[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 68 (Tuesday, April 11, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17454-17465]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-07279]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2017-0092]
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 March 14, 2017, to March 27, 2017. The last
biweekly notice was published on March 28, 2017.
DATES: Comments must be filed by May 11, 2017. A request for a hearing
must be filed by June 12, 2017.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods
(unless this document describes a different method for submitting
comments on a specific subject):
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2017-0092. 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: Janet Burkhardt, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1384, email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments
A. Obtaining Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0092, 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-2017-0092.
NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the
ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select ``ADAMS Public Documents'' and
then select ``Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.'' For problems with ADAMS,
please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at
1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected]. The
ADAMS accession number for each document referenced (if it is available
in
[[Page 17455]]
ADAMS) is provided the first time that it is mentioned in this
document.
NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
B. Submitting Comments
Please include Docket ID NRC-2017-0092, 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 will post all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into
ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove
identifying or contact information.
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons
for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to
include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be
publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should
state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to
remove such information before making the comment submissions available
to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
II. Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility
Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses and Proposed No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under
the Commission's regulations in Sec. 50.92 of title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (10 CFR), this means that operation of the facility
in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated, or (2) create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or
(3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis
for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown
below.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final
determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period if circumstances change during the 30-day comment
period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for
example in derating or shutdown of the facility. If the Commission
takes action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or
the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a notice of
issuance. If the Commission makes a final no significant hazards
consideration determination, any hearing will take place after
issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will
occur very infrequently.
A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing and Petition for Leave To Intervene
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any
persons (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by this action may
file a request for a hearing and petition for leave to intervene
(petition) with respect to the action. Petitions shall be filed in
accordance with the Commission's ``Agency Rules of Practice and
Procedure'' in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult a
current copy of 10 CFR 2.309. The NRC's regulations are accessible
electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. Alternatively, a copy of
the regulations is available at the NRC's Public Document Room, located
at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first
floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. If a petition is filed, the
Commission or a presiding officer will rule on the petition and, if
appropriate, a notice of a hearing will be issued.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309(d) the petition should specifically
explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with
particular reference to the following general requirements for
standing: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the
petitioner; (2) the nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to
be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the
petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding;
and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be
entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f), the petition must also set
forth the specific contentions which the petitioner seeks to have
litigated in the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific
statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In
addition, the petitioner must provide a brief explanation of the bases
for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or
expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner
intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The
petitioner must also provide references to the specific sources and
documents on which the petitioner intends to rely to support its
position on the issue. The petition must include sufficient information
to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant or licensee on
a material issue of law or fact. Contentions must be limited to matters
within the scope of the proceeding. The contention must be one which,
if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner who
fails to satisfy the requirements at 10 CFR 2.309(f) with respect to at
least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding,
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene.
Parties have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the
hearing with respect to resolution of that party's admitted
contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence, consistent
with the NRC's regulations, policies, and procedures.
Petitions must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of
publication of this notice. Petitions and motions for leave to file new
or amended contentions that are filed after the deadline will not be
entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the
filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10
CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i) through (iii). The petition must be filed in
accordance with the filing instructions in the ``Electronic Submissions
(E-Filing)'' section of this document.
If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the
Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no
significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve
to establish when the hearing is held. If the final determination is
that the
[[Page 17456]]
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 June
12, 2017. The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing
instructions in the ``Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)'' section of
this document, and should meet the requirements for petitions set forth
in this section, except that under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(2) a State, local
governmental body, or federally recognized Indian Tribe, or agency
thereof does not need to address the standing requirements in 10 CFR
2.309(d) if the facility is located within its boundaries.
Alternatively, a State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized
Indian Tribe, or agency thereof may participate as a non-party under 10
CFR 2.315(c).
If a hearing is granted, any person who is not a party to the
proceeding and is not affiliated with or represented by a party may, at
the discretion of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited
appearance pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person
making a limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of
his or her position on the issues but may not otherwise participate in
the proceeding. A limited appearance may be made at any session of the
hearing or at any prehearing conference, subject to the limits and
conditions as may be imposed by the presiding officer. Details
regarding the opportunity to make a limited appearance will be provided
by the presiding officer if such sessions are scheduled.
B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a
request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition), any
motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the
submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and
documents filed by interested governmental entities that request to
participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the
NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007, as amended at 77 FR
46562, August 3, 2012). The E-Filing process requires participants to
submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in
some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Detailed
guidance on making electronic submissions may be found in the Guidance
for Electronic Submissions to the NRC and on the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants may not submit
paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in
accordance with the procedures described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10
days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the
Office of the Secretary by email at [email protected], or by
telephone at 301-415-1677, to (1) request a digital identification (ID)
certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or
representative) to digitally sign submissions and access the E-Filing
system for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise
the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a petition or
other adjudicatory document (even in instances in which the
participant, or its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-
issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the
Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the hearing in this
proceeding if the Secretary has not already established an electronic
docket.
