [ASME facilitate test scheduling and consideration of
licensee’s analysis and, based on this plant operating conditions that may not be
review, it appears that the three Code for Operation and Maintenance of
Nuclear Power Plants], as clarified by Code suitable for performance of the required
standards of 50.92(c) are satisfied. testing. The testing frequency extension will
Case OMN–20, ‘‘Inservice Test Frequency.’’
Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to The remaining requirements in the Section not affect the ability of the components to
determine that the amendment request 6.5 IST Program are eliminated because the respond to an accident as the components are
involves no significant hazards NRC has determined their inclusion in the required to be operable during the testing
consideration. TS is contrary to regulations. A new defined period extension. The proposed change will
Attorney for licensee: Kathryn B. term, ‘‘Inservice Testing Program,’’ is added eliminate the existing TS Surveillance
Nolan, Deputy General Counsel, 550 to the TS, which references the requirements Requirement (SR) 4.0.3 (referenced as SR
South Tryon Street, M/C DEC45A, of 10 CFR 50.55a(f). 3.0.3 in the ISTS) allowance to defer
Performance of inservice testing is not an performance of missed inservice tests up to
Charlotte NC 28202. the duration of the specified testing
NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin G. initiator to any accident previously
evaluated. As a result, the probability of frequency, and instead will require an
Beasley. assessment of the missed test on equipment
occurrence of an accident is not significantly
Entergy Operations, Inc. (Entergy), affected by the proposed change. Inservice operability. This assessment will consider
Docket No. 50–368, Arkansas Nuclear test frequencies under Code Case OMN–20 the effect on a margin of safety (equipment
are equivalent to the current testing period operability). Should the component be
One, Unit No. 2 (ANO–2), Pope County, inoperable, the Technical Specifications
allowed by the TS with the exception that
Arkansas testing frequencies greater than 2 years may provide actions to ensure that the margin of
Date of amendment request: March be extended by up to 6 months to facilitate safety is protected. The proposed change also
25, 2016. A publicly-available version is test scheduling and consideration of plant eliminates a statement that nothing in the
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
in ADAMS under Accession No. operating conditions that may not be suitable ASME Code should be construed to
for performance of the required testing. The supersede the requirements of any TS. The
ML16088A186.
testing frequency extension will not affect the NRC has determined that statement to be
Description of amendment request:
ability of the components to mitigate any incorrect. However, elimination of the
The amendment will revise the accident previously evaluated as the statement will have no effect on plant
Technical Specifications (TSs) to components are required to be operable operation or safety.
eliminate TS 6.5.8, ‘‘Inservice Testing during the testing period extension. Therefore, the proposed change does not
Program.’’ A new defined term, Performance of inservice tests utilizing the involve a significant reduction in a margin of
‘‘Inservice Testing [IST] Program,’’ will allowances in OMN–20 will not significantly safety.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:13 Jun 06, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00103 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07JNN1.SGM 07JNN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_36722/page/6.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 7, 2016 / Notices 36619
The NRC staff has reviewed the affected by the proposed change. Inservice operability). Should the component be
licensee’s analysis and, based on this test frequencies under Code Case OMN–20 inoperable, the Technical Specifications
review, it appears that the three are equivalent to the current testing period provide actions to ensure that the margin of
allowed by the TS with the exception that safety is protected. The proposed change also
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
testing frequencies greater than 2 years may eliminates a statement that nothing in the
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff be extended by up to 6 months to facilitate ASME Code should be construed to
proposes to determine that the test scheduling and consideration of plant supersede the requirements of any TS. The
amendment request involves no operating conditions that may not be suitable NRC has determined that statement to be
significant hazards consideration. for performance of the required testing. The incorrect. However, elimination of the
Attorney for licensee: Joseph A. testing frequency extension will not affect the statement will have no effect on plant
Aluise, Associate General Counsel— ability of the components to mitigate any operation or safety.
Nuclear, Entergy Services, Inc., 639 accident previously evaluated as the
Therefore, the proposed change does not
components are required to be operable
Loyola Avenue, New Orleans, Louisiana involve a significant reduction in a margin of
during the testing period extension.
70113. Performance of inservice tests utilizing the
safety.
NRC Branch Chief: Meena K. Khanna. allowances in OMN–20 will not significantly
The NRC staff has reviewed the
Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50– affect the reliability of the tested
components. As a result, the availability of licensee’s analysis and, based on this
313, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit No. 1, the affected components, as well as their review, it appears that the three
Pope County, Arkansas ability to mitigate the consequences of standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
Date of amendment request: March accidents previously evaluated, is not satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
25, 2016. A publicly-available version is affected. proposes to determine that the
Therefore, the proposed change does not amendment request involves no
in ADAMS under Accession No.
involve a significant increase in the significant hazards consideration.
ML16088A181. probability or consequences of an accident
Description of amendment request: previously evaluated. Attorney for licensee: Joseph A.
