[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 185 (Tuesday, September 26, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44847-44858]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-20475]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2017-0194]
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: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is publishing
this regular biweekly notice. The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (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 29 to September 11, 2017. The last
biweekly notice was published on September 12, 2017.
DATES: Comments must be filed by October 26, 2017. A request for a
hearing must be filed by November 27, 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-2017-0194. 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: Kay Goldstein, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1506; email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments
A. Obtaining Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0194, 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-2017-0194.
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,
[[Page 44848]]
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-2017-0194, facility name, unit
number(s), plant docket number, application date, and subject in your
comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact
information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your
comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into
ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove
identifying or contact information.
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons
for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to
include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be
publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should
state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to
remove such information before making the comment submissions available
to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
II. Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility
Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses and Proposed No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under
the Commission's regulations in Sec. 50.92 of title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (10 CFR), this means that operation of the facility
in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated, or (2) create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated, or
(3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis
for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown
below.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final
determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period should 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. Should the
Commission take 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. Should the Commission make 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
[[Page 44849]]
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 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
[[Page 44850]]
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.
Arizona Public Service Company, et al., Docket Nos. STN 50-528, STN 50-
529, and STN 50-530, Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2,
and 3 (PVNGS), Maricopa County, Arizona
Date of amendment request: July 19, 2017. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17200D162.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would modify the
licensing basis, by the addition of a license condition, to allow the
implementation of the provisions of 10 CFR 50.69, ``Risk-informed
categorization and treatment of structures, systems, and components
[SSCs] for nuclear power reactors,'' for PVNGS. The provisions of 10
CFR 50.69 allow adjustment of the scope of equipment subject to special
treatment controls (e.g., quality assurance, testing, inspection,
condition monitoring, assessment, and evaluation). For equipment
determined to be of low safety significance, alternative treatment
requirements can be implemented in accordance with this regulation. For
equipment determined to be of high safety significance, requirements
will not be changed or will be enhanced. This allows improved focus on
equipment that has high safety significance resulting in improved plant
safety.
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 will 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 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(s). 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 will 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 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 the analyses of
accidents are not affected by the proposed change. 10 CFR 50.69
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
that review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
request for amendments involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Michael G. Green, Senior Regulatory Counsel,
Pinnacle West Capital Corporation, P.O. Box 52034, Mail Station 8695,
Phoenix, Arizona 85072-2034.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
DTE Electric Company, Docket No. 50-341, Fermi 2, Monroe County,
Michigan
Date of amendment request: July 17, 2017. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17198C829.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the
Technical Specification (TS) 3.7.2 Conditions and Surveillance
Requirements to reflect a proposed change to the design of the two
redundant cross-tie lines that are part of the ultimate heat sink.
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.
Operability of the Fermi 2 UHS [ultimate heat sink] requires
that the two reservoirs either be cross-tied or capable of being
cross-
[[Page 44851]]
tied. Fermi 2 proposes a change to the design of the reservoirs to
remove the cross-tie valves. With the four cross-tie valves removed,
the reservoirs are permanently cross-tied and there is no credible
failure mode to cause the reservoirs to not be cross-tied during an
event. A structural crack in one reservoir would result in both
reservoirs being affected when they are permanently cross-connected.
However, the consequences are bounded by the UFSAR [updated final
safety analysis report] which already includes allowance for a
structural crack in both reservoirs.
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.
Operability of the Fermi 2 UHS requires that the two reservoirs
either be cross-tied or capable of being cross-tied. As these valves
are currently maintained normally open and deenergized, the safety
limits and safety analysis assumptions associated with the design
and operation of the plant will not change. Structural cracks
affecting both reservoirs have already been considered as described
above. Accordingly, the change to remove the cross-tie valves does
not introduce any new accident initiators, nor does it reduce or
adversely affect the capabilities of any plant structure, system, or
component to perform their safety function.
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 have no adverse effect on plant operation.
The plant response to the design basis accidents does not change,
with the exception that actions to cross-connect the reservoirs are
no longer necessary. 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.
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: Jon P. Christinidis, DTE Energy, Expert
Attorney--Regulatory, 688 WCB, One Energy Plaza, Detroit, MI 48226-
1279.
NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.
