ML17199A117
| ML17199A117 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 05/10/2017 |
| From: | Stephen Koenick Plant Licensing Branch II |
| To: | Jenkins S, Yeager M State of SC, Dept of Health & Environmental Control |
| References | |
| Download: ML17199A117 (14) | |
Text
1 NRR-PMDAPEm Resource From: Koenick, Stephen Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2017 5:25 PM To:jenkinse@dhec.sc.gov; 'yeagerma@dhec.sc.gov' Cc: Klett, Audrey
Subject:
NRC Notification of Intent to Issue Lice nse Amendment for Oconee Nuclear Station - Approval of one time change to technical specifications to allow time to replace the
stator on each Keowee unit Attachments:
2016-15659 BWN Oconee Stator.pdf Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:
FlaggedMay 10, 2017
Ms. Susan E. Jenkins Manager, Infectious and Radioactive Waste Management Bureau of Land & Waste Management
Division of Waste Management/IRWMS
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control
Mr. Mark A. Yeager Environmental Health Manager
Bureau of Land & Waste Management
Division of Waste Management/IRWMS
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control
Dear Susan and Mark,
The NRC is preparing to issue a license amendment for the Oconee Nuclear Station to revise the Technical Specifications (TS) for a one-time change to allow sufficient time to replace the stator on each Keowee Hydro Unit.
Here is the relevant information for the license amendment request:
Date of submittal: February 26, 2016 (NRC Agen cywide Documents Acce ss and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML16064A020).
Federal Register Notice of Consideration: July 5, 2016 (81 FR 43650).
[copy attached, specific BWN starts on page 43650
] Brief description of Amendment: The proposed changes would modify TS 3.8.1, "AC Sources - Operating," to allow sufficient time to replace the stator on each Keowee Hydro Unit (KHU).
Specifically, the current TS 3.8.1 RA C.2.2.5 maintenance provision requires the KHU and its required overhead emergency power path to be restored to operable status within 45 days of discovery of an initial inoperability when Condition C is entered due to an inoperable KHU if not used for that KHU in the previous 3 years. This 45-day time period is not sufficient to allow the KHU generator stator replacement work to be performed. Therefore, the licensee proposes to add a temporary Completion Time (CT) to RA C.2.2.5 that would allow 55 days to restore an inoperable KHU due to stator replacement. The temporary CT can be used 2once for each KHU. The proposed changes are similar to those previously reviewed and approved to support the KHU generator pole rewinds "License Amendment Request for Temporary Technical Specification Change to Add a Required Action Completion Time for One Keowee Hydro Unit Inoperable for Generator Field Pole Rewinds," dated February 27, 2012 (ADAMS Accession No. ML12181A312) and "Oconee Nuclear Station Units 1, 2 and 3, Issuance of Amendments Temporary Technical Specification Change Request to Extend the Completion Time For An Inoperable Keowee Hydro Unit," dated January 8, 2014 (ADAMS Accession No. ML13357A674.
The licensee also proposes a change to TS 3.8.1 RA C.2.2.3 Note to allow use of the 60-hour dual KHU outage to disassemble and reassemble the KHU and return it to a functional condition.
Please let me know at your earliest convenience if you have any questions or comments regarding this amendment.
On a separate note, Ms. Audrey Klett will become the NRC Project Manager for the Oconee Nuclear Station effective May 14, 2017. Audrey can be reached at (301) 415-0489, or at Audrey.Klett@nrc.gov.
Thanks, Steve Stephen S. Koenick Senior Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch 2-1 (LPL2-1)
Division of Operating Reactor Licensing (DORL) Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (301) 415-6631 Stephen.Koenick@nrc.gov
Hearing Identifier: NRR_PMDA Email Number: 3608 Mail Envelope Properties (195c80fb0a1343b48b231ecc4fb4b2d8)
Subject:
NRC Notification of Intent to Issue License Amendment for Oconee Nuclear Station - Approval of one time change to technical specifications to allow time to replace the stator on each Keowee unit Sent Date: 5/10/2017 5:24:38 PM Received Date: 5/10/2017 5:24:40 PM From: Koenick, Stephen Created By: Stephen.Koenick@nrc.gov
Recipients: "Klett, Audrey" <Audrey.Klett@nrc.gov> Tracking Status: None "jenkinse@dhec.sc.gov" <jenkinse@dhec.sc.gov> Tracking Status: None
"'yeagerma@dhec.sc.gov'" <yeagerma@dhec.sc.gov> Tracking Status: None
Post Office: HQPWMSMRS02.nrc.gov Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 3281 5/10/2017 5:24:40 PM 2016-15659 BWN Oconee Stator.pdf 266837 Options Priority: Standard Return Notification: No Reply Requested: No Sensitivity: Normal Expiration Date: Recipients Received: Follow up
43646 Federal Register/Vol. 81, No. 128/Tuesday, July 5, 2016/Notices regulations, and orders of the NRC now or hereafter in effect. The facility
consists of two pressurized-water
reactors located in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.
II. Request/Action The regulation in 10 CFR 74.19, Recordkeeping, identifies
recordkeeping requirements applicable
to special nuclear material (SNM), and
10 CFR 74.19(c) requires, in part, that, each licensee who is authorized to
possess special nuclear material, at any
one time and site location, in a quantity
greater than 350 grams of contained
uranium-235, uranium-233, or
plutonium, or any combination thereof, shall conduct a physical inventory of all
special nuclear material in its
possession under license at intervals not
to exceed 12 months.
The licensee requested an exemption from certain recordkeeping
requirements in 10 CFR 74.19(c). The
exemption would allow the licensee to
seek relief from the physical inventory
requirements only for movable incore
nuclear detectors that have been
removed from service and stored in a
location that is not readily accessible
and is subject to security modifications.
The purpose of this request for
exemption is to allow an alternative to
the physical inventory-taking practices
for these non-fuel SNM incore detectors.
III. Discussion Pursuant to 10 CFR 74.7, Specific exemptions, the Commission may, upon application of any interested
person or upon its own initiative, grant
exemptions from the requirements of 10
CFR part 74 when the exemptions are
authorized by law and will not endanger
life or property or the common defense
and security, and are otherwise in the
public interest.