The amendment would revise the 2. Does the proposed change create the Aluise, Associate General Counsel—
Technical Specifications (TSs) to possibility of a new or different kind of Nuclear, Entergy Services, Inc., 639
eliminate TS Section 5.5.8, ‘‘Inservice accident from any accident previously Loyola Avenue, New Orleans, Louisiana
Testing [IST] Program.’’ A new defined evaluated? 70113.
term, ‘‘Inservice Testing Program,’’ will Response: No. NRC Branch Chief: Meena K. Khanna.
be added to TS 1.1, ‘‘Definitions.’’ This The proposed change does not alter the
amendment request is consistent with design or configuration of the plant. The Exelon Generation Company, LLC and
TS Task Force (TSTF)–545, Revision 3, proposed change does not involve a physical PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50–277
‘‘TS Inservice Testing Program Removal alteration of the plant; no new or different and 50–278, Peach Bottom Atomic
& Clarify SR [Surveillance Requirement] kind of equipment will be installed. The Power Station, Units 2 and 3, York and
Usage Rule Application to Section 5.5 proposed change does not alter the types of Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania
inservice testing performed. In most cases,
Testing,’’ under the consolidated line the frequency of inservice testing is
item improvement process. Date of amendment request: March
unchanged. However, the frequency of 24, 2016, as supplemented by letter
Basis for proposed no significant testing would not result in a new or different
hazards consideration determination: kind of accident from any previously
dated May 11, 2016. A publicly-
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the evaluated since the testing methods are not available version is in ADAMS under
licensee has provided its analysis of the altered. Accession Nos. ML16084A567 and
issue of no significant hazards Therefore, the proposed change does not ML16132A440.
consideration, with NRC edits in create the possibility of a new or different Description of amendment request:
kind of accident from any previously
[brackets], which is presented below: The amendments would revise the
evaluated.
frequency for cycling of the
1. Does the proposed change involve a 3. Does the proposed change involve a recirculation pump discharge valves as
significant increase in the probability or significant reduction in a margin of safety?
consequences of an accident previously
specified in Technical Specification
Response: No. (TS) Surveillance Requirement (SR)
evaluated? The proposed change eliminates some 3.5.1.5. Specifically, SR 3.5.1.5 requires
Response: No. requirements from the TS in lieu of
The proposed change revises TS Chapter 5, requirements in the ASME Code, as modified
verification that each recirculation
‘‘Administrative Controls,’’ Section 5.5, by use of Code Case OMN–20. Compliance pump discharge valve cycles through
‘‘Programs and Manuals,’’ by eliminating the with the ASME Code is required by 10 CFR one complete cycle of full travel or is
‘‘Inservice Testing Program’’ specification. 50.55a. The proposed change also allows de-energized in the closed position.
Most requirements in the IST Program are inservice tests with frequencies greater than Currently, this SR needs to be
removed, as they are duplicative of 2 years to be extended by 6 months to performed once each plant startup prior
requirements in the ASME [American Society facilitate test scheduling and consideration of to exceeding 23 percent rated thermal
of Mechanical Engineers] OM Code [ASME plant operating conditions that may not be power (RTP), if the SR had not been
Code for Operation and Maintenance of suitable for performance of the required performed within the previous 31 days.
Nuclear Power Plants], as clarified by Code testing. The testing frequency extension will
Case OMN–20, ‘‘Inservice Test Frequency.’’ not affect the ability of the components to
The amendments would change the
The remaining requirements in the Section respond to an accident as the components are frequency for the SR such that it is
5.5 IST Program are eliminated because the required to be operable during the testing performed in accordance with the
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
NRC has determined their inclusion in the period extension. The proposed change will Inservice Testing Program.
TS is contrary to regulations. A new defined eliminate the existing TS Surveillance Basis for proposed no significant
term, ‘‘Inservice Testing Program,’’ is added Requirement (SR) 3.0.3 allowance to defer
hazards consideration determination:
to the TS, which references the requirements performance of missed inservice tests up to
of 10 CFR 50.55a(f). the duration of the specified testing As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
Performance of inservice testing is not an frequency, and instead will require an licensee has provided its analysis of the
initiator to any accident previously assessment of the missed test on equipment issue of no significant hazards
evaluated. As a result, the probability of operability. This assessment will consider consideration, which is presented
occurrence of an accident is not significantly the effect on a margin of safety (equipment below:
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:13 Jun 06, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00104 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07JNN1.SGM 07JNN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_36722/page/7.svg)
![36622 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 7, 2016 / Notices
licensee has provided its analysis of the 3. Does the proposed change involve a with the STS [Standard Technical
issue of no significant hazards significant reduction in a margin of safety? Specifications—Westinghouse Plants]. The
consideration, which is presented Response: No. change has been determined not to adversely
below: The margin of safety is established through affect the safe operation of the plant. The
the equipment design, the operating affected TS requirements are not initiating
1. Does the proposed change involve a conditions for any accident previously
parameters, and the setpoints at which
significant increase in the probability or evaluated. In addition, changes that are
automatic actions are initiated. The
consequences of an accident previously consistent with the STS have been previously
equipment margins will be maintained in
evaluated? evaluated by plants adopting the STS and
accordance with the plant-specific design
Response: No. bases as a result of the proposed changes. found not to adversely affect the safe
The proposed TS changes revise the battery The proposed changes do not adversely affect operation of Westinghouse NSSS [Nuclear
charger surveillance requirements in SR operation of plant equipment. The proposed Steam Supply System] plants. Based on the
3.8.4.2. The DC electrical power system, TS changes do not result in a change to the conclusions of the plant specific evaluation
including associated battery chargers, is not setpoints at which protective actions are associated with the change and the
an initiator of any accident sequence initiated. Sufficient DC capacity to support evaluations performed in developing the
analyzed in the Updated Safety Analysis operation of mitigation equipment continues STS, the proposed change does not result in
Report (USAR). Rather, the DC electrical to be ensured. The equipment fed by the DC operating conditions that will significantly