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is
available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/getting-started.html. Once a participant has obtained a
digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant
can then submit adjudicatory documents. Submissions must be in Portable
Document Format (PDF). Additional guidance on PDF submissions is
available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/electronic-sub-ref-mat.html. A filing is considered complete at the
time the document is submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be
timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system
no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of
a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends
the submitter an email notice confirming receipt of the document. The
E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access
to the document to the NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any
others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to
participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the
document on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and
other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for
and receive a digital ID certificate before adjudicatory documents are
filed so that they can obtain access to the documents via the E-Filing
system.
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-
Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC's Electronic
Filing Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC's
public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by
email to [email protected], or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-
7640. The NRC Electronic Filing Help Desk is available between 9 a.m.
and 6 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government
holidays.
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not
submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in
accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing
stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and
requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper
format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention:
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or
expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and
Adjudications Staff. Participants filing adjudicatory documents in this
manner are responsible for serving the document on all other
participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of
the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or
expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the
provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an
exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or
party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines
that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no
longer exists.
[[Page 17457]]
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 Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414, Catawba
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York County, South Carolina
Date of amendment request: December 15, 2016. A publicly available
version is in Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS)
under Accession No. ML16350A422.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would modify
Technical Specification 3.1.2, ``Core Reactivity,'' to revise the
Completion Times of Required Action A.1 and A.2 from 72 hours to 7
days. This proposed change is consistent with Technical Specification
Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-142-A, Revision 0, ``Increase the
Completion Time when the Core Reactivity Balance is Not Within Limit.''
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 extend the Completion Time to take the
Required Actions when measured core reactivity is not within the
specified limit of the predicted values. The Completion Time to
respond to a difference between predicted and measured core
reactivity if not an initiator to any accident previously evaluated.
The radiological consequences of an accident during the proposed
Completion Time are no different from the consequences of an
accident during the existing Completion Time. Therefore, the
proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not involve a physical alteration to the
plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be
installed) or a change to the methods governing normal plant
operation. The changes do not alter the assumptions made in the
safety analysis. Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in the margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes provide additional time to investigate and
to implement appropriate operating restrictions when measured core
reactivity is not within the specified limit of the predicted
values. The additional time will not have a significant effect on
plant safety due to the conservatisms used in designing the reactor
core and performing the safety analyses, and the low probability of
an accident or transient which would approach the core design limits
during the additional time. Therefore, the proposed changes do not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Kate Nolan, Deputy General Counsel, Duke
Energy Corporation, 526 South Church Street--DEC45A, Charlotte, NC
28202.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-237 and 50-249, Dresden
Nuclear Power Station (DNPS), Units 2 and 3, Grundy County, Illinois
Date of amendment request: February 10, 2017. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17045A006.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise the DNPS, Units 2 and 3, technical specifications (TSs) by
replacing the existing specifications related to ``operation with a
potential for draining the reactor vessels'' (OPDRVs), with revised
requirements for reactor pressure vessel (RVP) water inventory control
(WIC) to protect Safety Limit 2.1.1.3. Safety Limit 2.1.1.3 requires
reactor vessel water level to be greater than the top of active
irradiated fuel. The proposed amendment would adopt changes, with
variations as noted in the license amendment request, and is based on
the NRC-approved safety evaluation for Technical Specification Task
Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-542, Revision 2, ``Reactor Pressure Vessel
Water Inventory Control,'' dated December 20, 2016.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, 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 replaces existing TS requirements related to
OPDRVs with new requirements on RPV WIC that will protect Safety
Limit 2.1.1.3. Draining of RPV water inventory in Mode 4 (i.e., cold
shutdown) and Mode 5 (i.e., refueling) is not an accident previously
evaluated and, therefore, replacing the existing TS controls to
prevent or mitigate such an event with a new set of controls has no
effect on any accident previously evaluated. RPV water inventory
control in Mode 4 or Mode 5 is not an initiator of any accident
previously evaluated. The existing OPDRV controls or the proposed
RPV WIC controls are not mitigating actions assumed in any accident
previously evaluated.
The proposed change reduces the probability of an unexpected
draining event (which is not a previously evaluated accident) by
imposing new requirements on the limiting time in which an
unexpected draining event could result in the reactor vessel water
level dropping to the top of the active fuel (TAF). These controls
require cognizance of the plant configuration and control of
configurations with unacceptably short drain times. These
requirements reduce the probability of an unexpected draining
[[Page 17458]]
event. The current TS requirements are only mitigating actions and
impose no requirements that reduce the probability of an unexpected
draining event.
The proposed change reduces the consequences of an unexpected
draining event (which is not a previously evaluated accident) by
requiring an Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) subsystem to be
operable at all times in Modes 4 and 5. The current TS requirements
do not require any water injection systems, ECCS or otherwise, to be
operable in certain conditions in Mode 5. The change in requirement
from two ECCS subsystems to one ECCS subsystem in Modes 4 and 5 does
not significantly affect the consequences of an unexpected draining
event because the proposed Actions ensure equipment is available
within the limiting drain time that is as capable of mitigating the
event as the current requirements. The proposed controls provide
escalating compensatory measures to be established as calculated
drain times decrease, such as verification of a second method of
water injection and additional confirmations that secondary
containment and/or filtration would be available if needed.
The proposed change reduces or eliminates some requirements that
were determined to be unnecessary to manage the consequences of an
unexpected draining event, such as automatic initiation of an ECCS
subsystem and control room ventilation. These changes do not affect
the consequences of any accident previously evaluated since a
draining event in Modes 4 and 5 is not a previously evaluated
accident and the requirements are not needed to adequately respond
to a draining event.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change replaces existing TS requirements related to
OPDRVs with new requirements on RPV WIC that will protect Safety
Limit 2.1.1.3. The proposed change will not alter the design
function of the equipment involved. Under the proposed change, some
systems that are currently required to be operable during OPDRVs
would be required to be available within the limiting drain time or
to be in service depending on the limiting drain time. Should those
systems be unable to be placed into service, the consequences are no
different than if those systems were unable to perform their
function under the current TS requirements.
The event of concern under the current requirements and the
proposed change is an unexpected draining event. The proposed change
does not create new failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident
initiators that would cause a draining event or a new or different
kind of accident not previously evaluated or included in the design
and licensing bases.
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 replaces existing TS requirements related to
OPDRVs with new requirements on RPV WIC. The current requirements do
not have a stated safety basis and no margin of safety is
established in the licensing basis. The safety basis for the new
requirements is to protect Safety Limit 2.1.1.3. New requirements
are added to determine the limiting time in which the RPV water
inventory could drain to the top of the fuel in the reactor vessel
should an unexpected draining event occur. Plant configurations that
could result in lowering the RPV water level to the TAF within one
hour are now prohibited. New escalating compensatory measures based
on the limiting drain time replace the current controls. The
proposed TS establish a safety margin by providing defense-in-depth
to ensure that the Safety Limit is protected and to protect the
public health and safety. While some less restrictive requirements
are proposed for plant configurations with long calculated drain
times, the overall effect of the change is to improve plant safety
and to add safety margin.
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: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel,
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL
60555.
NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-289 and 50-320, Three
Mile Island Nuclear Station (TMI), Unit 1 and Unit 2, Dauphin County,
Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: July 15, 2016, as supplemented by letter
dated February 13, 2017. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS under
Accession Nos. ML16201A306 and ML17045A036, respectively.
Description of amendment request: The amendment request was
originally noticed in the Federal Register on October 25, 2016 (81 FR
73435). The notice is being reissued in its entirety to include the
revised scope, description of the amendment request, and proposed no
significant hazards consideration determination. The amendment would
revise the Radiological Emergency Plan Annex for TMI, Unit 1. The
proposed changes would decrease the radiation protection technician
staffing from three to two technicians. The proposed amendment would
also make changes to staffing of on-shift maintenance personnel.
Specifically, the amendment would revise the on-shift position
operations support center director (renamed repair team lead) to remove
the requirement that the position be from the maintenance organization;
remove two dedicated maintenance technicians from the on-shift staffing
total; and remove two additional personnel from the repair and
corrective actions major task and assign them to respond within 60
minutes, as well as one additional staff person to respond within 90
minutes.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to the TMI Emergency Plan do not increase
the probability or consequences of an accident. The proposed changes
do not impact the function of plant Structures, Systems, or
Components (SSCs). The proposed changes do not affect accident
initiators or accident precursors, nor do the changes alter design
assumptions. The proposed changes do not alter or prevent the
ability of the onsite ERO [emergency response organization] to
perform their intended functions to mitigate the consequences of an
accident or event. The proposed changes remove onsite ERO positions
no longer credited or considered necessary in support of Emergency
Plan implementation.
Therefore, the proposed changes to the Emergency Plan do not
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of
an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes have no impact on the design, function, or
operation of any plant SSCs. The proposed changes do not affect
plant equipment or accident analyses. The proposed changes do not
involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or
different type of equipment will be installed), a change in the
method of plant operation, or new operator actions. The proposed
changes do not introduce failure modes that could result in a new
accident, and the proposed changes do not alter assumptions made in
the safety analysis. The proposed changes remove onsite ERO
positions no longer credited or considered necessary in support of
Emergency Plan implementation.
Therefore, the proposed changes to the Emergency Plan do not
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from
any accident previously evaluated.
[[Page 17459]]
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
Margin of safety is associated with confidence in the ability of
the fission product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, reactor coolant
system pressure boundary, and containment structure) to limit the
level of radiation dose to the public.
The proposed changes do not adversely affect existing plant
safety margins or the reliability of the equipment assumed to
operate in the safety analyses. There are no changes being made to
safety analysis assumptions, safety limits, or limiting safety
system settings that would adversely affect plant safety as a result
of the proposed changes. Margins of safety are unaffected by the
proposed changes to the ERO minimum on-shift staffing.
The proposed changes are associated with the Emergency Plan
staffing and do not impact operation of the plant or its response to
transients or accidents. The proposed changes do not affect the
Technical Specifications. The proposed changes do not involve a
change in the method of plant operation, and no accident analyses
will be affected by the proposed changes. Safety analysis acceptance
criteria are not affected by these proposed changes. The proposed
changes to the Emergency Plan will continue to provide the necessary
onsite ERO response staff.
Therefore, the proposed changes to the Emergency Plan do not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel,
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL
60555.
NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. STN 50-456 and STN 50-457,
Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, Will County, Illinois
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. STN 50-454 and STN 50-455,
Byron Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Ogle County, Illinois
Date of amendment request: February 23, 2017. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17055A631.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the
operating licenses and technical specifications to remove time, cycle,
or modification-related items. Additionally, the proposed amendment
makes editorial and formatting changes. The time, cycle, or
modification-related items have been implemented or superseded and are
no longer applicable.
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 initial conditions and methodologies used in the accident
analyses remain unchanged. The proposed changes do not change or
alter the design assumptions for the systems or components used to
mitigate the consequences of an accident. Therefore, accident
analyses results are not impacted.
All changes proposed by EGC [Exelon Generation Company, LLC] in
this amendment request are administrative in nature, and are
removing one-time requirements that have been satisfied, items that
are no longer applicable, or are editorial. There are no physical
changes to the facilities, nor any changes to the station operating
procedures, limiting conditions for operation, or limiting safety
system settings.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
Response: No.
None of the proposed changes affect the design or operation of
any system, structure, or component in the plants. The safety
functions of the related structures, systems, or components are not
changed in any manner, nor is the reliability of any structure,
system, or component reduced by the revised surveillance or testing
requirements. The changes do not affect the manner by which the
facility is operated and do not change any facility design feature,
structure, system, or component. No new or different type of
equipment will be installed. Since there is no change to the
facility or operating procedures, and the safety functions and
reliability of structures, systems, or components are not affected,
the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed changes do 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 changes are administrative in nature and have no
impact on the margin of safety of any of the TS [technical
specifications]. There is no impact on safety limits or limiting
safety system settings. The changes do not affect any plant safety
parameters or setpoints. The OL [operating license] Conditions have
been satisfied as required.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel,
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL
60555.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Kimberly J. Green.
Northern States Power Company--Minnesota, Docket Nos. 50-282 and 50-
306, Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant (PINGP), Units 1 and 2,
Goodhue County, Minnesota
Date of amendment request: February 23, 2017. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17055C359.
Brief description of amendment request: The proposed amendments
would revise the PINGP, Units 1 and 2, Emergency Plan (E-Plan) to
increase augmentation times for Emergency Response Organization (ERO)
response functions. The amendment would also include other E-Plan
modifications to include facility activation criteria, changes to
survey requirements, removal of radiation protection support from
Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, and removal of some positions from
the augmentation list.
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 increase in staff augmentation times has no effect
on normal plant operation or on any accident initiator or precursors
and does not impact the function of plant structures, systems, or
components (SSCs).
The proposed change does not alter or prevent the ability of the
on-shift ERO to perform their intended functions to mitigate the
consequences of an accident or event. The ability of the ERO to
respond adequately to radiological emergencies has been demonstrated
as acceptable through a staffing analysis as required by 10 CFR 50,
Appendix E, Section IV.A.9.
Therefore, the proposed [E-Plan] changes do not involve a
significant increase in the
[[Page 17460]]
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not impact any accident analysis. The
proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant
(i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be installed), a
change in the method of plant operation, or new operator actions.
The proposed change does not introduce failure modes that could
result in a new accident, and the change does not alter assumptions
made in the safety analysis. The proposed change increases the staff
augmentation response times in the E-Plan, which are demonstrated as
acceptable through a functional analysis as required by 10 CFR 50,
Appendix E, Section IV.A.9. The proposed change does not alter or
prevent the ability of the ERO to perform their intended functions
to mitigate the consequences of an accident or event.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
Margin of safety is associated with confidence in the ability of
the fission product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, reactor coolant
system pressure boundary, and containment structure) to limit the
level of radiation dose to the public. The proposed change is
associated with the E-Plan staffing and does not impact operation of
the plant or its response to transients or accidents. The change
does not affect the Technical Specifications. The proposed change
does not involve a change in the method of plant operation, and no
accident analyses will be affected by the proposed change. Safety
analysis acceptance criteria are not affected by this proposed
change. The proposed revisions to the E-Plan continue to provide the
necessary response staff with the proposed change.
A staffing analysis and a functional analysis were performed for
the proposed change focusing on the timeliness of performing major
tasks for the functional areas of E-Plan. The analysis concluded
that an extension in staff augmentation times would not
significantly affect the ability to perform the required E-Plan
tasks. Therefore, the proposed change is determined to not adversely
affect the ability to meet 10 CFR 50.54(q)(2), the requirements of
10 CFR 50 Appendix E, and the emergency planning standards as
described in 10 CFR 50.47 (b).
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 requests involve no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Peter M. Glass, Assistant General Counsel,
Xcel Energy Services, Inc., 414 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, MN 55401
NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.
South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, Docket Nos. 52-027 and 52-028,
Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3, Fairfield County,
South Carolina
Date of amendment request: February 27, 2017. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17060A662.
Description of amendment request: The requested amendment proposes
to depart from Tier 2 information in the Updated Final Safety Analysis
Report (UFSAR) and to change Combined License Appendix A, Technical
Specifications (TS), to modify engineered safety features logic for
containment vacuum relief actuation.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to the UFSAR and TS will include the
Containment Pressure--Low automatic reset function for the
containment vacuum relief valves manual initiation logic, such that
the containment vacuum relief manual actuation will be automatically
reset when the containment pressure rises above the Containment
Pressure--Low setpoint. This reset allows a containment isolation
signal to close the valves when necessary. The Containment
Pressure--Low signal is an interlock for the containment vacuum
relief manual actuation such that the valves cannot be opened unless
the Containment Pressure--Low setpoint has been reached in any two-
out-of-four divisions. The modified logic will ensure that the
automatic initiation of containment isolation is made available
following manual initiation of containment vacuum relief actuation.
The analyzed design and function of the Engineered Safety Features
Actuation System and its actuated components is not affected. The
proposed changes do not adversely affect any safety-related
equipment and does not involve any accident, initiating event, or
component failure, thus the probabilities of accidents previously
evaluated are not affected. The proposed changes do not adversely
interface with or adversely affect any system containing
radioactivity or affect any radiological material release source
term; thus the radiological releases in an accident 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 changes to the UFSAR and TS to include the Containment
Pressure--Low manual actuation interlock and automatic reset
function for the containment vacuum relief valves manual initiation
logic will maintain the Engineered Safety Features Actuation System
and Plant Safety and Monitoring System in accordance with the design
objectives as licensed. The design of the Class 1E Containment
Pressure--Low manual actuation interlock and automatic reset
function is required to meet the licensing basis for the Engineered
Safety Features Actuation System and Plant Safety and Monitoring
System. The changes to the manual initiation logic do not adversely
affect the function of any safety-related structure, system, or
component, and thus does not introduce a new failure mode. The
changes to the containment vacuum relief valves manual initiation
logic do not adversely interface with any safety-related equipment
or any equipment associated with radioactive material and, thus, do
not create a new fault or sequence of events that could result in a
new or different kind of accident.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident [from any
accident previously evaluated].
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The changes to the UFSAR and TS to include the Containment
Pressure--Low automatic reset function for the containment vacuum
relief valves manual initiation logic will maintain the Engineered
Safety Features Actuation System and Plant Safety and Monitoring
System in accordance with the design objectives as licensed. The
changes to the manual initiation logic do not adversely interface
with any safety-related equipment or adversely affect any safety-
related function. The changes to the containment vacuum relief
manual initiation logic continue to comply with existing design
codes and regulatory criteria, and do not involve a significant
reduction in the margin of safety.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Ms. Kathryn M. Sutton, Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius LLC, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC, 20004-2514.
NRC Branch Chief: Jennifer Dixon-Herrity.
[[Page 17461]]
Susquehanna Nuclear, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-387 and 50-388, Susquehanna
Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: February 1, 2017. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17032A259.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise
Technical Specification (TS) 3.6.4.3, ``Standby Gas Treatment (SGT)
System,'' and TS 3.7.3, ``Control Room Emergency Outside Air Supply
(CREOAS) System,'' by changing the run time of monthly surveillance
requirements (SRs) for the standby gas treatment and control room
emergency outside air supply systems from 10 hours to 15 minutes. This
change is consistent with Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF)
Traveler TSTF-522, Revision 0, ``Revise Ventilation System Surveillance
Requirements to Operate for 10 hours per Month,'' with minor
variations. The notice of availability and model safety evaluation of
TSTF-522, Revision 0, were published in the Federal Register on
September 20, 2012 (77 FR 58421).
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below, along with NRC edits in square
brackets:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change modifies the performance length of an
existing Surveillance Requirement of the SGT and CREOAS Systems. The
requirement for heater operation will not be modified.
These systems are not accident initiators and therefore [these
changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability] of
an accident previously evaluated. The proposed changes are
consistent with current regulatory guidance for these systems and
will continue to assure that these systems perform their design
function(s), which may include mitigating accident consequences.
Therefore, the change does not involve a significant increase in the
consequences of an accident.
Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The changes proposed do not change the way the system is
operated or maintained. The changes reduce the performance length of
existing SRs. The reduced performance length will continue to
demonstrate that the Limiting Conditions for Operation (LCO) for the
SGT and CREOAS systems are met. The change does not create new
failure modes or mechanisms and no new accident precursors are
generated.
Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
This change reduces the performance length of SRs used to
demonstrate operability of the CREOAS and SGT systems. This change
is consistent with current regulatory guidance for these systems.
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: Damon D. Obie, Associate General Counsel,
Talen Energy Supply, LLC, 835 Hamilton St., Suite 150, Allentown, PA
18101.
NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna.
III. Previously Published Notices of Consideration of Issuance of
Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses,
Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and
Opportunity for a Hearing
The following notices were previously published as separate
individual notices. The notice content was the same as above. They were
published as individual notices either because time did not allow the
Commission to wait for this biweekly notice or because the action
involved exigent circumstances. They are repeated here because the
biweekly notice lists all amendments issued or proposed to be issued
involving no significant hazards consideration.
For details, see the individual notice in the Federal Register on
the day and page cited. This notice does not extend the notice period
of the original notice.
DTE Electric Company, Docket No. 50-341, Fermi 2, Monroe County,
Michigan
Date of amendment request: February 23, 2017. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17055A365.
Brief description of amendment request: The proposed amendment
would revise the technical specification requirements for high pressure
coolant injection system and reactor core isolation cooling system
actuation instrumentation in low pressure conditions.
Date of publication of individual notice in Federal Register: March
13, 2017 (82 FR 13512).
Expiration date of individual notice: April 12, 2017 (public
comments); May 12, 2017 (hearing requests).
IV. 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.
[[Page 17462]]
Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Docket No. 50-261, H. B. Robinson Steam
Electric Plant, Unit No. 2, Darlington County, South Carolina
Date of amendment request: April 24, 2016, as supplemented by
letters dated September 14, 2016, and March 8, 2017.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment adopted Technical
Specification Task Force (TSTF) Change Traveler TSTF-339, Revision 2,
``Relocate TS [Technical Specification] Parameters to COLR [Core
Operating Limits Report],'' consistent with NRC-approved Westinghouse
topical report WCAP-14483-A, ``Generic Methodology for Expanded Core
Operating Limits Report,'' and relocated reactor coolant system-related
cycle-specific parameters and core safety limits from the TSs to the
COLR.
Date of issuance: March 23, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 120 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 250. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML17039A153; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-23: Amendment revised
the Renewed Facility Operating License and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 5, 2016 (81 FR
43651). The supplemental letters dated September 14, 2016, and March 8,
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 March 23, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-353, Limerick Generating
Station, Unit 2, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: December 20, 2016.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment authorized use of the
release fractions listed in Tables 1 and 3 of NRC Regulatory Guide (RG)
1.183, ``Alternative Radiological Source Terms for Evaluating Design
Basis Accidents at Nuclear Power Reactors,'' for a limited number of
partial length fuel rods that are currently in the Limerick Generating
Station, Unit 2, Cycle 14, reactor core for the remainder of the
current operating cycle and revise the licensing basis for subsequent
fuel movement of irradiated fuel bundles containing partial length
rods.
Date of issuance: March 15, 2017.
Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented
prior to exceeding the burnup limit in the current operating Cycle 14.
Amendment No.: 186. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML17047A353; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-85: The amendment
revised the licensing basis to allow the use of the release fractions
listed in Tables 1 and 3 of NRC RG 1.183 for a limited number of
partial length fuel rods currently in the Cycle 14 reactor core for the
remainder of the current operating cycle and subsequent fuel movements.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 31, 2017 (82 FR
8871).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 15, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC, Docket No. 50-443, Seabrook Station, Unit
No. 1, Rockingham County, New Hampshire
Date of amendment request: March 31, 2016, as supplemented by
letters dated May 31, 2016; October 27, 2016; November 17, 2016; and
December 30, 2016.
Description of amendment request: The amendment revised Technical
Specification 6.15, ``Containment Leakage Rate Testing Program,'' to
require a program that is in accordance with Nuclear Energy Institute
(NEI) Topical Report NEI 94-01, Revision 3-A, ``Industry Guideline for
Implementing Performance-Based Option of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix J.''
Date of issuance: March 15, 2017.
Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 153. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML17046A443; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-86: Amendment revised the
Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 19, 2016 (81 FR
46964). The supplemental letters dated October 27, 2016; November 17,
2016; and December 30, 2016, provided additional information that
clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application
as originally noticed, and did not change the NRC 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 March 15, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50-354, Hope Creek Generating Station,
Salem County, New Jersey
Date of amendment request: June 17, 2016, as supplemented by
letters dated December 27, 2016, and February 17, 2017.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical
Specifications by adding a note permitting one low pressure coolant
injection subsystem of residual heat removal to be considered OPERABLE
in Operating Conditions 4 and 5 during alignment and operation for
decay heat removal, if capable of being manually realigned and not
otherwise inoperable.
Date of issuance: March 15, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 202. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML17053A178; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-57: Amendment revised
the Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 16, 2016 (81 FR
54615). The supplemental letters dated December 27, 2016, and February
17, 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 March 15, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
[[Page 17463]]
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50-354, Hope Creek Generating Station,
Salem County, New Jersey
Date of amendment request: May 11, 2016, as supplemented by letter
dated December 13, 2016.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Hope
Creek Generating Station Technical Specification (TS) requirements by
deleting TS Action Statement 3.4.2.1.b concerning stuck open safety/
relief valves. In addition, TS 3.6.2.1 Action Statements regarding
suppression chamber water temperature were revised to align with NUREG-
1433, Revision 4, ``Standard Technical Specifications--General Electric
Plants (BWR/4).''
Date of issuance: March 21, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be
implemented within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 203. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML17047A020; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-57: Amendment revised
the Renewed Facility Operating License and TSs.
Date of notice in Federal Register: January 17, 2017 (82 FR 4932).
The license amendment request was originally noticed in the Federal
Register on July 19, 2016 (81 FR 46965). The notice was reissued in its
entirety to include the revised scope, description of the amendment
request, and proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 21, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-424, 50-425,
52-025, 52-026, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), Units 1, 2, 3,
and 4, Burke County, Georgia
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-
364, Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant (Farley), Units 1 and 2, Houston
County, Alabama
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-
366, Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant (Hatch), Unit Nos. 1 and 2, City of
Dalton, Georgia
Date of application for amendments: August 31, 2015, as
supplemented by letters dated February 17, 2016; April 8, 2016; May 13,
2016; May 26, 2016; June 9, 2016; and November 2, 2016.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments approved a standard
emergency plan for all Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., sites
and site-specific annexes.
Date of issuance: March 14, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
by January 31, 2018.
Amendment Nos.: VEGP, Unit 1--184, Unit 2--167, Unit 3--74, Unit
4--73; Farley, Unit 1--209, Unit 2--206; and Hatch, Unit 1--283, Unit
2--228. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Package
Accession No. ML16141A090, documents related to these amendments are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-68, NPF-81, NPF-2, NPF-
8, DPR-57, and NPF-5: The amendments revised the Renewed Facility
Operating Licenses.
Facility Combined License Nos. NPF-91 and NPF-92: The amendments
revised the Facility Combined Licenses.
Date of initial notices in Federal Register: October 27, 2015 (80
FR 65816). The supplemental letters dated February 17, 2016; April 8,
2016; May 13, 2016; May 26, 2016; June 9, 2016; and November 2, 2016,
provided additional information that clarified the applications, did
not expand the scope of the applications as originally noticed, and did
not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards
consideration determinations as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluations of the amendments is contained
in Safety Evaluations dated March 14, 2017.
No significant hazards considerations comments received: No.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-
364, Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant (FNP), Units 1 and 2, Houston
County, Alabama
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-
425, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), Units 1 and 2, Burke
County, Georgia
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Georgia Power Company,
Oglethorpe Power Corporation, Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia,
City of Dalton, Georgia, Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366, Edwin I. Hatch
Nuclear Plant (HNP), Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Appling County, Georgia
Date of amendment request: March 3, 2016, as supplemented by letter
dated November 3, 2016.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments adopted Nuclear
Energy Institute (NEI) 99-01, Revision 6, ``Development of Emergency
Action Levels for Non-Passive Reactors,'' to replace the Emergency
Action Level (EAL) schemes for VEGP, FNP, and HNP that are currently
based on Revision 4. Additionally, SNC proposes changes to the
radiation monitors at FNP.
Date of issuance: March 16, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 1 year of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: Farley--Unit 1 (210) and Unit 2 (207); Vogtle--Unit
1 (185) and Unit 2 (168); and Hatch--Unit 1 (284) and Unit 2 (229). A
publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17023A237;
documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety
Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-2, NPF-8, NPF-68, NPF-
81, DPR-57, NPF-5: Amendments revised the Emergency Action Level
Schemes.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 26, 2016 (81 FR
24664). The supplemental letter dated November 3, 2016, provided
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change
the 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 March 16, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Susquehanna Nuclear, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-387 and 50-388, Susquehanna
Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: July 27, 2016, as supplemented by letter
dated September 13, 2016.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical
Specification 3.6.4.1, ``Secondary Containment,'' Surveillance
Requirement (SR) 3.6.4.1.3 to provide an allowance for brief,
inadvertent, simultaneous opening of redundant secondary containment
access doors during normal entry and exit conditions.
Date of issuance: March 27, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
[[Page 17464]]
Amendment Nos.: 267 (Unit 1) and 249 (Unit 2). A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17067A444; documents related
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with
the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-14 and NPF-22: The
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 25, 2016 (81 FR
73441).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 27, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-259, 50-260, and 50-296,
Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN), Units 1, 2 and 3, Limestone County,
Alabama
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-327 and 50-328, Sequoyah
Nuclear Plant (SQN), Units 1 and 2, Hamilton County, Tennessee
Date of amendment request: April 14, 2016.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical
Specification (TS) 5.3, ``Unit Staff Qualifications,'' for BFN, Units
1, 2, and 3, and SQN, Units 1 and 2, to delete the references to
Regulatory Guide 1.8, Revision 2, and replace them with references to
the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) Nuclear Quality Assurance Plan.
The changes will ensure consistent regulatory requirements regarding
staff qualifications for the TVA nuclear fleet. The changes will
further allow TVA to implement standard procedures related to staff
qualifications. Additionally, the TS changes are consistent with the
intent of NRC Administrative Letter 95-06 in that the relocated
requirements are adequately controlled by 10 CFR 50 Appendix B and the
quality assurance change control process in 10 CFR 50.54(a).
Date of issuance: March 27, 2017.
Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: BFN--298 (Unit 1), 322 (Unit 2), and 282 (Unit 3);
and SQN--338 (Unit 1), and 331 (Unit 2). A publicly-available version
is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17034A360; documents related to these
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the
amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-33, DPR-52, DPR-68,
DPR-77, and DPR-79: Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating
Licenses and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 2, 2016 (81 FR
50739).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 27, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-259, 50-260, and 50-296,
Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3, Limestone County,
Alabama
Date of amendment request: July 14, 2016.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the date of
cyber security plan implementation schedule Milestone 8 from July 31,
2017, to December 31, 2017.
Date of issuance: March 16, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 297 (Unit 1), 321 (Unit 2), 281 (Unit 3). A
publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17052A136;
documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety
Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-33, DPR-52, and DPR-68:
Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 8, 2016 (81 FR
78666).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 16, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 50-391, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant
(WBN), Unit 2, Rhea County, Tennessee
Date of amendment request: November 14, 2016.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the WBN Unit
2 Cyber Security Plan Implementation Schedule for Milestone 8 and
associated license condition in the Facility Operating License.
Date of issuance: March 16, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 7. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML17033A333; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-96: Amendment revised the
Facility Operating License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 5, 2017 (82 FR
1370).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 16, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 50-391, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant,
Unit 2, Rhea County, Tennessee
Date of amendment request: May 16, 2016.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical
Specifications (TS) to correct an administrative error in the initial
issuance of the TSs regarding the steam generator narrow range level
specified in Surveillance Requirement 3.4.6.3.
Date of issuance: March 23, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 8. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML17019A019; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-96: Amendment revised the
Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 13, 2016 (81
FR 62933).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 23, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation, Docket No. 50-482, Wolf Creek
Generating Station (WCGS), Coffey County, Kansas
Date of amendment request. June 14, 2016.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Cyber
Security Plan (CSP) Implementation Milestone 8 completion date and
paragraph 2.E of the Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-42 for
WCGS to incorporate the revised CSP implementation schedule.
Date of issuance: March 24, 2017.
Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 217. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML17024A241; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-42: The amendment
revised
[[Page 17465]]
the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 16, 2016 (81 FR
54618).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 24, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 31st day of March 2017.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Kathryn M. Brock,
Deputy Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of
Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2017-07279 Filed 4-10-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P