The Exemption Is Authorized by Law This exemption allows the licensee to have an alternative to the physical
inventory requirements of 10 CFR
74.19(c) only for movable incore nuclear
detectors that have been removed from
service. The NRC staff has determined
that granting the licensees proposed
exemption pursuant to 10 CFR 74.7 will
not result in a violation of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or the
Commissions regulations. Therefore, the exemption is authorized by law.
The Exemption Presents No Undue Risk to Public Health and Safety The underlying purpose of 10 CFR 74.19(c) is to ensure SNM is properly
accounted for, appropriately secured, and that authorities are informed of any theft, diversion, or loss. Based on the information provided, no new accident
precursors are created by the
description of actions the licensee has
provided concerning the physical
inventory for the incore nuclear
detectors. Thus, the probability of
postulated accidents is not increased.
Also, the consequences of postulated
accidents are not increased. Therefore, there is no undue risk to public health
and safety.
The Exemption Is Consistent With the Common Defense and Security The proposed exemption would allow the licensee to address the physical
inventory of the non-fuel SNM. The
licensee indicated that the overall
alternative approach will continue to
meet the intent of the physical
inventory requirements of 10 CFR
74.19(c). Therefore, the common
defense and security are not impacted
by this exemption.
IV. Conclusion Accordingly, the Commission has determined that pursuant to 10 CFR
74.7, the exemption is authorized by
law, will not present an undue risk to
the public health and safety, and is
consistent with the common defense
and security. Therefore, the Commission
hereby grants Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC an exemption from the physical
inventory requirements of 10 CFR
74.19(c) for McGuire.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, Finding of no significant impact, the Commission
has determined that the granting of this
exemption will not have a significant
effect on the quality of the human
environment as published in the
Federal Register on March 8, 2016 (81 FR 12132).
The exemption is effective upon issuance.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 23rd day of June, 2016.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Anne T. Boland, Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2016-15868 Filed 7-1-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2016-0127]
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 June 7, 2016, to June 20, 2016. The last biweekly
notice was published on June 21, 2016.
DATES: Comments must be filed by August 4, 2016. A request for a hearing
must be filed by September 6, 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-2016-0127. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol
Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-3463;
email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov.
For technical questions, contact the
individual listed in the FORFURTHER INFORMATIONCONTACT 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 SUPPLEMENTARYINFORMATION section of this document. FORFURTHERINFORMATIONCONTACT
- Lynn Ronewicz, Office of Nuclear VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:27 Jul 01, 2016Jkt 238001PO 00000Frm 00077Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\05JYN1.SGM05JYN1 sradovich on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES 43647 Federal Register/Vol. 81, No. 128/Tuesday, July 5, 2016/Notices Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1927, email: lynn.ronewicz@nrc.gov.
I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments A. Obtaining Information Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0127 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-2016-0127.
- NRCs 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 NRCs Public
Document Room (PDR) reference staff at
1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by
email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
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. *NRCs PDR:
You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at
the NRCs PDR, Room O1-F21, One
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville
Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
B. Submitting Comments Please include Docket ID NRC-2016-0127, facility name, unit number(s),
application date, and subject in your
comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that
you do not want to be publicly
disclosed in your comment submission.
The NRC will post all comment
submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into ADAMS.
The NRC does not routinely edit
comment submissions to remove
identifying or contact information.
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for
submission to the NRC, then you should
inform those persons not to include
identifying or contact information that
they do not want to be publicly
disclosed in their comment submission.
Your request should state that the NRC
does not routinely edit comment
submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or
entering the comment into ADAMS.
II. Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating
Licenses and Combined Licenses and
Proposed No Significant Hazards
Consideration Determination The Commission has made a proposed determination that the
following amendment requests involve
no significant hazards consideration.
Under the Commissions regulations in
§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 Commissions 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 NRCs PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room
O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first
floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. The
NRCs regulations are accessible
electronically from the NRC Library on
the NRCs 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 requestors/petitioners
right under the Act to be made a party
to the proceeding; (3) the nature and
extent of the requestors/petitioners
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
requestors/petitioners 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:27 Jul 01, 2016Jkt 238001PO 00000Frm 00078Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\05JYN1.SGM05JYN1 sradovich on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES 43648 Federal Register/Vol. 81, No. 128/Tuesday, July 5, 2016/Notices 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 persons 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
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
petitioners interest in the proceeding.
The petition should be submitted to the
Commission by September 6, 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 §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 September 6, 2016.
B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a
request for hearing, a petition for leave
to intervene, any motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior
to the submission of a request for
hearing or petition to intervene, and
documents filed by interested
governmental entities participating
under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in
accordance with the NRCs 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
hearing.docket@nrc.gov, 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
NRCs 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
NRCs Guidance for Electronic
Submission, which is available on the
agencys 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
NRCs 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 NRCs 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 NRCs Web
site. Further information on the Web-
based submission form, including the
installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on the NRCs 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 NRCs 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 NRCs E-Filing
system. To be timely, an electronic VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:27 Jul 01, 2016Jkt 238001PO 00000Frm 00079Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\05JYN1.SGM05JYN1 sradovich on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES 43649 Federal Register/Vol. 81, No. 128/Tuesday, July 5, 2016/Notices 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 NRCs 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 NRCs adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the
NRC Meta System Help Desk through
the Contact Us link located on the
NRCs public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-
submittals.html, by email to MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-7640. The NRC
Meta System Help Desk is available
between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern
Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays.
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting
documents electronically must file an
exemption request, in accordance with
10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper
filing requesting authorization to
continue to submit documents in paper
format. Such filings must be submitted
by: (1) First class mail addressed to the
Office of the Secretary of the
Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-
0001, Attention: Rulemaking and
Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery
service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention:
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff.
Participants filing a document in this
manner are responsible for serving the
document on all other participants.
Filing is considered complete by first-
class mail as of the time of deposit in
the mail, or by courier, express mail, or
expedited delivery service upon
depositing the document with the
provider of the service. A presiding
officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require
a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting
the exemption from use of E-Filing no
longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRCs
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.
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).
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 NRCs PDR. For
additional direction on accessing
information related to this document, see the Obtaining Information and
Submitting Comments section of this
document.
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:
May 5, 2016. A publicly available version is in ADAMS under Accession No.
Description of amendment request:
The amendments would modify Technical Specifications (TSs) by the removal of Note (c), which is no longer applicable from TS Table 3.3.2-1, Engineered Safety Feature Actuation System Instrumentation, Function 6.f, Auxiliary Feedwater Pump Suction
Transfer on Suction PressureLow, and the removal of an expired one-time Note for Required Action to restore
Diesel Generator to OPERABLE status
for TS 3.8.1, AC SourcesOperating.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
licensee has provided its analysis of the
issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented
below: 1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response:
No. This LAR [license amendment request]
proposes administrative non-technical
changes only. These proposed changes do not
adversely affect accident initiators or
precursors nor alter the design assumptions, conditions, or configurations of the facility.
The proposed changes do not alter or prevent
the ability of structures, systems and
components (SSCs) to perform their intended
function to mitigate the consequences of an
initiating event within the assumed
acceptance limits.
Given the above discussion, it is concluded the proposed amendment does not
significantly increase the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.
- 2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response:
No. This LAR proposes administrative non-technical changes only. The proposed
changes will not alter the design
requirements of any Structure, System or
Component (SSC) or its function during
accident conditions. No new or different
accidents result from the proposed changes.
The changes do not involve a physical
alteration of the plant or any changes in
methods governing normal plant operation.
The changes do not alter assumptions made
in the safety analysis.
Given the above discussion, it is concluded the proposed amendment does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
- 3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response:
No. This LAR proposes administrative non-technical changes only. The proposed
changes do 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 these changes. The
proposed changes will not result in plant
operation in a configuration outside the
design basis. The proposed changes do not
adversely affect systems that respond to
safely shutdown the plant and to maintain
the plant in a safe shutdown condition.
Given the above discussion, it is concluded the proposed amendment does not involve a
significant reduction in the margin of safety. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:27 Jul 01, 2016Jkt 238001PO 00000Frm 00080Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\05JYN1.SGM05JYN1 sradovich on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES 43650 Federal Register/Vol. 81, No. 128/Tuesday, July 5, 2016/Notices The NRC staff has reviewed the licensees 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.
NRC Branch Chief:
Michael T.
Markley. Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287, Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and
3, Oconee County, South Carolina Date of amendment request:
February 26, 2016. A publicly-available version is
in ADAMS under Accession No.
Description of amendment request:
The amendments would revise
Technical Specifications (TSs) for the
Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and
3 (Oconee). Specifically, the license
amendment request (LAR) would revise
TS 3.8.1, AC [Alternating Current]
SourcesOperating, Required Action
C.2.2.5, to allow each Keowee
Hydroelectric Unit to be taken out of
service for up to 55 days on a one-time
basis for the purpose of generator stator
replacement, subject to the
implementation of specified
contingency measures outlined in the
LAR. 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 edits in square
brackets:
- 1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response:
No. This change involves the temporary addition of a 55-day Completion Time for
Technical Specification (TS) 3.8.1 Required
Action C.2.2.5 associated with restoring
compliance with TS Limiting Condition for
Operation (LCO) 3.8.1.C. During the time that
one Keowee Hydroelectric Unit (KHU) is
inoperable for [greater than] 72 hours3 days <br />0.429 weeks <br />0.0986 months <br />, a Lee
Combustion Turbine (LCT) will be energizing
both standby buses, two offsite power
sources will be maintained available, and
maintenance on electrical distribution
systems will not be performed unless
necessary. In addition, risk significant
systems (Emergency Feedwater System, Protected Service Water System, and Standby
Shutdown Facility) will be verified operable (meeting LCO requirements) within 72 hours3 days <br />0.429 weeks <br />0.0986 months <br /> of entering TS 3.8.1 Condition C (i.e., prior to use of the 55-day Completion Time of Required Action C.2.2.5). The temporary 55-
day Completion Time will decrease the
likelihood of an unplanned forced shutdown
of all three Oconee Units and the potential safety consequences and operational risks associated with that action. Avoiding this
risk offsets the risks associated with having
a design basis event during the temporary 55-
day completion time for having one KHU
The temporary addition of the 55-day Completion Time does not involve: (1) A
physical alteration to the Oconee Units; (2)
the installation of new or different
equipment; (3) operating any installed
equipment in a new or different manner; or
(4) a change to any set points for parameters
which initiate protective or mitigation action.
There is no adverse impact on containment integrity, radiological release pathways, fuel
design, filtration systems, main steam relief
valve set points, or radwaste systems. No
new radiological release pathways are
created. The consequences of an event occurring during the temporary 55-day Completion
Time are the same as those that would occur
during the existing Completion Time. Duke
Energy reviewed the Probabilistic Risk
Assessment (PRA) to gain additional insights
concerning the configuration of [Oconee]
with one KHU. The results of the risk
analysis show a risk improvement if no
maintenance is performed on the SSF, EFW System and AC Power System. The results of
the risk analysis show a small risk increase
using the average nominal maintenance
unavailability values for the SSF, EFW
System and AC Power System.
By limiting maintenance, the risk results are expected to be between these two
extremes (i.e., small risk impact).
Therefore, the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated is not
significantly increased.
- 2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response:
No. This change involves the temporary addition of a 55-day Completion Time for TS 3.8.1 Required Action C.2.2.5 associated with
restoring compliance with TS LCO 3.8.1.
During the time period that one KHU is
inoperable, the redundancy requirement for
the emergency power source will be fulfilled
by an LCT. Compensatory measures
previously specified will be in place to
minimize electrical power system
vulnerabilities.
The temporary 55-day Completion Time does not involve a physical effect on the
Oconee Units, nor is there any increased risk
of an Oconee Unit trip or reactivity
excursion. No new failure modes or credible
accident scenarios are postulated from this
activity.
Therefore, the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any kind of
accident previously evaluated is not created.
- 3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response:
No. This change involves the temporary addition of a 55-day Completion Time for TS 3.8.1 Required Action C.2.2.5 associated with restoring compliance with TS LCO 3.8.1.
During the time period that one KHU is
inoperable, the redundancy requirement for
the emergency power source will be fulfilled
by an LCT. Compensatory measures
previously specified will be in place to
minimize electrical power system
vulnerabilities.
The proposed TS change does not involve:
(1) a physical alteration of the Oconee Units;
(2) the installation of new or different
equipment; (3) operating any installed
equipment in a new or different manner; (4)
a change to any set points for parameters
which initiate protective or mitigation action;
or (5) any impact on the fission product
barriers or safety limits.
Therefore, this request does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensees 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 S. Church St.EC07H, Charlotte, NC 28202.
NRC Branch Chief:
Michael T.
Markley. Duke Energy Progress, Inc., Docket Nos.
50-325 and 50-324, Brunswick Steam
Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2 (BSEP),
Brunswick County, North Carolina Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414, Catawba
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York
County, South Carolina Duke Energy Progress, Inc., Docket No.
50-400, Shearon Harris Nuclear Power
Plant, Unit 1 (HNP), Wake County, North Carolina Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370, McGuire
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287, Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and
3, Oconee County, South Carolina Duke Energy Progress, Inc., Docket No.
50-261, H. B. Robinson Steam Electric
Plant, Unit No. 2 (RNP), Darlington
County, South Carolina Date of amendment request:
April 29, 2016. A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No.
Description of amendment request:
The amendments would (1) consolidate
the Emergency Operations Facilities (EOFs) for BSEP, HNP, and RNP with
the Duke Energy Progress, Inc. (Duke VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:27 Jul 01, 2016Jkt 238001PO 00000Frm 00081Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\05JYN1.SGM05JYN1 sradovich on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES 43651 Federal Register/Vol. 81, No. 128/Tuesday, July 5, 2016/Notices Energy) corporate EOF in Charlotte, North Carolina; (2) change the BSEP, HNP, and RNP augmentation times to be
consistent with those of the sites
currently supported by the Duke Energy
corporate EOF; and (3) decrease the
frequency of the unannounced
augmentation drill at BSEP from twice
per year to once per year.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
licensee has provided its analysis of the
issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented
below: 1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response:
No. The proposed changes relocate the BSEP, HNP, and RNP EOFs from their present
onsite or near-site locations to the established
corporate EOF in Charlotte, North Carolina, changes the required response times for
supplementing onsite personnel in response
to a radiological emergency, and decreases
the frequency of augmentation drills at BSEP.
The functions and capabilities of the
relocated EOFs will continue to meet the
applicable regulatory requirements. It has
been evaluated and determined that the
change in response time does not
significantly affect the ability to supplement
the onsite staff. In addition, analysis shows
that the onsite staff can acceptably respond
to an event for longer than the requested time
for augmented staff to arrive. The proposed
changes have no effect on normal plant
operation or on any accident initiator or
precursors, and do not impact the function of
plant structures, systems, or components (SSCs). The proposed changes do not alter or
prevent the ability of the emergency response
organization to perform its intended
functions to mitigate the consequences of an
accident or 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 changes only impact the implementation of the affected stations
emergency plans by relocating their onsite or
near-site EOFs to the established corporate
EOF in Charlotte, North Carolina, changing
the required response time of responders
who supplement the onsite staff, and
decreasing the frequency of augmentation
drills at BSEP. The functions and capabilities
of the relocated EOFs will continue to meet
the applicable regulatory requirements. It has
been evaluated and determined that the
change in response time does not
significantly affect the ability to supplement
the onsite staff. In addition, analysis shows
that the onsite staff can acceptably respond
to an event for longer than the requested time
for augmented staff to arrive. The proposed changes will not change the design function or operation of SSCs. The changes do not
impact the accident analysis. The changes do
not involve a physical alteration of the plant, a change in the method of plant operation, or new operator actions. The proposed
changes do not introduce failure modes that could result in a new accident, and the
changes do not alter assumptions made in the
safety analysis.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
- 3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response:
No. The proposed changes only impacts the implementation of the affected stations
emergency plans by relocating their onsite or
near-site EOFs to the established corporate
EOF in Charlotte, North Carolina, changing
the required response time of responders
who supplement the onsite staff, and
decreasing the frequency of augmentation
drills at BSEP. The functions and capabilities
of the relocated EOFs will continue to meet
the applicable regulatory requirements. It has
been evaluated and determined that the
change in response time does not
significantly affect the ability to supplement
the onsite staff. In addition, analysis shows
that the onsite staff can acceptably respond
to an event for longer than the requested time
for augmented staff to arrive. Margin of safety
is associated with confidence in the ability of
the fission product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, reactor coolant system pressure
boundary, and containment structure) to
limit the level of radiation dose to the public.
The proposed changes are associated with
the emergency plans and do not impact
operation of the plant or its response to
transients or accidents. The changes do not
affect the Technical Specifications. The
changes do not involve a change in the
method of plant operation, and no accident
analyses will be affected by the proposed
changes. Safety analysis acceptance criteria
are not affected. The emergency plans will
continue to provide the necessary response
staff for emergencies as demonstrated by
staffing and functional analyses including the
necessary timeliness of performing major
tasks for the functional areas of the
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensees 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, 550 South Tyron Street, Mail Code DEC45A, Charlotte, NC
28202. NRC Acting Branch Chief:
Tracy J. Orf. Duke Energy Progress, Inc., Docket No.
50-261, H. B. Robinson Steam Electric
Plant, Unit No. 2 (HBRSEP2), Darlington
County, South Carolina Date of amendment request:
April 24, 2016. A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No.
Description of amendment request:
The amendment would adopt Technical
Specifications Task Force (TSTF)
Traveler TSTF-339, Revision 2, Relocated TS Parameters to COLR.
Based on TSTF-339, the proposed
amendment would relocate reactor
coolant system (RCS)-related cycle-
specific parameters and core safety
limits from the technical specifications (TSs) to the Core Operating Limits
Report (COLR).
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
licensee has provided its analysis of the
issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented
below: 1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response:
No. The relocation of RCS-related cycle-specific parameter limits from the TS to the
COLR proposed by this amendment request
does not result in the alteration of the design, material, or construction standards that were
applicable prior to the change. The proposed
change will not result in the modification of
any system interface that would increase the
likelihood of an accident since these events
are independent of the proposed change. The
proposed amendment will not change, degrade, or prevent actions, or alter any
assumptions previously made in evaluating
the radiological consequences of an accident
described in the Updated Final Safety
Analysis Report (UFSAR). Therefore, the
proposed amendment does not result in an
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.
There are no new accident causal mechanisms created as a result of NRC
approval of this amendment request. No
changes are being made to the facility which
would introduce any new accident causal
mechanisms. This amendment request does
not impact any plant systems that are
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 margin of safety?
Response: No.
Implementation of this amendment would not involve a significant reduction in the VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:27 Jul 01, 2016Jkt 238001PO 00000Frm 00082Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\05JYN1.SGM05JYN1 sradovich on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES 43652 Federal Register/Vol. 81, No. 128/Tuesday, July 5, 2016/Notices margin of safety. Previously approved methodologies will continue to be used in
the determination of cycle-specific core
operating limits that are present in the COLR.
Additionally, previously approved RCS
minimum total flow rates for HBRSEP2 are
retained in the TS to assure that lower flow
rates will not be used without prior NRC
approval. Based on the above, it is concluded
that the proposed license amendment request
does not impact any safety margins and will
not result in a reduction in margin with
respect to plant safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensees 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, 550 South Tyron Street, Mail Code DEC45A, Charlotte, NC
28202. NRC Acting Branch Chief:
Robert G.
Schaaf. Florida Power & Light Company, Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251, Turkey Point
Nuclear Generating, Unit Nos. 3 and 4, Miami-Dade County, Florida Date of amendment request:
April 4, 2016. A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No.
Description of amendment request:
The amendments would revise the
Technical Specifications (TS)
requirements for snubbers. The licensee
proposed to revise the TSs to conform
to the licensees Snubber Testing
Program. The proposed changes include
additions to, deletions from, and
conforming administrative changes to
the TSs. Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented
below: 1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response:
No. The proposed changes would revise TS SR
[Surveillance Requirement] 4.7.6 to conform
the TS to the revised surveillance program
for snubbers. Snubber examination, testing
and service life monitoring will continue to
meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a(g).
Snubber examination, testing and service life monitoring is not an initiator of any
accident previously evaluated. Therefore, the
probability of an accident previously
evaluated is not significantly increased.
Snubbers will continue to be demonstrated OPERABLE by performance of a program for examination, testing and service life monitoring in compliance with 10 CFR
50.55a or authorized alternatives. The
proposed change to the TS 3.7.6 Action for
inoperable snubbers is administrative in
nature and is required for consistency with
the proposed change to TS SR 4.7.6. The
proposed change does not adversely affect
plant operations, design functions or
analyses that verify the capability of systems, structures, and components to perform their
design functions therefore, the consequences
of accidents previously evaluated are not
significantly increased.
Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
- 2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response:
No. The proposed changes do not involve any physical alteration of plant equipment. The
proposed changes do not alter the method by
which any safety-related system performs its
function. As such, no new or different types
of equipment will be installed, and the basic
operation of installed equipment is
unchanged. The methods governing plant
operation and testing remain consistent with
current safety analysis assumptions.
Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
- 3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response:
No. The proposed changes ensure snubber examination, testing and service life
monitoring will continue to meet the
requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a(g). Snubbers
will continue to be demonstrated OPERABLE
by performance of a program for
examination, testing and service life
monitoring in compliance with 10 CFR
50.55a or authorized alternatives.
The proposed change to the TS 3.7.6 Action for inoperable snubbers is
administrative in nature and is required for
consistency with the proposed change to TS
Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed change does not involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensees analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee:
William S.
Blair, Managing AttorneyNuclear, Florida Power & Light Company, 700 Universe Blvd., MS LAW/JB, Juno
Beach, FL 33408-0420.
NRC Branch Chief:
Benjamin G.
Beasley. South Carolina Electric and Gas Company and South Carolina Public
Service Authority, Docket Nos.52-027
and 52-028, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear
Station (VCSNS), Units 2 and 3, Fairfield County, South Carolina Date of amendment request:
May 16, 2016. A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed changes, if approved for
the VCSNS, involve departures from
incorporated plant-specific Tier 2
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) information and conforming
changes to the combined license
Appendix C, as well as conforming
changes to the plant-specific Tier 1
information, to ensure that the design
bases Tier 2 information conforms with
the originally certified design. The
licensee stated in its application that the
changes are editorial, and with one
exception, bring the plant-specific Tier
1 and Combined License (COL)
Appendix C into alignment with the
information contained in plant-specific
Tier 2. In addition, the licensee
requested a change to COL License
Condition 2.D(12)(f)1 to correct a
reference to a seismic interaction review
discussed in the AP1000 design
certification document, Revision 19, Section 3.7.5.3.
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 consistency and editorial COL Appendix C (and plant-specific Tier 1)
and involved Tier 2 changes, along with one
COL paragraph 2.D change, do not involve a
technical change, (e.g., there is no design parameter or requirement, calculation, analysis, function or qualification change).