power system supports operation of electrical sources will continue to provide increase the probability of initiating an
equipment used to mitigate accidents. adequate power to safety-related loads in analyzed event. The proposed change was
Operation in accordance with the proposed accordance with safety analysis assumptions. also evaluated to assure that it does not alter
TS continues to ensure that the DC electrical Therefore, the proposed changes do not the safety analysis assumptions relative to
power system is capable of performing its involve a significant reduction in a margin of mitigation of an accident or transient event
specified safety functions as described in the safety. and that the resulting TS requirements
USAR. Therefore, the mitigating functions continue to ensure the necessary equipment
supported by the DC electrical power system The NRC staff has reviewed the
is operable consistent with the safety
will continue to provide the protection licensee’s analysis and, based on this analyses or that the plant is placed in an
assumed by the analysis. review, it appears that the three operating Mode where the system is no
Accidents are initiated by the malfunction standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are longer required operable. As such the
of plant equipment, or the catastrophic satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposed change also does not result in
failure of plant structures, systems, or
components (SSCs). Performance of battery
proposes to determine that the operating conditions that will significantly
amendment request involves no increase the consequences of an analyzed
testing is not a precursor to any accident
significant hazards consideration. event.
previously evaluated, nor does it change the
manner in which the batteries and battery Attorney for licensee: Peter M. Glass, Therefore, the proposed change does not
chargers are operated. The proposed testing Assistant General Counsel, Xcel Energy involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
requirements will not contribute to the Services, Inc., 414 Nicollet Mall,
failure of the batteries nor any plant SSC. previously evaluated.
Minneapolis, MN 55401.
NSPM has determined that the proposed TS NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona. 2. Does the proposed change create the
changes provide an equivalent level of possibility of a new or different kind of
assurance that the batteries and battery South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, accident from any accident previously
chargers are capable of performing their South Carolina Public Service evaluated?
intended safety functions. Thus, the Authority, Docket No. 50–395, Virgil C. Response: No.
proposed changes do not affect the Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 1, The proposed change includes the deletion
probability of an accident previously Fairfield County, South Carolina of an expired allowed outage time extension
evaluated. and the revision of the SRs that confirm the
Therefore, the proposed change does not Date of amendment request: April 7, EFW pump performance to be more
involve a significant increase in the 2016. A publicly-available version is in consistent with the corresponding STS SR.
probability or consequences of an accident ADAMS under Accession No. Consistent with the STS SR, the proposed
previously evaluated. ML16104A027. change would remove the specific pump
2. Does the proposed change create the Description of amendment request: head and flow values from the current SRs
possibility of a new or different kind of The amendment would revise the and require that the SR be performed in
accident from any accident previously Emergency Feedwater System pump accordance with the Inservice Testing
evaluated? performance testing requirements in Program. The removal of the specific pump
Response: No. Technical Specification (TS) 3/4.7.1.2, head and flow values from the SR is
The DC electrical power system, including ‘‘Emergency Feedwater System,’’ necessary to support the implementation of
the associated battery chargers, is not an a plant modification that would change the
Surveillance Requirements 4.7.1.2.a.1 current EFW pump head and flow values in
initiator of any accident sequence analyzed and 4.7.1.2.a.2.
in the USAR. The proposed TS changes do the SR. The plant modification is being
Basis for proposed no significant performed under the provisions of
not involve operation of the DC electrical
power system in a manner or configuration hazards consideration determination: 10CFR50.59. The proposed TS change does
different from those previously evaluated. As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the not involve a change in the methods
Performance of battery testing is not a licensee has provided its analysis of the governing normal plant operation. The
precursor to any accident previously issue of no significant hazards proposed change also does not change any
evaluated. NSPM has determined that the consideration, which is presented below system functions nor does the proposed TS
proposed TS changes provide an equivalent with NRC staff edits in square brackets: change affect any safety analysis or design
level of assurance that the batteries and basis requirements. The proposed TS change
battery chargers are capable of performing 1. Do the proposed changes [sic] involve a will continue to ensure the EFW System is
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
their intended safety functions. Therefore, significant increase in the probability or operable in a similar manner as before. As
the mitigating functions supported by the DC consequences of an accident previously such, the proposed change does not create
electrical power system will continue to evaluated? new failure modes or mechanisms that are
provide the protection assumed in the safety Response: No. not identifiable during testing, and no new
analyses. The proposed change deletes an allowed accident precursors are generated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not outage time that is no longer applicable and Therefore, the proposed changes do [sic]
create the possibility of a new or different revises the Surveillance Requirements (SRs) not create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident that confirm the Emergency Feedwater (EFW) kind of accident from any previously
previously evaluated. pump performance to be more consistent evaluated.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:13 Jun 06, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00107 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07JNN1.SGM 07JNN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_36722/page/10.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 7, 2016 / Notices 36623
3. Does this [proposed] change involve a licensee has provided its analysis of the used to mitigate accidents. The proposed
significant reduction in a margin of safety? issue of no significant hazards changes to restructure the TS and change
Response: No. consideration, which is presented surveillances for batteries and chargers to
The margin of safety is established through below: incorporate the updates included in TSTF–
equipment design, operating parameters, and 500, Revision 2, will maintain the same level
1. Does the proposed change involve a of equipment performance required for
the setpoints at which automatic actions are significant increase in the probability or
initiated. The proposed change does not mitigating accidents assumed in the FSAR.
