[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 48 (Tuesday, March 14, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13662-13676]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-04757]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2017-0071]
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 February 14 to February 27, 2017. The last
biweekly notice was published on February 28, 2017.
DATES: Comments must be filed by April 13, 2017. A request for a
hearing must be filed by May 15, 2017.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2017-0071. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-
3463; email: [email protected]. For technical questions, contact
the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this document.
Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Office of Administration,
Mail Stop: OWFN-12-H08, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555-0001.
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting
comments, see ``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shirley Rohrer, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-5411 email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments
A. Obtaining Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0071, facility name, unit
number(s), plant docket number, application date, and subject when
contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this
action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this
action by any of the following methods:
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2017-0071.
NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the
ADAMS Public Documents collection at
[[Page 13663]]
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]. For the convenience of the reader,
instructions about obtaining materials referenced in this document are
provided in the ``Availability of Documents'' section.
NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
B. Submitting Comments
Please include Docket ID NRC-2017-0071, facility name, unit
number(s), plant docket number, application date, and subject in your
comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact
information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your
comment submission. The NRC posts all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as entering the comment submissions into
ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove
identifying or contact information.
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons
for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to
include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be
publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should
state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to
remove such information before making the comment submissions available
to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.
II. Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility
Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses and Proposed No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under
the Commission's regulations in Sec. 50.92 of title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (10 CFR), this means that operation of the facility
in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated, or (2) create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or
(3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis
for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown
below.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final
determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period if circumstances change during the 30-day comment
period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for
example in derating or shutdown of the facility. If the Commission
takes action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or
the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a notice of
issuance. If the Commission makes a final no significant hazards
consideration determination, any hearing will take place after
issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will
occur very infrequently.
A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing and Petition for Leave To Intervene
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any
persons (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by this action may
file a request for a hearing and petition for leave to intervene
(petition) with respect to the action. Petitions shall be filed in
accordance with the Commission's ``Agency Rules of Practice and
Procedure'' in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult a
current copy of 10 CFR 2.309. The NRC's regulations are accessible
electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. Alternatively, a copy of
the regulations is available at the NRC's Public Document Room, located
at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first
floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. If a petition is filed, the
Commission or a presiding officer will rule on the petition and, if
appropriate, a notice of a hearing will be issued.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309(d) the petition should specifically
explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with
particular reference to the following general requirements for
standing: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the
petitioner; (2) the nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to
be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the
petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding;
and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be
entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f), the petition must also set
forth the specific contentions which the petitioner seeks to have
litigated in the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific
statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In
addition, the petitioner must provide a brief explanation of the bases
for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or
expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner
intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The
petitioner must also provide references to the specific sources and
documents on which the petitioner intends to rely to support its
position on the issue. The petition must include sufficient information
to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant or licensee on
a material issue of law or fact. Contentions must be limited to matters
within the scope of the proceeding. The contention must be one which,
if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner who
fails to satisfy the requirements at 10 CFR 2.309(f) with respect to at
least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding,
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene.
Parties have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the
hearing with respect to resolution of that party's admitted
contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence, consistent
with the NRC's regulations, policies, and procedures.
Petitions must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of
publication of this notice. Petitions and motions for leave to file new
or amended contentions that are filed after the deadline will not be
entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the
filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10
CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i) through (iii). The petition must be filed in
accordance with the filing instructions in the ``Electronic
[[Page 13664]]
Submissions (E-Filing)'' section of this document.
If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the
Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no
significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve
to establish when the hearing is held. If the final determination is
that the amendment request involves no significant hazards
consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it
immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any
hearing would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final
determination is that the amendment request involves a significant
hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before
the issuance of the amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent
danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will
issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.
A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian
Tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to
participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition should
state the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the
proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission by May
15, 2017. The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing
instructions in the ``Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)'' section of
this document, and should meet the requirements for petitions set forth
in this section, except that under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(2) a State, local
governmental body, or federally recognized Indian Tribe, or agency
thereof does not need to address the standing requirements in 10 CFR
2.309(d) if the facility is located within its boundaries.
Alternatively, a State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized
Indian Tribe, or agency thereof may participate as a non-party under 10
CFR 2.315(c).
If a hearing is granted, any person who is not a party to the
proceeding and is not affiliated with or represented by a party may, at
the discretion of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited
appearance pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person
making a limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of
his or her position on the issues but may not otherwise participate in
the proceeding. A limited appearance may be made at any session of the
hearing or at any prehearing conference, subject to the limits and
conditions as may be imposed by the presiding officer. Details
regarding the opportunity to make a limited appearance will be provided
by the presiding officer if such sessions are scheduled.
B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a
request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition), any
motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the
submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and
documents filed by interested governmental entities that request to
participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the
NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007, as amended at 77 FR
46562, August 3, 2012). The E-Filing process requires participants to
submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in
some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Detailed
guidance on making electronic submissions may be found in the Guidance
for Electronic Submissions to the NRC and on the NRC's Web site at
http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants may not
submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in
accordance with the procedures described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10
days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the
Office of the Secretary by email at [email protected], or by
telephone at 301-415-1677, to (1) request a digital identification (ID)
certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or
representative) to digitally sign submissions and access the E-Filing
system for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise
the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a petition or
other adjudicatory document (even in instances in which the
participant, or its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-
issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the
Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the hearing in this
proceeding if the Secretary has not already established an electronic
docket.
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is
available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/getting-started.html. Once a participant has obtained a
digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant
can then submit adjudicatory documents. Submissions must be in Portable
Document Format (PDF). Additional guidance on PDF submissions is
available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/electronic-sub-ref-mat.html. A filing is considered complete at the
time the document is submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be
timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system
no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of
a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends
the submitter an email notice confirming receipt of the document. The
E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access
to the document to the NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any
others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to
participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the
document on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and
other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for
and receive a digital ID certificate before adjudicatory documents are
filed so that they can obtain access to the documents via the E-Filing
system.
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-
Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC's Electronic
Filing Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC's
public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by
email to [email protected], or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-
7640. The NRC Electronic Filing Help Desk is available between 9 a.m.
and 6 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government
holidays.
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not
submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in
accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing
stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and
requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper
format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention:
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or
expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and
Adjudications Staff. Participants filing adjudicatory documents in this
manner are responsible for serving the document on all other
participants. Filing is
[[Page 13665]]
considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in
the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service
upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A
presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-
Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the
presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting
the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
https://adams.nrc.gov/ehd, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the
Commission or the presiding officer. If you do not have an NRC-issued
digital ID certificate as described above, click cancel when the link
requests certificates and you will be automatically directed to the
NRC's electronic hearing dockets where you will be able to access any
publicly available documents in a particular hearing docket.
Participants are requested not to include personal privacy information,
such as social security numbers, home addresses, or personal phone
numbers in their filings, unless an NRC regulation or other law
requires submission of such information. For example, in some
instances, individuals provide home addresses in order to demonstrate
proximity to a facility or site. With respect to copyrighted works,
except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory
filings and would constitute a Fair Use application, participants are
requested not to include copyrighted materials in their submission.
For further details with respect to these license amendment
applications, see the application for amendment which is available for
public inspection in ADAMS and at the NRC's PDR. For additional
direction on accessing information related to this document, see the
``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' section of this
document.
Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-325 and 50-324, Brunswick
Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, Brunswick County, North Carolina
Date of amendment request: October 27, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16319A128.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the
technical specifications (TSs) to be consistent with Technical
Specification Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-529, ``Clarify Use and
Application Rules.'' The revisions include sections related to
completion times, limiting condition for operation (LCO) applicability,
and surveillance requirement (SR) applicability, of the TSs to clarify
the use and application of the TS usage rules.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to Section 1.3 and LCO 3.0.4 have no effect
on the requirement for systems to be Operable and have no effect on
the application of TS actions. The proposed change to SR 3.0.3
states that the allowance may only be used when there is a
reasonable expectation the surveillance will be met when performed.
Since the proposed changes do not significantly affect system
Operability, the proposed changes will have no significant effect on
the initiating events for accidents previously evaluated and will
have no significant effect on the ability of the systems to mitigate
accidents previously evaluated.
Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change to the TS usage rules does not affect the
design or function of any plant systems. The proposed change does
not change the Operability requirements for plant systems or the
actions taken when plant systems are not operable.
Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change clarifies the application of Section 1.3 and
LCO 3.0.4 and does not result in changes in plant operation. SR
3.0.3 is revised to allow application of SR 3.0.3 when an SR has not
been previously performed if there is reasonable expectation that
the SR will be met when performed. This expands the use of SR 3.0.3
while ensuring the affected system is capable of performing its
safety function. As a result, plant safety is either improved or
unaffected.
Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Kathryn B. Nolan, Deputy General Counsel,
550 South Tryon Street, M/C DEC45A, Charlotte, NC 28202.
NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin G. Beasley.
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al, Docket No. 50-346, Davis-
Besse Nuclear Power Station (DBNPS), Unit No. 1, Ottawa County, Ohio
Date of amendment request: January 11, 2017. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17011A271.
Description of amendment request: The licensee proposes to change
the technical specifications (TSs) for DBNPS, Unit No. 1, to extend the
allowed outage time (AOT) for the ultrasonic flow meter (UFM) and to
make administrative changes to TS 3.3.1, ``Reactor Protection System
(RPS) Instrumentation.''
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 would extend the existing UFM AOT to 72
hours. There are no modifications to the plant being made. As there
are no modifications to the plant or a change in plant control
systems, extending the UFM outage would not significantly increase
accident probability.
Accident consequences are, in part, dependent on the operating
power level of the reactor assumed in accident analyses. The UFM is
used to obtain information needed to perform a calorimetric heat
balance calculation to determine reactor power output and maintain
operation within accident analysis limits. The proposed amendment
would permit measurements from FW [feedwater] venturis and RTDs
[resistance temperature detectors] to be substituted for UFM
measurements while maintaining a stable power level during a 72-hour
period. Venturi-based FW flow measurements would be normalized to
the last UFM-based measurements used as input to a calorimetric heat
balance and would have a nearly identical degree of uncertainty as
UFM measurements for the duration of the proposed AOT when stable
thermal power conditions are maintained. Therefore, calculated
reactor power based on normalized FW flow venturi measurements
[[Page 13666]]
will continue to be maintained within accident analysis limits,
ensuring that accident consequences will not be significantly
increased.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment would extend the existing UFM AOT to 72
hours. Modifications to the plant are not being made. FW flow
venture measurements that are normalized to the last UFM-based
measurements used as input to a calorimetric heat balance have a
nearly identical degree of uncertainty as UFM measurements for the
duration of the proposed AOT when stable thermal power conditions
are maintained. Calculated reactor power based on normalized FW flow
venturi measurements will continue to be maintained within accident
analysis limits.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment would permit the plant to operate at
rated thermal power for up to 72 hours after the last calorimetric
heat balance based on UFM readings before reducing power. A plant-
specific statistical evaluation of the difference between historical
UFM-based FW flow measurements and venturi-based FW flow
measurements has demonstrated that the average difference does not
vary significantly over short periods of time. Therefore, if current
venturi-based FW flow measurements are normalized to the last UFM-
based measurements used as input to a calorimetric heat balance no
greater than 72 hours prior, a nearly identical degree of
uncertainty would be obtained with the venturis as with the UFM. The
proposed amendment restricts application of the 72-hour AOT to
conditions when the plant is operated consistently above 90 percent
RTP [rated thermal power] during the 72-hour period to avoid changes
in FW flow or temperature that have potential to de-foul venturis
and affect measurements.
As the proposed change will result in the same degree of
uncertainty in reactor power calculations using alternate
measurements as with using the UFM, there is no 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: David W. Jenkins, Attorney, FirstEnergy
Corporation, Mail Stop A-GO-15, 76 South Main Street, Akron, OH 44308.
NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.
Florida Power & Light Company, Docket Nos. 50-250 and 251, Turkey Point
Nuclear Generating, Unit Nos. 3 and 4, Miami-Dade County, Florida
Date of application for amendment: December 21, 2016. A publicly-
available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17012A084.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would modify the
Technical Specifications (TSs) for the Engineered Safety Features
Actuation System (ESFAS) instrumentation. The amendments would modify
the completion times of required actions for inoperable instrumentation
channels for auxiliary feedwater actuation on bus stripping and on trip
of all main feedwater pump breakers.
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 modifies ACTION 23 of TS 3.3.2, Table 3.3-2,
to establish a 48-hour completion time for restoring two
anticipatory ESFAS functions. The instrumentation associated with
the proposed changes are not initiators of any accident previously
evaluated, so the probability of accidents previously evaluated is
unaffected. The proposed changes will not impact assumptions or
conditions previously used in the radiological consequence
evaluations. The subject ESFAS functions are not relied upon for
accident mitigation and thus the proposed changes cannot affect the
radiological consequences. The proposed changes will not impact any
plant systems such that previously analyzed SSCs [systems,
structures, and components] would be more likely to fail. The
subject ESFAS functions will continue to be maintained and operated
in a manner consistent with their intended function. The proposed
changes do not adversely affect the protective and mitigative
capabilities of the plant. The offsite and Control Room doses will
continue to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 100, 10 CFR 50.67, and
10 CFR 50 Appendix A.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not result in a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change modifies the TS ACTION for two restoring
anticipatory ESFAS functions. No new or different interactions with
safety-related SSCs are created by the proposed change. The proposed
changes will not introduce failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or
accident initiators not already considered in the design and
licensing bases. The subject ESFAS functions will continue to be
operated and maintained such that the possibility of a new or
different type of equipment malfunction is not created. No new
accident scenarios, transient precursors, or limiting single
failures are introduced as a result of the proposed changes.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of
a new or different accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change modifies the TS ACTION for restoring two
anticipatory ESFAS functions. The subject ESFAS functions are not
relied upon for accident mitigation and are not credited in design
bases accident analyses. Hence the proposed changes cannot alter any
safety analyses assumptions, safety limits, limiting safety system
settings, or methods of operating the plant. The proposed changes do
not adversely impact plant operating margins or the reliability of
equipment credited in the safety analyses. No changes in the
methods, values or limits of a safety related function or accident
analysis result from the proposed changes.
Therefore, the proposed changes would 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: William S. Blair, Managing Attorney--
Nuclear, Florida Power & Light Company, 700 Universe Blvd. MS LAW/JB,
Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420.
NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin G. Beasley.
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: December 21, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17012A085.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise
technical specifications (TSs) by deleting high range noble gas
effluent monitors' requirements and relocating the requirements to the
Turkey Point Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM).
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
[[Page 13667]]
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 Plant Vent Exhaust, Condenser Air Ejectors Exhaust and Unit
3 Spent Fuel Pit Exhaust high-range noble gas monitoring
instrumentation are not an initiator of any accidents previously
evaluated, so the probability of accidents previously evaluated is
unaffected by the proposed changes. The proposed changes will not
impact any plant systems such that previously analyzed structures,
systems, and components (SSCs) would be more likely to fail. The
proposed changes do not adversely affect the protective and
mitigative capabilities of the plant nor the offsite and control
room dose projections associated with any design basis accident
described in the FSAR [Final Safety Analysis Report].
Therefore, the proposed changes do not result in a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change removes the subject instruments from the
accident monitoring TS and as such is an administrative change in
nature. The Plant Vent Exhaust, Condenser Air Ejectors Exhaust and
Unit 3 Spent Fuel Pit Exhaust high-range noble gas monitoring
instrumentation will continue to perform their specified function.
Removal of the monitors from the TS will not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident. No new or different
interactions with safety related systems or components are created.
The proposed changes will not introduce new failure mechanisms,
malfunctions, or accident initiators not already considered in the
design and licensing bases. The possibility of a new or different
malfunction of safety-related equipment is not created. No new
accident scenarios, transient precursors, or limiting single
failures are introduced as a result of these changes. There will be
no adverse effects or challenges imposed on any safety-related
system as a result of the proposed changes.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of
a new or different accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change relocates the Plant Vent Exhaust, Condenser
Air Ejectors Exhaust and Unit 3 Spent Fuel Pit Exhaust high-range
noble gas monitoring requirements from TS 3.3.3.3, Accident
Monitoring, to the Turkey Point ODCM, and as such is an
administrative change in nature. The changes do not adversely impact
plant operating margins or the reliability of equipment credited in
the safety analyses. Consequently, there will be no change in the
ability to monitor post-accident plant conditions, radionuclide
releases, and public doses. The safety analyses acceptance criteria
are not affected by these changes. The proposed changes will not
result in plant operation outside of the design basis.
Therefore, operation in accordance with the proposed amendment
would not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: William S. Blair, Managing Attorney--
Nuclear, Florida Power & Light Company, 700 Universe Blvd., MS LAW/JB,
Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420.
NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin G. Beasley.
South Carolina Electric & Gas Company and South Carolina Public Service
Authority, Docket Nos. 52-027 and 52-028, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear
Station, Units 2 and 3, Fairfield, South Carolina
Date of amendment request: December 21, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16357A403.
Description of amendment request: The requested amendment requires
changes to Combined License (COL) Appendix C (and corresponding changes
to plant-specific Tier 1 information) to be consistent with information
documented in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). The
requested amendment involves changes to the physical separation
requirements between Class 1E division cables and between Class 1E and
non-Class 1E cables described in COL Appendix C (and plant-specific
Tier 1) Table 3.3-6. The proposed changes add additional acceptable
configurations for raceway separation in the main control room (MCR)
and remote shutdown room (RSR). Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR
52.63(b)(1), an exemption from elements of the design as certified in
the 10 CFR part 52, appendix D, design certification rule is also
requested for the plant-specific Design Control Document Tier 1
material departures.
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 activity revises the raceway spacing configurations and
permits spacing in accordance with existing licensing basis
requirements, Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.75 and Institute of Electrical
and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 384 for the MCR and RSR.
The proposed consistency change to revise separation
requirements for MCR and RSR raceways does not inhibit any systems,
structures or components (SSCs) from performing their safety-related
function, as raceways in the MCR and RSR are installed in accordance
with spacing configurations currently specified in the UFSAR or in
the code of record, IEEE 384. This proposed amendment does not have
an adverse impact on the response to anticipated transients or
postulated accident conditions because the functions of the SSCs are
not changed. The change does not involve an interface with any SSC
accident initiator or initiating sequence of events, and thus, the
probabilities of the accidents evaluated in the UFSAR are not
affected. Accidents associated with raceway separation are not
identified in the safety analysis. The proposed changes do not
involve a change to the predicted radiological releases due to
postulated accident conditions, thus, the consequences of the
accidents evaluated in the UFSAR are not affected.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to the inspection criteria for raceway
separation requirements does not adversely affect any safety-related
equipment, and does not add any new interfaces to safety-related
SSCs. This change provides consistency between the COL Appendix C
and the UFSAR and industry standards only. System, design functions
and equipment qualification are not adversely affected by these
changes. The changes do not introduce a new failure mode,
malfunction or sequence of events that could affect plant safety or
safety-related equipment as the change is for consistency with
existing licensing basis requirements and industry standards. New
credible failure modes are not introduced by the changes in
separation requirements.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change maintains compliance with the applicable
Codes and Standards, thereby maintaining the margin of safety
associated with these SSCs. The proposed change does not alter any
applicable design codes, code compliance,
[[Page 13668]]
design function, or safety analysis. Consequently, no safety
analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is challenged or
exceeded by the proposed change, thus the margin of safety is not
reduced.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
reduction in the margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
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: Kathryn M. Sutton, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius,
LLC, 1111. Pennsylvania NW., Washington, DC 20004-2514.
NRC Branch Chief: Jennifer Dixon-Herrity.
South Carolina Electric & Gas Company and South Carolina Public Service
Authority, Docket Nos. 52-027 and 52-028, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear
Station, Units 2 and 3, Fairfield, South Carolina
Date of amendment request: December 21, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16356A437.
Description of amendment request: The requested amendment consists
of changes to plant-specific Tier 1 (and Combined License Appendix C)
Tables 2.7.5-1, 2.7.5-2, and 2.7.7-3 and associated Updated Final
Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) text, tables, and figures related to:
(1) Modifying the configuration of the containment recirculation fan
coil unit assemblies of the containment recirculation cooling system
(VCS) and revising the values for the various design parameters
affected by this re-configuration; (2) adding a fourth pressure
differential indicator to the radiologically controlled area
ventilation system (VAS) to be located in the auxiliary building
component cooling system valve room; and (3) reducing the total
ventilation flow provided through the VAS fuel handling area
ventilation subsystem as a result of a reduction in heat loads in the
areas serviced by the VAS.
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 52.63(b)(1), an exemption from
elements of the design as certified in the 10 CFR part 52, Appendix D,
design certification rule is also requested for the plant-specific
Design Control Document Tier 1 material departures.
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 design functions of the VCS include control of the air
temperature and reduction of humidity in the containment to provide
a suitable environment for equipment operability during normal power
operation, and for personnel accessibility and equipment operability
during refueling and shutdown. The proposed changes for the VCS
address changes in total required design air flow rates and total
design cooling and heating requirements, thereby maintaining these
design functions.
The design functions of the VAS include prevention of the
unmonitored release of airborne radioactivity to the atmosphere or
adjacent plant areas, by maintaining a negative pressure
differential in radiologically controlled areas of the auxiliary
building, maintaining occupied areas and access and equipment areas
within their design temperature range, and providing outside air for
plant personnel. The proposed changes for the VAS enable pressure
differential monitoring and control for an area of the auxiliary
building that is physically remote and separate from the currently
monitored and controlled areas, and provide VAS supply air flow rate
and total ventilation flow through the auxiliary building fuel
handling area required to maintain occupied areas and access and
equipment areas within their design temperature range and to provide
outside air for plant personnel, maintaining these design functions.
The proposed changes do not affect the operation of any systems
or equipment that initiate an analyzed accident or alter any
structure, system, or component (SSC) accident initiator or
initiating sequence of events. There are no inadvertent operations
or failures of the VCS or VAS considered as accident initiators or
part of an initiating sequence of events for an accident previously
evaluated. Therefore, the probabilities of the accidents previously
evaluated in the UFSAR are not affected.
These proposed changes to the VCS and VAS design as described in
the current licensing basis do not have an adverse effect on any of
the design functions of the systems. The proposed changes do not
affect the support, design, or operation of mechanical and fluid
systems required to mitigate the consequences of an accident. There
is no change to plant systems or the response of systemsto
postulated accident conditions. There is no change to the predicted
radioactive releases due to postulated accident conditions. The
plant response to previously evaluated accidents or external events
is not adversely affected, nor do the proposed changes create any
new accident precursors. The proposed changes do not affect the
prevention and mitigation of other abnormal events, e.g.,
anticipated operational occurrences, earthquakes, floods and turbine
missiles, or their safety or design analyses. Therefore, the
consequences of the accidents evaluated in the UFSAR are not
affected.
Therefore, the requested amendment does not involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not affect the operation of any systems
or equipment that may initiate a new or different kind of accident,
or alter any SSC such that a new accident initiator or initiating
sequence of events is created. The proposed changes revise the VCS
and VAS design as described in the current licensing basis to enable
the systems to perform required design functions. These proposed
changes do not adversely affect any other SSC design functions or
methods of operation in a manner that results in a new failure mode,
malfunction, or sequence of events that affect safety-related or
nonsafety-related equipment. Therefore, 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
resulting in significant fuel cladding failures.
Therefore, the requested amendment does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes maintain existing safety margins. The
proposed changes to the VCS and VAS do not affect any safety-related
design function. These changes do not adversely affect any design
code, function, design analysis, safety analysis input or result, or
design/safety margin. No safety analysis or design basis acceptance
limit/criterion is challenged or exceeded by the proposed changes,
and no margin of safety is reduced.
Therefore, the requested amendment does not involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Kathryn M. Sutton, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius,
LLC, 111 Pennsylvania NW., Washington, DC 20004-2514.
NRC Branch Chief: Jennifer Dixon-Herrity.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026,
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 3 and 4, Burke County, Georgia
Date of amendment request: January 20, 2017. A publicly-available
version is
[[Page 13669]]
in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17020A109.
Description of amendment request: The amendment request proposes
changes to the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) in the form
of departures from plant-specific Design Control Document (PS-DCD) Tier
2 information, Combined License (COL) Appendix A Technical
Specifications, and COL Appendix C. The proposed departures consist of
in-containment refueling water storage tank (IRWST) minimum volume
changes in plant-specific UFSAR Table 14.3-2, COL Appendix A Technical
Specifications 3.5.6, 3.5.7 and 3.5.8, Surveillance Requirements
3.5.6.2 and 3.5.8.2 and COL Appendix C (and associated plant-specific
Tier 1) Table 2.2.3-4. The proposed changes restore consistency of
these sections with the UFSAR IRWST minimum volume value in other
locations. Because, this proposed change requires a departure from Tier
1 information in the Westinghouse Electric Company's AP1000 Design
Control Document (DCD), the licensee also requested an exemption from
the requirements of the Generic DCD Tier 1 in accordance with 10 CFR
52.63(b)(1).
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not affect the operation of any systems
or equipment that initiate an analyzed accident or alter any
structure, system, or component (SSC) accident initiator or
initiating sequence of events. The proposed changes do not affect
the physical design and operation of the in-containment refueling
water storage tank (IRWST), including as-installed inspections,
testing, and maintenance requirements, as described in the Updated
Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). Therefore, the operation of
the IRWST is not affected. There are no inadvertent operations or
failures of the IRWST considered as accident initiators or part of
an initiating sequence of events for an accident previously
evaluated. Therefore, the probabilities of the accidents previously
evaluated in the UFSAR are not affected.
The proposed changes do not adversely affect the ability of the
IRWST to perform its design functions. The design of the IRWST
continues to meet the same regulatory acceptance criteria, codes,
and standards as required by the UFSAR. In addition, the proposed
changes maintain the capabilities of the IRWST to mitigate the
consequences of an accident and to meet the applicable regulatory
acceptance criteria. The proposed changes do not affect the
prevention and mitigation of other abnormal events; e.g.,
anticipated operational occurrences, earthquakes, floods and turbine
missiles, or their safety or design analyses. Therefore, the
consequences of the accidents evaluated in the UFSAR are not
affected.
Therefore, the requested amendment does not involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not affect the operation of any systems
or equipment that may initiate a new or different kind of accident,
or alter any SSC such that a new accident initiator or initiating
sequence of events is created. The proposed changes do not affect
the physical design and operation of the IRWST, including as-
installed inspections, testing, and maintenance requirements, as
described in the UFSAR. Therefore, the operation of the IRWST is not
affected. These proposed changes do not adversely affect any other
SSC design functions or methods of operation in a manner that
results in a new failure mode, malfunction, or sequence of events
that affect safety-related or nonsafety-related equipment.
Therefore, 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 changes maintain existing safety margins. The
proposed changes maintain the capabilities of the IRWST to perform
its design functions. The proposed changes maintain existing safety
margin through continued application of the existing requirements of
the UFSAR, while updating the acceptance criteria for verifying the
design features necessary to ensure the IRWST performs the design
functions required to meet the existing safety margins in the safety
analyses. Therefore, the proposed changes satisfy the same design
functions in accordance with the same codes and standards as stated
in the UFSAR. These changes do no adversely affect any design code,
function, design analysis, safety analysis input or result, or
design/safety margin.
No safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is
challenged or exceeded by the proposed changes, and no margin of
safety is reduced.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: M. Stanford Blanton, Balch & Bingham LLP,
1710 Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 35203-2015.
NRC Branch Chief: Jennifer Dixon-Herrity.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026,
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4, Burke County, Georgia
Date of amendment request: October 20, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16294A521.
Description of amendment request: The amendment request proposes a
change to Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) Tier 2*
information to specify the supplemental requirement of American
Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) N690-1994, ``American National
Standard Specification for the Design, Fabrication, and Erection of
Steel Safety-Related Structures for Nuclear Facilities,'' (AISC N690-
1994), Section Q1.26.2.2, ``Partial-Penetration Welds,'' for the
demonstration of sufficient strength and quality of the carbon steel
embedment plate coupler welds to be credited as justification for the
determination that the installed coupler welds are capable of
performing their intended design function. The requested amendment
proposes a change to Tier 2* information. This submittal requests
approval of the license amendment necessary to implement these changes.
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 describes how evaluation of coupler
strength, and by extension, weld strength and quality are used to
demonstrate the capacity of partial joint penetrate on (PJP) welds
with fillet weld reinforcement joining weldable couplers to carbon
steel embedment plates as being able to perform their intended
design function in lieu of satisfying the American Institute of
Steel Construction (AISC) N690-1994, Section Q1.26.2.2 requirement
for non-destructive examination (NDE) on 10 percent weld
populations. The proposed change does not affect the operation of
any systems or equipment that initiate an analyzed accident or alter
any structures, systems, and
[[Page 13670]]
components (SSCs) accident initiator or initiating sequence of
events.
The change has no adverse effect on the design function of the
mechanical couplers or the SSCs to which the mechanical couplers are
welded. The probabilities of the accidents evaluated in the Updated
Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) are not affected.
The change does not impact the support, design, or operation of
mechanical or fluid systems. The change does not impact the support,
design, or operation of any safety-related structures. There is no
change to plant systems or the response of systems to postulated
accident conditions. There is no change to the predicted radioactive
releases due to normal operation or postulated accident conditions.
The plant response to previously evaluated accidents or external
events is not adversely affected, nor does the proposed change
create any new accident precursors.
Therefore, the requested amendment does not involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change describes how evaluation of coupler
strength, and by extension, weld strength and quality are used to
demonstrate the capacity of PJP welds with fillet weld reinforcement
joining weldable couplers to carbon steel embedment plates as being
able to perform their design function in lieu of satisfying the AISC
N690-1994, Section Q1.26.2.2 requirement for non-destructive
examination on 10 percent weld populations. The proposed change does
not affect the operation of any systems or equipment that may
initiate a new or different kind of accident, or alter any SSC such
that a new accident initiator or initiating sequence of events is
created.
The proposed change does not adversely affect the design
function of the mechanical couplers, the structures in which the
couplers are used, or any other SSC design functions or methods of
operation in a manner that results in a new failure mode,
malfunction, or sequence of events that affect safety-related or
nonsafety-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 result
in significant fuel cladding failures.
Therefore, the requested amendment does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change describes how evaluation of coupler
strength, and by extension, weld strength and quality are used to
demonstrate the capacity of PJP welds with fillet weld reinforcement
joining weldable couplers to carbon steel embedment plates as being
able to perform their design function in lieu of satisfying the AISC
N690-1994, Section Q1.26.2.2 requirement for non-destructive
examination on 10 percent weld populations. The proposed change
satisfies the same design functions in accordance with the same
codes and standards as stated in the UFSAR. This change does not
adversely affect compliance with any design code, function, design
analysis, safety analysis input or result, or design/safety margin.
No safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is
challenged or exceeded by the proposed change. Because no safety
analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is challenged or
exceeded by this change, no significant margin of safety is reduced.
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: M. Stanford Blanton, Balch & Bingham LLP,
1710 Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 35203-2015.
NRC Branch Chief: Jennifer Dixon-Herrity.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026,
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4, Burke County, Georgia
Date of amendment request: December 9, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16344A411.
Description of amendment request: The requested amendment consist
of changes to plant-specific Tier 1 (and Combined License Appendix C)
Tables 2.7.5-1, 2.7.5-2, and 2.7.7-3 and associated Updated Final
Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) text, tables, and figures related to:
(1) Modifying the configuration of the containment recirculation fan
coil unit assemblies of the containment recirculation cooling system
(VCS), and revising the values for the various design parameters
affected by this re-configuration, (2) adding a fourth pressure
differential indicator to the radiologically controlled area
ventilation system (VAS) to be located in the auxiliary building
component cooling system valve room, and (3) reducing the total
ventilation flow provided through the VAS fuel handling area
ventilation subsystem as a result of a reduction in heat loads in the
areas serviced by the VAS.
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 52.63(b)(1), an exemption from
elements of the design as certified in the 10 CFR part 52, Appendix D,
design certification rule is also requested for the plant-specific
Design Control Document Tier 1 material departures.
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 design functions of the containment recirculation cooling
system (VCS) include control of the air temperature and reduction of
humidity in the containment to provide a suitable environment for
equipment operability during normal power operation, and for
personnel accessibility and equipment operability during refueling
and shutdown. The proposed changes for the VCS address changes in
total required design air flow rates and total design cooling and
heating requirements, thereby maintaining these design functions.
The design functions of the radiologically controlled area
ventilation system (VAS) include prevention of the unmonitored
release of airborne radioactivity to the atmosphere or adjacent
plant areas, by maintaining a negative pressure differential in
radiologically controlled areas of the auxiliary building,
maintaining occupied areas and access and equipment areas within
their design temperature range, and providing outside air for plant
personnel. The proposed changes for the VAS enable pressure
differential monitoring and control for an area of the auxiliary
building that is physically remote and separate from the currently
monitored and controlled areas, and provide VAS supply air flow rate
and total ventilation flow through the auxiliary building fuel
handling area required to maintain occupied areas and access and
equipment areas within their design temperature range and to provide
outside air for plant personnel, maintaining these design functions.
The proposed changes do not affect the operation of any systems
or equipment that initiate an analyzed accident or alter any
structure, system, or component (SSC) accident initiator or
initiating sequence of events. There are no inadvertent operations
or failures of the VCS or VAS considered as accident initiators or
part of an initiating sequence of events for an accident previously
evaluated. Therefore, the probabilities of the accidents previously
evaluated in the UFSAR are not affected.
These proposed changes to the VCS and VAS design as described in
the current licensing basis do not have an adverse effect on any of
the design functions of the systems. The proposed changes do not
affect the support, design, or operation of mechanical and fluid
systems required to mitigate the consequences of an accident. There
is no change to plant systems or the response of systems to
postulated accident conditions. There is no change to the predicted
[[Page 13671]]
radioactive releases due to postulated accident conditions. The
plant response to previously evaluated accidents or external events
is not adversely affected, nor do the proposed changes create any
new accident precursors. The proposed changes do not affect the
prevention and mitigation of other abnormal events, e.g.,
anticipated operational occurrences, earthquakes, floods and turbine
missiles, or their safety or design analyses. Therefore, the
consequences of the accidents evaluated in the UFSAR are not
affected.
Therefore, the requested amendment does not involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not affect the operation of any systems
or equipment that may initiate a new or different kind of accident,
or alter any SSC such that a new accident initiator or initiating
sequence of events is created. The proposed changes revise the VCS
and VAS design as described in the current licensing basis to enable
the systems to perform required design functions. These proposed
changes do not adversely affect any other SSC design functions or
methods of operation in a manner that results in a new failure mode,
malfunction, or sequence of events that affect safety-related or
nonsafety-related equipment. Therefore, 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
resulting in significant fuel cladding failures.
Therefore, the requested amendment does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes maintain existing safety margins. The
proposed changes to the VCS and VAS do not affect any safety-related
design function. These changes do not adversely affect any design
code, function, design analysis, safety analysis input or result, or
design/safety margin. No safety analysis or design basis acceptance
limit/criterion is challenged or exceeded by the proposed changes,
and no margin of safety is reduced.
Therefore, the requested amendment does not involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: M. Stanford Blanton, Balch & Bingham LLP,
1710 Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 35203-2015.
NRC Branch Chief: Jennifer Dixon-Herrity.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 50-391, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant
(WBN), Unit 2, Rhea County, Tennessee
Date of amendment request: February 16, 2017. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17048A514.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the
Technical Specification (TS) Containment Leakage Rate Testing Program
to allow a one-time extension for the Type C local leak rate test
(LLRT) for certain containment isolation valves (CIVs). The proposed
amendment would allow the extension of the test frequency from 30
months to a maximum of 37 months.
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 is a change to TS 5.7.2.19 to allow a
one-time exception to [Regulatory Guide] (RG) 1.163, ``Performance-
Based Containment Leak-Test Program,'' September 1995 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML003740058)] to extend the Type C LLRTs for a limited
number of CIVs. The valves for which the extension of the LLRT
interval is being requested are leak-tight and in good condition.
The total leakage of these valves [i.e., 0.24 standard cubic feet
per hour (scfh)] is approximately 0.16 percent (%) of the total
allowable leakage (La) for the WBN Unit 2 Type B and C tests (i.e.,
147.6 scfh, which is the TS 60% La limit). For comparison purposes,
the WBN Unit 2 total leak rate for all penetrations on a minimum
path basis is approximately 4.5% of the total allowable leakage
(i.e., 6.64 scfh/147.6 scfh).
The total leakage of the CIVs for which an extension is
requested is also approximately 0.39% of the total allowable bypass
leakage for the WBN Unit 2 Type B and C bypass tests (61.5 scfh,
which is the TS 25% La limit). For comparison purposes, the WBN Unit
2 total leakage for all bypass leakage penetrations on a minimum
path basis is approximately 4.4% of the total allowable bypass
leakage (i.e., 2.68 scfh/61.5 scfh). The leak-tight condition of
these components has been verified by Type C LLRTs. Therefore, the
remaining margin is sufficient to ensure any incremental increase in
leakage resulting from the extension would not cause unacceptable
as-found test results during the WBN U2R1 outage. Therefore, the
proposed delay in performance of the LLRTs in this amendment request
does not increase the probability of an accident previously
evaluated.
A delay in performing these LLRTs does not result in a system
being unable to perform its required function. In the case of this
one-time extension request, the short period of additional time that
the affected systems and components will be in service before the
next performance of the LLRT will not affect the ability of those
systems to operate as designed. Therefore, the systems required to
mitigate accidents will remain capable of performing their required
function. No new failure modes have been introduced because of this
action and the consequences remain consistent with previously
evaluated accidents. On this basis, the proposed delay in
performance of the LLRTs in this amendment request does not involve
a significant increase in the consequences of an accident.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment does not involve a physical alteration of
any system, structure, or component (SSC) or a change in the way any
SSC is operated. The proposed amendment does not involve operation
of any SSCs in a manner or configuration different from those
previously recognized or evaluated. No new failure mechanisms will
be introduced by the one-time LLRT extensions being requested.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment is a change to TS 5.7.2.19 to allow a
one-time exception to RG 1.163 to extend the Type C LLRTs for a
limited number of CIVs. The WBN Unit 2 CIVs, for which an extension
is requested, are the same design as those in WBN Unit 1 and operate
under the same service conditions. Furthermore, any increase in
leakage because of the extension is expected to be within TS limits
and will not compromise containment integrity. Extending these LLRTs
does not involve a modification of any TS limiting condition for
operation. Extending these LLRTs does not involve a change to any
limit on accident consequences specified in the license or
regulations. Extending these LLRTs does not involve a change in how
accidents are mitigated or a significant increase in the
consequences of an accident. Extending these LLRTs does not involve
a change in a methodology used to evaluate consequences of an
accident. Extending these LLRTs does not involve a change in any
operating procedure or process.
Based on the limited additional period of time that the systems
and components will be in service before the LLRTs are next
performed, as well as the operating experience that demonstrates the
reliability of the CIVs, it is reasonable to conclude that the
margins of safety associated with the LLRTs for these CIVs will not
be affected by the requested extension.
[[Page 13672]]
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Sherry A. Quirk, Executive Vice President
and General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West Summit Hill
Drive, 6A West Tower, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902.
NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin G. Beasley.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-390 and 50-391, Watts Bar
Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Rhea County, Tennessee
Date of amendment request: November 23, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16335A179.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the
Technical Specification (TS) requirements on control and shutdown rods,
and rod and bank position indication. The proposed amendments adopt the
changes contained in Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) traveler
TSTF-547, Revision 1, ``Clarification of Rod Position Requirements,''
with minor variations as described in the application.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
Control and shutdown rods are assumed to insert into the core to
shut down the reactor in evaluated accidents. Rod insertion limits
ensure that adequate negative reactivity is available to provide the
assumed shutdown margin (SDM). Rod alignment and overlap limits
maintain an appropriate power distribution and reactivity insertion
profile.
Control and shutdown rods are initiators to several accidents
previously evaluated, such as rod ejection. The proposed change does
change the limiting conditions for operation for the rods and makes
technical changes to the Surveillance Requirements (SRs) governing
the rods. However, the proposed change has no significant effect on
the probability of any accident previously evaluated.
Revising the TS Actions to provide a limited time to repair rod
movement control has no effect on the SDM assumed in the accident
analysis as the proposed Action require verification that SDM is
maintained. The effects on power distribution will not cause a
significant increase in the consequences of any accident previously
evaluated as all TS requirements on power distribution continue to
be applicable. Revising the TS Actions to provide an alternative to
frequent use of the moveable incore detector system to verify the
position of rods with inoperable rod position indicator does not
change the requirement for the rods to be aligned and within the
insertion limits.
Therefore, the assumptions used in any accidents previously
evaluated are unchanged and there is no significant increase in the
consequences.
