[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 146 (Tuesday, August 1, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35835-35844]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-15986]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2017-0169]
Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility
Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant
Hazards Considerations
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Biweekly notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 189a. (2) of the Atomic Energy Act of
1954, as amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC) is publishing this regular biweekly notice. The Act requires the
Commission to publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to
be issued, and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make
immediately effective any amendment to an operating license or combined
license, as applicable, upon a determination by the Commission that
such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration,
notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a
hearing from any person.
This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or
proposed to be issued, from July 4, 2017 to July 17, 2017. The last
biweekly notice was published on July 18, 2017.
DATES: Comments must be filed by August 31, 2017. A request for a
hearing must be filed by October 2, 2017.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods
(unless this document describes a different method for submitting
comments on a specific subject):
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2017-0169. 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: TWFN-8-D36M, 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: Paula Blechman, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2242, email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments
A. Obtaining Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0169, 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-2017-0169.
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-2017-0169, 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.
[[Page 35836]]
II. Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility
Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses and Proposed No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under
the Commission's regulations in Sec. 50.92 of title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (10 CFR), this means that operation of the facility
in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated, or (2) create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or
(3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis
for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown
below.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final
determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period if circumstances change during the 30-day comment
period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for
example in derating or shutdown of the facility. If the Commission
takes action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or
the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a notice of
issuance. If the Commission makes a final no significant hazards
consideration determination, any hearing will take place after
issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will
occur very infrequently.
A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing and Petition for Leave To Intervene
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any
persons (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by this action may
file a request for a hearing and petition for leave to intervene
(petition) with respect to the action. Petitions shall be filed in
accordance with the Commission's ``Agency Rules of Practice and
Procedure'' in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult a
current copy of 10 CFR 2.309. The NRC's regulations are accessible
electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. Alternatively, a copy of
the regulations is available at the NRC's Public Document Room, located
at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first
floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. If a petition is filed, the
Commission or a presiding officer will rule on the petition and, if
appropriate, a notice of a hearing will be issued.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309(d) the petition should specifically
explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with
particular reference to the following general requirements for
standing: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the
petitioner; (2) the nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to
be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the
petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding;
and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be
entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f), the petition must also set
forth the specific contentions which the petitioner seeks to have
litigated in the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific
statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In
addition, the petitioner must provide a brief explanation of the bases
for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or
expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner
intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The
petitioner must also provide references to the specific sources and
documents on which the petitioner intends to rely to support its
position on the issue. The petition must include sufficient information
to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant or licensee on
a material issue of law or fact. Contentions must be limited to matters
within the scope of the proceeding. The contention must be one which,
if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner who
fails to satisfy the requirements at 10 CFR 2.309(f) with respect to at
least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding,
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene.
Parties have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the
hearing with respect to resolution of that party's admitted
contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence, consistent
with the NRC's regulations, policies, and procedures.
Petitions must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of
publication of this notice. Petitions and motions for leave to file new
or amended contentions that are filed after the deadline will not be
entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the
filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10
CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i) through (iii). The petition must be filed in
accordance with the filing instructions in the ``Electronic Submissions
(E-Filing)'' section of this document.
If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the
Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no
significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve
to establish when the hearing is held. If the final determination is
that the 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 no later
than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. 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
[[Page 35837]]
its boundaries. Alternatively, a State, local governmental body,
Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof may participate as
a non-party under 10 CFR 2.315(c).
If a hearing is granted, any person who is not a party to the
proceeding and is not affiliated with or represented by a party may, at
the discretion of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited
appearance pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person
making a limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of
his or her position on the issues but may not otherwise participate in
the proceeding. A limited appearance may be made at any session of the
hearing or at any prehearing conference, subject to the limits and
conditions as may be imposed by the presiding officer. Details
regarding the opportunity to make a limited appearance will be provided
by the presiding officer if such sessions are scheduled.
B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a
request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition), any
motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the
submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and
documents filed by interested governmental entities that request to
participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the
NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007, as amended at 77 FR
46562, August 3, 2012). The E-Filing process requires participants to
submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in
some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Detailed
guidance on making electronic submissions may be found in the Guidance
for Electronic Submissions to the NRC and on the NRC's Web site at
http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants may not
submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in
accordance with the procedures described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10
days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the
Office of the Secretary by email at [email protected], or by
telephone at 301-415-1677, to (1) request a digital identification (ID)
certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or
representative) to digitally sign submissions and access the E-Filing
system for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise
the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a petition or
other adjudicatory document (even in instances in which the
participant, or its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-
issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the
Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the hearing in this
proceeding if the Secretary has not already established an electronic
docket.
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is
available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/getting-started.html. Once a participant has obtained a
digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant
can then submit adjudicatory documents. Submissions must be in Portable
Document Format (PDF). Additional guidance on PDF submissions is
available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/electronic-sub-ref-mat.html. A filing is considered complete at the
time the document is submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be
timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system
no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of
a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends
the submitter an email notice confirming receipt of the document. The
E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access
to the document to the NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any
others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to
participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the
document on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and
other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for
and receive a digital ID certificate before adjudicatory documents are
filed so that they can obtain access to the documents via the E-Filing
system.
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-
Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC's Electronic
Filing Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC's
public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by
email to [email protected], or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-
7640. The NRC Electronic Filing Help Desk is available between 9 a.m.
and 6 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government
holidays.
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not
submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in
accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing
stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and
requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper
format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention:
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or
expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and
Adjudications Staff. Participants filing adjudicatory documents in this
manner are responsible for serving the document on all other
participants. Filing is 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
[[Page 35838]]
information related to this document, see the ``Obtaining Information
and Submitting Comments'' section of this document.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-317 and 50-318, Calvert
Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Calvert County, Maryland
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 72-8, Calvert Cliffs
Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation, Calvert County, Maryland
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-220 and 50-410, Nine
Mile Point Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Oswego County, New York
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-244, R.E. Ginna Nuclear
Power Plant, Wayne County, New York
Date of amendment request: May 31, 2017. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Package Accession No. ML17164A149.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the
emergency plans for each facility by changing the emergency action
level (EAL) schemes. The proposed changes are based on the Nuclear
Energy Institute's (NEI's) guidance in NEI 99-01, Revision 6,
``Development of Emergency Action Levels for Non-Passive Reactors,''
which was endorsed by the NRC by letter dated March 28, 2013 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML12346A463).
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 Exelon's EAL schemes to adopt the NRC-
endorsed guidance in NEI 99-01, Revision 6, do not reduce the
capability to meet the emergency planning requirements established
in 10 CFR 50.47 and 10 CFR part 50, appendix E. The proposed changes
do not reduce the functionality, performance, or capability of
Exelon's ERO [emergency response organization] to respond in
mitigating the consequences of any design basis accident. The
probability of a reactor accident requiring implementation of
Emergency Plan EALs has no relevance in determining whether the
proposed changes to the EALs reduce the effectiveness of the
Emergency Plans. As discussed in Section D, ``Planning Basis,'' of
NUREG-0654, Revision 1, ``Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of
Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of
Nuclear Power Plants'';
. . . The overall objective of emergency response plans is to
provide dose savings (and in some cases immediate life saving) for a
spectrum of accidents that could produce offsite doses in excess of
Protective Action Guides (PAGs). No single specific accident
sequence should be isolated as the one for which to plan because
each accident could have different consequences, both in nature and
degree. Further, the range of possible selection for a planning
basis is very large, starting with a zero point of requiring no
planning at all because significant offsite radiological accident
consequences are unlikely to occur, to planning for the worst
possible accident, regardless of its extremely low likelihood. . . .
Therefore, Exelon did not consider the risk insights regarding
any specific accident initiation or progression in evaluating the
proposed changes.
The proposed changes do not involve any physical changes to
plant equipment or systems, nor do they alter the assumptions of any
accident analyses. The proposed changes do not adversely affect
accident initiators or precursors nor do they alter the design
assumptions, conditions, and configuration or the manner in which
the plants are operated and maintained. The proposed changes do not
adversely affect the ability of Structures, Systems, or Components
(SSCs) to perform their intended safety functions in mitigating the
consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance
limits.
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 to Exelon's EAL schemes to adopt the NRC-
endorsed guidance in NEI 99-01, Revision 6, do not involve any
physical changes to plant systems or equipment. The proposed changes
do not involve the addition of any new plant equipment. The proposed
changes will not alter the design configuration, or method of
operation of plant equipment beyond its normal functional
capabilities. All Exelon ERO functions will continue to be performed
as required. The proposed changes do not create any new credible
failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident initiators.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from those that have been
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to Exelon's EAL schemes to adopt the NRC-
endorsed guidance in NEI 99-01, Revision 6, do not alter or exceed a
design basis or safety limit. There is no change being made to
safety analysis assumptions, safety limits, or limiting safety
system settings that would adversely affect plant safety as a result
of the proposed changes.
There are no changes to setpoints or environmental conditions of
any SSC or the manner in which any SSC is operated. Margins of
safety are unaffected by the proposed changes to adopt the NEI 99-
01, Revision 6 EAL scheme guidance. The applicable requirements of
10 CFR 50.47 and 10 CFR part 50, appendix E will continue to be met.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve any reduction in
a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
requested amendments involve no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel,
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL
60555.
NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-237 and 50-249, Dresden
Nuclear Power Station (DNPS), Units 2 and 3, Grundy County, Illinois
Date of amendment request: May 3, 2017. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17123A104.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise the DNPS, Units 2 and 3, technical specifications by replacing
the existing specifications related to Regulatory Guide 1.163,
``Performance-Based Containment Leak-Test Program,'' with a reference
to Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 94-01, ``Industry Guideline for
Implementing Performance-Based Option of 10 CFR part 50, appendix J,''
Revision 3-A, and the conditions and limitations specified in NEI 94-
01, Revision 2-A, as the documents used by DNPS to implement the
performance-based leakage testing program in accordance with Option B
of 10 CFR part 50, appendix J.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed activity involves revision of the Dresden Nuclear
Power Station (DNPS) Technical Specification (TS) 5.5. 12. ``Primary
Containment Leakage Rate Testing Program,'' to allow the extension
of the DNPS, Units 2 and 3. Type A containment integrated leakage
rate test (ILRT) interval to
[[Page 35839]]
15 years, and the extension of the Type C local leakage rate test
interval to 75 months. The current Type A test interval of 120
months (i.e., 10 years) would be extended on a permanent basis to no
longer than 15 years from the last Type A test. The existing Type C
test interval of 60 months for selected components would be extended
on a performance basis to no longer than 75 months. Extensions of up
to nine months (i.e., total maximum interval of 84 months for Type C
tests) are permissible only for non-routine emergent conditions.
The proposed extension does not involve either a physical
change to the plant or a change in the manner in which the plant is
operated or controlled. The containment is designed to provide an
essentially leak tight barrier against the uncontrolled release of
radioactivity to the environment for postulated accidents. As
such,the containment and the testing requirements invoked to
periodically demonstrate the integrity of the containment exist to
ensure the plant's ability to mitigate the consequences of an
accident, and do not involve the prevention or identification of any
precursors of an accident.
The change in dose risk for changing the Type A, ILRT interval
from three-per-ten years to once-per-fifteen-years, measured as an
increase to the total integrated dose risk for all internal events
accident sequences for DNPS, is 4.26E-02 person-roentgen equivalent
man (rem)/year (0.27 percent (%)) using the Electric Power Research
Institute (EPR) guidance with the base case corrosion included. The
change in dose risk drops to 1.14E-02 person-rem/year (i.e., 0.07%)
when using the EPRI Expert Elicitation methodology. The values
calculated per the EPRI guidance are all lower than the acceptance
criteria of less than or equal to 1.0 person-rem/year or less than
1.0% person-rem/year defined in Section 1.3 of Attachment 3 to this
LAR (license amendment request).
Therefore, this proposed extension does not involve a
significant increase in the probability of an accident previously
evaluated.
As documented in NUREG-1493, ``Performance-Based Containment
Leak-Test Program,'' dated January 1995, Types B and C tests have
identified a very large percentage of containment leakage paths, and
the percentage of containment leakage paths that are detected only
by Type A testing is very small. The DNPS, Units 2 and 3 Type A test
history supports this conclusion.
The integrity of the containment is subject to two types of
failure mechanisms that can be categorized as: (1) Activity based,
and, (2) time based. Activity based failure mechanisms are defined
as degradation due to system and/or component modifications or
maintenance. Local leak rate test requirements and administrative
controls such as configuration management and procedural
requirements for system restoration ensure that containment
integrity is not degraded by plant modifications or maintenance
activities. The design and construction requirements of the
containment combined with the containment inspections performed in
accordance with American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)
Section XI, and TS requirements serve to provide a high degree of
assurance that the containment would not degrade in a manner that is
detectable only by a Type A test. Based on the above, the proposed
test interval extensions do not significantly increase the
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed amendment also deletes an exception previously
granted in License Amendments Nos. 210 and 202 for DNPS, Units 2 and
3, respectively, to allow one-time extensions of the ILRT test
frequency. This exception was for an activity that has already taken
place; therefore, this deletion is solely a non-technical, editorial
change that does not result in any alteration in how DNPS, Units 2
and 3 are operated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not result in a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment to TS 5.5.12 involves the extension of
the DNPS, Units 2 and 3 Type A containment test interval to 15 years
and the extension of the Type C test interval to 75 months. The
containment and the testing requirements to periodically demonstrate
the integrity of the containment exist to ensure the plant's ability
to mitigate the consequences of an accident.
The proposed change does not involve a physical modification to
the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be
installed), nor does it alter the design, configuration, or change
the manner in which the plant is operated or controlled beyond the
standard functional capabilities of the equipment.
The proposed amendment also deletes an exception previously
granted under TS License Amendment Nos. 210 and 202 for Units 2 and
3, respectively to allow one-time extensions of the ILRT test
frequency. This exception was for an activity that has already taken
place; therefore, this deletion is solely a non-technical, editorial
change that does not result in any alteration in how DNPS, Units 2
and 3 are operated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated
for DNPS, Units 2 and 3.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment to TS 5.5.12 involves the extension of
the DNPS, Units 2 and 3 Type A containment test interval to 15 years
and the extension of the Type C test interval to 75 months for
selected components. This amendment does not alter the manner in
which safety limits, limiting safety system set points, or limiting
conditions for operation are determined. The specific requirements
and conditions of the TS Containment Leak Rate Testing Program exist
to ensure that the degree of containment structural integrity and
leak-tightness that is considered in the plant safety analysis is
maintained. The overall containment leak rate limit specified by TS
is maintained.
The proposed change involves the extension of the interval
between Type A containment leak rate tests and Type C tests for
DNPS, Units 2 and 3. The proposed surveillance interval extension is
bounded by the 15-year ILRT interval and the 75-month Type C test
interval currently authorized within NEI 94-01, Revision 3-A.
Industry experience supports the conclusion that Types B and C
testing detects a large percentage of containment leakage paths and
that the percentage of containment leakage paths that are detected
only by Type A testing is small. The containment inspections
performed in accordance with ASME Code, Section Xl and TS serve to
provide a high degree of assurance that the containment would not
degrade in a manner that is detectable only by Type A testing. The
combination of these factors ensures that the margin of safety in
the plant safety analysis is maintained. The design, operation,
testing methods and acceptance criteria for Types A, B, and C
containment leakage tests specified in applicable codes and
standards would continue to be met, with the acceptance of this
proposed change, since these are not affected by changes to the Type
A and Type C test intervals.
The proposed amendment also deletes an exception previously
granted under TS License Amendments Nos. 210 and 202 for Units 2 and
3, respectively to allow one-time extensions of the ILRT test
frequency for DNPS, Units 2 and 3. This exception was for an
activity that has taken place; therefore, the deletion is solely a
non-technical, editorial change that does not result in any
alteration in how DNPS, Units 2 and 3 are operated and maintained.
Thus, there is no reduction in any margin of safety.
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: David J. Wrona.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-410, Nine Mile Point
Nuclear Station, Unit 2, Oswego County, New York
Date of amendment request: May 31, 2017. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17151A214.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the
Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 2, Technical Specifications, to
allow operation of ventilation systems with charcoal filters in
accordance with Technical Specifications Task Force
[[Page 35840]]
(TSTF) Improved Standard Technical Specifications Change Traveler,
TSTF-522, Revision 0, ``Revise Ventilation System Surveillance
Requirements to Operate for 10 hours per Month'' (ADAMS Accession No.
ML100890316).
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change replaces an existing Surveillance
Requirement to operate the SGT [Standby Gas Treatment] System and
CREF [Control Room Envelope Filtration] Systems equipped with
electric heaters for a continuous 10-hour period every 31 days with
a requirement to operate the systems for 15 continuous minutes with
heaters operating, if needed.
These systems are not accident initiators, and therefore, these
changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability of
an accident. The proposed system and filter testing changes are
consistent with current regulatory guidance for these systems and
will continue to assure that these systems perform their design
function which may include mitigating accidents. Thus, the change
does not involve a significant increase in the consequences of an
accident.
Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change replaces an existing Surveillance
Requirement to operate the SGT System and CREF Systems equipped with
electric heaters for a continuous 10-hour period every 31 days with
a requirement to operate the systems for 15 continuous minutes with
heaters operating, if needed.
The change proposed for these ventilation systems does not
change any system operations or maintenance activities. Testing
requirements will be revised and will continue to demonstrate that
the Limiting Conditions for Operation are met and the system
components are capable of performing their intended safety
functions. The change does not create new failure modes or
mechanisms and no new accident precursors are generated.
Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change replaces an existing Surveillance
Requirement to operate the SGT System and CREF Systems equipped with
electric heaters for a continuous 10-hour period every 31 days with
a requirement to operate the systems for 15 continuous minutes with
heaters operating, if needed.
The design basis for the ventilation systems' heaters is to heat
the incoming air which reduces the relative humidity. The heater
testing change proposed will continue to demonstrate that the
heaters are capable of heating the air and will perform their design
function. The proposed change is consistent with regulatory
guidance.
Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: 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. 50-289, Three Mile Island
Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: March 22, 2017. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17081A425.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would make
administrative changes to Three Mile Island, Unit 1, Technical
Specifications (TSs). In particular, the proposed amendment would (1)
update TS 5.4.2 for the current number of fuel assemblies and number of
reactor cores that are stored in Spent Fuel Pool A; (2) revise TS 6.1.2
requirements for the Chief Nuclear Officer to eliminate the annual
management directive to all unit personnel responsible for the control
room command function; and (3) delete the TS 6.2.2.2.d footnote that
references Control Room Supervisors who do not possess a Senior Reactor
Operator NRC License.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not involve the modification of any
plant equipment or affect plant operation. The proposed changes will
have no impact on any safety related structures, systems, or
components. The proposed changes are administrative in nature and
there are no changes to the conduct of control room licensed
operators during evaluated accidents.
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 have no impact on the design, function or
operation of any plant structure, system or component. The proposed
changes do not affect plant equipment or accident analyses. The
proposed changes are administrative in nature.
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 do not adversely affect existing plant
safety margins or the reliability of the equipment assumed to
operate in the safety analyses. There is no change being made to
safety analysis assumptions, safety limits or limiting safety system
settings that would adversely affect plant safety as a result of the
proposed changes. Margins of safety associated with fission product
barriers are unaffected by proposed administrative changes.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel,
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL
60555.
NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna.
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket No. 50-334,
Beaver Valley Power Station (BVPS) Unit No. 1 (BVPS-1), Beaver County,
Pennsylvania
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket No. 50-346,
Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station (DBNPS), Unit No. 1, Ottawa County,
Ohio
Date of amendment request: May 18, 2017. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17138A381.
[[Page 35841]]
Description of amendment request: By NRC's Order dated April 15,
2016 (ADAMS Accession No. ML16078A092), which approved the transfer of
certain sale-leaseback ownership of the Perry Nuclear Power Plant to
FirstEnergy Nuclear Generation, LLC (FENGen or FENGenCo), the NRC
accepted the change from FirstEnergy Corp. (FE) to FirstEnergy
Solutions Corp. (FES) providing the $400 million support agreement. The
NRC reaffirmed FES as the provider of the financial support agreement
in the recently approved transfer of ownership for BVPS, Unit No. 2,
dated April 14, 2017 (ADAMS Accession No. ML17081A433, Nonproprietary
Safety Evaluation). The proposed amendment would conform the BVPS-1 and
DBNPS Renewed Operating Licenses (ROLs) to reflect that FES is
providing the $400 million support agreement instead of FE.
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 license conditions in the BVPS-1 and
DBNPS ROLs by changing the company that provides a financial support
agreement for FirstEnergy Nuclear Generation, LLC (FENGen). The NRC
has stated that FENGen has adequate financial qualifications for
operating Beaver Valley Power Station, Units No. 1 and 2; Davis-
Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 1; and Perry Nuclear Power
Plant, Unit No. 1. The proposed change also revises the DBNPS
renewed operating license condition to indicate that there is only
one support agreement. The proposed changes do not affect the
requirements of the license conditions. The proposed ROL changes do
not alter the design or operation of either BVPS-1 or DBNPS. As a
result, accident analyses at either facility has not been affected.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes revise license conditions in the BVPS-1 and
DBNPS ROLs by changing the company that provides a financial support
agreement for FENGen. The proposed change also revises the DBNPS
renewed operating license condition to indicate that there is only
one support agreement. The NRC has stated that FENGen has adequate
financial qualifications. The proposed changes do not affect the
requirements of the license conditions. The proposed ROL changes do
not alter the design or operation of either BVPS-1 or DBNPS. No new
equipment has been incorporated into the plant design or operation.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes revise license conditions in the BVPS-1 and
DBNPS ROLs by changing the company that provides a financial support
agreement for FENGen. The proposed change also revises the DBNPS
renewed operating license condition to indicate there is only one
support agreement. The NRC has stated that FENGen has adequate
financial qualifications. The proposed changes do not affect the
requirements of the license conditions. The proposed ROL changes do
not alter the design or operation of either BVPS-1 or DBNPS. No new
equipment has been incorporated into the plant design or operation.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: David W. Jenkins, FirstEnergy Nuclear
Operating Company, FirstEnergy Corporation, 76 South Main Street, Mail
Stop A-GO-15, Akron, OH 44308.
NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, Docket No. 50-440, Perry Nuclear
Power Plant (PNPP), Unit No. 1, Lake County, Ohio
Date of amendment request: June 8, 2017. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17159A720.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise PNPP technical specifications (TSs) to reflect previously
approved license basis changes as part of the alternative source term
initiative; align some TS sections with NUREG-1434, Revision 4,
``Standard Technical Specifications--General Electric BWR [Boiling-
Water Reactor]/6 Plants''; and delete two TS sections.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment involves incorporating technical
specification changes that reflect previously approved license basis
changes as part of the alternative source term (AST) initiative,
aligns some TS sections with NUREG-1434, Revision 4, and deletes two
TS sections. The proposed amendment does not affect any accident
mitigating feature or increase the likelihood of malfunction for
plant structures, systems and components.
Verification of operating the plant within prescribed limits
will continue to be performed, as currently required by the
applicable TS surveillance requirements. Compliance with and
continued verification of the prescribed limits support the
capability of the systems to perform their required design functions
during all plant operating, accident, and station blackout
conditions, consistent with the plant safety analyses.
The proposed amendment will not change any of the analyses
associated with the PNPP Updated Safety Analysis Report Chapter 15
accidents because accident initiators and accident mitigation
functions remain unchanged. The proposed amendment does not alter
any assumptions previously made relative to evaluating the
consequences of an accident.
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 amendment does not involve physical alterations to
the plant. No new or different type of equipment will be installed
and there are no physical modifications required to existing
installed equipment associated with the proposed changes. The
proposed amendment does not create a credible failure mechanism,
malfunction, or accident initiator not already considered in the
design and licensing basis.
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.
Safety margins are applied to design and licensing basis
functions and to the controlling values of parameters to account for
various uncertainties and to avoid exceeding regulatory or licensing
limits. The proposed amendment does not require a physical change to
the plant, or affect design and licensing basis functions or
controlling values of parameters for plant systems, structures, and
components.
[[Page 35842]]
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: David W. Jenkins, Attorney, FirstEnergy
Corporation, Mail Stop A-GO-15, 76 South Main Street, Akron, OH 44308.
NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.
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. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287,
Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, Oconee County, South
Carolina
Date of amendment request: July 20, 2016.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical
Specifications 3.7.12, ``Spent Fuel Pool Boron Concentration,'' 3.7.18,
``Dry Spent Fuel Storage Cask Loading and Unloading,'' and 4.4, ``Dry
Spent Fuel Storage Cask Loading and Unloading,'' to remove requirements
that no longer pertain to independent spent fuel storage facility
general licensed activities.
Date of issuance: July 12, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 404, 406, and 405. A publicly-available version is
in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17167A265; documents related to these
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the
amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-38, DPR-47 and DPR-55:
Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 14, 2017 (82
FR 10593).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 12, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-325 and 50-324, Brunswick
Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, Brunswick County, North Carolina
Date of amendment request: August 29, 2016.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the
technical specifications (TSs) to eliminate Section 5.5.6, ``Inservice
Testing Program.'' A new defined term, ``INSERVICE TESTING PROGRAM,''
is added to the TSs. All existing references to the ``Inservice Testing
Program'' in the TS surveillance requirements (SRs) are replaced with
``INSERVICE TESTING PROGRAM'' so that the SRs refer to the new
definition in lieu of the deleted program.
Date of issuance: July 12, 2017.
Effective date: As of date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 278 (Unit 1) and 306 (Unit 2). A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17130A780; documents related
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with
the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-71 and DPR-62:
Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 6, 2016 (81 FR
87967).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 12, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-293, Pilgrim Nuclear
Power Station, Plymouth County, Massachusetts
Date of amendment request: February 14, 2017, as supplemented by
letter dated May 25, 2017.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised certain
staffing and training requirements, reports, programs, and editorial
changes contained in the Technical Specification (TS) Table of
Contents; Section 1.0, ``Definitions''; Section 4.0, ``Design
Features''; and Section 5.0, ``Administrative Controls'' that will no
longer be applicable once Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station is permanently
defueled.
Date of issuance: July 10, 2017.
Effective date: Upon the licensee's submittal of the certifications
required by 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1) and shall be implemented within 60 days
from the amendment effective date.
Amendment No.: 246. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML17066A130; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-35: The amendment
revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 28, 2017 (82 FR
15380). The supplemental letter dated May 25, 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
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 July 10, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
[[Page 35843]]
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. STN 50-456 and STN 50-457,
Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, Will County, Illinois and Docket Nos.
STN 50-454 and STN 50-455, Byron Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Ogle
County, Illinois
Date of application for amendments: February 23, 2017, as
supplemented by letter dated June 29, 2017.
Brief description of amendment: The amendments revised the
operating licenses and technical specifications to remove time, cycle,
or modification-related items. Additionally, the proposed amendments
made editorial and formatting changes. The time, cycle, or
modification-related items have been implemented or superseded and are
no longer applicable.
Date of issuance: July 5, 2017, as supplemented by letter dated
June 29, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 193 for NPF-72, 193 for NPF-77, 198 for NPF-37, and
198 for NPF-66. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML17088A703; documents related to these amendments are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-72, NPF-77, NPF-37, and NPF-66:
The amendments revised the Technical Specifications and License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 11, 2017 (82 FR
17459). The supplemental letter dated June 29, 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 July 5, 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 (VCSNS), Units 2 and 3, Fairfield,
South Carolina
Date of amendment request: December 6, 2017, as supplemented by
letter dated May 25, 2017.
Description of amendment: The amendments consisted of changes to
the VCSNS Units 2 and 3 Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) in
the form of departures from plant-specific Design Control Document Tier
2 information, Combined License (COL) Appendix A Technical
Specifications (TSs), and COL Appendix C information. The departures
consisted of in-containment refueling water storage tank (IRWST)
minimum volume changes in plant-specific UFSAR Table 14.3-2, COL
Appendix A TSs 3.5.6, 3.5.7 and 3.5.8 and Surveillance Requirements
3.5.6.2 and 3.5.8.2 and COL Appendix C (and associated plant-specific
Tier 1) Table 2.2.3-4. The changes restored the desired consistency of
these sections with the UFSAR IRWST minimum volume value in other
locations.
Date of issuance: June 16, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 75. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML17135A327; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Facility Combined Licenses Nos. NPF-93 and NPF-94: Amendments
revised the Facility Combined Licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 24, 2017 (82 FR
8220). The supplemental letter dated May 25, 2017, provided additional
information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of
the application request 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 the Safety Evaluation dated June 16, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
STP Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 50-498 and 50-499, South
Texas Project (STP), Units 1 and 2, Matagorda County, Texas
Date of amendment request: June 19, 2013, as supplemented by
letters dated October 3, October 31, November 13, November 21, and
December 23, 2013 (two letters); January 9, February 13, February 27,
March 17, March 18, May 15 (two letters), May 22, June 25, and July 15,
2014; March 10, March 25, and August 20, 2015; April 13, May 11, June
9, June 16, July 18, July 21 (two letters), July 28, September 12,
October 20, November 9, and December 7, 2016; and January 19, 2017.
Brief description of amendment: The amendments authorized revision
of the licensing basis for Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-76 and
NPF-80, for STP, Units 1 and 2, as documented in the Updated Final
Safety Analysis Report and revise the Technical Specifications (TSs).
The changes authorized use of a deterministic bounding calculation
based on plant-specific testing, and a risk-informed approach to
address safety issues discussed in Generic Safety Issue 191,
``Assessment of Debris Accumulation on PWR [Pressurized-Water Reactor]
Sump Performance,'' and to resolve the concerns in Generic Letter 2004-
02, ``Potential Impact of Debris Blockage on Emergency Recirculation
during Design Basis Accidents at Pressurized-Water Reactors,'' dated
September 13, 2004, for STP, Units 1 and 2.
Date of issuance: July 11, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 1-212; Unit 2-198. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17019A001; documents related
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with
the amendments.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-76 and NPF-80: The amendments
revised the Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 16, 2016 (81
FR 7843). The supplemental letters dated April 13, May 11, June 9, June
16, July 18, July 21 (two letters), July 28, September 12, October 20,
November 9, and December 7, 2016; and January 19, 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 July 11, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 50-391, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant
(WBN), Unit 2, Rhea County, Tennessee
Date of amendment request: November 23, 2016, as supplemented by
letters dated February 16, 2017, and June 9, 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 5, 6, 7, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16,
and 17 to Enclosure 1 of the application that are normally performed on
an 18-month frequency in conjunction with a refueling outage. The
[[Page 35844]]
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
WBN, Unit 2.
Date of issuance: July 11, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 7 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 13. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML17180A024; 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 letters dated February 16, 2017, and June 9,
2017, 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 July 11, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 21st day of July 2017.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Anne T. Boland,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2017-15986 Filed 7-31-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P