consequences of any accident previously Administrative and mechanical controls are
physically alter safety-related systems, nor evaluated?
does it affect the way in which safety related in place to ensure the design and operation
systems perform their functions. The Response: No. of the DC systems continues to meet the plant
setpoints at which protective actions are The proposed changes restructure the design basis described in the FSAR.
initiated are not altered by the proposed Technical Specifications (TS) for the direct Therefore, operation of the facility in
change. Therefore, in a similar manner as current (DC) electrical power system and are accordance with this proposed change will
before, sufficient equipment remains consistent with TSTF–500, Revision 2. The not create the possibility of a new or different
available to actuate upon demand for the proposed changes modify TS Actions relating kind of accident from any accident
purpose of mitigating an analyzed event. The to battery and battery charger inoperability. previously evaluated.
proposed change results in TS requirements The DC electrical power system, including 3. Does the proposed change involve a
that are consistent with the plant safety associated battery chargers, is not an initiator significant reduction in the margin of safety?
analyses. As such, the change does not result of any accident sequence analyzed in the
Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR). Rather, Response: No.
in operating conditions that significantly The margin of safety is established through
reduce any margin of safety. the DC electrical power system supports
equipment used to mitigate accidents. The equipment design, operating parameters, and
Therefore, the proposed changes do [sic] the setpoints at which automatic actions are
not involve a significant reduction in a proposed changes to restructure TS and
change surveillances for batteries and initiated. The equipment margins will be
margin of safety. maintained in accordance with the plant-
chargers to incorporate the updates included
The NRC staff has reviewed the in TSTF–500, Revision 2, will maintain the specific design bases as a result of the
licensee’s analysis and, based on this same level of equipment performance proposed changes. The proposed changes
review, it appears that the three required for mitigating accidents assumed in will not adversely affect operation of plant
the FSAR. Operation in accordance with the equipment. These changes will not result in
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are a change to the setpoints at which protective
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposed TS would ensure that the DC
electrical power system is capable of actions are initiated. Sufficient DC capacity
proposes to determine that the to support operation of mitigation equipment
amendment request involves no performing its specified safety function as
described in the FSAR. Therefore, the is ensured. The changes associated with the
significant hazards consideration. mitigating functions supported by the DC new Battery Monitoring and Maintenance
Attorney for licensee: J. Hagood electrical power system will continue to Program will ensure that the station batteries
Hamilton, Jr., South Carolina Electric & provide the protection assumed by the are maintained in a highly reliable manner.
Gas Company, Post Office Box 764, analysis. The equipment fed by the DC electrical
Columbia, South Carolina 29218. The relocation of preventive maintenance sources will continue to provide adequate
surveillances, and certain operating limits power to safety-related loads in accordance
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. with analysis assumptions.
Markley. and actions, to a licensee-controlled Battery
Monitoring and Maintenance Program will TS changes made in accordance with
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, not challenge the ability of the DC electrical TSTF–500, Revision 2, maintain the same
Inc.; Georgia Power Company; power system to perform its design function. level of equipment performance stated in the
Appropriate monitoring and maintenance FSAR and the current TSs. Therefore, the
Oglethorpe Power Corporation; proposed changes do not involve a
Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia; that are consistent with industry standards
will continue to be performed. In addition, significant reduction of safety.
City of Dalton, Georgia, Docket Nos. 50–
321 and 50–366, Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear the DC electrical power system is within the The NRC staff has reviewed the
scope of 10 CFR 50.65, ‘‘Requirements for licensee’s analysis and, based on this
Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Appling monitoring the effectiveness of maintenance
County, Georgia review, it appears that the three
at nuclear power plants,’’ which will ensure standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
Date of amendment request: August the control of maintenance activities
associated with the DC electrical power
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
11, 2015, as supplemented by letters proposes to determine that the
dated March 16, 2014, and April 4, system.
The integrity of fission product barriers, amendment request involves no
2016. Publicly-available versions are in plant configuration, and operating significant hazards consideration.
ADAMS under Accession Nos. procedures as described in the FSAR will not Attorney for licensee: Jennifer M.
ML15226A276, ML16076A453, and be affected by the proposed changes. Buettner, Associate General Counsel,
ML16095A373, respectively. Therefore, the consequences of previously Southern Nuclear Operating Company,
Description of amendment request: analyzed accidents will not increase by Inc., 40 Iverness Center Parkway,
The amendments would revise the implementing these changes. Birmingham, AL 35242.
technical specification (TS) Therefore, the proposed changes do not NRC Branch Chief: Michael T.
requirements related to direct current involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
Markley.
(DC) electrical systems in TS Limiting
previously evaluated. Southern Nuclear Operating Company,
Condition for Operation (LCO) 3.8.4,
‘‘DC Sources—Operating’’; LCO 3.8.5, 2. Does the proposed change create the Inc., Docket Nos. 50–348 and 50–364,
‘‘DC Sources—Shutdown’’; and LCO possibility of a new or different kind of Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant (FNP),
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
accident from any previously evaluated? Units 1 and 2, Houston County,
3.8.6, ‘‘Battery Cell Parameters.’’ A new
battery monitoring and maintenance Response: No. Alabama
program is being proposed for Section The proposed changes involve
Date of amendment request: April 25,
restructuring the TS for the DC electrical
5.5, ‘‘Administrative Controls— power system. The DC electrical power 2016. A publicly-available version is in
Programs and Manuals.’’ system, including associated battery chargers, ADAMS under Accession No.
Basis for proposed no significant is not an initiator to any accident sequence ML16120A294.
hazards consideration determination: analyzed in the FSAR. Rather, the DC Description of amendment request:
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the electrical power system supports equipment The license proposed three changes to
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:13 Jun 06, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00108 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07JNN1.SGM 07JNN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_36722/page/11.svg)
![36624 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 7, 2016 / Notices
modifications specified in the March 10, as they are clarifying or administrative in and opportunity for a hearing in
2015, NFPA [National Environmental nature. The proposed change relates to the connection with these actions, was
Policy Act]–805 amendment, availability of fire PRA [probabilistic risk
published in the Federal Register as
analysis] credited component in given fire
Attachment S, Table S–2, ‘‘Plant scenarios. indicated.
Modifications Committed.’’ The three Therefore, this proposed change does not Unless otherwise indicated, the
proposed modifications are: (1) Delete create the possibility of a new or different Commission has determined that these
Fire Area 1–041 information from Table kind of accident from any accident
amendments satisfy the criteria for
S–2, (2) add information on item 11, previously evaluated.
Pyro Panel modification, and, (3) change categorical exclusion in accordance
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a
cable 2VCHAL07P to cable with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant
significant reduction in a margin of safety?
2VCFARK2P. to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental
Response: No. impact statement or environmental
Basis for proposed no significant The proposed amendment updates
hazards consideration determination: Attachments M, S, and W of the previously assessment need be prepared for these
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the approved NFPA–805 LAR submittal for FNP. amendments. If the Commission has
licensee has provided its analysis of the The attachment revisions are based on the prepared an environmental assessment
issue of no significant hazards three changes to Table S–2 proposed in this under the special circumstances
consideration. The NRC staff has LAR. One of the changes is justified based on provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has
reviewed the licensee’s analysis against negligible risk impact to Core Damage made a determination based on that
Frequency or Large Early Release Frequency
the standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c). The assessment, it is so indicated.
associated with not performing the
licensee’s analysis is presented below: committed modification. The other two For further details with respect to the
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a changes have no impact on accident analysis action see (1) the applications for
significant increase in the probability or as they are clarifying or administrative in amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3)
consequences of an accident previously nature.
evaluated?
the Commission’s related letter, Safety
The proposed change does not increase the
probability or consequence of an accident Evaluation and/or Environmental
Response: No.
The proposed amendment updates and does not reduce the margin of safety as Assessment as indicated. All of these
Attachments M, S, and W of the previously verified by the risk analysis performed. items can be accessed as described in
approved NFPA–805 LAR [license Therefore, this proposed change does not the ‘‘Obtaining Information and
amendment request] submittal for FNP. The involve a significant reduction in a margin of Submitting Comments’’ section of this
attachment revisions are based on the three safety. document.
changes to Table S–2 proposed in this LAR. The NRC staff has reviewed the
One of the changes is justified based on
licensee’s analysis and, based on this Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50–
negligible risk impact to Core Damage 382, Waterford Steam Electric Station,
Frequency or Large Early Release Frequency review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are Unit 3, St. Charles Parish, Louisiana
associated with not performing the
committed modification. The other two satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff Date of amendment request: June 29,
changes have no impact on accident analysis proposes to determine that the
as they are clarifying or administrative in
2015.
amendment request involves no
nature. significant hazards consideration. Brief description of amendment: The
The proposed change does not adversely Attorney for licensee: Jennifer M. amendment approved a change to the
affect accident initiators or precursors nor Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit
alter the design assumptions, conditions, and
Buettner, Associate General Counsel,
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 3, Cyber Security Plan Implementation
configuration of the facility or the manner in
which the plant is operated and maintained. 40 Iverness Center Parkway, Schedule Milestone 8 full
The proposed changes do not adversely affect Birmingham, AL 35201. implementation date and a related
the ability of structures, systems and NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. change to the existing operating license
components (SSCs) to perform their intended Markley. physical protection license condition.
safety function to mitigate the consequences
of an initiating event within the assumed III. Notice of Issuance of Amendments Date of issuance: May 10, 2016.
acceptance limits. The proposed change does to Facility Operating Licenses and Effective date: As of the date of
not increase the probability or consequence Combined Licenses issuance and shall be implemented
of an accident as verified by the risk analysis within 30 days of issuance.
During the period since publication of
performed.
Therefore, this proposed change does not the last biweekly notice, the Amendment No.: 247. A publicly-
involve a significant increase in the Commission has issued the following available version is in ADAMS under
probability or consequences of an accident amendments. The Commission has Accession No. ML16077A270;
previously identified. determined for each of these documents related to this amendment
2. Does the proposed amendment create the amendments that the application are listed in the Safety Evaluation
possibility of a new or different kind of complies with the standards and enclosed with the amendment.
accident from any accident previously requirements of the Atomic Energy Act
evaluated? of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Facility Operating License No. NPF–
Response: No. Commission’s rules and regulations. 38: The amendment revised the facility
The proposed amendment updates The Commission has made appropriate operating license.
Attachments M, S, and W of the previously findings as required by the Act and the
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Date of initial notice in Federal
approved NFPA–805 LAR submittal for FNP. Commission’s rules and regulations in Register: September 1, 2015 (80 FR
The attachment revisions are based on the 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in
three changes to Table S–2 proposed in this 52805).
the license amendment.
LAR. One of the changes is justified based on
A notice of consideration of issuance The Commission’s related evaluation
negligible risk impact to Core Damage of the amendment is contained in a
Frequency or Large Early Release Frequency of amendment to facility operating
license or combined license, as Safety Evaluation dated May 10, 2016.
associated with not performing the
committed modification. The other two applicable, proposed no significant No significant hazards consideration
changes have no impact on accident analysis hazards consideration determination, comments received: No.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:13 Jun 06, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00109 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07JNN1.SGM 07JNN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_36722/page/12.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 7, 2016 / Notices 36625
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, RCS Flow Rate, Unit 1,’’ and 3.4.1–2, 2015; and January 14 and March 4,
Docket No. 50–461, Clinton Power ‘‘Reduction in Percent RATED 2016.
Station, Unit No. 1, DeWitt County, THERMAL POWER for Reduced RCS Brief description of amendment: The
Illinois Flow Rate, Unit 2,’’ and add RCS amendment approved a change to the
thermal design flow (TDF) values to the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station
Exelon Generation Company, LLC,
requirements of TS 3.4.1. The change licensing basis to incorporate a
Docket Nos. 50–237 and 50–249,
also relocates the RCS minimum supplemental analysis for the steam
Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 2
measured flow (MMF) values to the generator tube rupture accident.
and 3, Grundy County, Illinois
DCPP, Units 1 and 2, core operating Date of issuance: May 16, 2016.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, limits reports (COLR) with a reference to Effective date: As of the date of
Docket Nos. 50–254 and 50–265, Quad the MMF values in TS 3.4.1 and issuance and shall be implemented
Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 Surveillance Requirements 3.4.1.3 and within120 days of issuance.
and 2, Rock Island County, Illinois 3.4.1.4. Figure 2.1.1–1, ‘‘Reactor Core Amendment No.: 205. A publicly-
Date of application for amendments: Safety Limit,’’ has been revised to delete available version is in ADAMS under
August 18, 2015, as supplemented by a footnote with references to Tables Accession No. ML15231A605;
letter dated April 14, 2016. 3.4.1–1 and 3.4.1–2. The change is documents related to this amendment
Brief description of amendments: The consistent with NUREG–1431, Volume are listed in the Safety Evaluation
amendments revised the reactor steam 1, Revision 4.0, ‘‘Standard Technical enclosed with the amendment.
dome pressure specified in the technical Specifications, Westinghouse Plants,’’ Facility Operating License No. NPF–
specification safety limits. April 2012; NRC-approved Technical 12: Amendment revised the Facility
Date of issuance: May 11, 2016. Specification Task Force (TSTF) Change Operating License.
Effective date: As of the date of Traveler 339–A, Revision 2, ‘‘Relocate Date of initial notice in Federal
issuance and shall be implemented TS Parameters to COLR,’’ dated June 13, Register: October 14, 2014 (79 FR
within 60 days from the date of 2000; and NRC-approved WCAP– 61661). The supplemental letters dated
issuance. 14483–A, ‘‘Generic Methodology for October 31, 2014; February 12, May 12,
Amendment Nos.: 209, 250, 243, 262, Expanded Core Operating Limits September 10, and November 5, 2015;
and 257. A publicly-available versions Report,’’ January 1999. and January 14 and March 4, 2016,
is in ADAMS under Accession No. The change is necessary to correct a provided additional information that
ML16111A104. Documents related to non-conservative TS 3.4.1 total RCS clarified the application, did not expand
these amendments are listed in the flow rate value for DCPP, Unit 1. The the scope of the application as originally
Safety Evaluation enclosed with the change also ensures that the TS stays noticed, and did not change the staff’s
amendments. conservative, if the cycle-specific original proposed no significant hazards
Facility Operating License Nos. : minimum RCS flow is higher than the consideration determination as
NPF–62, DPR–19, DPR–25, DPR–29, and minimum TDF. published in the Federal Register.
DPR–30. Amendments revised the The Commission’s related evaluation
Date of issuance: May 19, 2016.
Facility Operating Licenses and of the amendment is contained in a
Effective date: As of its date of
Technical Specifications. Safety Evaluation dated May 16, 2016.
issuance and shall be implemented No significant hazards consideration
Date of initial notice in Federal
within 120 days from the date of comments received: No.
Register: October 27, 2015 (80 FR
issuance.
65812). The supplemental letter dated Southern Nuclear Operating Company,
Amendment Nos.: Unit 1—226; Unit
April 14, 2016, provided additional Docket Nos. 50–348 and 50–364, Joseph
2—228. A publicly-available version is
information that clarified the M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2,
in ADAMS under Accession No.
application, did not expand the scope of Houston County, Alabama
ML16117A252; documents related to
the application as originally noticed,
these amendments are listed in the Date of amendment request: August
and did not change the staff’s original
Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 31, 2015, as supplemented by letters
proposed no significant hazards
amendments. dated January 28, 2016, and March 11,
consideration determination as
published in the Federal Register. Facility Operating License Nos. DPR– 2016.
The Commission’s related evaluation 80 and DPR–82: The amendments Brief description of amendments: The
of the amendment is contained in a revised the Facility Operating Licenses amendments revised Technical
safety evaluation dated May 11, 2016. and TSs. Specification (TS) 3.4.14, ‘‘RCS Pressure
No significant hazards consideration Date of initial notice in Federal Isolation Valve (PIV) Leakage,’’ to
comments received: No. Register: November 10, 2015 (80 FR eliminate the requirements for the
69714). residual heat removal system suction
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, The Commission’s related evaluation valve auto closure interlock function.
Docket Nos. 50–275 and 50–323, Diablo of the amendments is contained in a Date of issuance: May 17, 2016.
Canyon Nuclear Power Plant (DCPP), Safety Evaluation dated May 19, 2016. Effective date: As of the date of
Units 1 and 2, San Luis Obispo County, No significant hazards consideration issuance and shall be implemented as
California comments received: No. follows: Unit 1—prior to the first entry
Date of application for amendments: into Mode 4, following the end-of-cycle
South Carolina Electric & Gas Company,
September 16, 2015. refueling outage 27 (scheduled for fall
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Brief description of amendments: The South Carolina Public Service
2016), and Unit 2—prior to the first
amendments revised Technical Authority, Docket No. 50–395, Virgil C.
entry into Mode 4, following the end-of-
Specification (TS) 3.4.1, ‘‘RCS [Reactor Summer Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1,
cycle refueling outage 25 (scheduled for
Coolant System] Pressure, Temperature, Fairfield County, South Carolina
fall 2017).
and Flow Departure from Nucleate Date of amendment request: August Amendment Nos.: 201 (Unit 1) and
Boiling (DNB) Limits,’’ to delete current 27, 2014, as supplemented by letters 197 (Unit 2). A publicly-available
Tables 3.4.1–1, ‘‘Reduction in Percent dated October 31, 2014; February 12, version is in ADAMS under Accession
RATED THERMAL POWER for Reduced May 12, September 10, and November 5, No. ML16083A265; documents related
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:13 Jun 06, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00110 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07JNN1.SGM 07JNN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_36722/page/13.svg)
![36626 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 7, 2016 / Notices
to these amendments are listed in the approving an indirect license transfer of comments electronically should contact
Safety Evaluation enclosed with the the SSES license to Talen Energy the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
amendments. Corporation (ADAMS Accession No. INFORMATION CONTACT section by
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF– ML15058A073). telephone for advice on filing
2 and NPF–8: The amendments revised Date of issuance: May 20, 2016. alternatives.
the Renewed Facility Operating Effective date: As of the date of
Licenses and TSs. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
issuance and shall be implemented
Date of initial notice in Federal within 180 days of issuance. David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at
Register: October 27, 2015 (80 FR Amendment Nos.: 266 (Unit 1) and 202–789–6820.