The consequences of an accident that might occur during the 1-
hour period provided for the analog rod position indication to
stabilize after rod movement are no different than the consequences
of the accident under the existing actions with the rod declared
inoperable.
The proposed change to resolve the conflicts in the TS ensure
that the intended Actions are followed when equipment is inoperable.
Actions taken with inoperable equipment are not assumptions in the
accidents previously evaluated and have no significant effect on the
consequences.
The proposed change to eliminate an unnecessary action has no
effect on the consequences of accidents previously evaluated as the
analysis of those accidents did not consider the use of the action.
The proposed change to increase consistency within the TS has no
effect on the consequences of accidents previously evaluated as the
proposed change clarifies the application of the existing
requirements and does not change the intent.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of
the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be
installed). The change does not alter assumptions made in the safety
analyses. The proposed change does alter the limiting conditions for
operation for the rods and makes technical changes to the SRs
governing the rods. However, the proposed change to actions
maintains or improves safety when equipment is inoperable and does
not introduce new failure modes.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change to allow time for rod position indication to
stabilize after rod movement and to allow an alternative method of
verifying rod position has no effect on the safety margin as actual
rod position is not affected. The proposed change to provide time to
repair rods that are Operable but immovable does not result in a
significant reduction in the margin of safety because all rods must
be verified to be Operable, and all other banks must be within the
insertion limits. The remaining proposed changes to make the
requirements internally consistent and to eliminate unnecessary
actions do not affect the margin of safety as the changes do not
affect the ability of the rods to perform their specified safety
function.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Sherry A. Quirk, Executive Vice President
and General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West Summit Hill
Drive, 6A West Tower, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902.
NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin G. Beasley.
Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-280 and 50-281,
Surry Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Surry County, Virginia
Date of amendment request: January 20, 2017. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17026A174.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the
Technical Specification (TS) 3.5, ``Residual Heat Removal System,''
requirements, as well as the TS 3.13, ``Component Cooling System,''
residual heat removal (RHR) support requirements for the component
cooling system, for consistency with the design basis of the RHR
system. In addition, an RHR surveillance requirement is added in TS
Table 4.1-2A, ``Minimum Frequency for Equipment Tests,'' to test the
RHR system in accordance with the inservice testing program, since a TS
surveillance does not currently exist for this 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 license amendment involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises the TS requirements for consistency
with the design
[[Page 13673]]
basis of the RHR System. The proposed change has no impact on the
design function of any structures, systems, or components (SSCs),
including the RHR System. The proposed change does not impact plant
operation and does not change any of the previously evaluated
accidents in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR).
Thus, this change does not involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed license amendment create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a physical change to any
SSCs (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be installed)
and does not impact plant operation. Furthermore, the proposed
change does not impose any new or different requirements that could
initiate an accident and does not affect initiators of analyzed
events.
Therefore, the proposed change does not introduce any new
failures that could create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not adversely affect any current plant
safety margins or the reliability of the equipment assumed in the
safety analysis. There are no changes being made to any safety
analysis assumptions, safety limits, or limiting safety system
settings that would adversely affect plant safety as a result of the
proposed change. The RHR System has no accident mitigation function
and its operation is not assumed in any safety analyses. Thus, the
proposed change does not impact the condition or performance of SSCs
relied upon for accident mitigation or any safety analysis
assumptions.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion
Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar St., RS-2, Richmond, VA 23219.
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.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370, McGuire
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Date of application for amendments: March 24, 2016 as supplemented
by letter dated August 11, 2016.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised TS 3.6.13,
``Ice Condenser Doors,'' to allow for an alternate method of verifying
that the ice condenser doors are closed in addition to that described
in the current licensing basis. Specifically, the amendments revised TS
3.6.13 Condition B to add a new alternate Required Action when one or
more ice condenser lower inlet doors (LIDs) are inoperable due to
having an invalid open LID signal. The new Required Action includes
verifying that the affected lower inlet door is closed every 14 days in
accordance with an alternate method that does not rely on the faulted
alarm.
Date of issuance: February 24, 2017.
Effective date: These license amendments are effective as of its
date of issuance and shall be implemented within 120 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 292.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-9 and NPF-17:
Amendments revised the licenses and technical specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 6, 2016 (81 FR
36617). The supplemental letter dated August 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 February 24, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-461, Clinton Power
Station (CPS), Unit No. 1, DeWitt County, Illinois
Date of application for amendment: April 4, 2016.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises technical
specification (TS) limiting condition of operation (LCO) 3.10.1,
``Inservice Leak and Hydrostatic Testing Operation,'' to expand its
scope to include operations in which reactor coolant system temperature
exceeds 200 degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F) as a consequence of inservice
leak and hydrostatic testing, or as a consequence of scram time testing
initiated in conjunction with an inservice leak or hydrostatic test
when the initial test conditions are below 200 [deg]F, while
considering operational conditions to be in Mode 4.
Date of issuance: February 22, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No(s): 211. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS
under Accession No. ML17027A038; documents related to this amendment
are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-62: The amendment revised the
Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 7, 2016 (81 FR
36620).
[[Page 13674]]
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 22, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
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. 50-373 and 50-374, LaSalle
County Station, Units 1 and 2, LaSalle 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: February 3, 2016, as
supplemented by letters dated July 28 and December 12, 2016.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revise Surveillance
Requirement 3.6.4.1.2, for each facility, to provide an allowance for
brief, inadvertent, simultaneous opening of redundant secondary
containment access doors during normal entry and exit conditions.
Date of issuance: February 16, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 253, 246; 222, 208; 265, and 260. A publicly-
available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17037D212.
Documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety
Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-19, DPR-25, NPF-11,
NPF-18, DPR-29, and DPR-30: Amendments revised the Renewed Facility
Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 29, 2016 (81 FR
17505). The supplemental letters dated July 28 and December 12, 2016,
provided additional information that clarified the application, did not
expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not
change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a safety evaluation dated February 16, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, Docket No. 50-440, Perry Nuclear
Power Plant, Unit No. 1, Lake County, Ohio
Date of amendment request: March 15, 2016, as supplemented by
letters dated November 7, and December 20, 2016, and February 6, 2017.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the technical
specification (TS) 3.6.2.2, ``Suppression Pool Water Level,'' as well
as TS surveillance requirements (SRs) 3.6.2.4.1 and 3.6.2.4.4
associated with TS 3.6.2.4, ``Suppression Pool Makeup (SPMU) System,''
to allow installation of the reactor well to steam dryer storage pool
gate in the upper containment pool (UCP) in MODEs 1, 2, and 3. The
amendment also created new Special Operations TS, TS 3.10.9,
``Suppression Pool Makeup--MODE 3 Upper Containment Pool Drain-Down,''
to allow draining of the reactor well portion of the UCP in MODE 3.
Date of issuance: February 16, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 174. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML17033A014; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-58: Amendment revised the
Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 10, 2016 (81 FR
28898). The supplemental letters dated November 7, and December 20,
2016, and February 6, 2017, provided additional information that
clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application
as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed
no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the
Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 16, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Florida Power & Light Company, Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251, Turkey
Point Nuclear Generating, Unit Nos. 3 and 4, Miami-Dade County, Florida
Date of amendment request: June 30, 2016, as supplemented by letter
dated November 15, 2016.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical
Specifications (TSs) 3/4.7.1.2, ``Auxiliary Feedwater System,'' to
correct a nonconservative TS for Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Unit
Nos. 3 and 4.
Date of issuance: February 14, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos: 273 and 268. A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No. ML16335A195; documents related to these
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the
amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-31 and DPR-41:
Amendment revised the Facility Operating License and Technical
Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 13, 2016 (81
FR 62928). The supplemental letter dated November 15, 2016, provided
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change
the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 14, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
NextEra Energy, Point Beach, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-266 and 50-301, Point
Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Town of Two Creeks, Manitowoc
County, Wisconsin
Date amendment requests: February 12, 2016, as supplemented by
letters dated July 11, 2016, and November 4, 2016.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the Point
Beach Nuclear Plant, Unit 1 and 2 renewed Operating Licenses and
Appendix C, ``Additional Conditions,'' for each license (DPR-24 and
DRP-27 respectively), to remove license conditions that have been
completed, and are no longer in effect. The amendments also revised a
charcoal testing criterion for the control room emergency filtration
system.
Date of issuance: February 22, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 258 and 262. A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No. ML17039A300; documents related to these
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the
amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-24 and DPR-27:
Amendments
[[Page 13675]]
revised the Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 26, 2016 (81 FR
24662). The supplemental letters dated July 11, 2016, and November 4,
2016, provided additional information that clarified the application,
did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and
did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 22, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Northern States Power Company--Minnesota (NSPM), Docket No. 50-263,
Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, Wright County, Minnesota
Date of amendment request: October 3, 2014, as supplemented by
letters dated January 9, August 26, September 29, and December 8, 2015,
and February 29, April 29, August 4, September 14, and September 28,
2016.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical
Specifications (TSs) and Renewed Facility Operating Licenses to allow
operation in the extended flow window (EFW) domain.
Date of issuance: February 23, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
prior to start up from Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Operating
Cycle 29.
Amendment No.: 191. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML17054C394; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-22. Amendment revised
the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 7, 2015 (80 FR
38775). The supplemental letters dated January 9, August 26, September
29, and December 8, 2015, and February 29, April 29, August 4,
September 14, and September 28, 2016, provided additional information
that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the
application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's
original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as
published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 23, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Northern States Power Company--Minnesota (NSPM), Docket No. 50-263,
Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, Wright County, Minnesota
Date of amendment request: April 4, 2016, as supplemented by
letters dated October 3 and November 22, 2016.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises technical
specifications (TS) Surveillance Requirement (SR) associated with TS
3.8.4, ``DC [direct current] Sources--Operating.'' Specifically, the
amendment revises SR 3.8.4.2 by increasing the 125 Volt DC battery
charger test output current to 75 amperes (amps) from the current test
level of 50 amps, and removes the second (alternate) method specified
to perform the surveillance requirement.
Date of issuance: February 27, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 120 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 192. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML17013A435; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-22. Amendment revised
the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 7, 2016 (81 FR
36621). The supplemental letters dated October 3 and November 22, 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.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 27, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323, Diablo
Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, San Luis Obispo County,
California
Date of application for amendments: March 23, 2016, as supplemented
by letters dated September 28, 2016 and January 18, 2017.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical
Specification (TS) 3.4.12, ``Low Temperature Overpressure Protection
(LTOP) System,'' to reflect the mass input transient analysis that
assumes an emergency core cooling system centrifugal charging pump and
the normal charging pump capable of simultaneously injecting into the
reactor coolant system during TS 3.4.12 applicability.
Date of issuance: February 23, 2017.
Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 180 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 1-229; Unit 2-231. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17018A341; 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 Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 10, 2016 (81 FR
28899). The supplemental letters dated September 28, 2016 and January
18, 2017, provided additional information that clarified the
application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally
noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no
significant hazards consideration determination as published in the
Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 23, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 52-025 and 50-
026, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4, Burke County,
Georgia
Date of amendment request: August 31, 2016.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments changed Combined
License Nos. NPF-91 and NPF-92 for the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant
Units 3 and 4. The amendments authorized changes to the Updated Final
Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) in the form of departures from the
incorporated plant-specific Design Control Document Tier 2*
information. Specifically, the changes revised the combined operating
licenses and clarified information in WCAP-17179, ``AP1000[supreg]
Component Interface Module Technical Report,'' which demonstrates
design compliance with licensing bases requirements. WCAP-17179 is
incorporated by reference into the UFSAR to provide additional details
regarding the component interface
[[Page 13676]]
module (CIM) system design. The amendments also authorized a change to
the CIM internal power supply that will enable proper functioning of
the field programmable gate arrays.
Date of issuance: February 9, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 70/69. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS
under Accession No. ML16343B021; documents related to these amendments
are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-91 and NPF-92: Amendments
authorized changes to the UFSAR in the form of departures from the
incorporated plant-specific DCD Tier 2* information.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 25, 2016 (81 FR
73440).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 9, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
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: October 11, 2016.
Brief description of amendments: The amendment revises TS
requirements for unavailable barriers by adding Limiting Condition for
Operation (LCO) 3.0.9, which allows a delay time for entering a
supported system TS, when the inoperability is solely due to an
unavailable barrier. The change is consistent with Technical
Specification Task Force (TSTF)-427, Revision 2, ``Allowance for Non-
Technical Specification Barrier Degradation Supported System
OPERABILITY.''
Date of issuance: February 16, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 208 (Unit 1) and 205 (Unit 2). A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17034A193; documents related
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with
the amendments.
Renewed 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: December 6, 2016 (81 FR
87973).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 16, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-390 and 50-391, Watts Bar
Nuclear Plant (WBN), Units 1 and 2, Rhea County, Tennessee
Date of amendment request: March 29, 2016.
Brief description of amendment: The amendments revise the WBN,
Units 1 and 2, Technical Specification (TS) requirements for inoperable
dynamic restraints (snubbers) by adding Limiting Condition for
Operation (LCO) 3.0.8. The change is consistent with NRC-approved
Revision 4 to Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Standard
Technical Specifications Change Traveler, TSTF-372, ``Addition of LCO
3.0.8, Inoperability of Snubbers.''
The amendment for WBN, Unit 1, also makes an administrative change
to add a reference to LCO 3.0.7 in LCO 3.0.1, consistent with TSTF-6,
Revision 1, ``Add exception for LCO 3.0.7 to LCO 3.0.1.''
Date of issuance: February 23, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 45 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 6 and 111. A publicly available version is in ADAMS
under Accession No. ML16349A428; documents related to these amendments
are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-90 and NPF-96: Amendments
revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 22, 2016 (81
FR 83878).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 23, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 1st day of March 2017.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Anne T. Boland,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2017-04757 Filed 3-13-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P