DTE Electric Company, Docket No. 50-341, Fermi 2, Monroe County,
Michigan
Date of amendment request: August 14, 2017. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17226A277.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise the Fermi 2 Technical Specification 5.5.7, ``Ventilation Filter
Testing Program (VFTP)'' by adopting the formatting and language of the
Standard Technical Specifications (STS) 5.5.8.
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 aligns the introductory paragraph and
testing requirements of Specification 5.5.7, ``Ventilation Filter
Testing Program (VFTP),'' to be consistent with the STS. The Fermi 2
VFTP will implement the required testing of ESF [Emergency Safety
Features] filter ventilation systems at the frequencies specified in
Regulatory Guide 1.52, Revision 2, and in accordance with Regulatory
Guide 1.52, Revision 2 and ASME [American Society of Mechanical
Engineers] N510-1980.
Specific frequency requirements to perform testing are retained
either as a reference to Regulatory Guide requirements and general
requirements in Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.0.1 or in the
licensee-controlled VFTP. Implementation of these requirements will
be in the licensee-controlled VFTP. The VFTP will be maintained in
accordance with 10 CFR 50.59.
Since SGT [Standby Gas Treatment] and CREF [Control Room
Emergency Filtration] are ESF systems and not accident initiators,
the probability of an accident evaluated in the UFSAR [updated final
safety analysis report] will not be increased. As such, the
probability of occurrence for a previously analyzed accident is not
significantly increased.
The consequences of a previously analyzed event are dependent on
the initial conditions assumed for the analysis and the availability
and successful functioning of the equipment assumed to operate in
response to the analyzed event. The proposed change does not affect
the performance of any credited equipment, and the details of
testing do not alter the assumptions made in the safety analysis. As
such, the consequences of an accident previously evaluated are not
significantly increased.
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 does not involve a physical alteration to
the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be
installed) or a change to the methods governing normal plant
operation. The changes do not alter the assumptions made in the
safety analysis. Therefore, the proposed 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 change revises TS 5.5.7, ``Ventilation Filter
Testing Program (VFTP),'' to be consistent with the STS. The
proposed change will not reduce a margin of safety because it has no
effect on any safety analysis assumption. In addition, no regulatory
requirements are being removed, but are either being replaced with
references to be performed as described in Regulatory Guide 1.52,
Revision 2, and the requirements of SR 3.0.1 or are being held in
the licensee-controlled VFTP. Therefore, this proposed change does
not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Based on the above, DTE concludes that the proposed amendment
does not involve a significant hazards consideration under the
standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and, accordingly, a finding
of ``no significant hazards consideration'' is justified.
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: Jon P. Christinidis, DTE Energy, Expert
Attorney--Regulatory, 688 WCB, One Energy Plaza, Detroit, MI 48226-
1279.
NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.
Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Docket No. 50-400, Shearon Harris Nuclear
Power Plant, Unit 1, Wake and Chatham Counties, North Carolina
Date of amendment request: June 5, 2017. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17156A216.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the
Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant (HNP), Unit 1, Technical
Specification (TS) Surveillance Requirements (SRs) established for the
Emergency Diesel Generators (EDGs). The proposed changes will restrict
the steady-state voltage and frequency limits for EDG operation to
ensure that accident mitigation equipment can perform as designed. The
proposed changes would also increase the voltage limit for the EDG full
load rejection test.
[[Page 44852]]
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?
The LAR [license amendment request] proposes to provide voltage
and frequency limits that are more restrictive for the steady-state
operation of the EDGs than the current TS limits and proposes a
change in the voltage limit following a load rejection. The current
steady-state voltage limit is plus or minus 10% of the nominal EDG
voltage (6900 690 volts) and the current steady-state
frequency limit is plus or minus 2% of the nominal frequency (60
1.2 hertz). The proposed voltage limit is plus or minus
4% of the nominal EDG voltage (6900 276 volts) and the
proposed frequency limit is plus or minus 0.8% of the nominal
frequency (60 0.48 hertz). The voltage limit following
a load rejection is being changed from 110% of the EDG voltage at
the start of the test to 8,280 volts at any time during the test,
which is 120% of the EDG nominal voltage rating.
More restrictive voltage and frequency limits for the output of
the EDG restores design margin and provides assurance that the
equipment supplied by the EDG will operate correctly and within the
assumed timeframe to perform their mitigating functions. Testing
results have been reviewed to verify that the proposed voltage and
frequency limits are reasonable for the performance characteristics
of the EDGs.
The technical analysis performed to support the change in the
voltage limit following a load rejection has demonstrated that the
EDGs can withstand voltages at the new proposed maximum voltage
limit without a loss of protection. The proposed higher limit will
continue to provide assurance that the EDGs are protected, and the
safety function of the EDGs will be unaffected by the proposed
change.
The EDGs are safety-related components that function to mitigate
the impact of an accident with a concurrent loss of offsite power. A
loss of offsite power is typically a significant contributor to
postulated plant risk and, as such, onsite alternating current (AC)
EDGs have to be maintained available and reliable in the event of a
loss of offsite power event. The EDGs are not initiators for any
analyzed accident; therefore, the probability for an accident that
was previously evaluated is not increased by the proposed changes.
The proposed voltage and frequency limits will ensure the EDGs will
remain capable of performing their design function.
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?
The LAR proposes to provide voltage and frequency limits that
are more restrictive for the steady-state operation of the EDGs than
the current TS limits and proposes a change in the voltage limit
following a load rejection.
The voltage and frequency limits were established for the
steady-state operation voltage and frequency limits, using verified
design calculations and the guidance of NRC Administrative Letter
98-10 (Nuclear Document System (NUDOCS) [ADAMS Legacy Library]
Accession Number 9812280273). These limits will ensure the EDGs will
perform as designed. No new configuration is established by this
change.
The proposed higher limit for the EDG voltage limit following a
load rejection will continue to provide assurance that the EDGs are
protected, and the safety function of the EDGs will be unaffected by
the proposed change. The proposed increase in the TS SR limit does
not affect the interaction of the EDGs with any system whose failure
or malfunction can initiate an accident.
The change does not involve a physical modification of the
plant. There are no alterations to the parameters within which the
plant is normally operated. No changes are being proposed to the
procedures relied upon to mitigate a design basis event. The change
does not have a detrimental impact on the manner in which plant
equipment operates or responds to an actuation signal.
Therefore, no new or different kind of accident from any
previously evaluated can be created.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
The LAR proposes to provide voltage and frequency limits that
are more restrictive for the steady-state operation of the EDGs than
the current TS limits and proposes a change in the voltage limit
following a load rejection. The proposed TS limits on voltage and
frequency will ensure that the EDG will be able to perform all
design functions assumed in the accident analyses. The change in the
acceptance criteria for specific surveillance testing provides
assurance that the EDGs will be capable of performing their design
function. Previous test history has shown that the proposed limits
are well within the capability of the EDGs.
There will be no effect on those plant systems necessary to
assure the accomplishment of protection functions associated with
reactor operation or the reactor coolant system. There will be no
impact on safety limits and the associated margin of safety.
The proposed changes do not eliminate any surveillance or alter
the frequency of surveillance required by HNP TS. The more
restrictive EDG voltage and frequency limits for steady-state
operation and the increase in the TS SR voltage limit for the EDGs
following a load rejection will not affect the ability of the EDGs
to perform their safety function.
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: Kathryn B. Nolan, Deputy General Counsel,
Duke Energy Corporation, 550 South Tryon St., M/C DEC45A, Charlotte, NC
28202.
NRC Branch Chief: Undine Shoop.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-271, Vermont Yankee
Nuclear Power Station, Vernon, Vermont
Date of amendment request: July 13, 2017. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17198A020.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
delete the cyber security plan license condition for the Vermont Yankee
Nuclear Power Station (VY).
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.
Spent fuel at VY is stored in the spent fuel pool (SFP) and in
the independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI). In this
configuration, the spectrum of possible accidents transients and
accidents is significantly reduced compared to an operating nuclear
power reactor. The design basis accident evaluated in Section 6 of
the VY Defueled Safety Analysis Report (DSAR) is the fuel handling
accident (FHA), which is predicated on spent fuel being stored in
the SFP. Due to fuel decay since permanent cessation of reactor
operations, the risk of an offsite radiological release is also
significantly lower.
This proposed change does not alter the FHA analysis
assumptions, introduce or alter any initiators, or affect the
function of facility structures, systems, and components (SSCs)
relied upon to prevent or mitigate any previously evaluated accident
or the manner in which these SSCs are operated, maintained,
modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed change does not involve
any facility modifications which affect the performance capability
of any SSCs relied upon to prevent or mitigate the consequences of
any previously evaluated accidents.
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?
[[Page 44853]]
Response: No.
This proposed change does not alter accident analysis
assumptions, introduce or alter any initiators, or affect the
function of facility SSCs relied upon to prevent or mitigate any
previously evaluated accident, or the manner in which these SSCs are
operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed
change does not involve any facility modifications which affect the
performance capability of any SSCs relied upon to mitigate the
consequences of previously evaluated accidents and does not create
the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any
accident previously evaluated.
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.
Plant safety margins are established through limiting conditions
for operation, limiting safety system settings, and safety limits
specified In the Technical Specifications, and as described in the
Defueled Safety Analysis Report (DSAR). The proposed change does not
involve any changes to the initial conditions that establish safety
margins, and does not involve modifications to any SSCs which are
relied upon to provide a margin of safety. Because there is no
change to established safety margins as a result of this proposed
change, no significant reduction in a margin of safety is involved.
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: Ms. Susan Raimo, Senior Counsel, Entergy
Services, Inc., 101 Constitution Ave. NW., Suite 200 East, Washington,
DC 20001.
NRC Branch Chief: Bruce Watson.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-271, Vermont Yankee
Nuclear Power Station, Vernon, Vermont
Date of amendment request: July 20, 2017. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17206A200.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise the Operating License and the Permanently Defueled Technical
Specifications (PDTS) to reflect removal of all spent nuclear fuel from
the spent fuel pool (SFP) and its transfer to dry cask storage within
an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI).
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 amendment would modify the VY Renewed Facility
Operating License (Operating License) and Permanently Defueled
Technical Specifications (PDTS), or Technical Specifications (TS),
by deleting the portions of the Operating License and PDTS that are
no longer applicable to a facility with no spent nuclear fuel stored
in the SFP, while modifying the remaining portions to correspond to
all nuclear fuel stored within an ISFSI. This amendment will be
implemented within 60 days following ENO's notification to the NRC
that all spent fuel assemblies have been transferred out of the SFP
and placed in dry storage within the ISFSI.
The definition of safety-related structures, systems, and
components (SSCs) in 10 CFR 50.2 states that safety-related SSCs are
those relied on to remain functional during and following design
basis events to assure:
(1) The integrity of the reactor coolant boundary;
(2) The capability to shutdown the reactor and maintain it in a
safe shutdown condition; or
(3) The capability to prevent or mitigate the consequences of
accidents which could result in potential offsite exposures
comparable to the applicable guideline exposures set forth in 10 CFR
50.34(a)(1) or 100.11.
The first two criteria (integrity of the reactor coolant
pressure boundary and safe shutdown of the reactor) are not
applicable to a plant in a permanently defueled condition. The third
criterion is related to preventing or mitigating the consequences of
accidents that could result in potential offsite exposures exceeding
limits. However, after all nuclear spent fuel assemblies have been
transferred to dry cask storage within an ISFSI, none of the SSCs at
VY are required to be relied on for accident mitigation. Therefore,
none of the SSCs at VY meet the definition of a safety-related SSC
stated in 10 CFR 50.2. The proposed deletion of requirements in the
PDTS does not affect systems credited in any accident analysis at
VY.
Section 6 of the VY Defueled Safety Analysis Report (DSAR)
described the design basis accidents (DBAs) related to the SFP.
These postulated accidents are predicated on spent fuel being stored
in the SFP. With the removal of the spent fuel from the SFP, there
are no remaining spent fuel assemblies to be monitored and there are
no credible accidents that require the actions of a Certified Fuel
Handler, Shift Manager, or a Non-certified Operator to prevent
occurrence or mitigate the consequences of an accident.
The proposed changes do not have an adverse impact on the
remaining decommissioning activities or any of their postulated
consequences. The proposed changes related to the relocation of
certain administrative requirements do not affect operating
procedures or administrative controls that have the function of
preventing or mitigating any accidents applicable to the safe
management of irradiated fuel or decommissioning of the facility.
Therefore, the proposed amendment 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 changes eliminate the operational requirements and
certain design requirements associated with the storage of the spent
fuel in the SFP, and relocate certain administrative controls to the
Quality Assurance Program Manual or other licensee-controlled
process.
After the removal of the spent fuel from the SFP and transfer to
the ISFSI, there are no spent fuel assemblies that remain in the
SFP. Coupled with a prohibition against storage of fuel in the SFP,
the potential for fuel related accidents is removed. The proposed
changes do not introduce any new failure modes.
Therefore, the proposed amendment 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 removal of all spent nuclear fuel from the SFP into storage
in casks within an ISFSI, coupled with a prohibition against future
storage of fuel within the SFP, removes the potential for fuel
related accidents.
The design basis and accident assumptions within the VY DSAR and
the PDTS relating to safe management and safety of spent fuel in the
SFP are no longer applicable. The proposed changes do not affect
remaining plant operations, systems, or components supporting
decommissioning activities.
The requirements for systems, structures, and components (SSCs)
that have been removed from the VY PDTS are not credited in the
existing accident analysis for any applicable postulated accident;
and as such, do not contribute to the margin of safety associated
with the accident analysis.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Ms. Susan Raimo, Senior Counsel, Entergy
Services, Inc., 101 Constitution Avenue NW., Suite 200 East,
Washington, DC 20001.
[[Page 44854]]
NRC Branch Chief: Bruce Watson.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-333, James A. FitzPatrick
Nuclear Power Plant, Oswego County, New York
Date of amendment request: July 31, 2017. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17213A049.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the
description for the Emergency Response Organization (ERO)
requalification training frequency in the Emergency Plan from annually
to ``once per calendar year not to exceed 18 months between training
sessions.''
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 only affects the administrative aspects of
the annual ERO requalification training frequency requirements and
not the content of the training. The proposed change does not
involve the modification of any plant equipment or affect plan
operation. The proposed change will have no impact on any safety-
related Structures, Systems, or Components (SSC).
The proposed change would revise the ERO requalification
frequency from an annual basis to once per calendar year not to
exceed 18 months between training sessions as defined in the
FitzPatrick Emergency Plan. The proposed change will support
aligning the FitzPatrick training with the rest of the Exelon fleet
under one standard regarding the annual requalification training
frequency of personnel assigned Exelon ERO positions.
Therefore, the proposed change to the Emergency Plan
requalification training frequency for the affected site 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 has no impact on the design, function, or
operation of any plant SSC. The proposed change does not affect
plant equipment or accident analyses. The proposed change only
affects the administrative aspects related to the annual ERO
requalification training frequency requirements. There are no
changes in the content of the training being proposed under this
submittal. The proposed change will support aligning the FitzPatrick
training with the rest of the Exelon fleet under one standard
regarding the annual requalification training frequency of personnel
assigned Exelon ERO positions.
Therefore, the proposed change to the Emergency Plan
requalification training frequency for the affected site does not
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from
any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change only affects the administrative aspects of
the annual ERO requalification training frequency requirements and
does not change the training content. The proposed change does 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 change. Margins of safety are
unaffected by the proposed change to the frequency in the ERO
requalification training requirements.
Therefore, the proposed change to the Emergency Plan
requalification training frequency for the affected site 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: Donald P. Ferraro, Assistant General
Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 200 Exelon Way, Suite 305,
Kennett Square, PA 19348.
NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353, Limerick
Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: June 28, 2017. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17179A161.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the
licensing basis by adding a license condition to allow for the
implementation of the provisions of 10 CFR 50.69.
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 will permit the use of a risk-informed
categorization process to modify the scope of SSCs [structures,
systems, and components] subject to NRC special treatment
requirements and to implement alternative treatments per the
regulations. 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 will 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 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.
[[Page 44855]]
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: James G. Danna.
Northern States Power Company--Minnesota, Docket Nos. 50-282 and 50-
306, Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, Goodhue
County, Minnesota
Date of amendment request: August 4, 2017. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17216A236.
Brief description of amendment request: The proposed amendments
would modify the non-destructive examination (NDE) inspection interval
for Special Lifting Devices from annually or prior to each use,
typically at each refueling outage, to a 10-year interval.
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 does not impact the consequences of an
accident previously evaluated as it only modifies an already
existing NDE inspection interval and does not change the manner in
which heavy loads are handled using these devices.