65815). The supplemental letters dated 247 (Unit 2). A publicly-available SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
January 28, 2016, and March 11, 2016, version is in ADAMS under Accession
provided additional information that Table of Contents
No. ML16005A234; documents related
clarified the application, did not expand to these amendments are listed in the SE I. Introduction
the scope of the application as originally enclosed with the amendments. II. Notice of Commission Action
noticed, and did not change the staff’s Renewed Facility Operating License III. Ordering Paragraphs
original proposed no significant hazards Nos. NPF–14 and NPF–22: Amendments I. Introduction
consideration determination as revised the Renewed Facility Operating
published in the Federal Register. Licenses and TSs. On May 31, 2016, the Postal Service
The Commission’s related evaluation Date of initial notice in Federal filed notice that it has entered into a
of the amendments is contained in a Register: March 3, 2015 (80 FR 11479). Global Expedited Package Services 6
Safety Evaluation dated May 17, 2016. The supplemental letters dated July 2, (GEPS 6) negotiated service agreement
No significant hazards consideration 2015; September 21, 2015; November (Agreement).1
comments received: No. 11, 2015; and January 29, 2016, To support its Request, the Postal
Susquehanna Nuclear, LLC, Docket Nos. provided additional information that Service filed a copy of the Agreement,
50–387 and 50–388, Susquehanna clarified the application, did not expand a copy of the Governors’ Decision
Steam Electric Station (SSES), Units 1 the scope of the application as originally authorizing the product, a certification
and 2, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania noticed, and did not change the staff’s of compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a),
original proposed no significant hazards and an application for non-public
Date of amendment request: October consideration determination as treatment of certain materials. It also
27, 2014, as supplemented by letters published in the Federal Register. filed supporting financial workpapers.
dated July 2, 2015; September 21, 2015; The Commission’s related evaluation
November 11, 2015; and January 29, II. Notice of Commission Action
of the amendments is contained in an
2016. SE dated May 20, 2016. The Commission establishes Docket
Brief description of amendments: The No significant hazards consideration Nos. MC2016–149 and CP2016–188 for
amendments modified the SSES comments received: No. consideration of matters raised by the
technical specifications (TSs). Request.
Specifically, the amendments modified Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 27th day
of May, 2016. The Commission invites comments on
the TSs by relocating specific whether the Postal Service’s filing is
surveillance frequencies to a licensee- For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Anne T. Boland,
consistent with 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, or
controlled program, the Surveillance 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR
Frequency Control Program, with Director, Division of Operating Reactor
part 3020, subpart B. Comments are due
implementation of Nuclear Energy Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation. no later than June 8, 2016. The public
Institute (NEI) 04–10, Revision 1, ‘‘Risk- portions of the filing can be accessed via
Informed Technical Specifications [FR Doc. 2016–13255 Filed 6–6–16; 8:45 am]
the Commission’s Web site (http://
Initiative 5b, Risk-Informed Method for BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
www.prc.gov).
Control of Surveillance Frequencies.’’
The Commission appoints Curtis E.
The changes are consistent with NRC-
Kidd to serve as Public Representative
approved Technical Specification Task POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION
in this docket.
Force Improved Standard Technical
[Docket Nos. MC2016–149 and CP2016–188;
Specifications Change Traveler (TSTF)– Order No. 3335] III. Ordering Paragraphs
425, Revision 3, ‘‘Relocate Surveillance
It is ordered:
Frequencies to Licensee Control— New Postal Product
RITSTF Initiative 5b.’’ The Federal 1. The Commission establishes Docket
Register notice published on July 6, AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission. Nos. MC2016–149 and CP2016–188 for
2009 (74 FR 31996), announced the ACTION: Notice. consideration of the matters raised by
availability of this TSTF improvement the Postal Service’s Notice.
and included a model no significant SUMMARY: The Commission is noticing a 2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Curtis E.
hazards consideration and safety recent Postal Service filing concerning Kidd is appointed to serve as an officer
evaluation (SE). the addition of Global Expedited of the Commission to represent the
This license amendment request was Package Services 6 Contracts to the interests of the general public in this
submitted by PPL Susquehanna, LLC; competitive product list. This notice proceeding (Public Representative).
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
however, on June 1, 2015, the NRC staff informs the public of the filing, invites 3. Comments are due no later than
issued an amendment changing the public comment, and takes other June 8, 2016.
name on the SSES license from PPL administrative steps.
Susquehanna, LLC to Susquehanna DATES: Comments are due: June 8, 2016. 1 Request of the United States Postal Service to
Nuclear, LLC (ADAMS Accession No. ADDRESSES: Submit comments Add Global Expedited Package Services 6 Contracts
to the Competitive Product List, and Notice of
ML15054A066). These amendments electronically via the Commission’s Filing (Under Seal) of Contract and Application for
were issued subsequent to an order Filing Online system at http:// Non-Public Treatment of Materials Filed Under
issued on April 10, 2015, to SSES, www.prc.gov. Those who cannot submit Seal, May 31, 2016 (Request).
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:13 Jun 06, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00111 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07JNN1.SGM 07JNN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_36722/page/14.svg)
Document Created: 2018-02-08 07:31:52
Document Modified: 2018-02-08 07:31:52
| 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 July 7, 2016. A request for a hearing must be filed by August 8, 2016. | |
| Contact | Kay Goldstein, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, telephone: 301-415-1506, email: [email protected] and Lynn Ronewicz, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, telephone: 301-415-1927, email: [email protected] Both are staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001. | |
| FR Citation | 81 FR 36613 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR