[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 194 (Tuesday, October 10, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47032-47044]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-21607]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2017-0201]
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
[[Page 47033]]
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 September 12, 2017, to September 25, 2017.
The last biweekly notice was published on September 26, 2017.
DATES: Comments must be filed by November 9, 2017. A request for a
hearing must be filed by December 11, 2017.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods
(unless this document describes a different method for submitting
comments on a specific subject):
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2017-0201. 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: Lynn Ronewicz, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1927, email:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments
A. Obtaining Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0201, 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-2017-0201.
NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the
ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select ``ADAMS Public Documents'' and
then select ``Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.'' For problems with ADAMS,
please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at
1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected]. The
ADAMS accession number for each document referenced (if it is available
in ADAMS) is provided the first time that it is mentioned in this
document.
NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
B. Submitting Comments
Please include Docket ID NRC-2017-0201, facility name, unit
number(s), plant docket number, application date, and subject in your
comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact
information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your
comment submission. The NRC posts all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as entering the comment submissions into
ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove
identifying or contact information.
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons
for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to
include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be
publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should
state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to
remove such information before making the comment submissions available
to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.
II. Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility
Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses and Proposed No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under
the Commission's regulations in Sec. 50.92 of title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (10 CFR), this means that operation of the facility
in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated, or (2) create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or
(3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis
for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown
below.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final
determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period if circumstances change during the 30-day comment
period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for
example in derating or shutdown of the facility. If the Commission
takes action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or
the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a notice of
issuance. If the Commission makes a final no significant hazards
consideration determination, any hearing will take place after
issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will
occur very infrequently.
A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing and Petition for Leave To Intervene
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any
persons (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by this action may
file a request for a hearing and petition for leave to intervene
(petition) with respect to the action. Petitions shall be filed in
accordance with the Commission's ``Agency Rules of Practice and
Procedure'' in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult a
current copy of 10 CFR 2.309. The NRC's regulations are accessible
electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. Alternatively, a copy of
the regulations is available at the NRC's Public Document Room, located
at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first
floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. If a petition is filed, the
Commission or a presiding officer
[[Page 47034]]
will rule on the petition and, if appropriate, a notice of a hearing
will be issued.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309(d) the petition should specifically
explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with
particular reference to the following general requirements for
standing: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the
petitioner; (2) the nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to
be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the
petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding;
and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be
entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f), the petition must also set
forth the specific contentions which the petitioner seeks to have
litigated in the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific
statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In
addition, the petitioner must provide a brief explanation of the bases
for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or
expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner
intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The
petitioner must also provide references to the specific sources and
documents on which the petitioner intends to rely to support its
position on the issue. The petition must include sufficient information
to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant or licensee on
a material issue of law or fact. Contentions must be limited to matters
within the scope of the proceeding. The contention must be one which,
if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner who
fails to satisfy the requirements at 10 CFR 2.309(f) with respect to at
least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding,
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene.
Parties have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the
hearing with respect to resolution of that party's admitted
contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence, consistent
with the NRC's regulations, policies, and procedures.
Petitions must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of
publication of this notice. Petitions and motions for leave to file new
or amended contentions that are filed after the deadline will not be
entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the
filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10
CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i) through (iii). The petition must be filed in
accordance with the filing instructions in the ``Electronic Submissions
(E-Filing)'' section of this document.
If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the
Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no
significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve
to establish when the hearing is held. If the final determination is
that the amendment request involves no significant hazards
consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it
immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any
hearing would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final
determination is that the amendment request involves a significant
hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before
the issuance of the amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent
danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will
issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.
A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian
Tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to
participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition should
state the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the
proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission no later
than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. The petition
must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the
``Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)'' section of this document, and
should meet the requirements for petitions set forth in this section,
except that under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(2) a State, local governmental body,
or federally recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof does not need
to address the standing requirements in 10 CFR 2.309(d) if the facility
is located within 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
[[Page 47035]]
a docket has been created, the participant can then submit adjudicatory
documents. Submissions must be in Portable Document Format (PDF).
Additional guidance on PDF submissions is available on the NRC's public
Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/electronic-sub-ref-mat.html. A
filing is considered complete at the time the document is submitted
through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be timely, an electronic filing
must be submitted to the E-Filing system no later than 11:59 p.m.
Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of a transmission, the E-
Filing system time-stamps the document and sends the submitter an email
notice confirming receipt of the document. The E-Filing system also
distributes an email notice that provides access to the document to the
NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any others who have advised the
Office of the Secretary that they wish to participate in the
proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the document on those
participants separately. Therefore, applicants and other participants
(or their counsel or representative) must apply for and receive a
digital ID certificate before adjudicatory documents are filed so that
they can obtain access to the documents via the E-Filing system.
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-
Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC's Electronic
Filing Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC's
public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by
email to [email protected], or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-
7640. The NRC Electronic Filing Help Desk is available between 9 a.m.
and 6 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government
holidays.
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not
submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in
accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing
stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and
requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper
format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention:
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or
expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and
Adjudications Staff. Participants filing adjudicatory documents in this
manner are responsible for serving the document on all other
participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of
the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or
expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the
provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an
exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or
party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines
that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no
longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
https://adams.nrc.gov/ehd, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the
Commission or the presiding officer. If you do not have an NRC-issued
digital ID certificate as described above, click cancel when the link
requests certificates and you will be automatically directed to the
NRC's electronic hearing dockets where you will be able to access any
publicly-available documents in a particular hearing docket.
Participants are requested not to include personal privacy information,
such as social security numbers, home addresses, or personal phone
numbers in their filings, unless an NRC regulation or other law
requires submission of such information. For example, in some
instances, individuals provide home addresses in order to demonstrate
proximity to a facility or site. With respect to copyrighted works,
except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory
filings and would constitute a Fair Use application, participants are
requested not to include copyrighted materials in their submission.
For further details with respect to these license amendment
applications, see the application for amendment, which is available for
public inspection in ADAMS and at the NRC's PDR. For additional
direction on accessing information related to this document, see the
``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' section of this
document.
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. (DNC), Docket Nos. 50-245, 50-336,
and 50-423, Millstone Power Station, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3, New London
County, Connecticut
Date of amendment request: June 15, 2017. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17171A232.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the
Renewed Facility Operating Licenses for Millstone Power Station, Unit
Nos. 1, 2, and 3, by administratively changing the company name
``Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc.'' with ``Dominion Energy Nuclear
Connecticut, Inc.''
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment to each license is administrative in
nature. DNC, which will be renamed Dominion Energy Nuclear
Connecticut, Inc., will remain the licensee authorized to operate
and possess the units, and its functions, powers, resources and
management will not change. The proposed changes do not adversely
affect accident initiators or precursors, and do not alter the
design assumptions, conditions, or configuration of the plant or the
manner in which the plant is operated and maintained. The ability of
structures, systems, and components to perform their intended safety
functions is not altered or prevented by the proposed changes, and
the assumptions used in determining the radiological consequences of
previously evaluated accidents are not affected.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment to each license is purely administrative
in nature. The functions of the licensee will not change. These
changes do not involve any physical alteration of the plant (i.e.,
no new or different type of equipment will be installed), and
installed equipment is not being operated in a new or different
manner. Thus, no new failure modes are introduced.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in the margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment to each license is administrative in
nature. DNC, which will be renamed Dominion Energy Nuclear
Connecticut, Inc., will remain the licensee authorized to operate
and possess the units, and its functions will not change. The
proposed changes do not alter the manner in which safety limits,
limiting safety system settings, or limiting conditions for
operation are determined. There are no changes to setpoints at which
protective actions are
[[Page 47036]]
initiated, and the operability requirements for equipment assumed to
operate for accident mitigation are not affected.
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: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion
Energy, Inc., 120 Tredegar Street, RS-2, Richmond, VA 23219.
NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna.
Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-313, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit
1 (ANO-1), Pope County, Arkansas
Date of amendment request: July 17, 2017. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17198F072.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the
Technical Specifications (TSs) for ANO-1 and would establish a new
Completion Time in ANO-1 TS 3.7.5, ``Emergency Feedwater (EFW)
System,'' where one steam supply to the turbine driven EFW pump is
inoperable concurrent with an inoperable motor-driven EFW train. The
amendment would also establish changes to the TSs that establish
specific Actions: (1) For when the motor driven EFW train is inoperable
at the same time and; (2) for when the turbine-driven EFW train is
inoperable either (a) due solely to one inoperable steam supply, or (b)
due to reasons other than one inoperable steam supply.
The amendment request was submitted in accordance with NRC-approved
Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Traveler, TSTF-412, Revision
3, ``Provide Actions for One Steam Supply to Turbine Driven AFW
[Auxiliary Feedwater]/EFW Pump Inoperable,'' with certain plant-
specific deviations identified in the application. The availability of
this TS improvement was published in the Federal Register on July 17,
2007 (72 FR 39089), as part of the consolidated line item improvement
process (CLIIP).
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee affirmed
the applicability of the model no significant hazards consideration
determination, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The Auxiliary/Emergency Feedwater (AFW/EFW) System is not an
initiator of any design basis accident or event, and therefore the
proposed changes do not increase the probability of any accident
previously evaluated. The proposed changes to address the condition
of one or two motor driven AFW/EFW trains inoperable and the turbine
driven AFW/EFW train inoperable due to one steam supply inoperable
do not change the response of the plant to any accidents.
The proposed changes do not adversely affect accident initiators
or precursors nor alter the design assumptions, conditions, and
configuration of the facility or the manner in which the plant is
operated and maintained. The proposed changes do not adversely
affect the ability of structures, systems, and components (SSCs) to
perform their intended safety function to mitigate the consequences
of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits. The
proposed changes do not affect the source term, containment
isolation, or radiological release assumptions used in evaluating
the radiological consequences of any accident previously evaluated.
Further, the proposed changes do not increase the types and amounts
of radioactive effluent that may be released offsite, nor
significantly increase individual or cumulative occupational/public
radiation exposures.
Therefore, the changes do not involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of any 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 do not result in a change in the manner in
which the AFW/EFW System provides plant protection. The AFW/EFW
System will continue to supply water to the steam generators to
remove decay heat and other residual heat by delivering at least the
minimum required flow rate to the steam generators. There are no
design changes associated with the proposed changes. The changes to
the Conditions and Required Actions do not change any existing
accident scenarios, nor create any new or different accident
scenarios.
The changes do not involve a physical alteration of the plant
(i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a
change in the methods governing normal plant operation. In addition,
the changes do not impose any new or different requirements or
eliminate any existing requirements. The changes do not alter
assumptions made in the safety analysis. The proposed changes are
consistent with the safety analysis assumptions and current plant
operating practice.
Therefore, the changes do 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 changes do not alter the manner in which safety
limits, limiting safety system settings or limiting conditions for
operation are determined. The safety analysis acceptance criteria
are not impacted by these changes. The proposed changes will not
result in plant operation in a configuration outside the design
basis.
Therefore, it is concluded that 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. Anna Vinson Jones, Senior Counsel,
Entergy Services, Inc., 101 Constitution Avenue NW., Suite 200 East,
Washington, DC 20001.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-368, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit
2 (ANO-2), Pope County, Arkansas
Date of amendment request: July 17, 2017. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17198F356.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the
technical specifications (TSs) for ANO-2 by establishing Actions and
Allowable Outage Times in TS 3.7.1.2, ``Emergency Feedwater [EFW]
System,'' for several combinations of inoperable EFW trains, consistent
with NUREG-1432, ``Standard Technical Specifications for Combustion
Engineering Plants,'' Revision 4. Revision 4 of NUREG-1432 includes
changes incorporated by Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF)-340,
Revision 3, ``Allow 7 Day Completion Time for a Turbine-Driven AFW
[Auxiliary Feedwater] Pump Inoperable,'' and TSTF-412, Revision 3,
``Provide Actions for One Steam Supply to Turbine Driven AFW/EFW Pump
Inoperable.'' Certain proposed deviations from the NUREG-1432, Revision
4, TS changes are identified in the application.
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.
[[Page 47037]]
The proposed changes clarify the operability requirements of the
EFW system and provide appropriate remedial actions to be performed
respective to potential EFW configurations or out-of-service
periods, consistent with the STS [standard technical
specifications]. The EFW system is not an initiator of any design
basis accident or event and, therefore, the proposed changes do not
increase the probability of any accident previously evaluated. The
EFW system is used to respond to accidents previously evaluated. The
proposed change affects only the actions taken when portions of the
EFW system are unavailable and does not affect the design of the EFW
system.
The proposed changes do not adversely affect accident initiators
or precursors nor alter the design assumptions, conditions, and
configuration of the facility or the manner in which the plant is
operated and maintained. The proposed changes do not adversely
affect the ability of structures, systems, and components (SSCs) to
perform their intended safety function to mitigate the consequences
of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits. The
proposed changes do not affect the source term, containment
isolation, or radiological release assumptions used in evaluating
the radiological consequences of any accident previously evaluated.
Further, the proposed changes do not increase the types and amounts
of radioactive effluent that may be released offsite, nor
significantly increase individual or cumulative occupational/public
radiation exposures.
Therefore, 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 changes do not result in a change in the manner in
which the EFW system provides plant protection. The EFW system will
continue to supply water to the Steam Generators (SGs) to remove
decay heat and other residual heat by delivering at least the
minimum required flow rate to the SGs. There are no design changes
associated with the proposed changes. The changes to the related TS
Actions do not change any existing accident scenarios, nor create
any new or different accident scenarios.
The changes do not involve a physical alteration of the plant
(i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a
change in the methods governing normal plant operation. In addition,
the changes do not impose any new or different requirements or
eliminate any existing requirements. The changes do not alter
assumptions made in the safety analysis.
Therefore, this change does not create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from an accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not alter the manner in which safety
limits, limiting safety system settings, or limiting conditions for
operation are determined. The safety analysis acceptance criteria
are not impacted by these changes. The proposed changes will not
result in continued plant operation in a configuration outside the
design basis.
Therefore, 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: Ms. Anna Vinson Jones, Senior Counsel,
Entergy Services, Inc., 101 Constitution Avenue NW., Suite 200 East,
Washington, DC 20001.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-219, Oyster Creek Nuclear
Generating Station (Oyster Creek), Ocean County, New Jersey
Date of amendment request: August 30, 2017. A publicly-available
version is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17242A211.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the
Oyster Creek Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-16, Section
2.C, License Condition (5) by replacing Boiling Water Reactor (BWR)
Vessel and Internals Project technical report BWRVIP-18, Revision 0, as
approved by NRC staff's Final Safety Evaluation Report dated December
2, 1999, with the latest BWRVIP-18 revision approved on December 21,
2016.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change to the License Condition 2.C.(5)
requirements for inspection of Core Spray spargers, piping and
associated components does not alter the use of the inspection
methods and criteria used to determine the capability of the Core
Spray System to perform its intended safety function that have been
previously reviewed and approved by the NRC. The proposed change is
in accordance with an NRC approved inspection and flaw evaluation
guideline and as such, maintains required safety margins. The
proposed change does not adversely affect accident initiators or
precursors, nor does it alter the design assumptions, conditions, or
configuration of the facility or the manner in which the plant is
operated and maintained.
The proposed change does not alter or prevent the ability of
structures, systems, and components (SSCs) from performing their
intended function to mitigate the consequences of an initiating
event within the assumed acceptance limits. The proposed change does
not require any physical change to any plant SSCs nor does it
require any change in systems or plant operations. The proposed
change is consistent with the safety analysis assumptions and
resultant consequences.
Incorporating NRG-approved inspection frequency and criteria for
Core Spray spargers, piping and associated components has no
physical effect on plant equipment and therefore, no impact on the
course of plant transients.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed incorporation of NRC-approved inspection frequency
and criteria for Core Spray spargers, piping and associated
components is a change based upon previously approved documents and
does not involve changes to the plant hardware or its operating
characteristics. As a result, no new failure modes are being
introduced. There are no hardware changes nor are there any changes
in the method by which any plant systems perform a safety function.
No new accident scenarios, failure mechanisms, or limiting single
failures are introduced as a result of the proposed change.
The proposed change does not introduce any new accident
precursors, nor does it involve any physical plant alterations or
changes in the methods governing normal plant operation. The change
does not alter 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. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The margin of safety is established through the design of the
plant structures, systems, and components, and through the
parameters for safe operation and setpoints for the actuation of
equipment relied upon to respond to transients and design basis
accidents. The use of inspection frequency and criteria for Core
Spray spargers, piping and associated components in accordance with
NRC-approved methods, guidelines, and criteria provides adequate
assurance that the Core Spray System can perform its safety function
as required by the plant-specific [loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA)]-
analysis. Therefore, the proposed change does not decrease the
margin of safety. The proposed change in inspection criteria
maintains the current safety margin, which protects the fuel
[[Page 47038]]
cladding integrity during a postulated LOCA event, but does not
change the requirements governing operation or availability of
safety equipment assumed to operate to preserve the margin of
safety. The change does not alter the behavior of plant equipment,
which remains unchanged.
The proposed change to License Condition 2.C.(5) is consistent
with NRC-approved methods, guidelines, and criteria and provides
adequate assurance that the Core Spray System can perform its safety
function as required by the plant-specific LOCA-analysis. No
setpoints at which protective actions are initiated are altered by
the proposed change. The proposed change does not alter the manner
in which the safety limits are determined. This change is consistent
with plant design and does not change the Technical Specification
operability requirements; thus, previously evaluated accidents are
not affected by this proposed change.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in the margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel,
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL
60555.
NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.
NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC, Docket No. 50-443, Seabrook Station, Unit
No. 1, Rockingham County, New Hampshire
Date of amendment request: July 28, 2017. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17212A034.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the
direct current (DC) battery Technical Specifications 3.8.2.1, 3.8.2.2,
3.8.3.1, and 3.8.3.2 such that a DC electrical train is operable with
one 100 percent capacity battery aligned to both DC buses in the
associated electrical train. The amendment also proposes to remove a
footnote to Surveillance Requirement 4.8.2.1 associated with DC battery
checks.
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 technical specification (TS) limiting conditions for
operation and required actions associated with the proposed changes
to the TS are not initiators of any accidents previously evaluated,
so the probability of accidents previously evaluated is unaffected
by the proposed changes. The proposed change does not alter the
design, function, or operation of any plant structure, system, or
component (SSC). The capability of any operable TS-required SSC to
perform its specified safety function is not impacted by the
proposed change. As a result, the outcomes of accidents previously
evaluated are unaffected.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not result in 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?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not challenge the integrity or
performance of any safety-related systems. No plant equipment is
installed or removed, and the changes do not alter the design,
physical configuration, or method of operation of any plant SSC.
No physical changes are made to the plant, so no new causal
mechanisms are introduced. Therefore, the proposed changes to the TS
do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident
from any accident previously evaluated.
The proposed change does not challenge the integrity or
performance of any safety-related systems. No plant equipment is
installed or removed, and the changes do not alter the design,
physical configuration, or method of operation of any plant SSC. No
physical changes are made to the plant, so no new causal mechanisms
are introduced.
Therefore, the proposed changes to the TS do 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
the margin of safety?
Response: No.
The ability of any operable SSC to perform its designated safety
function is unaffected by the proposed changes. The proposed changes
do not alter any safety analyses assumptions, safety limits,
limiting safety system settings, or method of operating the plant.
The changes do not adversely affect plant operating margins or the
reliability of equipment credited in the safety analyses. With the
proposed change, each DC electrical trains remains fully capable of
performing its safety function.
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 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 Blair, Managing Attorney, Florida
Power & Light Company, P.O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420.
NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC), Docket Nos. 50-424, 50-
425, 52-025, and 52-026, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1, 2,
3, and 4, Burke County, Georgia
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-
364, Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Houston County,
Alabama
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-
366, Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, City of Dalton,
Georgia
Date of amendment request: August 30, 2017. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17243A202.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would relocate the
emergency operations facility for the eight units of the SNC nuclear
fleet from the SNC corporate headquarters in Birmingham, Alabama, to a
new location 1.3 miles away.
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 to relocate the consolidated EOF [emergency
operations facility] within Birmingham, Alabama, requires no change
to the required staff response time for supplementing onsite
personnel in response to a radiological emergency. The relocated EOF
is along the same major roadway and response personnel will be able
to access the facility, using for the most part, the same path they
currently use to travel to the corporate office. The license
amendment does not request a change to the response time and the
facility will be functional within the same timeframe as for the
existing EOF. The functions and capabilities of the relocated EOF
will continue to meet the applicable regulatory requirements. The
proposed change has no effect on normal plant operation or on any
accident initiator or precursors and does not impact the function of
plant structures, systems, or components [(SSCs)]. The proposed
change does not alter or prevent the ability of the emergency
response organization to perform its intended functions to mitigate
the consequences of an accident or event.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the
[[Page 47039]]
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 only concerns implementation of the standard
emergency plan by relocating the Corporate EOF a short distance (1.3
miles) from its current location. The new location will not change
the time the facility will be functional to provide emergency
response. The functions and capabilities of the relocated EOF will
continue to meet the applicable regulatory requirements. The
proposed change will not change the design function or operation of
SSCs. The change does not impact the accident analysis for any of
the SNC nuclear plants. The change does not involve a physical
alteration of any of the plants, a change in the method of plant
operation, or new operator actions. The proposed change does not
introduce failure modes that could result in a new accident, and the
change does not alter assumptions made in safety analyses.
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 only impacts the implementation of the
emergency plan by relocating the Corporate EOF a short distance (1.3
miles) within Birmingham, Alabama. The change does not the affect
staff response time or the time it takes to make the facility
operational to perform its intended emergency response functions.
The functions and capabilities of the relocated EOF will continue to
meet the applicable regulatory requirements. Margin of safety is
associated with confidence in the ability of the fission product
barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, reactor coolant system pressure
boundary, and containment structure) to limit the level of radiation
dose to the public. The proposed change is associated with the
emergency plan and does not impact operation of the plant or its
response to transients or accidents. The change does not affect
Technical Specifications. The change does not involve a change in
the method of plant operation, and accident analyses will not be
affected by the proposed change. Safety analyses acceptance criteria
are not affected. The standard emergency plan and the plant annexes
will continue to provide the required response staff for performing
major tasks for the functional areas of the emergency plans.
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.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026,
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4, Burke County, Georgia
Date of amendment request: August 31, 2017. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17243A088.
Description of amendment request: The requested amendments propose
to depart from approved AP1000 Design Control Document by proposing
changes to the combined license (COL) and the COL Appendix A, Technical
Specifications. Specifically, the amendments, if approved, would revise
the COL documents mentioned previously to reflect the proposed changes
to the reactor coolant system and main steam line leakage detection
systems for detection of leakage at all times and consideration of
instrument sensitivities not accounted for.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below, with NRC staff edits in square
brackets:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The [reactor coolant system (RCS)] leakage detection systems
provide early warning of abnormal degradation of the reactor coolant
pressure boundary (RCPB) or the main steam lines inside containment
so that actions can be taken to prevent pipe breaks. The change
proposed to limiting condition for operation (LCO) 3.4.9 adds
limited periods during which the containment sump level and/or
containment atmosphere F18 particulate monitor are not required to
be operable--during and for 2 hours after use of the containment
purge flow path, and during in-containment refueling water storage
tank (IRWST) gutter drain isolation valve closure and for 2 hours
after reopening the valves--and proposes a compensatory increase in
the frequency of the RCS inventory balance during these periods.
Containment purge, containment venting and IRWST gutter drain
isolation valve closure are evolutions associated with normal
operating conditions. The probability of a leakage flaw growing to a
size that would cause pipe failure during and for 2 hours after
IRWST gutter drain isolation valve inservice testing or a
containment venting evolution is low because the durations of the
test and venting evolution are short. The probability of a leakage
flaw growing to a size that would cause pipe failure during and for
2 hours after a containment purge operation is low because
containment purge operations at power are infrequent, and because
containment purge in preparation for refueling is conducted
concurrent with operations that will put the plant in operating
modes for which LCO 3.4.9 is not applicable (MODES 5 and 6).
The RCS inventory balance method of leak detection is
quantitative and remains available when the plant has been operating
at steady state for at least 12 hours and the leakage
instrumentation is not required to be operable. In addition, the
leak detection instruments will remain functional and have
sensitivities such that the instrumentation will still be useful as
a leak detection aid to operators during a containment purge
operation or IRWST gutter drain isolation valve inservice testing.
The RCS leakage detection instrumentation is not credited with
consequence mitigation during any accident previously evaluated.
Existing Required Action A.1 is intended to determine whether
the remaining required containment sump level instrument is
functioning properly when one of the required instruments is
inoperable. Removal of Required Action A.1 does not increase the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated
because a new Surveillance Requirement is proposed which will
provide more appropriate monitoring to assess operability of the
remaining required containment sump level channel.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The failure of the leak detection systems to detect small leaks
in the reactor coolant pressure boundary could lead to large
undetected leaks and possibly a loss of coolant accident. Loss of
coolant accidents for a spectrum of pipe sizes and locations are
already postulated in [Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR)]
Chapter 15, Section 15.6. Breaks in the main steam lines inside
containment are also analyzed in UFSAR Chapter 15, Section 15.1.
Unidentified leakage detection and operator action in response to
unidentified leakage are not postulated for any of the design basis
accident analyses described in UFSAR Chapter 15.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment does not reduce RCS leakage detection
instrument availability with respect to IRWST gutter drain isolation
valve closure or reactor power level. The changes to compensate for
instrument sensitivities during containment purge
[[Page 47040]]
operation do not represent a significant portion of the expected
operating time in MODES 1, 2, 3 and 4. The containment purge
isolation valves are opened temporarily during plant startup to
relieve containment pressure increase due to thermal expansion.
Containment purge during power operation may be required to support
containment entry--which is infrequent. The containment purge flow
paths are also used for venting the containment atmosphere to
control containment pressure differential as weather changes affect
ambient pressure. When the containment purge system is not being
used to support personnel access into containment or to control the
containment atmospheric pressure, the containment air filtration
system containment isolation valves are maintained in their normally
closed position. The IRWST gutter drain isolation valves are cycled
quarterly, but are normally maintained in the open position.
Therefore, use of the containment purge flow paths and closure of
the IRWST gutter drain isolation valves do not represent a
significant portion of the time in power operation. In addition, the
action to perform a RCS inventory balance on a greater frequency
during these evolutions will provide more appropriate monitoring to
assess operability of the leak detection instrumentation. Therefore,
the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety.
Removing existing Required Action A.1 and adding surveillance of
the containment sump level channels does not significantly decrease
the margin of safety. The prescribed Action did not provide
definitive information about instrument performance or operability.
The new Surveillance Requirement proposed will provide a history of
the operational performance of the containment sump level
instrumentation that will better assist in the determination of
instrument operability.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: M. Stanford Blanton, Balch & Bingham LLP,
1710 Sixth Avenue, North, Birmingham, AL 35203-2015.
NRC Branch Chief: Jennifer Dixon-Herrity.
Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-280 and 50-281,
Surry Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Surry County, Virginia
Date of amendment request: May 23, 2017. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17150A302.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would add
operability requirements, required actions, instrument settings, and
surveillance requirements to the Technical Specifications (TSs) for the
4160 volt (V) emergency bus negative sequence voltage (open phase)
protection function. Specifically, the proposed amendments would revise
TS Table 3.7-2, ``Engineered Safeguards Action, Instrument Operating
Conditions''; Table 3.7-4, ``Engineered Safety Feature System
Initiation Limits Instrument Setting''; Table 4.1-1, ``Minimum
Frequencies for Check, Calibrations and Test of Instrument Channels'';
and add new TS Action 27 Table Notation to Tables 3.7-2 and 3.7-3,
``Instrument Operating Conditions for Isolation Functions.'' The
negative sequence voltage (open phase) protection function provides
detection and isolation of one or two open phases (i.e., an open phase
condition) on a TS required offsite primary (preferred) power source
and initiates transfer to the onsite emergency power source (i.e., the
emergency diesel generators (EDGs)).
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 change involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change adds operability requirements, required
actions, instrument settings, and surveillance requirements for the
negative sequence voltage (open phase) protection function
associated with the 4160V emergency buses. This system provides an
additional level of undervoltage protection for Class 1E electrical
equipment. The proposed change will promote reliability of the
negative sequence voltage (open phase) protection circuitry in the
performance of its design function of detecting and mitigating an
open phase condition (OPC) on a required off-site primary power
source and initiating transfer to the onsite emergency power source.
The new negative sequence voltage (open phase) protection
function will further ensure the normally operating Class 1E motors/
equipment, which are powered from the Class 1E buses, are
appropriately isolated from a primary off-site power source
experiencing a consequential OPC and will not be damaged. The
addition of the negative sequence voltage (open phase) protection
function will continue to allow the existing undervoltage protection
circuitry to function as originally designed (i.e., degraded and
loss of voltage protection will remain in place and be unaffected by
this change). The proposed change does not affect the probability of
any accident resulting in a loss of voltage or degraded voltage
condition on the Class 1E electrical buses and will enhance station
response to mitigating the consequences of accidents previously
evaluated as this change further ensures continued operation of
Class 1E equipment throughout accident scenarios.
Specific models and analyses were performed and demonstrated
that the proposed negative sequence voltage (open phase) protection
function, with the specified operability requirements, required
actions, instrument settings, and surveillance requirements, will
ensure the Class 1E system will be isolated from the off-site power
source should a consequential OPC occur. The Class 1E motors will be
subsequently sequenced back onto the Class 1E buses powered by the
EDGs and will therefore not be damaged in the event of a
consequential OPC under both accident and non-accident conditions.
Therefore, the Class 1E loads will be available to perform their
design basis functions should a loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA)
occur concurrent with a loss-of-off-site power (LOOP) following an
OPC. The loading sequence (i.e., timing) of Class 1E equipment back
onto the ESF [engineered safety feature] bus, powered by the EDG, is
within the existing degraded voltage time delay.
The addition of the new negative sequence voltage (open phase)
protection function will have no impact on accident initiators or
precursors and does not alter the accident analysis assumptions.
Based on the above, the proposed change does not involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the 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 requirements for the
availability of the 4160V emergency buses during accident
conditions. The proposed change does not alter assumptions made in
the safety analysis and is consistent with those assumptions. The
addition of the negative sequence voltage (open phase) protection
function TS enhances the ability of plant operators to identify and
respond to an OPC in an off-site, primary power source, thereby
ensuring the station electric distribution system will perform its
intended safety function as designed. The proposed TS change will
promote negative sequence voltage (open phase) protection function
performance reliability in a manner similar to the existing loss of
voltage and degraded voltage protective circuitry.
The proposed change does not result in the creation of any new
accident precursors; does not result in changes to any existing
accident scenarios, and does not introduce any operational changes
or mechanisms that would create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident. A failure mode and effects review was
completed for postulated failure mechanisms of the new negative
sequence voltage protection function and concluded that the addition
of this protection function would not affect the existing loss of
voltage and degraded voltage protection schemes; would not affect
the number of occurrences of degraded voltage conditions that would
cause the actuation of the existing Loss of Voltage, Degraded
[[Page 47041]]
Voltage or negative sequence voltage protection relays; would not
affect the failure rate of the existing protection relays; and would
not impact the assumptions in any existing accident scenario.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does this change involve a significant reduction in a margin
of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change enhances the ability of the plant to
identify and isolate (an) open phase(s) in an off-site, primary
power source and transfer the power source for the 4160V emergency
buses to the onsite emergency power system. The proposed change does
not affect the dose analysis acceptance criteria, does not result in
plant operation in a configuration outside the analyses or design
basis, and does not adversely affect systems that respond to safely
shutdown the plant and to maintain the plant in a safe shutdown
condition.
With the addition of the new negative sequence voltage (open
phase) protection function, the capability of Class 1E equipment to
perform its safety function will be further assured and the
equipment will remain capable of mitigating the consequences of
previously analyzed accidents while maintaining the existing margin
to safety currently assumed in the accident analyses.
Therefore, the proposed TS 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: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion
Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar St., RS-2, Richmond, VA 23219.
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.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414, Catawba
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York County, South Carolina
Date of amendment request: December 15, 2016.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments modified Technical
Specification (TS) 3.8.1, ``AC Sources--Operating,'' to allow greater
flexibility in performing Surveillance Requirements (SRs) by modifying
Mode restriction notes in TS SRs 3.8.1.11, 3.8.1.16, 3.8.1.17,
3.8.1.19, 3.8.4.8, and 3.8.4.9. These proposed changes are consistent
with Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-283-A,
Revision 3, ``Modify Section 3.8 Mode Restriction Notes.''
Date of issuance: September 8, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 120 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 292 (Unit 1) and 288 (Unit 2). A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17178A234; documents related
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with
the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-35 and NPF-52:
Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 25, 2017 (82 FR
19101).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 8, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370, McGuire
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Date of amendment request: January 11, 2017.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments modified Technical
Specification (TS) 3.1.2, ``Core Reactivity,'' to revise the Completion
Times of Required Action A.1 and A.2 from 72 hours to 7 days. This
proposed change is consistent with NRC-approved Technical
Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-142-A, Revision 0,
``Increase the Completion Time when the Core Reactivity Balance is Not
Within Limit.''
Date of issuance: September 8, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 120 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 297 (Unit 1) and 276 (Unit 2). A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17207A284; documents related
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with
the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-9 and NPF-17:
Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 23, 2017 (82 FR
23618).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 8, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370, McGuire
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Date of amendment request: January 11, 2017.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments modified Technical
Specification (TS) 3.6.3, ``Containment Isolation Valves,'' to add a
Note to TS Limiting Condition for Operation 3.6.3 Required Actions A.2,
C.2, and E.2 to allow isolation devices that are locked, sealed, or
otherwise secured to be verified by use of administrative means. The
changes are consistent with NRC-approved Technical Specifications Task
Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-269-A, Revision 2, ``Allow administrative
[[Page 47042]]
means of position verification for locked or sealed valves.''
Date of issuance: September 18, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 120 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 298 (Unit 1) and 277 (Unit 2). A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17240A354; documents related
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with
the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-9 and NPF-17:
Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 23, 2017 (82 FR
23619).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 18, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370, McGuire
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Date of amendment request: January 11, 2017.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments modified Technical
Specification (TS) 3.4.12, ``Low Temperature Overpressure Protection
(LTOP) System,'' to increase the time allowed for swapping charging
pumps to one hour. Additionally, an existing note in the Applicability
section of TS 3.4.12 was reworded and relocated to the Limiting
Condition for Operation section of TS 3.4.12 as Note 2. These proposed
changes were consistent with NRC-approved Technical Specifications Task
Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-285-A, Revision 1, ``Charging Pump Swap LTOP
Allowance.''
Date of issuance: September 25, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 120 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 299 (Unit 1) and 278 (Unit 2). A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17244A102; documents related
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with
the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-9 and NPF-17:
Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 23, 2017 (82 FR
23620).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 25, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Indiana Michigan Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-315 and 50-316, Donald
C. Cook Nuclear Plant (CNP), Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Berrien County,
Michigan
Date of amendment request: December 14, 2016, as supplemented by
letter dated May 26, 2017.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the note
regarding applicability of the limiting condition for operation for CNP
Technical Specification 3.9.3, ``Containment Penetrations.''
Date of issuance: September 21, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 120 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 337 (Unit No. 1) and 319 (Unit No. 2). A publicly-
available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17214A550;
documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety
Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-58 and DPR-74:
Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 28, 2017 (82
FR 12133). The supplemental letter dated May 26, 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 September 21, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
NextEra Energy Duane Arnold, LLC, Docket No. 50-331, Duane Arnold
Energy Center (DAEC), Linn County, Iowa
Date of amendment request: September 13, 2016, as supplemented by
letters dated April 7, 2017, and June 19, 2017.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment made changes to the
DAEC Emergency Plan to revise the staffing and the augmentation times
for certain emergency response organization positions.
Date of issuance: September 21, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 180 days.
Amendment No.: 301. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML17220A026; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-49: The amendment made
changes to the DAEC Emergency Plan.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 22, 2016 (81
FR 83877). The supplemental letters dated April 7, 2017, and June 19,
2017, provided additional information that clarified the application,
did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and
did not change the 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 September 21, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC, Docket No. 50-443, Seabrook Station, Unit
No. 1 (Seabrook), Rockingham County, New Hampshire
Florida Power & Light Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389,
St. Lucie Plant (St. Lucie), Unit Nos. 1 and 2, St. Lucie County,
Florida
Date of amendment request: March 30, 2017.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical
Specification requirements to operate ventilation systems with charcoal
filters from 10 hours to 15 minutes in accordance with TSTF-522,
Revision 0, ``Revise Ventilation System Surveillance Requirements to
Operate for 10 hours per Month.''
Date of issuance: September 11, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos: 156 (Seabrook); 240 (St. Lucie, Unit No. 1) and 191
(St. Lucie, Unit No. 2). A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML17219A556; documents related to these amendments are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-86, DPR-67, and NPF-16:
Amendments revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical
Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 23, 2017 (82 FR
23627).
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.
[[Page 47043]]
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323, Diablo
Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2 (DCPP), San Luis Obispo
County, California
Date of amendment request: October 25, 2016, as supplemented by
letters dated June 21, 2017, and August 17, 2017.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the
Emergency Plan (E-Plan) for DCPP to adopt the Nuclear Energy
Institute's (NEI's) revised Emergency Action Level (EAL) schemes
described in NEI 99-01, Revision 6, ``Development of Emergency Action
Levels for Non-Passive Reactors,'' November 2012. Revision 6 of NEI 99-
01 has been endorsed by the NRC by letter dated March 28, 2013. The
currently approved E-Plan and associated EALs for DCPP are based on the
guidance established in NEI 99-01, Revision 4 (NUMARC/NESP-007),
``Methodology for Development of Emergency Action Levels,'' January
2003, except for security-related EALs, which are based on the guidance
established in NEI 99-01, Revision 5, ``Methodology for Development of
Emergency Action Levels,'' February 2008.
Date of issuance: September 25, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 365 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 231 (Unit 1) and 233 (Unit 2). A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17212A379; documents related
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with
the amendments.
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-80 and DPR-82: The amendments
revised the Facility Operating Licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 6, 2016 (81 FR
87973). The supplemental letters dated June 21, 2017, and August 17,
2017, provided additional information that clarified the application,
did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and
did not change the 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 September 25, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-
364, Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Houston County,
Alabama
Date of amendment request: October 11, 2016, as supplemented by
letters dated May 15, 2017, and June 30, 2017.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments add new Action
Conditions (A, B, and C) to Technical Specification (TS) 3.8.9 that
address an inoperable 600 Volt AC load center (LC) 1-2R. The amendments
include appropriate Required Actions and associated Completion Times
for an inoperable LC 1-2R. Appropriate corresponding changes were made
to the remaining conditions to reflect these new conditions.
Date of issuance: September 15, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 213 (Unit 1) and 210 (Unit 2). A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17205A020; documents related
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with
the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-2 and NPF-8: The
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 20, 2016 (81
FR 92872). The supplemental letters dated May 15, 2017, and June 30,
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 September 15, 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: March 24, 2017, as supplemented by
letter dated June 15, 2017.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical
Specification 3.7.9, ``Ultimate Heat Sink (UHS),'' to extend the
completion time to restore one inoperable nuclear service cooling water
(NSCW) basin transfer pump from 31 days to 46 days. Additionally, a new
condition was added to address two inoperable NSCW basin transfer
pumps.
Date of issuance: September 19, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 192 (Unit 1) and 175 (Unit 2). A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17213A133; documents related
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with
the amendments.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-68 and NPF-81: Amendments
revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 9, 2017 (82 FR
21563).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 19, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 50-391, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant,
Unit 2, Rhea County, Tennessee
Date of amendment request: December 21, 2016, as supplemented by
letter dated May 19, 2017.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical
Specification (TS) Surveillance Requirements (SRs) 3.6.11.2 and
3.6.11.3 to modify the requirements for the total weight of stored ice,
minimum weight of each ice basket, and average ice weight of sample
baskets. The amendment also made conforming changes to TS Table SR
3.0.2-1.
Date of issuance: September 14, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 14. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML17215B037; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-96: Amendment revised the
Facility Operating License and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 28, 2017 (82 FR
15388). The supplemental letter dated May 19, 2017, provided additional
information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of
the application as originally noticed, and did not change the 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 September 14, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
[[Page 47044]]
Union Electric Company, Docket No. 50-483, Callaway Plant, Unit 1,
Callaway County, Missouri
Date of amendment request: October 11, 2016, as supplemented by
letters dated May 18, 2017, and June 2, 2017.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical
Specification (TS) requirements to reference and allow use of the NRC-
approved core reload methodologies described in Westinghouse topical
reports WCAP-16045-P-A, Revision 0, ``Qualification of the Two-
Dimensional Transport Code PARAGON''; WCAP-16045-P-A, Addendum 1-A,
Revision 0, ``Qualification of the NEXUS Nuclear Data Methodology'';
and WCAP-10965-P-A, Addendum 2-A, Revision 0, ``Qualification of the
New Pin Power Recovery Methodology,'' for the Callaway Plant.
Date of issuance: September 15, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 217. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML17236A082; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-30: The amendment
revised the Operating License and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 3, 2017 (82 FR
162). The supplemental letters dated May 18, 2017, 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 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 September 15, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day of October 2017.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Anne T. Boland,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2017-21607 Filed 10-6-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P