[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 204 (Tuesday, October 24, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49234-49247]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-22680]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2017-0208]
Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility
Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant
Hazards Considerations
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Biweekly notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 189a.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,
as amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is
publishing this regular biweekly notice. The Act requires the
Commission to publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to
be issued, and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make
immediately effective any amendment to an operating license or combined
license, as applicable, upon a determination by the Commission that
such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration,
notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a
hearing from any person.
This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or
proposed to be issued, from September 26, 2017, to October 06, 2017.
The last biweekly notice was published on September 25, 2017.
DATES: Comments must be filed by November 24, 2017. A request for a
hearing must be filed by December 26, 2017.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2017-0208. 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: May Ma, Office of Administration, Mail
Stop: OWFN-2-A13, 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-2017-0208 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-2017-0208.
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-2017-0208, 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
[[Page 49235]]
margin of safety. The basis for this proposed determination for each
amendment request is shown below.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final
determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period if circumstances change during the 30-day comment
period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for
example in derating or shutdown of the facility. If the Commission
takes action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or
the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a notice of
issuance. If the Commission makes a final no significant hazards
consideration determination, any hearing will take place after
issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will
occur very infrequently.
A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing and Petition for Leave To Intervene
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any
persons (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by this action may
file a request for a hearing and petition for leave to intervene
(petition) with respect to the action. Petitions shall be filed in
accordance with the Commission's ``Agency Rules of Practice and
Procedure'' in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult a
current copy of 10 CFR 2.309. The NRC's regulations are accessible
electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. Alternatively, a copy of
the regulations is available at the NRC's Public Document Room, located
at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first
floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. If a petition is filed, the
Commission or a presiding officer will rule on the petition and, if
appropriate, a notice of a hearing will be issued.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309(d) the petition should specifically
explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with
particular reference to the following general requirements for
standing: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the
petitioner; (2) the nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to
be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the
petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding;
and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be
entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f), the petition must also set
forth the specific contentions which the petitioner seeks to have
litigated in the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific
statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In
addition, the petitioner must provide a brief explanation of the bases
for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or
expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner
intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The
petitioner must also provide references to the specific sources and
documents on which the petitioner intends to rely to support its
position on the issue. The petition must include sufficient information
to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant or licensee on
a material issue of law or fact. Contentions must be limited to matters
within the scope of the proceeding. The contention must be one which,
if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner who
fails to satisfy the requirements at 10 CFR 2.309(f) with respect to at
least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding,
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene.
Parties have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the
hearing with respect to resolution of that party's admitted
contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence, consistent
with the NRC's regulations, policies, and procedures.
Petitions must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of
publication of this notice. Petitions and motions for leave to file new
or amended contentions that are filed after the deadline will not be
entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the
filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10
CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i) through (iii). The petition must be filed in
accordance with the filing instructions in the ``Electronic Submissions
(E-Filing)'' section of this document.
If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the
Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no
significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve
to establish when the hearing is held. If the final determination is
that the amendment request involves no significant hazards
consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it
immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any
hearing would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final
determination is that the amendment request involves a significant
hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before
the issuance of the amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent
danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will
issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.
A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian
Tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to
participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition should
state the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the
proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission no later
than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. The petition
must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the
``Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)'' section of this document, and
should meet the requirements for petitions set forth in this section,
except that under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(2) a State, local governmental body,
or federally recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof does not need
to address the standing requirements in 10 CFR 2.309(d) if the facility
is located within 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
[[Page 49236]]
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 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.
Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-313, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit
1, Pope County, Arkansas
Date of amendment request: August 14, 2017. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17226A207.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would add Technical
Specification (TS) requirements for unavailable barriers by adding
Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) 3.0.9, consistent with NRC-
approved Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Improved Standard
Technical Specifications Change Traveler TSTF-427, Revision 2,
``Allowance for Non-
[[Page 49237]]
Technical Specification Barrier Degradation on Supported System
Operability.'' The Notice of Availability of this TS improvement and
the model application were published in the Federal Register on October
3, 2006 (71 FR 58444), 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:
Criterion 1--The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant
Increase in the Probability or Consequences of an Accident
Previously Evaluated.
The proposed change allows a delay time for entering a supported
system technical specification (TS) when the inoperability is due
solely to an unavailable barrier if risk is assessed and managed.
The postulated initiating events which may require a functional
barrier are limited to those with low frequencies of occurrence, and
the overall TS system safety function would still be available for
the majority of anticipated challenges. Therefore, the probability
of an accident previously evaluated is not significantly increased,
if at all. The consequences of an accident while relying on the
allowance provided by proposed LCO 3.0.9 are no different than the
consequences of an accident while relying on the TS required actions
in effect without the allowance provided by proposed LCO 3.0.9.
Therefore, the consequences of an accident previously evaluated are
not significantly affected by this change. The addition of a
requirement to assess and manage the risk introduced by this change
will further minimize possible concerns. Therefore, this change does
not involve a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
Criterion 2--The Proposed Change Does Not Create the Possibility
of a New or Different Kind of Accident from any Previously
Evaluated.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of
the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed).
Allowing delay times for entering supported system TS when
inoperability is due solely to an unavailable barrier, if risk is
assessed and managed, will not introduce new failure modes or
effects and will not, in the absence of other unrelated failures,
lead to an accident whose consequences exceed the consequences of
accidents previously evaluated. The addition of a requirement to
assess and manage the risk introduced by this change will further
minimize possible concerns. Thus, this change does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from an accident
previously evaluated.
Criterion 3--The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant
Reduction in the Margin of Safety.
The proposed change allows a delay time for entering a supported
system TS when the inoperability is due solely to an unavailable
barrier, if risk is assessed and managed. The postulated initiating
events which may require a functional barrier are limited to those
with low frequencies of occurrence, and the overall TS system safety
function would still be available for the majority of anticipated
challenges. The risk impact of the proposed TS changes was assessed
following the three-tiered approach recommended in RG [Regulatory
Guide] 1.177. A bounding risk assessment was performed to justify
the proposed TS changes. This application of LCO 3.0.9 is predicated
upon the licensee's performance of a risk assessment and the
management of plant risk. The net change to the margin of safety is
insignificant as indicated by the anticipated low levels of
associated risk (ICCDP [incremental conditional core damage
probability] and ICLERP [incremental conditional large early release
probability]) as shown in Table 1 of Section 3.1.1 in the Safety
Evaluation. Therefore, this change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the above 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, Pope County, Arkansas
Date of amendment request: August 14, 2017. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17226A210.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would add Technical
Specification (TS) requirements for unavailable barriers by adding
Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) 3.0.9, consistent with NRC-
approved Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Improved Standard
Technical Specifications Change Traveler TSTF-427, Revision 2,
``Allowance for Non-Technical Specification Barrier Degradation on
Supported System Operability.'' The Notice of Availability of this TS
improvement and the model application were published in the Federal
Register on October 3, 2006 (71 FR 58444), 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:
Criterion 1--The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant
Increase in the Probability or Consequences of an Accident
Previously Evaluated.
The proposed change allows a delay time for entering a supported
system technical specification (TS) when the inoperability is due
solely to an unavailable barrier if risk is assessed and managed.
The postulated initiating events which may require a functional
barrier are limited to those with low frequencies of occurrence, and
the overall TS system safety function would still be available for
the majority of anticipated challenges. Therefore, the probability
of an accident previously evaluated is not significantly increased,
if at all. The consequences of an accident while relying on the
allowance provided by proposed LCO 3.0.9 are no different than the
consequences of an accident while relying on the TS required actions
in effect without the allowance provided by proposed LCO 3.0.9.
Therefore, the consequences of an accident previously evaluated are
not significantly affected by this change. The addition of a
requirement to assess and manage the risk introduced by this change
will further minimize possible concerns. Therefore, this change does
not involve a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
Criterion 2--The Proposed Change Does Not Create the Possibility
of a New or Different Kind of Accident from any Previously
Evaluated.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of
the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed).
Allowing delay times for entering supported system TS when
inoperability is due solely to an unavailable barrier, if risk is
assessed and managed, will not introduce new failure modes or
effects and will not, in the absence of other unrelated failures,
lead to an accident whose consequences exceed the consequences of
accidents previously evaluated. The addition of a requirement to
assess and manage the risk introduced by this change will further
minimize possible concerns. Thus, this change does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from an accident
previously evaluated.
Criterion 3--The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant
Reduction in the Margin of Safety.
The proposed change allows a delay time for entering a supported
system TS when the inoperability is due solely to an unavailable
barrier, if risk is assessed and managed. The postulated initiating
events which may require a functional barrier are limited to those
with low frequencies of occurrence, and the overall TS system safety
function would still be available for the majority of anticipated
challenges. The risk impact of the proposed TS changes was assessed
following the three-tiered approach recommended in RG [Regulatory
Guide] 1.177. A bounding risk assessment was performed to justify
the proposed TS changes. This application of LCO 3.0.9 is predicated
upon the licensee's performance of a risk assessment and the
[[Page 49238]]
management of plant risk. The net change to the margin of safety is
insignificant as indicated by the anticipated low levels of
associated risk (ICCDP [incremental conditional core damage
probability] and ICLERP [incremental conditional large early release
probability]) as shown in Table 1 of Section 3.1.1 in the Safety
Evaluation. Therefore, this change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the above 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 Nos. 50-219 and 72-15, Oyster
Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Ocean County, New Jersey
Date of amendment request: August 29, 2017. A publicly-available
version is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17241A065.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the
Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station site emergency plan (SEP) and
emergency action level (EAL) scheme for the permanently defueled
condition.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to the emergency plan and EAL scheme do not
impact the function of plant structures, systems, or components
(SSCs). The proposed changes do not affect accident initiators or
precursors, nor does it alter design assumptions. The proposed
changes do not prevent the ability of the on-shift staff and
emergency response organization (ERO) to perform their intended
functions to mitigate the consequences of any accident or event that
will be credible in the permanently defueled condition.
The probability of occurrence of previously evaluated accidents
is not increased, since most previously analyzed accidents can no
longer occur and the probability of the few remaining credible
accidents are unaffected by the proposed amendment.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes reduce the scope of the SEP and EAL scheme
commensurate with the hazards associated with a permanently shutdown
and defueled facility. The proposed changes do not involve
installation of new equipment or modification of existing equipment,
so that no new equipment failure modes are introduced. In addition,
the proposed changes do not result in a change to the way that the
equipment or facility is operated so that no new or different kinds
of accident initiators are created.
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.
Margin of safety is associated with confidence in the ability of
the fission product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, reactor coolant
system pressure boundary, and containment structure) to limit the
level of radiation dose to the public. The proposed changes are
associated with the SEP and EAL scheme and do not impact operation
of the plant or its response to transients or accidents. The change
does not affect the Technical Specifications. The proposed changes
do not involve a change in the method of plant operation, and no
accident analyses will be affected by the proposed changes. Safety
analysis acceptance criteria are not affected by the proposed
changes. The Post Defueled Emergency Plan (PDEP) will continue to
provide the necessary response staff with the appropriate guidance
to protect the health and safety of the public.
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.
Nebraska Public Power District, Docket No. 50-298, Cooper Nuclear
Station, Nemaha County, Nebraska
Date of amendment request: August 7, 2017. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17228A042.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
replace existing Technical Specification (TS) requirements related to
``operations with a potential for draining the reactor vessel''
(OPDRVs) with new requirements on reactor pressure vessel (RPV) water
inventory control (WIC) to protect Safety Limit 2.1.1.3. Safety Limit
2.1.1.3 requires RPV water level to be greater than the top of active
irradiated fuel. The proposed changes are based on TS Task Force (TSTF)
Traveler TSTF-542, Revision 2, ``Reactor Pressure Vessel Water
Inventory Control.''
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change replaces existing TS requirements related to
OPDRVs with new requirements on RPV WIC that will protect Safety
Limit 2.1.1.3. Draining of RPV water inventory in Mode 4 (i.e., cold
shutdown) and Mode 5 (i.e., refueling) is not an accident previously
evaluated and, therefore, replacing the existing TS controls to
prevent or mitigate such an event with a new set of controls has no
effect on any accident previously evaluated. RPV water inventory
control in Mode 4 or Mode 5 is not an initiator of any accident
previously evaluated. The existing OPDRV controls or the proposed
RPV WIC controls are not mitigating actions assumed in any accident
previously evaluated.
The proposed change reduces the probability of an unexpected
draining event (which is not a previously evaluated accident) by
imposing new requirements on the limiting time in which an
unexpected draining event could result in the reactor vessel water
level dropping to the top of the active fuel (TAF). These controls
require cognizance of the plant configuration and control of
configurations with unacceptably short drain times. These
requirements reduce the probability of an unexpected draining event.
The current TS requirements are only mitigating actions and impose
no requirements that reduce the probability of an unexpected
draining event.
The proposed change reduces the consequences of an unexpected
draining event (which is not a previously evaluated accident) by
requiring an Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) subsystem to be
operable at all times in Modes 4 and 5. The current TS requirements
do not require any water injection systems, ECCS or otherwise, to be
operable in certain conditions in Mode 5. The change in requirement
from two ECCS subsystems to one ECCS subsystem in Modes 4 and 5 does
not significantly affect the consequences of an unexpected draining
event because the proposed Actions ensure equipment is available
within the limiting drain time that is as capable of mitigating the
[[Page 49239]]
event as the current requirements. The proposed controls provide
escalating compensatory measures to be established as calculated
drain times decrease, such as verification of a second method of
water injection and additional confirmations that containment and/or
filtration would be available if needed.
The proposed change reduces or eliminates some requirements that
were determined to be unnecessary to manage the consequences of an
unexpected draining event, such as automatic initiation of an ECCS
subsystem and control room ventilation. These changes do not affect
the consequences of any accident previously evaluated since a
draining event in Modes 4 and 5 is not a previously evaluated
accident and the requirements are not needed to adequately respond
to a draining event.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change replaces existing TS requirements related to
OPDRVs with new requirements on RPV WIC that will protect Safety
Limit 2.1.1.3. The proposed change will not alter the design
function of the equipment involved. Under the proposed change, some
systems that are currently required to be operable during OPDRVs
would be required to be available within the limiting drain time or
to be in service depending on the limiting drain time. Should those
systems be unable to be placed into service, the consequences are no
different than if those systems were unable to perform their
function under the current TS requirements.
The event of concern under the current requirements and the
proposed change is an unexpected draining event. The proposed change
does not create new failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident
initiators that would cause a draining event or a new or different
kind of accident not previously evaluated or included in the design
and licensing bases.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change replaces existing TS requirements related to
OPDRVs with new requirements on RPV WIC. The current requirements do
not have a stated safety basis and no margin of safety is
established in the licensing basis. The safety basis for the new
requirements is to protect Safety Limit 2.1.1.3. New requirements
are added to determine the limiting time in which the RPV water
inventory could drain to the top of the fuel in the reactor vessel
should an unexpected draining event occur. Plant configurations that
could result in lowering the RPV water level to the TAF within one
hour are now prohibited. New escalating compensatory measures based
on the limiting drain time replace the current controls. The
proposed TS establish a safety margin by providing defense-in-depth
to ensure that the Safety Limit is protected and to protect the
public health and safety. While some less restrictive requirements
are proposed for plant configurations with long calculated drain
times, the overall effect of the change is to improve plant safety
and to add safety margin.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three 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: Mr. John C. McClure, Nebraska Public Power
District, Post Office Box 499, Columbus, NE 68602-0499.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
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 30, 2017. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17242A279.
Description of amendment request: The requested amendment proposes
changes to combined license (COL) Appendix C (and plant-specific Tier
1) Table 2.6.3-3 to revise Inspections, Tests, Analyses and Acceptance
Criteria (ITAAC) involving the Class 1E dc and uninterruptible power
supply system (IDS). The proposed COL Appendix C (and plant-specific
design control document (DCD) Tier 1) changes require additional
changes to corresponding Tier 2 information in the Updated Final Safety
Analysis Report (UFSAR) Chapter 8, ``Electric Power.'' Because this
proposed change requires a departure from Tier 1 information in the
Westinghouse Electric Company's AP1000 DCD, the licensee also requested
an exemption from the requirements of the generic DCD Tier 1 in
accordance with 10 CFR 52.63(b)(1).
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 revises COL Appendix C,
plant[hyphen]specific Tier 1, and UFSAR information concerning
design commitments and ITAAC related to IDS functionality. The
proposed change supports verification of the acceptability of the
voltage transfer across applicable IDS circuits supplying power to
Class 1E MOVs.
This change does not affect the design details of the IDS,
including the Class 1E battery banks and the MOVs that they support.
The intent of Tier 1 Subsection 2.6.3, Design Commitment 4.i); COL
Appendix C Table 2.6.3[hyphen]3, item 4.i); and UFSAR Subsection
8.3.2.5.9 are to verify that IDS can deliver adequate voltage to the
motor terminals of Class 1E powered MOVs under design basis
conditions. Therefore, the proposed changes meet the intent of the
ITAAC and do not change the design or functionality of any
safety[hyphen]related structure, system or component (SSC). The
proposed change does not affect the design functions of plant
systems. The proposed change does not affect plant electrical
systems, and does not affect the support, design, or operation of
mechanical and fluid systems required to mitigate the consequences
of an accident. There is no change to plant systems or the response
of systems to postulated accident conditions. There is no change to
the predicted radioactive releases due to postulated accident
conditions. The plant response to previously evaluated accidents or
external events is not affected, nor do the proposed changes create
any new accident precursors. Therefore, the requested amendment does
not involve a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises COL Appendix C,
plant[hyphen]specific Tier 1, and UFSAR information concerning
design commitments and ITAAC related to IDS functionality. The
proposed change supports verification of the acceptability of the
voltage transfer across applicable IDS circuits supplying power to
Class 1E MOVs.
The intent of Tier 1 Subsection 2.6.3, Design Commitment 4.i);
COL Appendix C Table 2.6.3[hyphen]3, item 4.i) and UFSAR Subsection
8.3.2.5.9 are to verify that IDS can deliver adequate voltage to the
motor terminals of Class 1E powered MOVs under design basis
conditions. The proposed changes do not change the design or
functionality of safety[hyphen]related SSCs. The proposed change
does not affect plant electrical systems, and does not affect the
design function, support, design, or operation of mechanical and
fluid systems. The proposed change does not result in a new failure
mechanism or introduce any new accident precursors. No design
function described in the UFSAR is affected by the proposed changes.
Therefore, the requested 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?
[[Page 49240]]
Response: No.
The proposed change revises COL Appendix C,
plant[hyphen]specific Tier 1, and UFSAR information concerning
design commitments and ITAAC related to IDS functionality. The
proposed change supports verification of the acceptability of the
voltage transfer across applicable IDS circuits supplying power to
Class 1E MOVs.
The intent of Tier 1 Subsection 2.6.3, Design Commitment 4.i);
COL Appendix C Table 2.6.3[hyphen]3, item 4.i) and UFSAR Subsection
8.3.2.5.9 are to verify that under design basis conditions IDS can
deliver adequate voltage to the motor terminals of Class 1E powered
MOVs. Therefore, the proposed changes meet the intent of the ITAAC
and do not reduce a margin of safety. No safety analysis or design
basis acceptance limit/criterion is challenged or exceeded by the
proposed changes, and no margin of safety is reduced.
Therefore, the requested amendment does not involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: M. Stanford Blanton, Balch & Bingham LLP,
1710 Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 35203-2015.
NRC Branch Chief: Jennifer Dixon-Herrity.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026,
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4, Burke County, Georgia
Date of amendment request: August 31, 2017. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17243A351.
Description of amendment request: The amendment request proposes to
depart from Tier 2 information in the Updated Final Safety Analysis
Report (which includes the plant-specific Design Control Document (DCD)
Tier 2 information) and involves related changes to plant-specific Tier
1 (and associated Combined License (COL) Appendix C) information, and
COL Appendix A Technical Specifications. Specifically, the requested
amendment proposes changes to the plant-specific nuclear island non-
radioactive ventilation system (VBS), the main control room emergency
habitability system (VES), and post-accident operator dose analyses.
These changes are proposed to maintain compliance with General Design
Criterion (GDC)-19, which requires that main control room personnel
dose does not exceed 5 roentgen equivalent man total effective dose
equivalent for the duration of a design basis accident. Because this
proposed change requires a departure from Tier 1 information in the
Westinghouse Electric Company's AP1000 DCD, the licensee also requested
an exemption from the requirements of the Generic DCD Tier 1 in
accordance with 10 CFR 52.63(b)(1).
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 AP1000 accident analyses describe various design basis
accidents to demonstrate compliance with the acceptance criteria for
these events. The acceptance criteria for the various accidents are
based on meeting the relevant regulations, general design criteria,
the Standard Review Plan, and are a function of the anticipated
frequency of occurrence of the event and potential radiological
consequences to the public. As such, each design-basis event is
categorized accordingly based on these considerations. The proposed
changes do not affect the accident frequency designations as
previously evaluated. Instead, the changes ensure that the control
room shielding design will meet the operator habitability
requirements under such accidents. Further, the proposed changes do
not involve any components that could initiate an event by means of
component or system failure. The changes do not alter design
features available during normal operation or anticipated
operational occurrences. The changes do not adversely impact
accident source term parameters or affect any release paths used in
the safety analyses, which could increase radiological dose
consequences. The proposed changes would not increase the
consequences of an accident previously evaluated in the plant-
specific Design Control Document (DCD). Offsite doses are not
adversely affected by the changes proposed.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes would not introduce a new failure mode,
fault, or sequence of events that could result in a radioactive
material release. The proposed changes do not alter the design,
configuration, or method of operation of the plant beyond standard
functional capabilities of the equipment. Instead, the changes
modify the manner in which the radiological consequences of the
existing design basis accidents are evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
Safety margins are applied at many levels to the design and
licensing basis functions and to the controlling values of
parameters to account for various uncertainties and to avoid
exceeding regulatory or licensing limits. The proposed changes
ultimately result in dose values that meet 10 CFR part 50, Appendix
A, General Design Criterion (GDC)-19. The proposed changes do not
adversely affect any safety-related equipment or other design
functions, design code compliance, design analysis, safety analysis
input or result, or design/safety margin. No safety analysis or
design basis acceptance limit/criterion is challenged or exceeded by
the proposed changes.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Mr. M. Stanford Blanton, Balch & Bingham
LLP, 1710 Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 35203-2015.
NRC Branch Chief: Jennifer Dixon-Herrity.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026,
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4, Burke County, Georgia
Date of amendment request: September 22, 2017. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17265A822.
Description of amendment request: The requested amendment proposes
changes to combined license Appendix A, Technical Specifications (TS).
The proposed changes add new TS 3.1.10, Rod Withdrawal Test Exception--
MODE 5, and modify TS Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) 3.0.7, to
allow rod movement and rod drop time testing under cold conditions
(MODE 5). Additionally, the LCO Applicability of TS 3.4.8, Minimum
Reactor Coolant System (RCS) Flow, is revised to reflect its safety
analysis basis.
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
[[Page 49241]]
consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
There are no design changes associated with the proposed
amendment. All design, material, and construction standards that
were applicable prior to this amendment request will continue to be
applicable.
The Plant Control System (PLS), Reactor Coolant System (RCS),
Chemical and Volume Control System (CVS), and Protection and Safety
Monitoring System (PMS) will continue to function in a manner
consistent with the existing plant design basis. There will be no
changes to the PLS, RCS, CVS, or PMS operating limits.
The proposed amendment will not affect accident initiators or
precursors or alter the design, conditions, and configuration of the
facility, or the manner in which the plant is operated and
maintained, with respect to such initiators or precursors.
The proposed amendment will preclude reactor core criticality
during the use of new TS 3.1.10. The proposed amendment will not
alter the ability of structures, systems, and components (SSCs) to
perform their specified safety functions.
Accident analysis acceptance criteria will continue to be met
with the proposed changes. The proposed changes will not affect the
source term, containment isolation, or radiological release
assumptions used in evaluating the radiological consequences of any
accident previously evaluated. The proposed changes will not alter
any assumptions or change any mitigation actions in the radiological
consequence evaluations in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report
(UFSAR).
The applicable radiological dose acceptance criteria will
continue to be met.
The proposed amendment adds a new test exception TS 3.1.10,
revises TS LCO 3.0.7 to reference the new TS 3.1.10, and modifies
the LCO Applicability of TS 3.4.8 to be consistent with the purpose
of that TS as an initial condition of the inadvertent boron dilution
analyses, but does not physically alter any safety-related systems.
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.
With respect to any new or different kind of accident, there are
no proposed design changes nor are there any changes in the method
by which any safety-related plant SSC performs its specified safety
function. The proposed change will not affect the normal method of
plant operation or change any operating parameters. No equipment
performance requirements will be affected. The proposed change will
not alter any assumptions made in the safety analyses.
The proposed amendment adds a new test exception TS 3.1.10,
revises TS LCO 3.0.7 to reference the new TS 3.1.10, and modifies
the LCO Applicability of TS 3.4.8 to be consistent with the purpose
of that TS as an initial condition of the inadvertent boron dilution
analyses. The proposed change does not involve a physical
modification of the plant.
No new accident scenarios, transient precursors, failure
mechanisms, or limiting single failures will be introduced as a
result of this amendment. There will be no adverse effect or
challenges imposed on any safety-related system as a result of this
amendment.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the
possibility of a new or different accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
There will be no effect on those plant systems necessary to
effect the accomplishment of protection functions. No instrument
setpoints or system response times are affected. None of the
acceptance criteria for any accident analysis will be changed. The
proposed amendment will have no impact on the radiological
consequences of a design basis accident.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: M. Stanford Blanton, Balch & Bingham LLP,
1710 Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 35203-2015.
NRC Branch Chief: Jennifer Dixon-Herrity.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026,
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4, Burke County, Georgia
Date of amendment request: September 22, 2017. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17265A787.
Description of amendment request: The requested amendment proposes
to revise Tier 2* information in the Updated Final Safety Analysis
Report (UFSAR), specifically to modify the licensing requirements for
the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Class 1 Piping
component analysis from limited to design by rule evaluation as
described in ASME Section III, NB-3600 to include the ability to
perform design by analysis evaluations, as described in ASME Section
III, NB-3200.
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 Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) staff's edits in square brackets:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change describes how the ASME Class 1 piping
components are evaluated for stress and functional capability. The
ASME Class 1 piping components are evaluated against ASME Section
III to demonstrate that the components meet the allowables required
by the ASME Code. The ASME Code is endorsed by 10 CFR 50.55a. The
change allows the ASME Class 1 piping components to be evaluated by
not only ASME Section III, NB-3600, but also, in situations where
the simplified analysis results do not satisfy the requirements,
ability is added for an evaluation using the more detailed method of
ASME Section III, NB-3200. This is performed in accordance with ASME
Section III, NB-3630(c). This method will continue to demonstrate
that the piping components meet acceptance criteria and will perform
as required in the design. The proposed change does not affect the
operation of any systems or equipment that may initiate a new or
different kind of accident, or alter an [structure, system, and
component (SSC)] such that a new accident initiator or initiating
sequence of events is created.
The change has no adverse effect on the design function of the
ASME Class 1 piping components or the SSCs to which the piping is
connected. The probabilities of accidents evaluated in the UFSAR are
not affected.
The change does not impact the support, design, or operation of
mechanical and fluid systems. The change does not impact the
support, design, or operation of any safety-related structures.
There is no change to plant systems or response of systems to
postulated accident conditions. There is no change to the predicted
radioactive releases due to normal operation or postulated accident
conditions. The plant response to previously evaluated accidents or
external events is not adversely affected, nor does the proposed
change create any new accident precursors.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change describes how the ASME Class 1 piping
components are evaluated for stress and functional capability. The
ASME Class 1 piping components are evaluated against ASME Section
III to demonstrate that the components meet the allowables required
by the ASME Code. The ASME Code is endorsed by 10 CFR 50.55a. The
change allows the ASME Class 1 piping components to be evaluated by
not only ASME Section III, NB-3600, but also, in situations where
the simplified analysis results do not satisfy the requirements,
ability is added for an evaluation using the
[[Page 49242]]
more detailed method of ASME Section III, NB-3200. This is performed
in accordance with ASME Section III, NB-3630(c). This method will
continue to demonstrate that the piping components meet acceptance
criteria and will perform as required in the design.
The proposed change does not adversely affect the design
function of the ASME Class 1 piping components, the structures and
systems in which the piping components are used, or any other SSC
design functions or methods of operation in a manner that results in
a new failure mode, malfunction, or sequence of events that affect
safety-related or non-safety related equipment. This activity does
not allow for a new fission product release path, result in a new
fission product barrier failure mode, or create a new sequence of
events that result in significant fuel cladding failures.
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 change describes how the ASME Class 1 piping
components are evaluated for stress and functional capability. The
ASME Class 1 piping components are evaluated against ASME Section
III to demonstrate that the components meet the allowables required
by the ASME Code. The ASME Code is endorsed by 10 CFR 50.55a. The
change allows the ASME Class 1 piping components to be evaluated by
not only ASME Section III, NB-3600, but also, in situations where
the simplified analysis results do not satisfy the requirements,
ability is added for an evaluation using the more detailed method of
ASME Section III, NB-3200. This is performed in accordance with ASME
Section III, NB-3630(c). This method will continue to demonstrate
that the piping components meet acceptance criteria and will perform
as required in the design.
Because no safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/
criterion is challenged or exceeded by this change, no significant
margin of safety is reduced.
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: M. Stanford Blanton, Balch & Bingham LLP,
1710 Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 35203-2015.
NRC Branch Chief: Jennifer Dixon-Herrity
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-
026, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) Units 3 and 4, Burke
County, Georgia
Date of amendment request: September 8, 2017. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17251A458.
Description of amendment request: The requested amendment requires
changes to the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) in the form
of departures from the plant-specific Design Control Document Tier 2
information and involves changes to the VEGP Units 3 and 4 combined
license (COL) Appendix A, Technical Specifications. Specifically, the
proposed amendment would revise the licensing basis information for the
design of the protection and safety monitoring system (PMS) automatic
reactor trips and the crediting of PMS automatic reactor trips
necessary to prevent exceeding fuel design limits including the power
range high neutron flux (high setpoint), the power range high positive
flux rate trip, the overpower [Delta]T trip, and the overtemperature
[Delta]T trip. Also, includes changes to the COL Appendix A Technical
Specifications for maintaining moderator temperature coefficient and
maintaining power distributions within the required absolute power
generation limits.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not adversely affect the operation of
any systems or equipment that initiate an analyzed accident or alter
any structures, systems, and components (SSCs) accident initiator or
initiating sequence of events. The proposed changes do not adversely
affect the ability of the PMS automatic reactor trips to perform the
required safety function to trip the reactor when necessary to
protect fuel design limits, and do not adversely affect the
probability of inadvertent operation or failure of the PMS automatic
reactor trips. The proposed changes to the methods for maintaining
moderator temperature coefficient within the required reactivity
control limits and maintaining power generation within the required
power distribution limits do not result in any increase in
probability of an analyzed accident occurring, and prevent power
oscillations and maintain the initial conditions and operating
limits required by the accident analysis, and the analyses of normal
operation and anticipated operational occurrences, so that fuel
design limits are not exceeded for events resulting in positive
reactivity insertion and reactivity feedback effects.
Therefore, the requested amendment does not involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not affect the operation of any systems
or equipment that may initiate a new or different kind of accident,
or alter any SSC such that a new accident initiator or initiating
sequence of events is created. The proposed changes do not adversely
affect the ability of the PMS automatic reactor trips to perform the
required safety function to trip the reactor when necessary to
protect fuel design limits, and do not adversely affect the
probability of inadvertent operation or failure of the PMS automatic
reactor trips. The proposed changes to the methods for maintaining
moderator temperature coefficient within the required reactivity
control limits and maintaining power generation within the required
power distribution limits do not result in the possibility of an
accident occurring, and prevent power oscillations and maintain the
initial conditions and operating limits required by the accident
analysis, and the analyses of normal operation and anticipated
operational occurrences, so that fuel design limits are not exceeded
for events resulting in positive reactivity insertion and reactivity
feedback effects.
These proposed changes do not adversely affect any other SSC
design functions or methods of operation in a manner that results in
a new failure mode, malfunction, or sequence of events that affect
safety-related or nonsafety-related equipment. Therefore, this
activity does not allow for a new fission product release path,
result in a new fission product barrier failure mode, or create a
new sequence of events that results in significant fuel cladding
failures.
Therefore, the requested 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 changes maintain existing safety margins. The
proposed changes to the PMS reactor trip system instrumentation,
reactivity control systems, and power distribution limits maintain
existing safety margin through continued application of the existing
requirements of the UFSAR. The proposed changes maintain the initial
conditions and operating limits required by the accident analysis,
and the analyses of normal operation and anticipated operational
occurrences, so that the existing fuel design limits specified in
the UFSAR are not exceeded for events resulting in positive
reactivity insertion and reactivity feedback effects. Therefore, the
proposed changes
[[Page 49243]]
satisfy the same safety functions in accordance with the same
requirements as stated in the UFSAR. These changes do not adversely
affect any design code, function, design analysis, safety analysis
input or result, or design/safety margin. No safety analysis or
design basis acceptance limit/criterion is challenged or exceeded by
the proposed changes, and no margin of safety is reduced.
Therefore, the requested 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: Mr. M. Stanford Blanton, Balch & Bingham
LLP, 1710 Sixth Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203-2015.
NRC Branch Chief: Jennifer Dixon-Herrity.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026,
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4, Burke County, Georgia
Date of amendment request: August 31, 2017. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17243A444.
Description of amendment request: The requested amendment proposes
to depart from the approved AP1000 Design Control Document (DCD) by
proposing changes to various plant-specific Tier 1 (and Combined
License (COL) Appendix C) information and Tier 2 material contained
within the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) to modify
design details of the containment recirculation cooling system (VCS)
and the radiologically controlled area ventilation system (VAS).
Specifically, if approved, the changes to the VCS address changes in
total required design air flow rates and total design cooling and
heating requirements as a result of the final design of the VCS, and
the changes to the VAS add a fourth differential pressure instrument
and alarm functions and reduce the fuel handling area ventilation
subsystem design flow rate and would address the capability of the
supply and exhaust duct isolation damper to close under specific
conditions. Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 52.63(b)(1), an
exemption from elements of the design as certified in the 10 CFR part
52, Appendix D, design certification rule is also requested for the
plant-specific DCD Tier 1 departures.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The design functions of the containment recirculation cooling
system (VCS) include control of the air temperature and reduction of
humidity in the containment to provide a suitable environment for
equipment operability during normal power operation, and for
personnel accessibility and equipment operability during refueling
and shutdown. The proposed changes for the VCS address changes in
total required design air flow rates and total design cooling and
heating requirements, thereby maintaining these design functions.
The design functions of the radiologically controlled area
ventilation system (VAS) include prevention of the unmonitored
release of airborne radioactivity to the atmosphere or adjacent
plant areas, by maintaining a negative pressure differential in
radiologically controlled areas of the auxiliary building,
maintaining occupied areas and access and equipment areas within
their design temperature range, and providing outside air for plant
personnel. The proposed changes for the VAS enable pressure
differential monitoring and control for an area of the auxiliary
building that is physically remote and separate from the currently
monitored and controlled areas, and provide VAS supply air flow rate
and total ventilation flow through the auxiliary building fuel
handling area required to maintain occupied areas and access and
equipment areas within their design temperature range and to provide
outside air for plant personnel, maintaining these design functions.
The proposed changes do not affect the operation of any systems
or equipment that initiate an analyzed accident or alter any
structure, system, or component (SSC) accident initiator or
initiating sequence of events. There are no inadvertent operations
or failures of the VCS or VAS considered as accident initiators or
part of an initiating sequence of events for an accident previously
evaluated. Therefore, the probabilities of the accidents previously
evaluated in the UFSAR are not affected.
These proposed changes to the VCS and VAS design as described in
the current licensing basis do not have an adverse effect on any of
the design functions of the systems. The proposed changes do not
affect the support, design, or operation of mechanical and fluid
systems required to mitigate the consequences of an accident. There
is no change to plant systems or the response of systems to
postulated accident conditions. There is no change to the predicted
radioactive releases due to postulated accident conditions. The
plant response to previously evaluated accidents or external events
is not adversely affected, nor do the proposed changes create any
new accident precursors. The proposed changes do not affect the
prevention and mitigation of other abnormal events, e.g.,
anticipated operational occurrences, earthquakes, floods and turbine
missiles, or their safety or design analyses. Therefore, the
consequences of the accidents evaluated in the UFSAR are not
affected.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not affect the operation of any systems
or equipment that may initiate a new or different kind of accident,
or alter any SSC such that a new accident initiator or initiating
sequence of events is created. The proposed changes revise the VCS
and VAS design as described in the current licensing basis to enable
the systems to perform required design functions. These proposed
changes do not adversely affect any other SSC design functions or
methods of operation in a manner that results in a new failure mode,
malfunction, or sequence of events that affect safety-related or
nonsafety-related equipment. Therefore, this activity does not allow
for a new fission product release path, result in a new fission
product barrier failure mode, or create a new sequence of events
resulting in significant fuel cladding failures.
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 changes maintain existing safety margins. The
proposed changes to the VCS and VAS do not affect any safety-related
design function. These changes do not adversely affect any design
code, function, design analysis, safety analysis input or result, or
design/safety margin. No safety analysis or design basis acceptance
limit/criterion is challenged by the proposed changes, and no margin
of safety is reduced.
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.
[[Page 49244]]
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.
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, Maricopa County, Arizona
Date of amendment request: June 14, 2017.
Description of amendment request: The amendments modified the
completion date for implementation of Milestone 8 of the Cyber Security
Plan (CSP). The proposed amendments would extend the CSP Milestone 8
completion date from September 30, 2017, to December 31, 2017.
Date of issuance: September 27, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
by September 30, 2017.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 1-204, Unit 2-204, and Unit 3-204. A publicly-
available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17254A499;
documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety
Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-41, NPF-51, and NPF-74:
The amendments revised the Operating Licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 18, 2017 (82 FR
32878).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 27, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
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 requests: December 15, 2016.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments modified Technical
Specification (TS) 3.9.5, ``Residual Heat Removal (RHR) and Coolant
Circulation--Low Water Level,'' to add Note 1 to the Limiting Condition
for Operation (LCO) Section of TS 3.9.5 to allow the securing of the
operating train of RHR for up to 15 minutes to support switching
operating trains. The allowance is restricted to three conditions: (a)
The core outlet temperature is maintained greater than 10 degrees
Fahrenheit below saturation temperature; (b) no operations are
permitted that would cause an introduction of coolant into the Reactor
Coolant System (RCS) with boron concentration less than that required
to meet the minimum required boron concentration of LCO 3.9.1; and (c)
no draining operations to further reduce RCS water volume are
permitted. Additionally, the amendments would modify the LCO Section of
TS 3.9.5 to add Note 2 which would allow one required RHR loop to be
inoperable for up to two hours for surveillance testing, provided that
the other RHR loop is operable and in operation. These proposed changes
are consistent with Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Travelers
TSTF-349-A, Revision 1, ``Add Note to LCO 3.9.5 Allowing Shutdown
Cooling Loops Removal from Operation'', TSTF-361-A, Revision 2, ``Allow
standby [Shutdown Cooling] SDC/RHR/[Decay Heat Removal] DHR loop to be
inoperable to support testing,'' and TSTF-438-A, Revision 0, ``Clarify
Exception Notes to be Consistent with the Requirement Being Excepted.''
Date of issuance: September 29, 2017.
Effective date: These license amendments are effective as of its
date of issuance and shall be implemented within 120 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 293 (Unit 1) and 289 (Unit 2). A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17249A135; 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
technical specifications.
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 29, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Docket No. 50-261, H.B. Robinson Steam
Electric Plant, Unit No. 2, Darlington County, South Carolina
Date of amendment request: September 14, 2016.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment authorized the
adoption of a revised alternative source term in the updated final
safety analysis report to support the transition from an 18-month to a
24-month fuel cycle.
Date of issuance: September 29, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 120 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 255. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML17205A233; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-23: Amendment revised
the Renewed Facility Operating License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 22, 2016 (81
FR 83875).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 29, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-51: Amendment revised
the Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 5, 2017 (82 FR
31092).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a
[[Page 49245]]
Safety Evaluation dated October 10, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Operations, Inc., System Energy Resources, Inc., South
Mississippi Electric Power Association, and Entergy Mississippi, Inc.,
Docket No. 50-416, Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (GGNS), Claiborne
County, Mississippi
Date of application for amendment: March 29, 2017.
Brief description of amendment: The proposed amendment made an
administrative change to the licensee name. Effective November 10,
2016, South Mississippi Electric Power Association changed its company
name from ``South Mississippi Electric Power Association'' to
``Cooperative Energy, a Mississippi electric cooperative.'' The
corporate name was changed for commercial reasons. The changes proposed
herein to the GGNS operating license solely reflects the changed
licensee name. This name change is purely administrative in nature.
This request does not involve a transfer of control or of an interest
in the license.
Date of issuance: October 4, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days of issuance.
Amendment No: 213. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML17240A232; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-29: The amendment
revised the Operating License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 23, 2017 (82 FR
23624).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated October 4, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-461, Clinton Power
Station (CPS), Unit No. 1, DeWitt County, Illinois
Date of amendment request: January 25, 2016, as supplemented by
letters dated. March 31, 2016, March 2, and June 1, 2017.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises the technical
specification (TS) associated with the primary containment leakage rate
testing program. Specifically, the amendment extend the frequencies for
performance of the Type A containment integrated leakage rate test and
the Type C containment isolation valve leakage rate test, which are
required by 10 CFR part 50, Appendix J, ``Primary Reactor Containment
Leakage Testing for Water-Cooled Power Reactors.'' The amendment also
deletes the requirement in TS 5.5.13 to perform Type A testing by 2008.
Date of issuance: September 26, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No(s): 214. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS
under Accession No. ML17237A010; documents related to this amendment
are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-62: The amendment revised the
Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 10, 2016 (81 FR
28895). The supplemental letters dated March 2, 2017, and June 1, 2017,
provided additional information that clarified the application, did not
expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not
change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 26, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-333, James A. FitzPatrick
Nuclear Power Plant, Oswego County, New York
Date of amendment request: December 8, 2016.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the
implementation date of Milestone 8 of the Cyber Security Plan from
December 15, 2017, to June 15, 2019.
Date of issuance: September 29, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be
implemented within 30 days.
Amendment No.: 316. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML17235A540; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-59: The amendment
revised the Renewed Facility Operating License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 31, 2017 (82 FR
8869).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 29, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-289, Three Mile Island
Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: March 22, 2017.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment (1) updated Technical
Specification (TS) 5.4.2 for the current number of fuel assemblies and
number of reactor cores that are stored in Spent Fuel Pool A; (2)
revised TS 6.1.2 requirements for the Chief Nuclear Officer to
eliminate the annual management directive to all unit personnel
responsible for the control room command function; and (3) deleted the
TS 6.2.2.2.d footnote that references Control Room Supervisors who do
not possess a Senior Reactor Operator NRC License.
Date of issuance: October 5, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment No.: 293. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML17233A138; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-50: Amendment revised
the Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 1, 2017 (82 FR
35840).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated October 5, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Florida Power & Light Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389,
St. Lucie Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, St. Lucie County, Florida
Date of amendment request: December 22, 2016.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments updated the St.
Lucie Plant, Unit No. 1, and St. Lucie Plant, Unit No. 2, Technical
Specifications (TSs) to relocate the Component Cyclic or Transient
Limits Program requirements to the Administrative Controls sections of
the TSs. The amendments also deleted the Component Cyclic or Transient
Limits TS tables, which detail the allowable transient limits, and will
place these tables in licensee-controlled documents.
Date of issuance: October 5, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days of issuance.
[[Page 49246]]
Amendment Nos.: 241 and 192. A publicly available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No. ML17235A565; documents related to this
amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the
amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-67 and NPF-16:
Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 28, 2017 (82
FR 12133).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated October 5, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Florida Power & Light Company, Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251, Turkey
Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 3 and 4, Miami-Dade County, Florida
Date of amendment request: December 21, 2016, as supplemented by
letter dated May 18, 2017.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the
Technical Specifications for the Engineered Safety Features Actuation
System instrumentation. The amendments modified the completion times
for required actions for inoperable instrumentation channels for
auxiliary feedwater actuation on bus stripping and on trip of all main
feedwater pump breakers.
Date of issuance: September 28, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos: 276 and 271. A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No. ML17209A319. Documents related to these
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the
amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-31 and DPR-41:
Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 14, 2017 (82 FR
13666). The supplemental letter dated May 18, 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 28, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, South Carolina Public Service
Authority, Docket No. 50-395, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit
No. 1, (VCSNS) Fairfield County, South Carolina
Date of amendment request: December 16, 2015, as supplemented by
letters dated March 7, 2016, February 6, 2017, June 22, 2017, July 6,
2017, and September 27, 2017.
Brief description of amendment: This amendment revises Technical
Specification (TS) \3/4\.3.1, ``Reactor Trip System Instrumentation,''
and TS \3/4\.3.2, ``Engineered Safety Feature Actuation System
Instrumentation,'' to implement the Allowed Outage Time, Bypass Test
Time, and Surveillance Frequency changes approved by the NRC in WCAP-
15376-P-A, Rev. 1, ``Risk-Informed Assessment of the Reactor Trip
System (RTS) and Engineered Safety Features Actuation System (ESFAS)
Surveillance Test Intervals and Reactor Trip Breaker Test and
Completion Times.''
Date of issuance: October 4, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 209. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML17206A412, documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-12: Amendment revised
the Renewed Facility Operating License and the Technical
Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 12, 2016 (81 FR
21601). The supplemental letters dated March 7, 2016, February 6, 2017,
June 22, 2017, July 6, 2017, and September 27, 2017, provided
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change
the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated October 4, 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 (Farley), Units 1 and 2, Houston
County, Alabama
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-
425, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), Units 1 and 2, Burke
County, Georgia
Date of amendment request: November 21, 2016.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revise the
requirements on control and shutdown rods, and rod and bank position
indication in Technical Specifications (TS) 3.1.4, ``Rod Group
Alignment Limits,'' TS 3.1.5, ``Shutdown Bank Insertion Limits,'' TS
3.1.6, ``Control Bank Insertion Limits,'' and TS 3.1.7, ``Rod Position
Indication'' consistent with Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
approved Technical Specification Task Force Traveler (TSTF)-547,
Revision 1, ``Clarification of Rod Position Requirements'' dated March
4, 2016.
Date of issuance: October 2, 2017.
Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: Farley Unit 1--214, Farley Unit 2--211, VEGP Unit
1--193, VEGP Unit 2--176. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS
under Accession No. ML17214A546; documents related to these amendments
are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-2, NPF-8, NPF-68, and
NPF-81: The amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses
and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 31, 2017 (82 FR
8872).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated October 2, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-259, 50-260, and 50-296,
Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3 (BFN), Limestone County,
Alabama
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-390 and 50-391, Watts Bar
Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 (WBN), Rhea County, Tennessee
Date of amendment request: April 5, 2017.
Brief description of amendment: The amendments revised technical
specification surveillance requirements (SRs) that required operating
ventilation
[[Page 49247]]
systems with charcoal filters for 10 hours each month. Specifically,
BFN SRs 3.6.4.3.1 and 3.7.3.1, and WBN SRs 3.6.9.1 and 3.7.12.1 are
revised, consistent with NRC-approved Technical Specification Task
Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-522, Revision 0, ``Revise Ventilation System
Surveillance Requirements to Operate for 10 hours per Month,'' to
require operation of the systems for 15 continuous minutes every 31
days.
Date of issuance: October 2, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 300 (Unit 1), 324 (Unit 2), and 284 (Unit 3) for
BFN; and 115 (Unit 1) and 15 (Unit 2) for WBN. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17215A243; documents related
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluations enclosed with
the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License (RFOL) Nos. DPR-33, DPR-52, and
DPR-68 for BFN; and Facility Operating License (FOL) Nos. NPF-90 and
NPF-96 for WBN: Amendments revised the RFOLs and FOLs and technical
specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 6, 2017 (82 FR
26139).
The Commission's related evaluations of the amendments are
contained in Safety Evaluations dated October 2, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 16th day of October 2017.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Eric J. Benner,
Deputy Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of
Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2017-22680 Filed 10-23-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P