[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 78 (Tuesday, April 25, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19095-19111]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-08115]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2017-0104]
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 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 28, 2017, to April 10, 2017. The last
biweekly notice was published on April 11, 2017.
DATES: Comments must be filed by May 25, 2017. A request for a hearing
must be filed by June 26, 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-2017-0104. 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: Lynn Ronewicz, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1927, email: [email protected].
[[Page 19096]]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments
A. Obtaining Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0104, 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-2017-0104.
NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the
ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select ``ADAMS Public Documents'' and
then select ``Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.'' For problems with ADAMS,
please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at
1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected]. The
ADAMS accession number for each document referenced (if it is available
in ADAMS) is provided the first time that it is mentioned in 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-2017-0104, 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
[[Page 19097]]
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 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
26, 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
[[Page 19098]]
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.
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 (CNS), Units 1 and 2, York County, South Carolina
Date of amendment request: December 15, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16350A422.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would modify
Technical Specification (TS) 3.6.3, ``Containment Isolation Valves,''
to add a Note to TS Limited Condition for Operation 3.6.3 Required
Actions A.2, C.2 and E.2 to allow isolation devices that are locked,
sealed, or otherwise secured to be verified by use of administrative
means. This proposed change is consistent with Technical Specification
Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-269-A, Revision 2, ``Allow
Administrative Means of Position Verification for Locked or Sealed
Valves.''
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 modify CNS TS 3.6.3, ``Containment
Isolation Valves.'' This TS currently includes actions that require
penetrations to be isolated and periodically verified to be
isolated. A Note is proposed to be added to TS 3.6.3 Required
Actions A.2, C.2, and E.2, to allow isolation devices that are
locked, sealed, or otherwise secured to be verified by use of
administrative means. The proposed changes do not affect any plant
equipment, test methods, or plant operation, and is not an initiator
of any analyzed accident sequence. The inoperable containment
penetrations will continue to be isolated, and hence perform their
isolation function. Operation in accordance with the proposed TSs
will ensure that all analyzed accidents will continue to be
mitigated as previously analyzed.
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 will not affect the operation of plant
equipment or the function of any equipment assumed in the accident
analysis. Affected containment penetrations will continue to be
isolated as required by the existing TS.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Kate B. Nolan, Deputy General Counsel, Duke
Energy Carolinas, LLC, 550 South Tryon Street--DEC45A, Charlotte, NC
28202-1802.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
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 ADAMS under Accession No. ML16350A422.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would modify
Technical Specification (TS) 3.1.8, ``PHYSICS TESTS Exceptions,'' to
allow the numbers of channels required by the Limiting Condition for
Operation (LCO) section of TS 3.3.1, ``Reactor Trip System (RTS)
Instrumentation,'' to be reduced from ``4'' to ``3'' to allow one
nuclear instrumentation channel to be used as an input to the
reactivity computer for physics testing without placing the nuclear
instrumentation channel in a tripped condition. This proposed change is
consistent with Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Traveler
TSTF-315-A, Revision 0, ``Reduce Plant Trips Due to Spurious Signals to
the NIS During Physics Testing.''
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
[[Page 19099]]
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 revise TS 3.1.8, ``PHYSICS TESTS
Exceptions,'' to allow the number of channels required by LCO 3.3.1,
``RTS Instrumentation,'' to be reduced from ``4'' to ``3,'' to allow
one nuclear instrumentation channel to be used as an input to the
reactivity computer for physics testing without placing the nuclear
instrumentation channel in a tripped condition. A reduction in the
number of required nuclear instrumentation channels is not an
initiator to any accident previously evaluated. With the nuclear
instrumentation channel placed in bypass instead of in trip, reactor
protection is still provided by the nuclear instrumentation system
operating in a two-out-of-three channel logic. As a result, the
ability to mitigate any accident previously evaluated is not
significantly affected. The proposed changes will not affect the
source term, containment isolation, or radiological release
assumptions used in evaluating the radiological consequences of any
accident previously evaluated.
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 reduce the probability of a spurious
reactor trip during physics testing. The reactor trip system
continues to be capable of protecting the reactor utilizing the
power range neutron flux trips operating in a two-out-of-three trip
logic. As a result, the reactor is protected and the probability of
a spurious reactor trip is significantly reduced.
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 B. Nolan, Deputy General Counsel, Duke
Energy Carolinas, LLC, 550 South Tryon Street--DEC45A, Charlotte, NC
28202-1802.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414, Catawba
Nuclear Station (CNS), Units 1 and 2, York County, South Carolina
Date of amendment request: December 15, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16350A422.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would modify
Technical Specification (TS) 3.4.10, ``Pressurizer Safety Valves''; TS
3.7.4, ``Steam Generator Power Operated Relief Valves (SG PORVs)''; and
TS 3.7.6, ``Condensate Storage System,'' to revise the Completion Times
for Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) of TS 3.4.10 Required Action
B.2, LCO 3.7.4 Required Action C.2, and LCO 3.7.6 Required Action B.2
from 12 hours to 24 hours. The proposed changes are consistent with
Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-352-A, Revision
1, ``Provide Consistent Completion Time to Reach MODE 4.''
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes allow a more reasonable time to plan and
execute required actions, and will not adversely affect accident
initiators or precursors nor alter the design assumptions,
conditions, and configuration of the facility or the manner in which
the plant is operated and maintained. The proposed changes will not
alter or prevent the ability of structures, systems, and components
(SSCs) from performing their intended functions to mitigate the
consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance
limits. The proposed changes do not physically alter safety-related
systems nor affect the way in which safety-related systems perform
their functions. All accident analysis acceptance criteria will
continue to be met with the proposed changes. The proposed changes
will not affect the source term, containment isolation, or
radiological release assumptions used in evaluating the radiological
consequences of an accident previously evaluated. The proposed
changes will not alter any assumptions or change any mitigation
actions in the radiological consequence evaluations in the CNS
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). The applicable
radiological dose acceptance criteria will continue to be met.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
There are no proposed design changes nor are there any changes
in the method by which any safety-related plant SSC performs its
safety function. The proposed changes will not affect the normal
method of plant operation or change any operating parameters. No
equipment performance requirements will be affected. The proposed
changes will not alter any assumptions made in the safety analyses.
No new accident scenarios, transient precursors, failure
mechanisms, or limiting single failures will be introduced as a
result of this amendment. There will be no adverse effect or
challenges imposed on any safety-related system as a result of this
amendment.
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 the margin of safety?
Response: No.
Margin of safety is related to the confidence in the ability of
the fission product barriers to perform their intended functions.
These barriers include the fuel cladding, the reactor coolant system
pressure boundary, and the containment barriers. The proposed
changes will not have any impact on these barriers. No accident
mitigating equipment will be adversely impacted. Therefore, existing
safety margins will be preserved. None of the proposed changes will
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 B. Nolan, Deputy General Counsel, Duke
Energy Carolinas, LLC, 550 South Tryon Street--DEC45A, Charlotte, NC
28202-1802.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
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 ADAMS under Accession No. ML16350A422.
[[Page 19100]]
Description of amendment request: The amendments would modify
Technical Specification (TS) 3.4.12, ``Low Temperature Overpressure
Protection (LTOP) System,'' to increase the time allowed for swapping
charging pumps to 1 hour. Additionally, an existing note in the
Applicability section of TS 3.4.12 is being reworded and relocated to
the Limiting Condition for Operation section of TS 3.4.12 as Note 2.
These proposed changes are consistent with Technical Specification Task
Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-285-A, Revision 1, ``Charging Pump Swap LTOP
Allowance.''
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 increase the time allowed for swapping
charging pumps from 15 minutes to one hour, and make several other
associated administrative changes and clarifications to the TS.
These changes do not affect event initiators or precursors. Thus,
the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the
probability of an accident previously evaluated. In addition, the
proposed changes do not alter any assumptions previously made in the
radiological consequence evaluations nor affect mitigation of the
radiological consequences of an accident described in the Updated
Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). As such, the consequences of
accidents previously evaluated in the UFSAR will not be increased
and no additional radiological source terms are generated.
Therefore, there will be no reduction in the capability of those
SSCs [structures, systems, and components] in limiting the
radiological consequences of previously evaluated accidents, and
reasonable assurance that there is no undue risk to the health and
safety of the public will continue to be provided. Thus, the
proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not involve physical changes to analyzed
SSCs or changes to the modes of plant operation defined in the
technical specification. The proposed changes do not involve the
addition or modification of plant equipment (no new or different
type of equipment will be installed) nor do they alter the design or
operation of any plant systems. No new accident scenarios, accident
or transient initiators or precursors, failure mechanisms, or
limiting single failures are introduced as a result of the proposed
changes. The proposed changes do not cause the malfunction of
safety-related equipment assumed to be operable in accident
analyses. No new or different mode of failure has been created and
no new or different equipment performance requirements are imposed
for accident mitigation. As such, the proposed changes have no
effect on previously evaluated accidents.
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 the margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not adversely affect any current plant
safety margins or the reliability of the equipment assumed in the
safety analysis. Therefore, 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 changes.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Kate B. Nolan, Deputy General Counsel, Duke
Energy Carolinas, LLC, 550 South Tryon Street--DEC45A, Charlotte, NC
28202-1802.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
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 ADAMS under Accession No. ML16350A422.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would modify
Technical Specification (TS) 3.7.5, ``Auxiliary Feedwater (AFW)
System,'' to expand the TS 3.7.5 Limiting Condition for Operation,
Condition A, to include the situation when one turbine driven AFW pump
is operable in MODE 3, immediately following a refueling outage (if
MODE 2 has not been entered), with a 7-day Completion Time. This
proposed change is consistent with Technical Specification Task Force
(TSTF) Traveler TSTF-340-A, Revision 3, ``Allow 7 Day Completion Time
for a Turbine-Driven AFW Pump Inoperable.''
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 revise TS 3.7.5, ``Auxiliary Feedwater
(AFW) System,'' to allow a 7 day Completion Time to restore an
inoperable AFW turbine-driven pump in MODE 3 immediately following a
refueling outage, if MODE 2 has not been entered. An inoperable AFW
turbine-driven pump is not an initiator of any accident previously
evaluated. The ability of the plant to mitigate an accident is no
different while in the extended Completion Time than during the
existing Completion Time. The proposed changes will not affect the
source term, containment isolation, or radiological release
assumptions used in evaluating the radiological consequences of any
accident previously evaluated.
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 revise TS 3.7.5, ``Auxiliary Feedwater
(AFW) System,'' to allow a 7 day Completion Time to restore an
inoperable turbine-driven AFW pump in MODE 3, immediately following
a refueling outage, if MODE 2 has not been entered. In MODE 3
immediately following a refueling outage, core decay heat is low and
the need for AFW is also diminished. The two operable motor driven
AFW pumps are available and there are alternate means of decay heat
removal if needed. As a result, the risk presented by the extended
Completion Time is minimal.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
[[Page 19101]]
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 B. Nolan, Deputy General Counsel, Duke
Energy Carolinas, LLC, 550 South Tryon Street--DEC45A, Charlotte, NC
28202-1802.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
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 ADAMS under Accession No. ML16350A422.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would modify
Technical Specification (TS) 3.8.1, ``AC Sources--Operating,'' and TS
3.8.4, ``DC Sources--Operating,'' to allow greater flexibility in
performing Surveillance Requirements (SRs) by modifying Mode
restriction notes in TS SRs 3.8.1.11, 3.8.1.16, 3.8.1.17, 3.8.1.19,
3.8.4.8, and 3.8.4.9. This proposed change is consistent with Technical
Specification Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-283-A, Revision 3,
``Modify Section 3.8 Mode Restriction Notes.''
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 modify Mode restriction Notes in TS SRs
3.8.1.11, 3.8.1.16, 3.8.1.17, 3.8.1.19, 3.8.4.8, and 3.8.4.9 to
allow performance of the Surveillance in whole or in part to
reestablish Diesel Generator (DG) Operability, and to allow the
crediting of unplanned events that satisfy the Surveillance
Requirements. The emergency diesel generators and their associated
emergency loads are accident mitigating features, and are not an
initiator of any accident previously evaluated. As a result, the
probability of any accident previously evaluated is not
significantly increased. To manage any increase in risk, the
proposed changes require an assessment to verify that plant safety
will be maintained or enhanced by performance of the Surveillance in
the current prohibited Modes. The radiological consequences of an
accident previously evaluated during the period that the DG is being
tested to reestablish operability are no different from the
radiological consequences of an accident previously evaluated while
the DG is inoperable. As a result, the consequences of any accident
previously evaluated are not increased.
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 purpose of Surveillances is to verify that equipment is
capable of performing its assumed safety function. The proposed
changes will only allow the performance of the Surveillances to
reestablish operability, and the proposed changes may not be used to
remove a DG from service. In addition, the proposed changes will
potentially shorten the time that a DG is unavailable because
testing to reestablish operability can be performed without a plant
shutdown. The proposed changes also require an assessment to verify
that plant safety will be maintained or enhanced by performance of
the Surveillance in the current prohibited Modes.
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 B. Nolan, Deputy General Counsel, Duke
Energy Carolinas, LLC, 550 South Tryon Street--DEC45A, Charlotte, NC
28202-1802.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414, Catawba
Nuclear Station (CNS), Units 1 and 2, York County, South Carolina
Date of amendment request: December 15, 2016. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16350A422.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would modify
Technical Specification (TS) 3.9.5, ``Residual Heat Removal (RHR) and
Coolant Circulation--Low Water Level,'' to add Note 1 to the Limiting
Condition for Operation (LCO) Section of TS 3.9.5 to allow the securing
of the operating train of RHR for up to 15 minutes to support switching
operating trains. The allowance is restricted to three conditions: (a)
the core outlet temperature is maintained greater than 10 degrees
Fahrenheit below saturation temperature; (b) no operations are
permitted that would cause an introduction of coolant into the Reactor
Coolant System (RCS) with boron concentration less than that required
to meet the minimum required boron concentration of LCO 3.9.1; and (c)
no draining operations to further reduce RCS water volume are
permitted. Additionally, the amendments would modify the LCO Section of
TS 3.9.5 to add Note 2, which would allow one required RHR loop to be
inoperable for up to 2 hours for surveillance testing, provided that
the other RHR loop is operable and in operation. These proposed changes
are consistent with Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Traveler
TSTF-349-A, Revision 1, ``Add Note to LCO 3.9.5 Allowing Shutdown
Cooling Loops Removal from Operation''; TSTF-361-A, Revision 2, ``Allow
Standby SDC/RHR/DHR Loop to be Inoperable to Support Testing''; and
TSTF-438-A, Revision 0, ``Clarify Exception Notes to be Consistent with
the Requirement Being Excepted.''
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 add two notes to CNS TS LCO 3.9.5. Note 1
would allow securing the operating train of Residual Heat Removal
(RHR) for up to 15 minutes to support switching operating trains,
subject to certain restrictions. Note 2 to would allow one RHR loop
to be inoperable for up to 2 hours for surveillance testing provided
the other RHR loop is Operable and in operation. These provisions
are operational allowances. Neither operational allowance is an
initiator to any accident previously evaluated. In addition, the
proposed changes will not affect the source term, containment
isolation, or radiological release assumptions used in evaluating
the radiological consequences of any accident previously evaluated.
[[Page 19102]]
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.
An operational allowance is proposed which would allow securing
the operating train of RHR for up to 15 minutes to support switching
operating trains, subject to certain restrictions. Considering these
restrictions, combined with the short time frame allowed to swap
operating RHR trains, and the ability to start an operating RHR
train, if needed, the occurrence of an event that would require
immediate operation of an RHR train is extremely remote.
An operational allowance is also proposed which would allow one
RHR loop to be inoperable for up to 2 hours for surveillance testing
provided the other RHR loop is operable and in operation. A similar
allowance currently appears in CNS TS 3.4.7, ``Reactor Coolant
System (RCS) Loops--MODE 5, Loops Filled,'' and CNS TS 3.4.8, ``RCS
Loops--MODE 5, Loops Not Filled,'' and the conditions under which
the operational allowance would be applied in TS 3.9.5 are not
significantly different from those specifications. This operational
allowance provides the flexibility to perform surveillance testing,
while ensuring that there is reasonable time for operators to
respond to and mitigate any expected failures. The purpose of the
RHR System is to remove decay and sensible heat from the RCS, to
provide mixing of borated coolant, and to prevent boron
stratification. Removal of system components from service as
described above, and with limitations in place to maintain the
ability of the RHR System to perform its safety function, does not
significantly impact the margin of safety. Operators will continue
to have adequate time to respond to any off-normal events. Removing
the system from service, for a limited period of time, with other
operational restrictions, limits the consequences to those already
assumed in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR).
Therefore, the proposed changes do 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: Kate B. Nolan, Deputy General Counsel, Duke
Energy Carolinas, LLC, 550 South Tryon Street--DEC45A, Charlotte, NC
28202-1802.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50-397, Columbia Generating Station,
Benton County, Washington
Date of amendment request: July 12, 2016, as supplemented by letter
dated November 17, 2016. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS under
Accession Nos. ML16194A515, and ML16326A443, respectively.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
reduce the minimum reactor dome pressure associated with the critical
power correlation from 785 pounds per square inch gauge (psig) to 686
psig in Technical Specification (TS) 2.1.1, ``Reactor Core SLs [Safety
Limits],'' and associated bases.
The license amendment request was originally noticed in the Federal
Register on October 25, 2016 (81 FR 73433). The notice is being
reissued in its entirety to revise the proposed minimum reactor dome
pressure from 685 psig to 686 psig, based on the supplemental letter
dated November 16, 2017.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, with NRC edits in square brackets, which is presented
below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The change does not involve a modification of any plant
hardware; the probability and consequence of the Pressure Regulator
Failure Open (PRFO) transient are essentially unchanged. The
reduction in the reactor dome pressure safety limit (SL) from 785
psig to [686] psig provides greater margin to accommodate the
pressure reduction during the transient within the revised TS limit.
The proposed change will continue to support the validity range
for the correlations and the calculation of Minimum Core Power Ratio
(MCPR) as approved. The proposed TS revision involves no significant
changes to the operation of any systems or components in normal,
accident or transient operating conditions.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed reduction in the reactor dome pressure SL from 785
psig to [686] psig is a change based upon previously approved
documents and does not involve changes to the plant hardware or its
operating characteristics. As a result, no new failure modes are
being introduced.
Therefore, the change does not introduce a new or different kind
of accident from those previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The margin of safety is established through the design of the
plant structures, systems, and components, and through the
parameters for safe operation and setpoints for the actuation of
equipment relied upon to respond to transients and design basis
accidents. The proposed change in reactor dome pressure enhances the
safety margin, which protects the fuel cladding integrity during a
depressurization transient, but does not change the requirements
governing operation or availability of safety equipment assumed to
operate to preserve the margin of safety. The change does not alter
the behavior of plant equipment, which remains unchanged. The
available pressure range is expanded by the change, thus offering
greater margin for pressure reduction during the transient.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in the margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: William A. Horin, Esq., Winston & Strawn,
1700 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20006-3817.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-410, Nine Mile Point
Nuclear Station, Unit 2, Oswego County, New York
Date of amendment request: February 28, 2017. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17059C963.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the
Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 2, Technical Specifications (TSs)
by replacing existing requirements related to ``operations with a
potential for draining the reactor vessel'' with new requirements on
reactor pressure vessel
[[Page 19103]]
(RPV) water inventory control (WIC) to protect Safety Limit 2.1.1.3.
Safety Limit 2.1.1.3 requires RPV water level to be greater than the
top of active irradiated fuel. The proposed changes are based on
Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-542, Revision
2, ``Reactor Pressure Vessel Water Inventory Control'' (ADAMS Accession
No. ML16074A448).
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below, with NRC staff edits in square
brackets:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes replace existing TS requirements related to
OPDRVs [operation with potential to drain the reactor vessels] 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 changes reduce 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 event.
The current TS requirements are only mitigating actions and impose
no requirements that reduce the probability of an unexpected
draining event.
The proposed changes reduce 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 containment and/or
filtration would be available if needed.
The proposed changes 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 changes do not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes replace existing TS requirements related to
OPDRVs with new requirements on RPV WIC that will protect Safety
Limit 2.1.1.3. The proposed changes will not alter the design
function of the equipment involved. Under the proposed changes, 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
changes do 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 changes do not create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes replace 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 changes do not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel,
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL
60555.
NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-219, Oyster Creek Nuclear
Generating Station (OCNGS), Ocean County, New Jersey
Date of amendment request: February 28, 2017. A publicly-available
version is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17060A289.
Description of amendment request: The licensee proposes to revise
the site emergency plan to revise the on-shift staffing and the
emergency response organization (ERO) staffing for a permanently
defueled condition.
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 OCNGS Emergency Plan do not impact
the function of plant Structures, Systems, or Components (SSCs). The
proposed changes do not involve the modification of any plant
equipment or affect plant operation. The proposed changes do not
affect accident initiators or precursors, nor do the proposed
changes alter design assumptions. The proposed changes do not
prevent the ability of the on-shift staff and ERO to perform their
intended functions to mitigate the consequences of any accident or
event that will be credible in the permanently defueled condition.
The proposed changes only remove positions that will no longer be
needed or credited in the Emergency Plan in the permanently defueled
condition.
[[Page 19104]]
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes reduce the number of on-shift and ERO
positions commensurate with the hazards associated with a
permanently shutdown and defueled facility. The proposed changes do
not involve installation of new equipment or modification of
existing equipment, so that no new equipment failure modes are
introduced. Also, the proposed changes do not result in a change to
the way that the equipment or facility is operated so that no new
accident initiators are created.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
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. The proposed changes are
associated with the Emergency Plan and 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 the
proposed changes and margins of safety are maintained. The revised
Emergency Plan will continue to provide the necessary response staff
with the proposed changes.
Therefore, the proposed changes do 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: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel,
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL
60555.
NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.
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: February 24, 2017. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17055C352.
Description of amendment request: The requested amendment proposes
changes to the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report in the form of
departures from the plant-specific Design Control Document (DCD) Tier 2
information, and involves changes to related plant-specific DCD Tier 1
information, with corresponding changes to the associated Combined
License (COL) Appendix C information. In addition, revisions are
proposed to COL Appendix A, Technical Specifications. The proposed
changes revise the COLs concerning standardizing the Protection and
Safety Monitoring System (PMS) setpoint nomenclature. No changes are
proposed to setpoint values or PMS alarms and actuations.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below with the NRC staff's edits in
square brackets:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
No setpoint values or PMS actuations are proposed to be changed
by this activity. Nor are any values assumed in the safety analysis
changed. This is an administrative change to standardize the PMS
setpoint designators. The proposed amendment does not affect the
prevention and mitigation of abnormal events, e.g., accidents,
anticipated operation occurrences, earthquakes, floods, turbine
missiles, and fires or their safety or design analyses. This change
does not involve containment of radioactive isotopes or any adverse
effect on a fission product barrier. There is no impact on
previously evaluated accidents.
These proposed changes have no adverse impact on the support,
design, or operation of mechanical and fluid systems. The response
of systems to postulated accident conditions is not adversely
affected and remains within response time assumed in the accident
analysis. There is no change to the predicted radioactive releases
due to normal operation or postulated accident conditions.
Consequently, 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 changes do not involve a new failure mechanism or
malfunction, which affects an [structure, system, component (SSC)]
accident initiator, or interface with any SSC accident initiator or
initiating sequence of events considered in the design and licensing
bases. There is no adverse effect on radioisotope barriers or the
release of radioactive materials. The proposed amendment does not
adversely affect any accident, including the possibility of creating
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 type of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
No setpoint values or PMS actuations are proposed to be changed
by this activity. This is an administrative change to standardize
the PMS setpoint designators. The proposed changes would not affect
any safety-related design code, function, design analysis, safety
analysis input or result, or existing design/safety margin. No
safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is
challenged or exceeded by the requested changes.
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: March 15, 2017. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17074A597.
Description of amendment request: The amendment proposes to depart
from Tier 2 information in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report
(UFSAR) and involves changes to related plant-specific Tier 1
information, with corresponding changes to the associated Combined
License (COL) Appendix C information, to clarify text that currently
[[Page 19105]]
refers to raceways with an electrical classification (i.e., Class 1E/
non-Class 1E). This includes rewording multiple Inspections, Tests,
Analyses, and Acceptance Criteria (ITAAC) and UFSAR material to clarify
that any text referring to Class 1E or non-Class 1E raceways or raceway
systems is referring to raceways or raceway systems that route Class 1E
or non-Class 1E circuits.
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.
These proposed changes are for clarification and consistency. No
structure, system, or component (SSC) or function is changed within
this activity. There is no change to the application of regulatory
guides or industry standards to raceways or raceway systems, nor is
there a change to how they are designed, fabricated, procured or
installed. Raceway systems that route Class 1E circuits will
continue to be designated and designed as equipment Class C, safety-
related, and seismic Category I structures. The proposal to align
the text in COL Appendix C (and plant-specific Tier 1) Section 3.3
with the associated ITAAC is made for clarification and consistency
to reduce misinterpretation. The proposal to reword multiple ITAAC
in 3.3.00.07 does not change the intent of the ITAAC, nor is the
ITAAC scope or closure method impacted.
The proposed amendment does not affect the prevention and
mitigation of abnormal events; e.g., accidents, anticipated
operation occurrences, earthquakes, floods, turbine missiles, and
fires or their safety or design analyses. This change does not
involve containment of radioactive isotopes or any adverse effect on
a fission product barrier. There is no impact on previously
evaluated accidents.
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 do not involve a new failure mechanism or
malfunction, which affects an SSC accident initiator, or interface
with any SSC accident initiator or initiating sequence of events
considered in the design and licensing bases. There is no adverse
effect on radioisotope barriers or the release of radioactive
materials. The proposed amendment does not adversely affect any
accident, including the possibility of creating a new or different
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
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.
These proposed changes are for clarification and consistency to
reduce misinterpretation. No SSC or function is changed within this
activity. There is no change to the application of regulatory guides
or industry standards to raceways or raceway systems, nor is there a
change to how they are designed, fabricated, procured or installed.
Raceway systems that route Class 1E circuits will continue to be
designated and designed as Equipment Class C, safety-related, and
seismic Category I.
The proposed changes would not affect any safety-related design
code, function, design analysis, safety analysis input or result, or
existing design/safety margin. No safety analysis or design basis
acceptance limit/criterion is challenged or exceeded by the
requested changes.
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: March 8, 2017. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17067A517.
Description of amendment request: The amendment request consists of
changes to Combined License (COL) Appendix C (and corresponding changes
to plant-specific Tier 1) information. Specifically, the amendment
request involves changes to revise the raceway separation requirements
in the Main Control Room (MCR) and Remote Shutdown Room (RSR) to
provide consistency with Tier 2 information in the plant-specific
Design Control Document (DCD). 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 DCD 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 Updated Final
Safety Analysis Report (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.
[[Page 19106]]
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, 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: M. Stanford Blanton, Balch & Bingham LLP,
1710 Sixth Avenue, North, Birmingham, AL 35203-2015.
NRC Branch Chief: Jennifer Dixon-Herrity.
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
Date of amendment request: January 17, 2017. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17018A149.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the
Technical Specifications (TSs) to eliminate the ``Inservice Testing
Program,'' contained in TS Section 5.5.6 and replace the program with a
new defined term, ``Inservice Testing Program,'' in the TS Definitions
section. This revision would be consistent with Technical
Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-545, Revision 3, ``TS
Inservice Testing Program Removal & Clarify SR Usage Rule Application
to Section 5.5 Testing.'' Additionally, Tennessee Valley Authority
requested implementation of TSTF-299, Revision 0, ``Administrative
Controls Program 5.5.2.b Test Interval and Exception,'' which clarifies
the intent of refueling cycle intervals with respect to the system leak
test requirements (i.e., 24 month intervals) and would add the
following sentence, ``The provisions of SR 3.0.2 are applicable,'' to
TS 5.5.2.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
TSTF 545, ``TS Inservice Testing Program Removal & Clarify SR
Usage Rule Application to Section 5.5 Testing,'' Revision 3:
The proposed change revises TS Chapter 5, ``Administrative
Controls,'' Section 5.5, ``Programs and Manuals,'' by eliminating
the ``Inservice Testing Program'' specification. Most requirements
in the Inservice Testing Program are removed, as they are
duplicative of requirements in the [American Society of Mechanical
Engineers] (ASME) [Operation and Maintenance] (OM) Code, as
clarified by Code Case OMN-20, ``Inservice Test Frequency.'' The
remaining requirements in the Section 5.5 IST Program are eliminated
because the NRC has determined their inclusion in the TS is contrary
to regulations. A new defined term, ``Inservice Testing Program,''
is added to the TS, which references the requirements of 10 CFR
50.55a(f).
Performance of inservice testing is not an initiator to any
accident previously evaluated. As a result, the probability of
occurrence of an accident is not significantly affected by the
proposed change. Inservice test frequencies under Code Case OMN-20
are equivalent to the current testing period allowed by the TS with
the exception that testing frequencies greater than 2 years may be
extended by up to 6 months to facilitate test scheduling and
consideration of plant operating conditions that may not be suitable
for performance of the required testing. The testing frequency
extension will not affect the ability of the components to mitigate
any accident previously evaluated as the components are required to
be operable during the testing period extension. Performance of
inservice tests utilizing the allowances in OMN-20 will not
significantly affect the reliability of the tested components. As a
result, the availability of the affected components, as well as
their ability to mitigate the consequences of accidents previously
evaluated, is not affected.
TSTF-299, ``Administrative Controls Program 5.5.2.b Test
Interval and Exception,'' Revision 0:
The proposed change affects only the interval at which system
leak tests are performed, not the effectiveness of the system leak
test requirements. Revising the system leak test requirements from
``at refueling cycle intervals or less'' to ``at least once per 24
months'' is considered to be an administrative change because BFN
Units 1, 2, and 3 operate on 24-month fuel cycles. Incorporation of
the allowance to extend the 24-month interval by 25%, as allowed by
Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.0.2, does not significantly degrade
the reliability that results from performing the Surveillance at its
specified Frequency.
Test intervals are not considered as initiators of any accident
previously evaluated. As a result, the probability of any accident
previously evaluated is not significantly increased by the proposed
amendment. Technical Specification (TS) 5.5.2 continues to require
the performance of periodic system leak tests. Therefore, accident
analysis assumptions will still be verified. As a result, the
consequences of any accident previously evaluated are not
significantly increased.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
TSTF 545, ``TS Inservice Testing Program Removal & Clarify SR
Usage Rule Application to Section 5.5 Testing,'' Revision 3:
The proposed change does not alter the design or configuration
of the plant. The proposed change does not involve a physical
alteration of the plant; no new or different kind of equipment will
be installed. The proposed change does not alter the types of
inservice testing performed. In most cases, the frequency of
inservice testing is unchanged. However, the frequency of testing
would not result in a new or different kind of accident from any
previously evaluated since the testing methods are not altered.
TSTF-299, ``Administrative Controls Program 5.5.2.b Test
Interval and Exception,'' Revision 0:
The proposed change affects only the interval at which system
leak tests are performed; they do not alter the design or physical
configuration of the plant. No changes are being made to BFN Units
1, 2, or 3 that would introduce any new accident causal mechanisms.
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.
TSTF 545, ``TS Inservice Testing Program Removal & Clarify SR
Usage Rule Application to Section 5.5 Testing,'' Revision 3:
The proposed change eliminates some requirements from the TS in
lieu of requirements in the ASME Code, as modified by use of Code
Case OMN-20. Compliance with the ASME Code is required by 10 CFR
50.55a. The proposed change also allows inservice tests with
frequencies greater than 2 years to be extended by 6 months to
facilitate test scheduling and consideration of plant operating
conditions that may not be suitable for performance of the required
testing. The testing frequency extension will not affect the ability
of the components to respond to an accident as the components are
required to be operable during the testing period extension. The
proposed change will eliminate the existing TS SR 3.0.3 allowance to
defer performance of missed inservice tests up to the duration of
the specified testing frequency, and instead will require an
[[Page 19107]]
assessment of the missed test on equipment operability. This
assessment will consider the effect on a margin of safety (equipment
operability). Should the component be inoperable, the Technical
Specifications provide actions to ensure that the margin of safety
is protected. The proposed change also eliminates a statement that
nothing in the ASME Code should be construed to supersede the
requirements of any TS. The NRC has determined that statement to be
incorrect. However, elimination of the statement will have no effect
on plant operation or safety.
TSTF-299, ``Administrative Controls Program 5.5.2.b Test
Interval and Exception,'' Revision 0:
The proposed change does not change the design or function of
plant equipment. The proposed change does not significantly reduce
the level of assurance that any plant equipment will be available to
perform its function. The proposed change provides operating
flexibility without significantly affecting plant operation.
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: General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority,
400 West Summit Hill Dr., WT 6A, Knoxville, TN 37902.
NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin G. Beasley.
III. Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses
and Combined Licenses
During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice,
the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has
determined for each of these amendments that the application complies
with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,
as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The
Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the
Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR chapter I, which are set
forth in the license amendment.
A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility
operating license or combined license, as applicable, proposed no
significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a
hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the Federal
Register as indicated.
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that
these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in
accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b),
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be
prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an
environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in
10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment,
it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the action see (1) the
applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's
related letter, Safety Evaluation, and/or Environmental Assessment as
indicated. All of these items can be accessed as described in the
``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' section of this
document.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370, McGuire
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Date of amendment request: June 30, 2016, as supplemented by letter
dated December 8, 2016.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments modified the
McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Technical Specification 3.6.14,
``Divider Barrier Integrity,'' to revise Condition D to allow either
one steam generator enclosure hatch or pressurizer enclosure hatch to
be open for up to 48 hours.
Date of issuance: March 27, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 294 (Unit 1) and 273 (Unit 2). A publicly available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17060A481; documents related
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with
the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-9 and NPF-17:
Amendments revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical
Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 3, 2017 (83 FR
158). The supplemental letter dated December 8, 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 March 27, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Duke Energy Florida, LLC (DEF), et al., Docket No. 50-302, Crystal
River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant (CR-3), Citrus County, Florida
Date of amendment request: May 25, 2016.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment approved the
Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI)-Only Emergency Plan
and ISFSI-Only Emergency Action Level Bases Manual, Revision 0, for the
CR-3 SAFSTOR Period with Spent Fuel on Site.
Date of issuance: March 22, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date Duke Energy Florida, LLC submits
written notification that all spent nuclear fuel has been transferred
from the spent fuel pool to the ISFSI and shall be implemented within
60 days.
Amendment No.: 253. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML17048A473; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Facility Operating License No. DPR-72: This amendment revises the
Facility Operating License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 19, 2016 (81 FR
46961).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 22, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-333, James A.
FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant, Oswego County, New York
Date of amendment request: August 18, 2016, as supplemented by
letter dated November 29, 2016.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment modified the Renewed
Facility Operating License to reflect the license transfer from Entergy
Nuclear FitzPatrick, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. to Exelon
Generation Company, LLC.
Date of issuance: March 31, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 314. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML17082A283.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-59: Amendment revised
the Renewed Facility Operating License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 15, 2016 (81
FR 63500). The supplemental letter dated November 29, 2016, provided
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand
the scope of the application as originally noticed,
[[Page 19108]]
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 31, 2017.
Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-368, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit
2, Pope County, Arkansas
Date of amendment request: March 25, 2016, as supplemented by
letter dated December 7, 2016.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment deleted Technical
Specification (TS) 6.5.8, ``Inservice Testing Program.'' A new defined
term, ``Inservice Testing Program,'' is added to TS Section 1.0,
``Definitions.'' Also, existing uses of the term ``Inservice Testing
Program'' in the TSs are capitalized throughout to indicate that it is
now a defined term. The NRC staff has concluded that the amendment is
consistent with Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler
TSTF-545, Revision 3, ``TS Inservice Testing Program Removal & Clarify
SR Usage Rule Application to Section 5.5 Testing,'' which was made
available to the TSTF by NRC letter dated December 11, 2015 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML15317A071).
Date of issuance: March 29, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 305. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML16215A371; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-51: Amendment revised
the Renewed Facility Operating License and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 7, 2016 (81 FR
36618). The supplemental letter dated December 7, 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 29, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC and PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-277
and 50-278, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3, York and
Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: November 4, 2016, as supplemented by
letters dated December 7, 2016, and March 13, 2017.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the
Allowable Value for the Turbine Condenser--Low Vacuum scram function
specified in Technical Specification Table 3.3.1.1-1, ``Reactor
Protection System Instrumentation.''
Date of issuance: April 3, 2017.
Effective dates: For Unit 2, the amendment is effective as of its
date of issuance and shall be implemented prior to startup from
refueling outage P2R22, which is scheduled for completion in the fall
of 2018. For Unit 3, the amendment is effective as of its date of
issuance and shall be implemented prior to startup from refueling
outage P3R21, which is scheduled for completion in the fall of 2017.
Amendments Nos.: 312 (Unit 2) and 316 (Unit 3). A publicly-
available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17052A692;
documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety
Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-44 and DPR-56: The
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 3, 2017 (82 FR
159). The supplemental letter dated March 13, 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 April 3, 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 16, 2016.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Limerick
Generating Station, Unit 2, Technical Specifications related to the
safety limit minimum critical power ratio. The changes result from a
cycle-specific analysis performed to support the operation of Limerick
Generating Station, Unit 2, in the upcoming Cycle 15.
Date of issuance: March 29, 2017.
Effective date: Shall be implemented prior to startup from the
spring 2017 refueling outage.
Amendment No.: 186. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML17024A089; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-85: Amendment revised
the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 7, 2017 (82 FR
9605).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 29, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Florida Power & Light Company, et al., Docket No. 50-389, St. Lucie
Plant, Unit No. 2, St. Lucie County, Florida
Date of amendment request: June 21, 2016, as supplemented by letter
dated December 5, 2016.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment updated the Technical
Specifications to revise the emergency diesel generator engine-mounted
fuel tank minimum volume from 200 gallons of fuel each to 238 gallons
of fuel each.
Date of issuance: March 29, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 188. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML17038A225; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-16: Amendment revised
the Renewed Facility Operating License and Appendix A.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 2, 2016 (81 FR
50733). The supplemental letter dated December 5, 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 29, 2017.
[[Page 19109]]
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Indiana Michigan Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-315 and 50-316, Donald
C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Berrien County, Michigan
Date of amendment request: November 19, 2015, as supplemented by
letter dated February 4, 2016, two letters dated June 16, 2016, and
letters dated September 9, 2016, and November 3, 2016.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the Donald
C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Technical Specifications by
relocating specific surveillance frequencies to a licensee-controlled
program consistent with the NRC-approved Technical Specifications Task
Force (TSTF) Improved Standard Technical Specifications Change Traveler
TSTF-425, Revision 3, ``Relocate Surveillance Frequencies to Licensee
Control--RITSTF Initiative 5b.''
Date of issuance: March 31, 2017.
Effective date: The amendments are effective as of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented within 120 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 334 (Unit 1) and 316 (Unit 2). A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17045A150; documents related
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with
the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-58 and DPR-74: The
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 19, 2016 (81 FR
2918). The supplemental letters dated February 4, 2016, two letters
dated June 16, 2016, and letters dated September 9, 2016, and 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 31, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Nebraska Public Power District, Docket No. 50-298, Cooper Nuclear
Station (CNS), Nemaha County, Nebraska
Date of amendment request: March 22, 2016, as supplemented by two
letters dated December 7, 2016.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Cooper
Nuclear Station Technical Specifications by relocating specific
surveillance frequencies to a licensee-controlled program consistent
with the NRC-approved Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF)
Improved Standard Technical Specifications Change Traveler TSTF-425,
Revision 3, ``Relocate Surveillance Frequencies to Licensee Control--
RITSTF [Risk-Informed TSTF] Initiative 5b'' (ADAMS Accession No.
ML090850642).
Date of issuance: March 31, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 258. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML17061A050; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-46: Amendment revised
the Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 24, 2016 (81 FR
32807). The two supplemental letters dated December 7, 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 31, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
NextEra Energy Duane Arnold, LLC, Docket No. 50-331, Duane Arnold
Energy Center, Linn County, Iowa
Date of amendment request: March 15, 2016, as supplemented by
letters dated September 21, 2016, and December 27, 2016.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Duane
Arnold Energy Center Technical Specification (TS) 4.3.1, ``Fuel
Storage, Criticality,'' and TS 4.3.3, ``Fuel Storage, Capacity,'' to
ensure that spent fuel pool maintains compliance with NRC
subcriticality requirements for the storage racks manufactured by
Programmed and Remote Systems Corporation (PaR). The amendment also
adds a new requirement in TS 5.5, ``Program and Manuals,'' for a spent
fuel pool neutron absorber monitoring program.
Date of issuance: March 30, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 299. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML17072A232; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-49: The amendment
revised the TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 5, 2016 (81 FR
43665). The supplemental letters dated September 21, 2016, and December
27, 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 30, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
NextEra Energy Duane Arnold, LLC, Docket No. 50-331, Duane Arnold
Energy Center, Linn County, Iowa
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
NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC, Docket No. 50-443, Seabrook Station, Unit
No. 1, Rockingham County, New Hampshire
Florida Power & Light Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389,
St. Lucie Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, St. Lucie County, Florida
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: July 28, 2016, as supplemented by letter
dated December 15, 2016.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the
Technical Specifications consistent with Technical Specification Task
Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-545, Revision 3, ``TS Inservice Testing
Program Removal & Clarify SR Usage Rule Application to Section 5.5
Testing'' (ADAMS Accession No. ML15294A555).
Date of issuance: April 7, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 120 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos: 300, 259, 263, 154, 238, 189, 274, and 269. A
publicly-
[[Page 19110]]
available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17027A078;
documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety
Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
Facility or Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-49, DPR-24,
DPR-27, NPF-86, DPR-67, NPF-16, DPR-31, and DPR-41: Amendments revised
the Facility or Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and Technical
Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 11, 2016 (81 FR
70180). The supplemental letter dated December 15, 2016, provided
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change
the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated April 7, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Omaha Public Power District, Docket No. 50-285, Fort Calhoun Station,
Unit No. 1 (FCS), Washington County, Nebraska
Date of amendment request: November 18, 2016.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment deleted License
Condition 3.D, ``Fire Protection Program,'' which requires that FCS
implement and maintain a fire protection program that complies with the
requirements of 10 CFR 50.48(a) and 10 CFR 50.48(c). Since power
operations are terminated at FCS and the reactor is permanently
defueled, FCS will maintain a fire protection program in accordance
with 10 CFR 50.48(f).
Date of issuance: April 7, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 290. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML17053A099; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-40: The amendment
revised the License Condition.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 17, 2017 (82 FR
4931).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated April 7, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
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: July 11, 2016.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments authorized changes
to the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3, Updated Final
Safety Analysis Report in the form of departures from the incorporated
plant-specific Design Control Document Tier 2 information and involves
changes to Combined License Appendix A Technical Specifications and
associated Bases. The changes add compensation to the reactor coolant
flow input signal to the Reactor Trip System instrumentation for the
low reactor coolant flow reactor trip function and add Technical
Specification Surveillance Requirement 3.3.1.3 to the surveillances
required for the Reactor Coolant Flow-Low reactor trip.
Date of issuance: March 20, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 65. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML17040A224; documents related to these amendments are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
Facility Combined Licenses No. NPF-93 and NPF-94: Amendments
revised the Facility Combined Licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 16, 2016 (81 FR
54610).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 20, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
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: June 16, 2016, as revised by letters
dated July 7, 2016; August 16, 2016; and October 24, 2016, and as
supplemented by letter dated December 21, 2016.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments authorized changes
to the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3, Updated Final
Safety Analysis Report in the form of departures from the incorporated
plant-specific Design Control Document Tier 2* and Tier 2 information.
The changes are related to the design of selected auxiliary building
floors, including finned floors, CA20 module floors, and precast panel
floors; main control room and instrumentation and control room
ceilings; and the location of heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning ducts in the main control room floor, as well as the
number of supporting steel plates. General changes include various
notes that explain the extent of variations in the specific design of
these structures.
Date of issuance: March 28, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 67. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML17040A104; documents related to these amendments are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
Facility Combined Licenses No. NPF-93 and NPF-94: Amendments
revised the Facility Combined Licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 2, 2016 (81 FR
50729). By letter dated August 16, 2016, the licensee provided
additional information that expanded the scope of the amendment request
as originally noticed in the Federal Register. Accordingly, the NRC
published a second proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination in the Federal Register on September 2, 2016 (81 FR
60749), which superseded the original notice in its entirety. The
supplemental letters dated October 16, 2016, and December 21, 2016,
provided additional information that clarified the application, did not
expand the scope of the application request as noticed on September 2,
2016, and did not change the staff's proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination as published in the Federal Register on
September 2, 2016.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 28, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026,
Vogtle ElectricGenerating Plant, Units 3 and 4, Burke County, Georgia
Date of amendment request: June 14, 2016, as revised by letters
dated July 1, 2016; August 12, 2016; and October 12, 2016, and as
supplemented by letter dated December 16, 2016.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments authorized changes
to the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4, Updated Final
Safety Analysis Report in the form of departures from the incorporated
plant specific Design Control Document Tier 2* and Tier 2 information.
The changes are related to the design of selected auxiliary building
floors, including finned floors, CA20
[[Page 19111]]
module floors, and precast panel floors; main control room and
instrumentation and control room ceilings; and the location of heating,
ventilation, and air conditioning ducts in the main control room floor,
as well as the number of supporting steel plates. General changes
include various notes that explain the extent of variations in the
specific design of these structures.
Date of issuance: March 27, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 75 (Unit 3) and 74 (Unit 4). A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17037D024; documents related
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with
the amendments.
Facility Combined Licenses No. NPF-91 and NPF-92: Amendments
revised the Facility Combined Licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 2, 2016 (81 FR
50738). By letter dated August 12, 2016, the licensee provided
additional information that expanded the scope of the amendment request
as originally noticed in the Federal Register. Accordingly, the NRC
published a second proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination in the Federal Register on September 13, 2016 (81 FR
62932), which superseded the original notice in its entirety. The
supplemental letters dated October 12, 2016, and December 16, 2016,
provided additional information that clarified the application, did not
expand the scope of the application request as noticed on September 13,
2016, and did not change the staff's proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination as published in the Federal Register on
September 13, 2016.
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 No. 50-391, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant,
Unit 2, Rhea County, Tennessee
Date of amendment request: November 23, 2016, as supplemented by
letter dated February 16, 2017.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical
Specification Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.0.2 to extend, on a one-
time basis, SRs listed in Attachments 8, 10, and 11 to Enclosure 1 of
the application that are normally performed on an 18-month frequency in
conjunction with a refueling outage. The change extends the due date
for these SRs to October 31, 2017, which allows these SRs to be
performed during the first refueling outage for the Watts Bar Nuclear
Plant, Unit 2.
Date of issuance: April 7, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 7 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 10. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML17074A501; 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: January 17, 2017 (82 FR
4932). The supplemental letter dated February 16, 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 April 7, 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: June 7, 2016.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised an expired
footnote in WBN, Unit 1, Technical Specification (TS) 3.7.11, and
corrects several editorial inconsistencies in the TS Applicability
statements for WBN, Units 1 and 2. Additionally, WBN, Unit 2, TS
3.7.10, Actions, are amended to include a new TS Condition, which
specifies shutdown Required Actions and associated Completion Time when
TS Condition E is not met (i.e., two CREVS [control room emergency
ventilation system] trains are inoperable for longer than allowed due
to actions taken because of a tornado warning).
Date of issuance: March 28, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 112 (Unit 1) and 9 (Unit 2). A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16330A347; documents related
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with
the amendments.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-90 and NPF-96: The amendments
revised the Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 2, 2016 (81 FR
50740).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 28, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 13th day of April 2017.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Eric J. Benner,
Deputy Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of
Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2017-08115 Filed 4-24-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P