No structure, system, component design or
function would be affected. No design or
safety analysis would be affected. The
proposed changes do not affect any accident
initiating event or component failure, thus the probabilities of the accidents previously
evaluated are not affected. No function used
to mitigate a radioactive material release and
no radioactive material release source term is
involved, thus the radiological releases in the
accident analyses are not affected.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
- 2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:27 Jul 01, 2016Jkt 238001PO 00000Frm 00083Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\05JYN1.SGM05JYN1 sradovich on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES 43653 Federal Register/Vol. 81, No. 128/Tuesday, July 5, 2016/Notices accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response:
No. The proposed consistency and editorial COL Appendix C (and plant-specific Tier 1)
and involved Tier 2 changes, along with one
COL paragraph 2.D change, would not affect
the design or function of any structure, system, component (SSC), but will instead
provide consistency between the SSC designs
and functions currently presented in the
UFSAR and the Tier 1 information. The
proposed changes would not introduce a new
failure mode, fault or sequence of events that
could result in a radioactive material release.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not
create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
- 3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response:
No. The proposed consistency and editorial COL Appendix C (and plant-specific Tier 1)
and involved Tier 2 update, along with one
COL paragraph 2.D change, is non-technical, thus would not affect any design parameter, function or analysis. There would be no
change to an existing design basis, design
function, regulatory criterion, or analysis. No
safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is involved. Therefore, the
proposed amendment does not involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensees analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee:
Ms. Kathryn M.
Sutton, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLC, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20004-2514.
NRC Acting Branch Chief:
South Carolina Electric and Gas Company, Docket Nos.52-027 and 52-
028, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS), Units 2 and 3, Fairfield
County, South Carolina Date of amendment request:
May 12, 2016. A publicly-available version is
available in ADAMS under Accession
No. ML16133A382.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed changes, if approved for
the VCSNS, involve departures from
incorporated plant-specific Tier 2
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) information and changes to the
combined license Appendix A
Technical Specifications to ensure that
the listed minimum volume of the
passive core cooling system core
makeup tanks are aligned with the
current inspections tests analyses and
acceptance criteria and the relevant
safety analysis.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
licensee has provided its analysis of the
issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response:
No. The proposed activity would revise the minimum CMT [Core Makeup Tank] volume
in the COL [combined operating license]
Appendix A (Technical Specifications) and
UFSAR information to be consistent with the
plant-specific Tier 1 and COL Appendix C
requirements. Because the new minimum
volume is bounded by the current analyses, the proposed activity does not alter the
design of an accident initiating component or
system. Thus, the probabilities of an accident
previously evaluated are not affected. The
proposed activity does not involve other
safety-related equipment or radioactive
material barriers. Thus, the proposed activity
does not affect an accident mitigation
function.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
- 2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response:
No. The proposed activity would revise the minimum CMT volume in the COL Appendix
A (Technical Specifications) and UFSAR
information to be consistent with the plant-
specific Tier 1 and COL Appendix C
requirements. No results or conclusions of
any design or safety analyses are affected. No
system or design function or equipment
qualification is affected by the changes. The
changes do not result in a new failure mode, malfunction or sequence of events that could
affect safety or safety-related equipment. This
activity does not allow for a new fission
product release path, result in a new fission
product barrier failure mode, or create a new
sequence of events that results in significant
fuel cladding failures.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
- 3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response:
No. The proposed activity would revise the minimum CMT volume in the COL Appendix
A (Technical Specifications) and UFSAR
information to be consistent with the plant-
specific Tier 1 and COL Appendix C
requirements. No results or conclusions of any design or safety analyses are affected. No
system design function or equipment is
altered by this activity, and the proposed
changes do not alter any design code, safety
classification, or design margin. No safety
analysis or design basis limit is involved
with the requested change, and consequently, no margin of safety is reduced.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensees analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee:
Ms. Kathryn M.
Sutton, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLC, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20004-2514.
NRC Acting Branch Chief:
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos.52-025 and 52-026, Vogtle
Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), Units
3 and 4, Burke County, Georgia Date of amendment request:
May 18, 2016. A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No.
Description of amendment request:
The amendment request proposes
changes to the technical specifications (TS) and Updated Final Safety Analysis
Report (UFSAR) in the form of
departures from the incorporated plant-
specific Design Control Document Tier
2 information. Specifically, the
proposed departures consist of changes
to the TS and UFSAR to revise the
minimum volume of the passive core
cooling system core makeup tanks.
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 activity would revise the minimum CMT [core makeup tank] volume
in the COL [combined operating license]
Appendix A (Technical Specifications) and UFSAR information to be consistent with the
plant-specific Tier 1 and COL Appendix C
requirements. Because the new minimum
volume is bounded by the current analyses, the proposed activity does not alter the
design of an accident initiating component or
system. Thus, the probabilities of an accident
previously evaluated are not affected. The
proposed activity does not involve other
safety-related equipment or radioactive
material barriers. Thus, the proposed activity
does not affect an accident mitigation
function.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:27 Jul 01, 2016Jkt 238001PO 00000Frm 00084Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\05JYN1.SGM05JYN1 sradovich on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES 43654 Federal Register/Vol. 81, No. 128/Tuesday, July 5, 2016/Notices
- 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 activity would revise the minimum CMT volume in the COL Appendix
A (Technical Specifications) and UFSAR
information to be consistent with the plant-
specific Tier 1 and COL Appendix C
requirements. No results or conclusions of
any design or safety analyses are affected. No
system or design function or equipment
qualification is affected by the changes. The
changes do not result in a new failure mode, malfunction or sequence of events that could
affect safety or safety-related equipment. This
activity does not allow for a new fission
product release path, result in a new fission
product barrier failure mode, or create a new
sequence of events that results in significant
fuel cladding failures.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
- 3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response:
No. The proposed activity would revise the minimum CMT volume in the COL Appendix
A (Technical Specifications) and UFSAR
information to be consistent with the plant-
specific Tier 1 and COL Appendix C
requirements. No results or conclusions of
any design or safety analyses are affected. No
system design function or equipment is
altered by this activity, and the proposed
changes do not alter any design code, safety
classification, or design margin. No safety
analysis or design basis limit is involved
with the requested change, and consequently, no margin of safety is reduced. Therefore, the
proposed amendment does not involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensees 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:
M. Stanford Blanton, Balch & Bingham LLP, 1710
Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL
35203-2015.
NRC Acting Branch Chief:
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 Commissions rules and regulations.
The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the
Commissions rules and regulations in
10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in
the license amendments.
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 Commissions related letter, safety
evaluation, and/or environmental
assessment, as indicated. All of these
items can be accessed as described in
the Obtaining Information and
Submitting Comments section of this
document.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287, Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and
3, Oconee County, South Carolina Date of amendment request:
July 17, 2015. Brief description of amendments:
The amendments correct a usage problem
with recently issued Amendment Nos.
382, 384, and 383 (ADAMS Accession
No. ML13231A013), which precludes
Oconee Nuclear Station Technical
Specification (TS) 3.8.1, AC
[Alternating Current] Sources
Operating, Condition H, from being
used as planned. The change revises the
note to TS 3.8.1, Required Actions L.1, L.2, and L.3 to delete the 12-hour time
limitation when the second Keowee
Hydroelectric Unit (KHU) is made
inoperable for the purpose of restoring
the KHU undergoing maintenance to
OPERABLE status. Deletion of the 12-
hour time limitation allows the use of
the full 60-hour Completion Time of
Required Action H.2 when the unit(s)
have been in Condition C for greater
than 72 hours3 days <br />0.429 weeks <br />0.0986 months <br />, and both units are made
inoperable for the purpose of restoring the KHU undergoing maintenance to OPERABLE status.
Date of issuance:
June 6, 2016.
Effective date:
As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.:
400 (Unit 1), 402 (Unit 2), and 401 (Unit 3). A publicly-
available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML16138A332;
documents related to these amendments
are listed in the Safety Evaluation
enclosed with the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-38, DPR-47, and DPR-55:
The amendments revised the Renewed
Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 10, 2015 (80 FR 69710). The Commissions related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated June 6, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received:
No. Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-293, Pilgrim Nuclear
Power Station (PNPS), Plymouth
County, Massachusetts Date of amendment request:
July 15, 2015. Brief description of amendment:
The amendment approved the revised
schedule for full implementation of the
Cyber Security Plan (CSP) for Milestone
8 by extending the date from June 30, 2016, to December 15, 2017, and revised
paragraphs 3.B and 3.G of Facility
Operating License No. DPR-35 for PNPS
to incorporate the revised CSP
implementation schedule.
Date of issuance:
June 6, 2016.
Effective date:
As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days.
Amendment No.:
244. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML16082A460;
documents related to this amendment
are listed in the Safety Evaluation
enclosed with the amendment.
Facility Operating License No. DPR-35: The amendment revised the Renewed Facility Operating License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 27, 2015 (80 FR 65812). The Commissions related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated June 6, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received:
No. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:27 Jul 01, 2016Jkt 238001PO 00000Frm 00085Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\05JYN1.SGM05JYN1 sradovich on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES 43655 Federal Register/Vol. 81, No. 128/Tuesday, July 5, 2016/Notices FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 50-334 and 50-
412, Beaver Valley Power Station (BVPS), Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Beaver
County, Pennsylvania Docket No. 50-
346, Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station (DBNPS), Unit No. 1, Ottawa County, Ohio Date of application for amendments:
November 19, 2015, as supplemented by
letter dated March 22, 2016.
Brief description of amendments:
The amendments changed the BVPS and
DBNPS Technical Specifications (TSs).
Specifically, the license amendments
revised TS 5.3.1, Unit Staff
Qualifications, by incorporating an
exception to American National
Standards Institute (ANSI) Standard
N18.1-1971, Selection and Training of
Nuclear Power Plant Personnel, such
that licensed operators are only required
to comply with the requirements of 10
CFR part 55, Operators Licenses.
Date of issuance:
June 7, 2016.
Effective date:
As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days from the date of
issuance.
Amendment Nos.:
297 and 185 for BVPS, Units 1 and 2, and 292 for
DBNPS, Unit 1. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession
No. ML16040A084. Documents related
to these amendments are listed in the
Safety Evaluation (SE) enclosed with the
amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-66, NPF-73, and NPF-3:
The amendments revised the TSs and
Renewed Facility Operating Licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 19, 2016 (81 FR 2918). The supplemental letter dated
March 22, 2016, contained clarifying
information and did not change the NRC
staffs initial proposed finding of no
significant hazards consideration.
The Commissions related evaluation of the amendments is contained in an
SE dated June 7, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received:
No. Luminant Generation Company LLC, Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446, Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 (CPNPP), Somervell
County, Texas Date of amendment request:
June 30, 2015, as supplemented by letters dated
January 27, 2016, and March 3, 2016.
Brief description of amendments:
The amendments revised the current
emergency action level scheme for
CPNPP to a scheme based on Nuclear
Energy Institute (NEI) 99-01, Revision 6, Development of Emergency Action Levels for Non-Passive Reactors, November 2012.
Date of issuance:
June 14, 2016.
Effective date:
As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 270 days from the date of
issuance.
Amendment Nos.:
166 (Unit 1) and 166 (Unit 2). A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession
No. ML16137A056; documents related
to these amendments are listed in the
Safety Evaluation enclosed with the
amendments.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-87 and NPF-89:
The amendments revised the Facility Operating Licenses
to authorize revision to the CPNPP Emergency Plan.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 14, 2015 (80 FR 48923), and corrected on August 20, 2015 (80 FR 50663). The supplemental
letters dated January 27, 2016, and
March 3, 2016, provided additional
information that clarified the
application, did not expand the scope of
the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staffs original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as
published in the Federal Register. The Commissions related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated June 14, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received:
No. Northern States Power Company Minnesota, Docket Nos. 50-282 and 50-
306, Prairie Island Nuclear Generating
Plant, Units 1 and 2, Goodhue County, Minnesota Date of amendment request:
June 29, 2015, as supplemented by letters dated
December 30, 2015; January 25, 2016;
March 31, 2016; and April 14, 2016.
Brief description of amendments:
The amendments revised surveillance
requirements (SRs) related to gas
accumulation for the emergency core
cooling system and added new SRs
related to gas accumulation for the
residual heat removal and containment
spray systems, consistent with NRC-
approved Technical Specifications Task
Force (TSTF) Standard Technical
Specifications Change Traveler TSTF-
523, Revision 2, Generic Letter 2008-
01, Managing Gas Accumulation.
Date of issuance:
June 16, 2016.
Effective date:
As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.:
217 (Unit 1) and 205 (Unit 2). A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession
No. ML16133A406; documents related
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-42 and DPR-60:
The amendments revised the Renewed
Facility Operating Licenses and
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 13, 2015 (80 FR 61484). The supplemental letters dated
December 30, 2015; January 25, 2016;
March 31, 2016; and 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 staffs
original proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination as
published in the Federal Register. The Commissions related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated June 16, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received:
No. Omaha Public Power District, Docket No. 50-285, Fort Calhoun Station, Unit No. 1, Washington County, Nebraska Date of amendment request:
September 11, 2015.
Brief description of amendment:
The amendment revised the Technical
Specifications (TSs) to provide a short
Completion Time to restore an
inoperable system for conditions under
which the existing TSs require a plant
shutdown. The amendment is consistent
with NRC-approved Technical
Specifications Task Force (TSTF)
Traveler TSTF-426, Revision 5, Revise
or Add Actions to Preclude Entry into
LCO [Limiting Condition for Operation]
3.0.3RITSTF [Risk-Informed TSTF]
Initiatives 6b & 6c, with certain plant-
specific administrative variations.
Date of issuance:
June 8, 2016.
Effective date:
As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days from the date of
issuance.
Amendment No.:
288. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML16139A804;
documents related to this amendment
are listed in the Safety Evaluation
enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-40:
The amendment revised the Renewed Facility Operating License
and TSs. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 24, 2015 (80 FR 73239). The Commissions related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated June 8, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received:
No. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:27 Jul 01, 2016Jkt 238001PO 00000Frm 00086Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\05JYN1.SGM05JYN1 sradovich on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES 43656 Federal Register/Vol. 81, No. 128/Tuesday, July 5, 2016/Notices Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-425, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1
and 2, Burke County, Georgia Date of amendment request:
July 18, 2014, as supplemented by letters dated
February 27, 2015, and May 2, 2016.
Brief description of amendments:
The amendments revised 22 Technical
Specifications (TSs) by adopting
multiple previously NRC-approved
Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Travelers. One proposed change
is not included in this license
amendment and will be addressed by
further correspondence. Southern
Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC)
stated that these TSTF Travelers are
generic changes chosen to increase the
consistency between the Vogtle Electric
Generating Plant TSs, the Improved
Standard Technical Specifications for
Westinghouse plants (NUREG-1431),
and the TSs of the other plants in the
SNC fleet.
Date of issuance:
June 9, 2016.
Effective date:
As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 120 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.:
180 (Unit 1) and 161 (Unit 2). A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession
No. ML15132A569; documents related
to these amendments are listed in the
Safety Evaluation enclosed with the
amendments.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-68 and NPF-81:
Amendments revised the Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 3, 2015 (80 FR 11480).
The supplemental letters dated February
27, 2015, and May 2, 2016, provided
additional information that clarified the
application, did not expand the scope of
the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staffs original
proposal no significant hazards
consideration determination as
published in the Federal Register. The Commissions related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated June 9, 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:
April 13, 2015, as supplemented by letters dated
September 17, 2015, and April 13, 2016.
Brief description of amendments:
The amendments consist of changes to the
Technical Specifications consistent with
the NRC-approved Technical
Specification Task Force Improved Standard Technical Specifications Change Traveler-432, Revision 1, Change in Technical Specifications
End States (WCAP-16294), dated
November 29, 2010.
Date of issuance:
June 10, 2016.
Effective date:
As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.:
202 (Unit 1) and 198 (Unit 2). A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession
No. ML15289A227; documents related
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 Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 26, 2015 (80 FR 30102).
The supplemental letters dated
September 17, 2015, and April 13, 2016, provided additional information that
clarified the application, did not expand
the scope of the application as originally
noticed, and did not change the staffs
original proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination as
published in the Federal Register. The Commissions related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated June 10, 2016.
No significant hazards consideration comments received:
No. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd day of June 2016.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Anne T. Boland, Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2016-15659 Filed 7-1-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-390; NRC-2016-0131]
Tennessee Valley Authority Watts Bar
Nuclear Plant, Unit 1 AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact;
issuance.
SUMMARY
- The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering the
issuance of an amendment to Facility
Operating License No. NFP-90, issued
February 7, 1996, and held by the
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA, the
licensee) for the operation of Watts Bar
Nuclear Plant (WBN), Unit 1. The proposed amendment would revise Technical Specification (TS) 4.2.1, Fuel Assemblies; TS 3.5.1
Accumulators; Surveillance
Requirement (SR) 3.5.1.4; TS 3.5.4, Refueling Water Storage Tank; and SR 3.5.4.3, to increase the maximum
number of tritium producing burnable
absorber rods (TPBARs) and to delete
outdated information related to the
tritium production program. The NRC
staff is issuing an environmental
assessment (EA) and finding of no
significant impact (FONSI) associated
with the proposed license amendment.
DATES: The Environmental assessment referenced in this document is available
on July 5, 2016.
ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0131 when contacting the
NRC about the availability of
information regarding this document.
You may obtain publicly-available
information related to this document
using any of the following methods:
- Federal Rulemaking Web site
- Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2016-0131. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol
Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-3463;
email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov.
For technical questions, contact the
individual listed in the FORFURTHER INFORMATIONCONTACT section of this document.
- NRCs 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 NRCs Public
Document Room (PDR) reference staff at
1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by
email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
For the convenience of the reader, the ADAMS
accession numbers are provided in a
table in the AVAILABILITY OF
DOCUMENTS section of this document.
- NRCs PDR:
You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at
the NRCs PDR, Room O1-F21, One
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville
Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. FORFURTHERINFORMATIONCONTACT
- Robert Schaaf, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation, Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-
0001; telephone: 301-415-6020, email:
Robert.Schaaf@nrc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARYINFORMATION
- VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:27 Jul 01, 2016Jkt 238001PO 00000Frm 00087Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\05JYN1.SGM05JYN1 sradovich on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES