[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 242 (Tuesday, December 19, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60223-60236]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-27087]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2017-0232]
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 November 18, 2017, to December 4, 2017. The
last biweekly notice was published on December 5, 2017.
DATES: Comments must be filed by January 18, 2018. A request for a
hearing must be filed by February 20, 2018.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods
(unless this document describes a different method for submitting
comments on a specific subject):
Federal Rulemaking website: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2017-0232. 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: Janet Burkhardt, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1384, email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments
A. Obtaining Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0232, 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 website: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2017-0232.
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-2017-0232, facility name, unit
number(s), plant docket number, application date, and subject in your
comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact
information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your
comment submission. The NRC posts all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as entering the comment submissions into
ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove
identifying or contact information.
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons
for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to
include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be
publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should
state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to
remove such information before making the comment submissions available
to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.
[[Page 60224]]
II. Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility
Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses and Proposed No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under
the Commission's regulations in Sec. 50.92 of title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (10 CFR), this means that operation of the facility
in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated, or (2) create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or
(3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis
for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown
below.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final
determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period if circumstances change during the 30-day comment
period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for
example in derating or shutdown of the facility. If the Commission
takes action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or
the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a notice of
issuance. If the Commission makes a final no significant hazards
consideration determination, any hearing will take place after
issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will
occur very infrequently.
A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing and Petition for Leave To Intervene
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any
persons (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by this action may
file a request for a hearing and petition for leave to intervene
(petition) with respect to the action. Petitions shall be filed in
accordance with the Commission's ``Agency Rules of Practice and
Procedure'' in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult a
current copy of 10 CFR 2.309. The NRC's regulations are accessible
electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's website at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. Alternatively, a copy of
the regulations is available at the NRC's Public Document Room, located
at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first
floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. If a petition is filed, the
Commission or a presiding officer will rule on the petition and, if
appropriate, a notice of a hearing will be issued.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309(d) the petition should specifically
explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with
particular reference to the following general requirements for
standing: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the
petitioner; (2) the nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to
be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the
petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding;
and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be
entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f), the petition must also set
forth the specific contentions which the petitioner seeks to have
litigated in the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific
statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In
addition, the petitioner must provide a brief explanation of the bases
for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or
expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner
intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The
petitioner must also provide references to the specific sources and
documents on which the petitioner intends to rely to support its
position on the issue. The petition must include sufficient information
to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant or licensee on
a material issue of law or fact. Contentions must be limited to matters
within the scope of the proceeding. The contention must be one which,
if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner who
fails to satisfy the requirements at 10 CFR 2.309(f) with respect to at
least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding,
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene.
Parties have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the
hearing with respect to resolution of that party's admitted
contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence, consistent
with the NRC's regulations, policies, and procedures.
Petitions must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of
publication of this notice. Petitions and motions for leave to file new
or amended contentions that are filed after the deadline will not be
entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the
filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10
CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i) through (iii). The petition must be filed in
accordance with the filing instructions in the ``Electronic Submissions
(E-Filing)'' section of this document.
If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the
Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no
significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve
to establish when the hearing is held. If the final determination is
that the amendment request involves no significant hazards
consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it
immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any
hearing would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final
determination is that the amendment request involves a significant
hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before
the issuance of the amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent
danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will
issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.
A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian
Tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to
participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition should
state the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the
proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission no later
than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. The petition
must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the
``Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)'' section of this document, and
should meet the requirements for petitions set forth in this section,
except that under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(2) a State, local governmental body,
or Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof does not need
to address the standing requirements in 10 CFR 2.309(d) if the facility
is located within
[[Page 60225]]
its boundaries. Alternatively, a State, local governmental body,
Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof may participate as
a non-party under 10 CFR 2.315(c).
If a hearing is granted, any person who is not a party to the
proceeding and is not affiliated with or represented by a party may, at
the discretion of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited
appearance pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person
making a limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of
his or her position on the issues but may not otherwise participate in
the proceeding. A limited appearance may be made at any session of the
hearing or at any prehearing conference, subject to the limits and
conditions as may be imposed by the presiding officer. Details
regarding the opportunity to make a limited appearance will be provided
by the presiding officer if such sessions are scheduled.
B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a
request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition), any
motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the
submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and
documents filed by interested governmental entities that request to
participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the
NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007, as amended at 77 FR
46562, August 3, 2012). The E-Filing process requires participants to
submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in
some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Detailed
guidance on making electronic submissions may be found in the Guidance
for Electronic Submissions to the NRC and on the NRC website 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 website 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 website 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 website at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by
email to [email protected], or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-
7640. The NRC Electronic Filing Help Desk is available between 9 a.m.
and 6 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government
holidays.
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not
submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in
accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing
stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and
requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper
format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention:
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or
expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and
Adjudications Staff. Participants filing adjudicatory documents in this
manner are responsible for serving the document on all other
participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of
the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or
expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the
provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an
exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or
party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines
that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no
longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
https://adams.nrc.gov/ehd, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the
Commission or the presiding officer. If you do not have an NRC-issued
digital ID certificate as described above, click cancel when the link
requests certificates and you will be automatically directed to the
NRC's electronic hearing dockets where you will be able to access any
publicly available documents in a particular hearing docket.
Participants are requested not to include personal privacy information,
such as social security numbers, home addresses, or personal phone
numbers in their filings, unless an NRC regulation or other law
requires submission of such information. For example, in some
instances, individuals provide home addresses in order to demonstrate
proximity to a facility or site. With respect to copyrighted works,
except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory
filings and would constitute a Fair Use application, participants are
requested not to include copyrighted materials in their submission.
For further details with respect to these license amendment
applications, see the application for amendment which is available for
public inspection in ADAMS and at the NRC's PDR. For additional
direction on accessing
[[Page 60226]]
information related to this document, see the ``Obtaining Information
and Submitting Comments'' section of this document.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370, McGuire
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 (McGuire), Mecklenburg County, North
Carolina
Date of amendment request: September 14, 2017. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17262A090.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would modify
Technical Specifications (TSs) to allow temporary changes to TSs 3.5.2,
``ECCS [Emergency Core Cooling System]--Operating,'' 3.6.6,
``Containment Spray System'' (CSS), 3.7.5, ``Auxiliary Feedwater (AFW)
System,'' 3.7.6, ``Component Cooling Water (CCW) System,'' 3.7.7,
``Nuclear Service Water System (NSWS),'' 3.7.9, ``Control Room Area
Ventilation System (CRAVS),'' 3.7.11, ``Auxiliary Building Filtered
Ventilation Exhaust System (ABFVES),'' and 3.8.1, ``AC [Alternating
Current] Sources--Operating,'' to permit the ``A'' Train NSWS to be
inoperable for a total of 14 days to address a non-conforming condition
on the ``A'' Train supply piping from the Standby Nuclear Service Water
Pond (SNSWP).
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 `B' Train NSWS and supported equipment will remain fully
operable during the 14 day CT [completion time]. The alignment of
the `A' Train NSWS will remain consistent with the NSWS normal and
ESFAS [engineered safety features actuation system] alignment.
Although not fully operable the `A' Train NSWS and its supported
equipment will be capable of performing their functions during the
14 day CT.
The `A' NSWS and supported equipment function as accident
mitigators. Removing `A' Train SNSWP supply piping from service for
a limited period of time does not affect any accident initiator and
therefore cannot change the probability of an accident. The proposed
changes and the `A' Train NSWS repair evolution have been evaluated
to assess their impact on the systems affected and ensure design
basis safety functions are preserved.
The risk analysis for the proposed [NSWS] alignment during the
14 day CT shows no delta risk for any ESF [engineered safety
feature] actuation event that does not involve an earthquake. The
most significant risk contributor is a seismic event with a
magnitude great enough to cause the failure of Cowan's Ford dam and
subsequent loss of Lake Norman or LLI [low level intake] during the
14 day CT. The estimated Incremental Conditional Core Damage
Probability (ICCDP) due to the seismic event is much less than the
limits associated with Regulatory Guide 1.177.
In addition, as previously stated, a Seismic Fragility
Assessment of the McGuire Low Level Intake Water Pipeline in
December of 2011 indicates that the dam and water supply would
withstand a SSE [safe shutdown earthquake]. Therefore for the short
duration of this proposed alignment the increase in risk is deemed
to be negligible.
Risk associated with tornado/high winds was assessed. The months
of November through February have been the seasonal low for tornado
frequency. This evolution is currently scheduled for the spring
February 2018 time frame. The risk contribution from tornado and
high wind events is negligible during the proposed NSWS
configuration described in this LAR [license amendment request] and
therefore, the calculated Core Damage Frequency (CDF) or the Large
Early Release [Frequency] (LERF) contribution due to high wind and
tornado events is negligible with respect to overall risk. The
activities covered by this LAR also include a defense-in-depth
action to cease activities and close the personnel access opening in
the event of a tornado warning. Weather patterns will be monitored
and this activity will be modified if tornado/high wind conditions
become imminent.
The overall increase in risk for the 14 day CT is solely due to
the seismic event which results in a loss of Lake Norman or LLI.
However, this risk is reduced by the defense in depth strategy
described in the LAR that provides a contingency for the loss of a
`B' Train NSWS pump after the loss of the Lake Norman water supply.
This defense in depth contingency effectively offsets the
unavailability of the `A' Train NSWS SNSWP supply.
In addition, pre-aligning the `B' Train NSWS to the SNSWP water
supply in advance of the proposed activities prevents the
introduction of potential equipment failures during an ESFAS
demanded transfer. This action also eliminates the time it would
take operators to perform the transfer following a seismic event.
The quantified impact of defense in depth measures and
compensatory actions on CDF/LERF cannot be precisely determined, yet
it is agreed that the implementation of these actions would only
serve to improve these risk parameters.
Not included in the overall risk evaluation is the additional
margin identified by the Fragility Assessment discussed previously
that concluded that the Lake Norman Dam and LLI would survive a SSE.
As stated in NRC Generic Letter 80-30, ``Clarification of the
Term `Operable' as it Applies to Single Failure Criterion for Safety
Systems Required by TS,'' there is no requirement to assume a single
failure while operating under a Technical Specification (TS)
required action. Therefore, there will be no effect on the analysis
of any accident or the progression of the accident since the
operable [nuclear service water (NSW)] `B' train is capable of
serving 100 percent of all the required heat loads. As such, there
is no impact on consequence mitigation for any transient or
accident.
In light of the above discussion, 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 amendment is the one time extension of the required
CTs from 72 hours for the ECCS, CSS, NSWS, AFW, CCW and the EDG
[emergency diesel generator] systems and from 168 hours for the
CRAVS and ABFVES systems to 336 hours. The requested change does not
involve the addition or removal of any plant system, structure, or
component.
The proposed temporary TS changes do not affect the basic
design, operation, or function of any of the systems associated with
the TS impacted by the amendment. Implementation of the proposed
amendment will not create the possibility of a new or different kind
of accident from that previously evaluated.
McGuire intends to isolate, inspect, and repair the `A' Train
NSWS supply from the SNSWP. This activity will require that `A'
Train NSW be aligned to Lake Norman until the system is ready for
post maintenance testing. This action maintains the NSW `A' Train's
normal and automatic alignment to Lake Norman but will result in the
inability to manually align the `A' Train NSWS to the SNSWP
subsequent to a seismic event that results in damage to the supply
piping from Lake Norman or the highly improbable loss of Lake
Norman.
Although considered inoperable, the `A' Train NSWS and supported
systems will be technically capable of performing their intended
functions. Throughout the repair project, compensatory measures will
be in place to provide additional assurance that the affected
systems will continue to be capable of performing their intended
safety functions.
No new accident causal mechanisms are created as a result of the
requested changes creating the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
In conclusion, this proposed LAR does not impact any plant
systems that are accident initiators and does not impact any safety
analysis.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in the margin of safety?
Response: No.
Margin of safety is related to the confidence in the ability of
the fission
[[Page 60227]]
product barriers to perform their design functions during and
following an accident situation. These barriers include the fuel
cladding, the reactor coolant system, and the containment system.
The performance of the fuel cladding, reactor coolant and
containment systems will not be impacted by the proposed LAR.
Additionally, the proposed amendment does not involve a change
in the design or operation of the plant. The activity only extends
the amount of time the `A' NSW system is allowed to be inoperable to
correct the non-conforming condition on the `A' NSWS supply piping
from the SNSWP. As stated previously, the `A' Train NSWS and
supported equipment will remain in its Normal and ESFAS alignment
during the extended CT and be functionally capable for all
postulated events except a seismic event that results in loss of the
Lake Norman water supply.
Defense-in-depth measures involving use of the Main Supply
Crossover piping to supply suction to affected unit's `A' Train NSWS
pump from the `B' train SNSWP suction piping and the ability to
implement the FLEX strategy on both units provide additional safety
margin for this event. Use of the Main Supply Crossover line is only
needed in the unlikely event that one unit's `B' Train NSWS pump
fails after loss of `A' Train NSWS due to an earthquake.
The estimated ICCDP during the 14 day CT extension is much less
than the limits associated with Regulatory Guide 1.177.
Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed changes do not
involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Kate B. Nolan, Deputy General Counsel, Duke
Energy Carolinas, LLC, 550 South Tryon Street--DEC45A Charlotte, NC
28202-1802.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-461, Clinton Power
Station, Unit No. 1, DeWitt County, Illinois
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-374, LaSalle
County Station, Units 1 and 2, LaSalle County, Illinois
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353, Limerick
Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-410, Nine Mile Point
Nuclear Station, Unit 2, Oswego County, New York
Date of amendment request: November 8, 2017. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17312A364.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the
technical specifications requirements for secondary containment. The
proposed changes are based in part on Technical Specifications Task
Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-551, ``Revise Secondary Containment
Surveillance Requirements [SRs],'' Revision 3 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML16277A226).
The application also included similar requests for Dresden Nuclear
Power Station, Units 2 and 3, and Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station,
Units 1 and 2. However, these requests are being reviewed separately
and are not within the scope of this notice.
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 addresses conditions during which the
secondary containment SRs are not met. The secondary containment is
not an initiator of any accident previously evaluated. As a result,
the probability of any accident previously evaluated is not
increased. The consequences of an accident previously evaluated
while utilizing the proposed changes are no different than the
consequences of an accident while utilizing the existing four-hour
Completion Time (i.e., allowed outage time) for an inoperable
secondary containment. In addition, the proposed change provides an
alternative means to ensure the secondary containment safety
function is met. As a result, the consequences of an accident
previously evaluated are not significantly increased.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not alter the protection system design,
create new failure modes, or change any modes of operation. The
proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant;
and no new or different kind of equipment will be installed.
Consequently, there are no new initiators that could result in a new
or different kind of accident.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change addresses conditions during which the
secondary containment SRs are not met. Conditions in which the
secondary containment vacuum is less than the required vacuum are
acceptable provided the conditions do not affect the ability of the
SGT [standby gas treatment] System to establish the required
secondary containment vacuum under post-accident conditions within
the time assumed in the accident analysis. This condition is
incorporated in the proposed change by requiring an analysis of
actual environmental and secondary containment pressure conditions
to confirm the capability of the SGT System is maintained within the
assumptions of the accident analysis.
Therefore, the safety function of the secondary containment is
not affected.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
requested amendments involve no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel,
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL
60555.
NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-410, Nine Mile Point
Nuclear Station, Unit 2, Oswego County, New York
Date of amendment request: August 22, 2017. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17234A025.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would remove the
note associated with Technical Specification Surveillance Requirement
Section
[[Page 60228]]
3.5.1.2. The note allows the low pressure coolant injection subsystems
to be considered operable in MODE 3 under certain conditions.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
No physical changes to the facility will occur as a result of
this proposed amendment. The proposed change will not alter the
physical design. The current Note in Technical Specification (TS)
Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.5.1.2 could make Low Pressure
Coolant Injection (LPCI) susceptible to potential water hammer in
the Residual Heat Removal (RHR) system if in the Shutdown Cooling
(SDC) Mode of RHR in Mode 3 when swapping from the SDC to LPCI mode
of RHR.
The proposed change will remove the TS Note and eliminate the
risk for pump cavitation, water hammer through voiding in the
suction piping, and potential damage to the RHR system.
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 does not alter the physical design, safety
limits, or safety analysis assumptions associated with the operation
of the plant. Accordingly, the change does not introduce any new
accident initiators, nor does it reduce or adversely affect the
capabilities of any plant structure, system, or component to perform
their safety function. Deletion of the TS Note is appropriate
because current TSs could put the plant at risk for potential pump
cavitation and voiding in the suction piping, resulting in water
hammer and potential damage to the RHR system.
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 conforms to NRC regulatory guidance
regarding the content of plant Technical Specifications. The
proposed change does not alter the physical design, safety limits,
or safety analysis assumptions associated with the operation of the
plant.
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: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel,
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL
60555.
NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna.
Northern States Power Company--Minnesota, Docket No. 50-263, Monticello
Nuclear Generating Plant, Wright County, Minnesota
Date of amendment request: October 20, 2017. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17293A280.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
adopt Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-542,
``Reactor Pressure Vessel Water Inventory Control.'' The proposed
amendment would replace existing technical specification (TS)
requirements related to operations with a potential for draining the
reactor vessel with new requirements on Reactor Pressure Vessel (RPV)
Water Inventory Control (WIC) to protect Safety Limit 2.1.1.4. Safety
Limit 2.1.1.4 requires the reactor vessel water level to be greater
than the top of active irradiated fuel.
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 [operation with a potential for draining the reactor vessels]
with new requirements on RPV WIC that will protect Safety Limit
2.1.1.4. Draining of Reactor Pressure Vessel (RPV) water inventory
in Mode 4 (cold shutdown) and Mode 5 (refueling) is not an accident
previously evaluated and, therefore, replacing the existing TS
controls to prevent or mitigate such an event with a new set of
controls has no effect on any accident previously evaluated. RPV
water inventory control in Mode 4 or Mode 5 is not an initiator of
any accident previously evaluated. The existing OPDRV controls or
the proposed RPV WIC controls are not mitigating actions assumed in
any accident previously evaluated.
