[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 166 (Tuesday, August 29, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41064-41074]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-17936]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2017-0182]
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 August 1 to August 14, 2017. The last
biweekly notice was published on August 15, 2017.
DATES: Comments must be filed by September 28, 2017. A request for a
hearing must be filed by October 30, 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-2017-0182. 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: Janet Burkhardt, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1384, email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments
A. Obtaining Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0182, facility name, unit
numbers, plant
[[Page 41065]]
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-2017-0182.
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 the
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-2017-0182, facility name, unit
numbers, plant docket number, application date, and subject in your
comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact
information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your
comment submission. The NRC posts all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as entering the comment submissions into
ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove
identifying or contact information.
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons
for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to
include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be
publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should
state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to
remove such information before making the comment submissions available
to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.
II. Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility
Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses and Proposed No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under
the Commission's regulations in Sec. 50.92 of title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (10 CFR), this means that operation of the facility
in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated, or (2) create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or
(3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis
for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown
below.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final
determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period if circumstances change during the 30-day comment
period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for
example in derating or shutdown of the facility. If the Commission
takes action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or
the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a notice of
issuance. If the Commission makes a final no significant hazards
consideration determination, any hearing will take place after
issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will
occur very infrequently.
A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing and Petition for Leave To Intervene
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any
persons (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by this action may
file a request for a hearing and petition for leave to intervene
(petition) with respect to the action. Petitions shall be filed in
accordance with the Commission's ``Agency Rules of Practice and
Procedure'' in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult a
current copy of 10 CFR 2.309. The NRC's regulations are accessible
electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. Alternatively, a copy of
the regulations is available at the NRC's Public Document Room, located
at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first
floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. If a petition is filed, the
Commission or a presiding officer will rule on the petition and, if
appropriate, a notice of a hearing will be issued.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309(d) the petition should specifically
explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with
particular reference to the following general requirements for
standing: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the
petitioner; (2) the nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to
be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the
petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding;
and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be
entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f), the petition must also set
forth the specific contentions which the petitioner seeks to have
litigated in the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific
statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In
addition, the petitioner must provide a brief explanation of the bases
for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or
expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner
intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The
petitioner must also provide references to the specific sources and
documents on which the petitioner intends to rely to support its
position on the issue. The petition must include sufficient information
to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant or licensee on
a material issue of law or fact. Contentions must be limited to matters
within the scope of the proceeding. The contention must be one which,
if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner who
fails to satisfy the requirements at 10 CFR 2.309(f) with respect to at
least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding,
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene.
Parties have the opportunity
[[Page 41066]]
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 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
[[Page 41067]]
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, Units 1 and 2 (CNS), York County, South Carolina
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370, McGuire
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 (MNS), Mecklenburg County, North
Carolina
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287,
Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 (ONS), Oconee County, South
Carolina
Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Docket No. 50-400, Shearon Harris Nuclear
Power Plant, Unit 1 (HNP), Wake County, North Carolina
Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Docket No. 50-261, H. B. Robinson Steam
Electric Plant, Unit No. 2 (RNP), Darlington County, South Carolina
Date of amendment request: July 18, 2017. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17199F771.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the
technical specifications (TSs) based on Technical Specification Task
Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-529, Revision 4, ``Clarify Use and
Application Rules'' (ADAMS Accession No. ML16062A271). The changes
would revise and clarify the TS usage rules for completion times,
limiting conditions for operation (LCOs), and surveillance requirements
(SRs).
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to CNS, MNS, ONS, and RNP [TS] Section 1.3,
and CNS, MNS, and RNP LCO 3.0.4 have no effect on the requirement
for systems to be Operable and have no effect on the application of
TS actions. The proposed change to CNS, MNS, ONS, and RNP SR 3.0.3
(TS 4.0.3 for HNP) states that the allowance may only be used when
there is a reasonable expectation the surveillance will be met when
performed. Since the proposed changes do not significantly affect
system Operability, the proposed change will have no significant
effect on the initiating events for accidents previously evaluated
and will have no significant effect on the ability of the systems to
mitigate accidents previously evaluated.
Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change to the TS usage rules does not affect the
design or function of any plant systems. The proposed change does
not change the Operability requirements for plant systems or the
actions taken when plant systems are not operable.
Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change clarifies the application of TS 1.3 and LCO
3.0.4 and does not result in changes in plant operation. SR 3.0.3
(TS 4.0.3 for HNP) is revised to allow application of SR 3.0.3 when
an SR has not been previously performed, if there is reasonable
expectation that the SR will be met when performed. This expands the
use of SR 3.0.3 (TS 4.0.3 for HNP) while ensuring the affected
system is capable of performing its safety function. As a result,
plant safety is either improved or unaffected.
Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Kathryn B. Nolan, Deputy General Counsel,
Duke Energy Corporation, 550 South Tryon Street, Mail Code DEC45A,
Charlotte, NC 28202.
NRC Branch Chief: Undine Shoop.
Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Docket No. 50-400, Shearon Harris Nuclear
Power Plant, Unit 1 (HNP), Wake and Chatham Counties, North Carolina
Date of amendment request: May 22, 2017. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17142A411.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise HNP
dose consequences for the facility, as described in the HNP Final
Safety Analysis Report, to provide gap release fractions for high-
burnup fuel rods that exceed the 6.3 kilowatt per foot (kW/ft) linear
heat generation rate limit detailed in Table 3 of Regulatory Guide (RG)
[[Page 41068]]
1.183, Alternative Radiological Source Terms for Evaluating Design
Basis Accidents at Nuclear Power Reactors.
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?
The proposed change involves using gap release fractions for
high-burnup fuel rods (i.e., greater than 54 GWD/MTU [gigawatt days
per metric ton unit]) that exceed the 6.3 kW/ft linear heat
generation rate (LHGR) limit detailed in Table 3, Footnote 11 of RG
1.183. Increased gap release fractions were determined and accounted
for in the dose analysis for HNP. The dose consequences reported in
the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) were reanalyzed for fuel
handling accidents only. Dose consequences were not reanalyzed for
other non-fuel-handling accidents since no fuel rod that is
predicted to enter departure from nucleate boiling (DNB) will be
permitted to operate beyond the limits of RG 1.183, Table 3,
Footnote 11. The current NRC requirements, as described in 10 CFR
50.67, specifies dose acceptance criteria in terms of Total
Effective Dose Equivalent (TEDE). The revised dose consequence
analyses for the fuel handling events at HNP meet the applicable
TEDE dose acceptance criteria (specified also in RG 1.183). A slight
increase in dose consequences is exhibited. However, the increase is
not significant and the new TEDE results are below regulatory
acceptance criteria.
The changes proposed do not affect the precursors for fuel
handling accidents analyzed in Chapter 15 of the HNP FSAR. The
probability remains unchanged since the accident analyses performed
and discussed in the basis for the FSAR changes involve no change to
a system, structure or component that affects initiating events for
any FSAR Chapter 15 accident evaluated.
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 previously evaluated?
The proposed change involves using gap release fractions for
high-burnup fuel rods (i.e., greater than 54 GWD/MTU) that exceed
the 6.3 kW/ft LHGR limit detailed in Table 3, Footnote 11 of RG
1.183. Increased gap release fractions were determined and accounted
for in the dose analysis for HNP. The dose consequences reported in
HNP's FSAR were reanalyzed for fuel handling accidents only. Dose
consequences were not reanalyzed for other non-fuel-handling
accidents since no fuel rod that is predicted to enter departure
from nucleate boiling (DNB), will be permitted to operate beyond the
limits of RG 1.183, Table 3, Footnote 11.
The proposed change does not involve the addition or
modification of any plant equipment. The proposed change has the
potential to affect future core designs for HNP. However, the impact
will not be beyond the standard function capabilities of the
equipment. The proposed change involves using gap release fractions
that would allow high-burnup fuel rods (i.e., greater than 54 GWD/
MTU) to exceed the 6.3 kW/ft LHGR limit detailed in Table 3,
Footnote 11 of RG 1.183. Accounting for these new gap release
fractions in the dose analysis for HNP does not create the
possibility of a new accident.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
The proposed change involves using gap release fractions for
high-burnup fuel rods (i.e., greater than 54 GWD/MTU) that exceed
the 6.3 kW/ft LHGR limit detailed in Table 3, Footnote 11 of RG
1.183. Increased gap release fractions were determined and accounted
for in the dose analysis for HNP. The dose consequences reported in
HNP's FSAR were reanalyzed for fuel handling accidents only. Dose
consequences were not reanalyzed for other non-fuel-handling
accidents since no fuel rod that is predicted to enter departure
from nucleate boiling (DNB) will be permitted to operate beyond the
limits of RG 1.183, Table 3, Footnote 11.
The proposed change has the potential for an increased
postulated accident dose at HNP. However, the analysis demonstrates
that the resultant doses are within the appropriate acceptance
criteria. The margin of safety, as defined by 10 CFR 50.67 and
Regulatory Guide 1.183, has been maintained. Furthermore, the
assumptions and input used in the gap release and dose consequences
calculations are conservative. These conservative assumptions ensure
that the radiation doses calculated pursuant to Regulatory Guide
1.183 and cited in this LAR [license amendment request] are the
upper bounds to radiological consequences of the fuel handling
accidents analyzed. The analysis shows that with increased gap
release fractions accounted for in the dose consequences
calculations there is margin between the offsite radiation doses
calculated and the dose limits of 10 CFR 50.67 and acceptance
criteria of Regulatory Guide 1.183. The proposed change will not
degrade the plant protective boundaries, will not cause a release of
fission products to the public, and will not degrade the performance
of any structures, systems or components important to safety.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Lara Nichols, Deputy General Counsel, Duke
Energy Corporation, 550 South Tryon St., M/C DEC45A, Charlotte, NC
28202.
NRC Branch Chief: Undine S. Shoop.
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 amendment request: June 30, 2017. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17181A276.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise
Technical Specification (TS) 3.7.11, ``Control Room Ventilation (VC)
Temperature Control System,'' to modify the TS Actions for two
inoperable VC temperature control system trains.
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 VC Temperature Control System is not an initiator of any
accident previously evaluated. As a result, the probability of an
accident previously evaluated is not increased. The consequences of
an accident during the proposed 24 hour Completion Time are no
different than the consequences of an accident in Modes 1, 2, 3, and
4 during the existing 1 hour Completion Time provided in LCO
[limiting condition for operation] 3.0.3 to prepare for a shutdown.
The only accident previously evaluated in Modes 5 or 6 is a fuel
handling accident. The accident evaluation does not assume a loss of
offsite electrical power or additional failures, and the mitigating
actions to maintain control room temperature less than or equal to
80 [deg]F [degree Fahrenheit] will still be available should a fuel
handling accident occur. As a result, providing 24 hours to restore
one train of control room cooling does not significantly increase
the consequences of a fuel handling accident over the current
requirement.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
Response: No.
All plant equipment controlled from the control room and
operator response actions in response to a design basis accident
will be
[[Page 41069]]
maintained as currently designed and applied. No new equipment or
operator responses are required in response to a design basis
accident as part of this proposed change. The proposed change will
not alter the design or function of the control room or the VC
Temperature Control System. Should the new Required Actions not be
met, the existing and proposed Required Actions require preparation
for an orderly plant shutdown, or suspension of positive reactivity
additions and suspension of movement of irradiated fuel assemblies,
as applicable based on the mode of applicability.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change provides a limited period of time to restore
an inoperable VC Temperature Control System train instead of
interrupting plant operations, possibly requiring an orderly plant
shutdown of both units, or suspension of movement of irradiated fuel
assemblies and suspension of positive reactivity additions. A plant
disruption or transient may be avoided with mitigating actions taken
and the control room area temperature maintained. The potential to
avoid a plant transient in conjunction with maintaining the control
room temperature offsets any risk associated with the limited
Completion Time. The proposed change does not impact a design basis,
TS Limiting Condition for Operation, limiting safety system setting,
or safety limit specified in TSs.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel,
Exelon Nuclear, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555.
NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.
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 amendment request: June 30, 2017. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17187A191.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise
Technical Specification (TS) 3.1.4, ``Rod Group Alignment Limits''; TS
3.1.5, ``Shutdown Bank Insertion Limits''; TS 3.1.6, ``Control Bank
Insertion Limits''; and TS 3.1.7, ``Rod Position Indication.''
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.
Control and shutdown rods are assumed to insert into the core to
shut down the reactor in evaluated accidents. Rod insertion limits
ensure that adequate negative reactivity is available to provide the
assumed shutdown margin (SDM). Rod alignment and overlap limits
maintain an appropriate power distribution and reactivity insertion
profile.
Control and shutdown rods are initiators to several accidents
previously evaluated, such as rod ejection. The proposed changes do
not change the limiting conditions for operation pertaining to the
rods or make any technical changes to the Surveillance Requirements
(SRs) governing the rods.
Therefore, the proposed change has no significant effect on the
probability of any accident previously evaluated.
Revising the TS Actions to provide a limited time to repair rod
movement control has no effect on the SDM assumed in the accident
analysis as the proposed Actions require verification that SDM is
maintained. The effects on power distribution will not cause a
significant increase in the consequences of any accident previously
evaluated as all TS requirements on power distribution continue to
be applicable.
Revising the TS Actions to provide an alternative to frequent
use of the moveable incore detector system or the Power Distribution
Monitoring System to verify the position of rods with inoperable rod
position indicator does not change the requirement for the rods to
be aligned and within the insertion limits.
Therefore, the assumptions used in any accidents previously
evaluated are unchanged and there is no significant increase in the
consequences.
The proposed change resolves conflicts within the TS to ensure
that the intended Actions are followed when equipment is inoperable.
Actions taken for inoperable equipment are not assumptions in the
accidents previously evaluated and have no significant effect on the
accident consequences.
The proposed change to increase consistency within the TS has no
effect on the consequences of accidents previously evaluated as the
proposed change clarifies the application of the existing
requirements and does not change the intent.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of
the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be
installed). The change does not alter the assumptions made in the
safety analyses. The proposed change does not alter the limiting
conditions for operation pertaining to the rods or make any
technical changes to the SRs governing the rods. The proposed change
to the TS Required Actions maintains safety when equipment is
inoperable and does not introduce any new failure modes.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change to provide sufficient time to repair rods
that are Operable but immovable does not result in a significant
reduction in the margin of safety because all rods must be verified
to be Operable, and all other rod banks must be within the insertion
limits. The remaining proposed changes to make the requirements
internally consistent do not affect the margin of safety as the
changes do not affect the ability of the rods to perform their
specified safety function.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel,
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL
60555.
NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.
Florida Power & Light Company, Docket Nos. 50-250 and 251, Turkey Point
Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 3 and 4, Miami-Dade County, Florida
Date of application for amendment: June 28, 2017. A publicly-
available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17180A447.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would modify the
Technical Specifications (TSs) by relocating to licensee-controlled
documents, select acceptance criteria specified in TS surveillance
requirements (SRs) credited for satisfying Inservice Testing (IST)
Program and Inservice Inspection Program requirements, deleting the SRs
for the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Code Class 1,
2, and 3 components, replacing references to the Surveillance Frequency
Control
[[Page 41070]]
Program (SFCP) with references to the Turkey Point IST Program where
appropriate, establishing a Reactor Coolant Pump (RCP) Flywheel
Inspection Program, and related editorial changes.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes provide added assurance that inservice
testing will be performed in the manner and within the timeframes
established by 10 CFR 50.55(a). The deletion of SR 4.0.5 and the
deletion of IST acceptance criteria from SR 4.5.2.c and SR 4.6.2.1.b
neither affects the conduct nor the periodicity of testing which
demonstrates the operational readiness of safety-related pumps and
valves. The addition of references to the IST Program in SR(s) where
applicable and the deletion of references to the SFCP in SR testing
credited by the IST Program are administrative in nature and can
neither initiate nor exacerbate any accident previously evaluated.
Similarly, the deletion of SR 4.0.5 and the relocation of the RCP
flywheel inspection requirements within the TS are administrative
changes and cannot affect the likelihood or outcome of any accident
previously evaluated. Deletion of the SR 4.4.6.2.2.c requirement
regarding returning Pressure Isolation Valves (PIVs) to service
following maintenance, repair or replacement, deletion of a SR
4.5.1.1.d footnote previously applicable during Unit 3 Cycle 26, and
related editorial changes are administrative changes in nature and
do not alter any plant equipment or the results of any accident
analyses.
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 deletion of IST acceptance criteria from the TS does not
affect the manner in which any SSC [system, structure, or component]
is maintained or operated and does not introduce new SSCs or new
methods for maintaining existing plant SSCs. Inservice testing will
continue in the manner and periodicity specified in the IST program
and hence no new or different kind of accident can result. The
addition of references to the IST Program in SR(s) where applicable
and the deletion of references to the SFCP in SR testing credited by
the IST Program are administrative changes and cannot affect the
manner in which any SSC is maintained or operated. The deletion of
SR 4.0.5 and the relocation of the RCP flywheel inspection
requirements within the TS are administrative changes and cannot be
an initiator of a new or different kind of accident. Deletion of the
SR 4.4.6.2.2.c requirement regarding returning PIV(s) to service
following maintenance, repair or replacement, deletion of a SR
4.5.1.1.d footnote previously applicable during Unit 3 Cycle 26, and
other editorial changes are administrative changes in nature and do
not introduce any new plant equipment, failure modes or accident
analyses postulated outcomes.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not involve changes to any safety
analyses assumptions, safety limits, or limiting safety system
settings nor do they adversely impact plant operating margins or the
reliability of equipment credited in the safety analyses. The
reliability of credited equipment is enhanced through added
assurance that inservice inspection and inservice testing will be
performed in the manner and within the timeframes established by the
ASME Code requirements of 10 CFR 50.55(a)(g) and 10 CFR 50.55(a)(f),
respectively. The deletion of SR 4.0.5 and the relocation of the RCP
flywheel inspection requirements within the TS are administrative
changes with no impact on the margin of safety currently described
the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report. Deletion of the SR
4.4.6.2.2.c requirement regarding returning PIV(s) to service
following maintenance, repair or replacement, deletion of a SR
4.5.1.1.d footnote previously applicable during Unit 3 Cycle 26, and
other editorial changes are administrative changes in nature with no
impact on nuclear safety.
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: William S. Blair, Managing Attorney--
Nuclear, Florida Power & Light Company, 700 Universe Blvd. MS LAW/JB,
Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420.
NRC Branch Chief: Undine Shoop.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Georgia Power Company,
Oglethorpe Power Corporation, Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia,
City of Dalton, Georgia, Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366, Edwin I. Hatch
Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 (HNP), Appling County, Georgia
Date of amendment request: April 7, 2017. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17097A322.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise
Technical Specification (TS) 3.6.4.1, ``Secondary Containment,''
Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.6.4.1.2 to provide an allowance for
brief, inadvertent, simultaneous opening of redundant secondary
containment access doors during normal entry and exit conditions.
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 allows temporary conditions during which
secondary containment SR 3.6.4.1.2 is not met. The secondary
containment is not an initiator of any accident previously
evaluated. As a result, the probability of any accident previously
evaluated is not increased.
Since the access doors are only opened briefly, were an accident
to occur with both doors simultaneously open, the doors would close
quickly enough such that the SGTS [Standby Gas Treatment System]
would not be hindered in its ability to adequately draw down the
secondary containment within the time assumed in the accident
analysis. The dose consequences would therefore be no worse than
assumed in the current HNP accident analysis and within the federal
guidelines of 10 CFR 50.67. As a result, the consequences of an
accident previously evaluated are not significantly increased.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not alter the protection system design,
create new failure modes, or change any modes of operation. The
proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant,
and no new or different kind of equipment will be installed.
Consequently, there are no new initiators that could result in a new
or different kind of accident.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change allows temporary conditions during which
secondary containment SR 3.6.4.1.2 is not met. The allowance for
both an inner and outer
[[Page 41071]]
secondary containment access door to be open simultaneously for
entry and exit does not affect the safety function of the secondary
containment as the doors are promptly closed after entry or exit,
thereby restoring the secondary containment boundary. In addition,
brief, inadvertent, simultaneous opening and closing of redundant
secondary containment access doors during normal entry and exit
conditions does not affect the ability of the Standby Gas Treatment
[S]ystem to establish the required secondary containment vacuum.
Therefore, the safety function of the secondary containment is not
affected.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Jennifer M. Buettner, Associate General
Counsel, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., 40 Inverness Center
Parkway, Birmingham, AL 35242.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Georgia Power Company,
Oglethorpe Power Corporation, Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia,
City of Dalton, Georgia, Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366, Edwin I. Hatch
Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Appling County, Georgia
Date of amendment request: April 20, 2017. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17114A377.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the
Technical Specifications (TSs) by replacing the existing requirements
related to ``operations with a potential for draining the reactor
vessel'' (OPDRVs) with new requirements on Reactor Pressure Vessel
Water Inventory Control (RPV WIC) to protect Safety Limit 2.1.1.3,
which requires the reactor vessel water level to be greater than the
top of active irradiated fuel. The proposed amendments would adopt
changes, with variations, based on the NRC-approved safety evaluation
for Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-542,
Revision 2, ``Reactor Pressure Vessel Water Inventory Control,'' dated
December 20, 2016 (ADAMS Accession No. ML16343B066).
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change replaces existing TS requirements related to
OPDRVs with new requirements on RPV WIC that will protect Safety
Limit 2.1.1.3. Draining of RPV water inventory in Mode 4 (i.e., cold
shutdown) and Mode 5 (i.e., refueling) is not an accident previously
evaluated and, therefore, replacing the existing TS controls to
prevent or mitigate such an event with a new set of controls has no
effect on any accident previously evaluated. RPV water inventory
control in Mode 4 or Mode 5 is not an initiator of any accident
previously evaluated. The existing OPDRV controls or the proposed
RPV WIC controls are not mitigating actions assumed in any accident
previously evaluated.
The proposed change reduces the probability of an unexpected
draining event (which is not a previously evaluated accident) by
imposing new requirements on the limiting time in which an
unexpected draining event could result in the reactor vessel water
level dropping to the top of the active fuel (TAF). These controls
require cognizance of the plant configuration and control of
configurations with unacceptably short drain times. These
requirements reduce the probability of an unexpected draining event.
The current TS requirements are only mitigating actions and impose
no requirements that reduce the probability of an unexpected
draining event.
The proposed change reduces the consequences of an unexpected
draining event (which is not a previously evaluated accident) by
requiring an Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) subsystem to be
Operable at all times in Modes 4 and 5. The current TS requirements
do not require any water injection systems, ECCS or otherwise, to be
Operable in certain conditions in Mode 5. The change in requirement
from two ECCS subsystems to one ECCS subsystem in Modes 4 and 5 does
not significantly affect the consequences of an unexpected draining
event because the proposed Actions ensure equipment is available
within the limiting drain time that is as capable of mitigating the
event as the current requirements. The proposed controls provide
escalating compensatory measures to be established as calculated
drain times decrease, such as verification of a second method of
water injection and additional confirmations that containment and/or
filtration would be available if needed.
The proposed change reduces or eliminates some requirements that
were determined to be unnecessary to manage the consequences of an
unexpected draining event, such as automatic initiation of an ECCS
subsystem and control room ventilation. These changes do not affect
the consequences of any accident previously evaluated since a
draining event in Modes 4 and 5 is not a previously evaluated
accident and the requirements are not needed to adequately respond
to a draining event.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change replaces existing TS requirements related to
OPDRVs with new requirements on RPV WIC that will protect Safety
Limit 2.1.1.3. The proposed change will not alter the design
function of the equipment involved. Under the proposed change, some
systems that are currently required to be Operable during OPDRVs
would be required to be available within the limiting drain time or
to be in service depending on the limiting drain time. Should those
systems be unable to be placed into service, the consequences are no
different than if those systems were unable to perform their
function under the current TS requirements.
The event of concern under the current requirements and the
proposed change is an unexpected draining event. The proposed change
does not create new failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident
initiators that would cause a draining event or a new or different
kind of accident not previously evaluated or included in the design
and licensing bases.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change replaces existing TS requirements related to
OPDRVs with new requirements on RPV WIC. The current requirements do
not have a stated safety basis and no margin of safety is
established in the licensing basis. The safety basis for the new
requirements is to protect Safety Limit 2.1.1.3. New requirements
are added to determine the limiting time in which the RPV water
inventory could drain to the top of the fuel in the reactor vessel
should an unexpected draining event occur. Plant configurations that
could result in lowering the RPV water level to the TAF within one
hour are now prohibited. New escalating compensatory measures based
on the limiting drain time replace the current controls. The
proposed TS establish a safety margin by providing defense-in-depth
to ensure that the Safety Limit is protected and to protect the
public health and safety. While some less restrictive requirements
are proposed for plant configurations with long calculated drain
times, the overall effect of the change is to improve plant safety
and to add safety margin.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three
[[Page 41072]]
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: Jennifer M. Buettner, Associate General
Counsel, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., 40 Inverness Center
Parkway, Birmingham, AL 35242.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-
425, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2 (VEGP), Burke
County, Georgia
Date of amendment request: June 22, 2017. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17173A875.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would
incorporate use of the plant-specific seismic probabilistic risk
assessment (SPRA) into the previously approved 10 CFR 50.69 risk-
informed categorization process and treatment of structures, systems,
and components (SSCs) for nuclear power reactors. Specifically, the
amendments would change from a seismic margins approach (SMA) to an
SPRA approach.
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 the use of the VEGP SMA with use of
the peer reviewed VEGP SPRA within the NRC approved risk-informed
categorization process to modify the scope of SSCs subject to NRC
special treatment requirements and to implement alternative
treatments per the regulations. The use of an SPRA in place of an
SMA is allowed by the 50.69 process guidance defined in [Nuclear
Energy Institute] NEI 00-04 [``10 CFR 50.69 SSC Categorization
Guideline''] as endorsed by NRC in [Regulatory Guide] RG 1.201
[``Guidelines for Categorizing Structures, Systems, and Components
in Nuclear Power Plants According to their Safety Significance.'']
The process used to evaluate SSCs for changes to NRC special
treatment requirements and the use of alternative requirements
ensures the ability of the SSCs to perform their design function.
The potential change to special treatment requirements does not
change the design and operation of the SSCs. As a result, the
proposed change does not significantly affect any initiators to
accidents previously evaluated or the ability to mitigate any
accidents previously evaluated. The consequences of the accidents
previously evaluated are not affected because the mitigation
functions performed by the SSCs assumed in the safety analysis are
not being modified. The SSCs required to safely shut down the
reactor and maintain it in a safe shutdown condition following an
accident will continue to perform their design functions.
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 change continues to permit the use of a risk-
informed categorization process to modify the scope of SSCs subject
to NRC special treatment requirements and to implement alternative
treatments per the regulations. The proposed change does not change
the functional requirements, configuration, or method of operation
of any SSC. Under the proposed change, no additional plant equipment
will be installed.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change will continue to permit the use of a risk-
informed categorization process to modify the scope of SSCs subject
to NRC special treatment requirements and to implement alternative
treatments per the regulations. The proposed change does not affect
any Safety Limits or operating parameters used to establish the
safety margin. The safety margins included in analyses of accidents
are not affected by the proposed change. The regulation requires
that there be no significant effect on plant risk due to any change
to the special treatment requirements for SSCs and that the SSCs
continue to be capable of performing their design basis functions,
as well as to perform any beyond design basis functions consistent
with the categorization process and results.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Jennifer M. Buettner, Associate General
Counsel, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 40 Iverness Center
Parkway, Birmingham, AL 35242.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
III. Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses
and Combined Licenses
During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice,
the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has
determined for each of these amendments that the application complies
with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,
as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The
Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the
Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR chapter I, which are set
forth in the license amendment.
A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility
operating license or combined license, as applicable, proposed no
significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a
hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the Federal
Register as indicated.
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that
these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in
accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b),
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be
prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an
environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in
10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment,
it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the action see (1) the
applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's
related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as
indicated. All of these items can be accessed as described in the
``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' section of this
document.
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
Date of amendment request: September 16, 2016.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the St.
Lucie Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and Unit 2, Technical Specifications by
removing certain process radiation monitors and placing their
requirements in a licensee-controlled manual. The amendments also
changed the Unit 2 containment particulate radiation monitor range.
Date of issuance: August 14, 2017.
[[Page 41073]]
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 239 (Unit No. 1) and 190 (Unit No. 2). A publicly-
available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17195A291;
documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety
Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-67 and NPF-16:
Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 6, 2016 (81 FR
87972).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated August 14, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Florida Power & Light Company, Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251, Turkey
Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 3 and 4, Miami-Dade County, Florida
Date of amendment request: August 3, 2016, as supplemented by
letters dated October 4, 2016; January 27, 2017; March 31, 2017; and
May 24, 2017.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the
Technical Specification (TS) requirements for the Control Room
Emergency Ventilation System (CREVS). The licensee proposed the changes
to align the CREVS TSs more closely with the applicable Standard
Technical Specifications. Consequently, the requirements to immediately
suspend irradiated fuel movement were relocated, in most cases, to
coincide with the commencement of unit shutdown(s) in the event that
the allowable outage time cannot be met for an inoperable CREVS
component or control room envelope boundary. The amendments also
eliminated the TS limiting conditions for operation, actions, and
surveillance requirements associated with the CREVS kitchen and
lavatory ventilation exhaust duct isolation dampers.
Date of issuance: August 3, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos: 275 (Unit No. 3) and 270 (Unit No. 4). A publicly-
available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17172A115.
Documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety
Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-31 and DPR-41:
Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 8, 2016 (81 FR
78653). The supplements dated January 27, 2017; March 31, 2017; and May
24, 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 amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated August 3, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Northern States Power Company--Minnesota, Docket Nos. 50-282 and 50-
306, Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant (PINGP), Units 1 and 2,
Goodhue County, Minnesota
Date of amendment request: September 28, 2012, as supplemented by
letters dated November 8, 2012, December 18, 2012, May 3, 2013, October
17, 2013, April 30, 2014, May 28, 2015, June 19, 2015, October 6, 2015,
October 22, 2015, January 20, 2016, May 24, 2016, August 17, 2016,
December 14, 2016, and March 6, 2017.
Brief description of amendment: The amendments revised the
licenses, including the Technical Specifications (TS), for PINGP, Units
1 and 2, to establish and maintain fire protection program in
accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.48(c).
Date of issuance: August 8, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
consistent with condition 2.C.(4) of each license.
Amendment Nos.: 220-Unit 1; 207-Unit 2. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17163A027; documents related
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with
the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-42 and DPR-60: The
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 2, 2013 (78 FR
19753). The supplemental letters dated May 3, 2013, October 17, 2013,
April 30, 2014, May 28, 2015, June 19, 2015, October 6, 2015, October
22, 2015, January 20, 2016, May 24, 2016, August 17, 2016, December 14,
2016, and March 6, 2017, provided additional information that clarified
the application, did not expand the scope of the application as
originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no
significant hazards consideration determination as published in the
Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated August 8, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50-354, Hope Creek Generating Station,
Salem County, New Jersey
Date of amendment request: September 21, 2015, as supplemented by
letters dated November 19, 2015; June 17, 2016; September 12, 2016; and
September 23, 2016.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment approved changes to
the Hope Creek Generating Station Technical Specifications (TSs) to
reflect installation of the General Electric-Hitachi Digital Nuclear
Measurement Analysis and Control Power Range Neutron Monitoring system.
Date of issuance: August 4, 2017.
Effective date: The license amendment is effective as of its date
of issuance and shall be implemented prior to entry into OPCON 4 during
startup from refueling outage 21.
Amendment No.: 206. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML17216A022; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-57: Amendment revised
the Renewed Facility Operating License and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 7, 2016 (81 FR
36607). The supplemental letters dated June 17, 2016; September 12,
2016; and September 23, 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 August 4, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-
425, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, Burke County,
Georgia
Date of application for amendments: September 13, 2012, as
supplemented by letters dated August 2, 2013; July 3, July 17, November
11, and December 12, 2014; March 16 and May 5, 2015; February 17, April
18, and July 13,
[[Page 41074]]
2016; and March 13, April 14, May 4, and June 2, 2017.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised certain
Technical Specification (TS) requirements related to Completion Times
for Required Actions to provide the option to calculate a longer, risk-
informed Completion Time. The allowance will be described in a new
program, ``Risk Informed Completion Time (RICT) Program,'' that is
added to TS 5.5, ``Administrative Controls.''
Date of issuance: August 8, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 120 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 1-188; Unit 2-171. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15127A669. Documents related
to the amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the
amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-68 and NPF-81:
Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 17, 2015 (80 FR
13913). The supplemental letters dated March 16 and May 5, 2015;
February 17, April 18, and July 13, 2016; and March 13, April 14, May
4, and June 2, 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 August 8, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026,
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), Units 3 and 4, Burke County,
Georgia
Date of amendment request: March 11, 2016, as revised by letters
dated July 12, 2016, and May 5, 2017, and as supplemented by letter
dated October 20, 2016.
Description of amendment: The amendment authorizes changes to the
VEGP, 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 to text and figures
that describe the connections between floor modules and structural wall
modules in the containment internal structures.
Date of issuance: July 20, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 82 (Unit 3) and 81 (Unit 4). A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17180A040; documents related
to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the
amendment.
Facility Combined Licenses No. NPF-91 and NPF-92: Amendment revised
the Facility Combined Licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 16, 2016 (81 FR
54617). The October 20, 2016, supplement and May 5, 2017, revision
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. The Commission's related evaluation of the
amendment is contained in the Safety Evaluation dated July 20, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 17th day of August 2017.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Kathryn M. Brock,
Deputy Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of
Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2017-17936 Filed 8-28-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P