The proposed change also does not significantly increase the
probability of a previously evaluated accident as significant
structural margins and high strength materials were used in excess
of those specified in ANSI [American National Standards Institute]
N14.6-1978. Additionally, the use of each device is infrequent and
concerns of degradation due to fatigue are negligible, especially
when compared to what is possible for the type of devices for which
ANSI N14.6-1978 and its corresponding NDE inspection interval were
originally intended. Continued visual inspections and dimensional
testing consistent with ANSI N14.6-1978 on a periodicity of annually
or prior to each use, typically at each outage, will continue to
provide a high degree of probability that any flaws will be detected
and addressed.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change impacts the frequency of NDE inspections on
the Special Lifting Devices. The proposed change, by its nature,
does not alter the manner in which the devices are used and does not
involve a physical change to the devices. It also does not change
the manner in which heavy loads are handled using these devices.
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 does not impact the designs or usage of the
devices in any manner and, therefore, has no impact on the margins
of safety for those designs. It modifies the frequency at which NDE
inspections on major load carrying welds and other critical members
are performed. However, given the evaluation of available past NDE
inspection results, use of sufficient design margins and high
strength materials, infrequent use and continued visual inspection
and dimensional testing consistent with ANSI N14.6-1978, the
proposed change will not result in any appreciable reduction in the
reliability of the Special Lifting Devices load handling
capabilities when contrasted with the frequency stipulated by ANSI
N14.6-1978.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Peter M. Glass, Assistant General Counsel,
Xcel Energy Services, Inc., 414 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, MN 55401.
NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.
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 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: September 28, 2016, as supplemented by
letters dated March 25, 2017, and May 24, 2017.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments modified the
Technical Specification-required action end states consistent with the
NRC-approved Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-
423-A, Revision 1, ``Technical Specifications End States, NEDC 32988-
A,'' dated December 22, 2009 (ADAMS Accession No. ML093570241), as
described in the Notice of Availability published in the Federal
Register on February 18, 2011 (76 FR 9614). Changes to the Brunswick
Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, Technical Specifications for
selected required action end states allow entry into hot shutdown
rather than cold shutdown to repair equipment if risk is assessed and
managed consistent with the program in place for complying with the
requirements of 10 CFR 50.65(a)(4).
Date of issuance: August 29, 2017.
[[Page 44856]]
Effective date: As of date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 120 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 280 (Unit 1) and 308 (Unit 2). A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17180A596; documents related
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with
the amendments.
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-71 and DPR-62: Amendments
revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 6, 2016 (81 FR
87968). The supplemental letters dated March 25 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 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 29, 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: October 27, 2016.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the
technical specifications (TSs) Sections 1.3, ``Completion Times,'' and
3.0, ``Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) Applicability'' and
``Surveillance Requirement (SR) Applicability.'' The changes clarify
and expand the use and application of the plant's TS usage rules. The
changes are consistent with the NRC-approved Technical Specifications
Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-529, Revision 4, ``Clarify Use and
Application Rules'' dated February 29, 2016.
Date of issuance: September 6, 2017.
Effective date: As of date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 281 (Unit 1) and 309 (Unit 2). A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17186A219; 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: March 14, 2017 (82 FR
13665).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 6, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-317 and 50-318, Calvert
Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, Calvert County, Maryland
Date of amendment request: September 22, 2016, as supplemented by
letters dated November 10, 2016, and March 22, 2017. Publicly-available
versions are in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML16266A086, ML16315A112,
and ML17081A303, respectively.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the Calvert
Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, Technical Specification (TS)
3.3.8, ``Control Room Recirculation Signal (CRRS),'' and TS 3.7.8,
``Control Room Emergency Ventilation System (CREVS),'' to remove
certain CREVS components and their associated testing, which no longer
serve the purpose of establishing and isolating the control room
boundary.
Date of issuance: August 30, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 321 (Unit 1) and 299 (Unit 2). A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17209A620; documents related
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with
the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-53 and DPR-69:
Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 31, 2017 (82 FR
8870). The supplemental letter dated March 22, 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 30, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-254 and 50-265, Quad
Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Rock Island County,
Illinois
Date of amendment request: September 12, 2016, as supplemented by
letters dated November 21, 2016, and April 24, 2017.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the
allowable value for detecting a loss of voltage on the 4160 volt
essential service system buses.
Date of issuance: September 11, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
prior to entering Mode 4 following the spring 2018 refueling outage for
Unit 2, and prior to entering Mode 4 following the spring 2019
refueling outage for Unit 1.
Amendment Nos.: 268 (Unit 1) and 263 (Unit 2). A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17208A297; documents related
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with
the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-29 and DPR-30:
Amendments revised the Technical Specifications and Licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 20, 2016 (81
FR 92867). The supplemental letters dated November 21, 2016, and April
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 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 September 11, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. STN 50-456 and STN 50-457,
Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, Will County, Illinois
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. STN 50-454 and STN 50-455,
Byron Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Ogle County, Illinois
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. 50-461, Clinton Power
Station, Unit No. 1, DeWitt County, Illinois
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-237 and 50-249,
[[Page 44857]]
Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3, Grundy County, Illinois
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-374, LaSalle
County Station, Units 1 and 2, LaSalle County, Illinois
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-352 and No. 50-353,
Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, Montgomery County,
Pennsylvania
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, and PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-
277 and 50-278, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3, York
and Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-254 and 50-265, Quad
Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Rock Island County,
Illinois
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-244, R.E. Ginna Nuclear
Power Plant, Wayne County, New York
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-289, Three Mile Island
Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: March 28, 2017.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revise and clarify
the technical specification usage rules for completion times, limiting
conditions for operation, and surveillance requirements.
Date of issuance: August 31, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 194/194; 200/200; 322/300; 213; 255/248; 224/210;
226/189; 229/163; 314/318; 267/262; 126; and 292. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17163A355. 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, NPF-66,
DPR-53, DPR-69, NPF-62, DPR-19, DPR-25, NPF-11, NPF-18, NPF-39, NPF-85,
DPR-63, NPF-69, DPR-44, DPR-56, DPR-29, DPR-30, DPR-18, and DPR-50:
Amendments revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical
Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 9, 2017 (82 FR
21558).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a safety evaluation dated August 31, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
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: August 11, 2015, as supplemented by
letters dated October 27, 2015; March 16, April 4, June 17, August 12,
September 20, and November 16, 2016; and February 6, April 4, and May
11, 2017.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the
Technical Specification (TS) requirements related to direct current
(DC) electrical systems in TS Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO)
3.8.4, ``DC Sources--Operating,'' LCO 3.8.5, ``DC Sources--Shutdown,''
and LCO 3.8.6, ``Battery Cell Parameters.'' The amendments also added a
new requirement, TS 5.5.15, ``Battery Monitoring and Maintenance
Program,'' to TS 5.5, ``Administrative Controls--Programs and
Manuals.''
Date of issuance: August 29, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 120 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 287 (Unit 1) and 232 (Unit 2). A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17208A231; documents related
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with
the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-57 and NPF-5:
Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 7, 2016 (81 FR
36623). The supplemental letters dated June 17, August 12, September
20, and November 16, 2016; and February 6, April 4, and May 11, 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 29, 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 amendment request: November 15, 2016, as supplemented by
letter dated January 13, 2017.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the TS
requirements to operate ventilation systems with charcoal filters from
10 hours to 15 minutes each month in accordance with TSTF-522, Revision
0, ``Revise Ventilation System Surveillance Requirements to Operate for
10 hours per Month.''
Date of issuance: August 31, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 189 and 172. A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No. ML17186A276; documents related to these
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the
amendments.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-68 and NPF-81: Amendments
revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 28, 2017 (82
FR 12135).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated August 31, 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 amendment request: November 15, 2016.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the
technical specifications by relocating references to specific American
Society for Testing and Materials standards for fuel oil testing to
licensee-controlled documents and adding alternate criteria to the
``clear and bright'' acceptance test for new fuel oil. The change is in
accordance with Technical Specification Task Force Traveler 374,
Revision 0, ``Revision to TS 5.5.13 and Associated TS Bases for Diesel
Fuel Oil.''
Date of issuance: August 31, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within [licensee requested number] days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 190 and 173. A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No. ML17208B018;
[[Page 44858]]
documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety
Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-68 and NPF-81: Amendments
revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 28, 2017 (82
FR 12136).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated August 31, 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 amendment request: November 15, 2016.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments add technical
specifications requirements for unavailable barriers by adding Limiting
Condition for Operation (LCO) 3.0.10 as described as LCO 3.0.9 in TSTF-
427, Revision 2, ``Allowance for Non Technical Specification Barrier
Degradation on Supported System OPERABILITY.''
Date of issuance: September 5, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 191 and 174. A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No. ML17198B633; documents related to these
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the
amendments.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-68 and NPF-81: Amendments
revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 28, 2017 (82
FR 12137).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 5, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 15th day of September 2017.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Kathryn Brock,
Deputy Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of
Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2017-20475 Filed 9-25-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P