The proposed change reduces the probability of an unexpected
draining event (which is not a previously evaluated accident) by
imposing new requirements on the limiting time in which an
unexpected draining event could result in the reactor vessel water
level dropping to the top of the active fuel (TAF). These controls
require cognizance of the plant configuration and control of
configurations with unacceptably short drain times. These
requirements reduce the probability of an unexpected draining event.
The current TS requirements are only mitigating actions and impose
no requirements that reduce the probability of an unexpected
draining event.
The proposed change reduces the consequences of an unexpected
draining event (which is not a previously evaluated accident) by
requiring an Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) subsystem to be
operable at all times in Modes 4 and 5. The current TS requirements
do not require any water injection systems, ECCS or otherwise, to be
operable in certain conditions in Mode 5. The change in requirement
from two ECCS subsystems to one ECCS subsystem in Modes 4 and 5 does
not significantly affect the consequences of an unexpected draining
event because the proposed Actions ensure equipment is available
within the limiting drain time that is as capable of mitigating the
event as the current requirements. The proposed controls provide
escalating compensatory measures to be established as calculated
drain times decrease, such as verification of a second method of
water injection and additional confirmations that containment and/or
filtration would be available if needed.
The proposed change reduces or eliminates some requirements that
were determined to be unnecessary to manage the consequences of an
unexpected draining event, such as automatic initiation of an ECCS
subsystem and control room ventilation. These changes do not affect
the consequences of any accident previously evaluated since a
draining event in Modes 4 and 5 is not a previously evaluated
accident and the requirements are not needed to adequately respond
to a draining event.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any 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 2.1.1.4. 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
[[Page 60229]]
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 2.1.1.4. New requirements
are added to determine the limiting time in which the RPV water
inventory could drain to the TAF 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: Peter M. Glass, Assistant General Counsel,
Xcel Energy Services, Inc., 414 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, MN 55401.
NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.
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 25, 2017. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17268A188.
Description of amendment request: The amendment request proposes
changes to combined license (COL) Appendix A, Technical Specifications
(TS) and plant-specific Design Control Document (DCD) Tier 2
information and departures from plant-specific Tier 1 information (and
associated COL Appendix C information). 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 material
departures.
Specifically, the requested amendment proposes changes to TS to
allow Reactor Coolant System vacuum fill operations in cold shutdown
(i.e., MODE 5) conditions, and conforming consistency changes to plant-
specific DCD information in the form of departures from DCD Tier 2
information, as incorporated into the Updated Final Safety Analysis
Report (UFSAR). Other proposed TS changes address corrections to TS
Actions and Applicability for consistency within the TS.
Additionally, the requested amendment proposes to depart from
plant-specific AP1000 DCD Tier 2 information, as incorporated into the
UFSAR, and also involves departure from Tier 1 Design Descriptions and
Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and Acceptance Criteria related to
inspecting the volume in the containment that allows for floodup to
support long-term core cooling for postulated loss-of-coolant
accidents.
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 affect the physical design and
operation of the CMTs [Core Makeup Tanks], ADS [Automatic
Depressurization System] valves, or ESFAS [Engineered Safety
Features Actuation System] as described in the UFSAR. Inadvertent
operation or failure of the ADS valves are considered as accident
initiators or part of an initiating sequence of events for an
accident previously evaluated. However, the proposed changes do not
adversely affect the probability of inadvertent operation or
failure. Therefore, the probabilities of the accidents previously
evaluated in the UFSAR are not affected.
The proposed changes do not affect the ability of the CMTs, ADS
valves, or ESFAS to perform their design functions. The designs of
the CMTs, ADS valves, and ESFAS continue to meet the same regulatory
acceptance criteria, codes, and standards as required by the UFSAR.
In addition, the proposed changes maintain the capabilities of the
CMTs, ADS valves, and ESFAS to mitigate the consequences of an
accident and to meet the applicable regulatory acceptance criteria.
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 do not 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 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 changes maintain existing safety margins. The
proposed changes verify and maintain the capabilities of the CMTs,
ADS valves, or ESFAS to perform their design functions. Therefore,
the proposed changes satisfy the same design functions in accordance
with the same codes and standards as stated in the UFSAR. These
changes do not 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 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
[[Page 60230]]
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: November 3, 2017. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17307A201.
Description of amendment request: The requested amendment 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 information, with corresponding changes to the associated combined
license (COL) Appendix C information.
The proposed changes would revise the licensing basis description
of an administrative program to manage a limited quantity of
unqualified inorganic zinc coatings in Service Level I areas of the
containment. The requested amendment also involves related changes to
plant-specific Tier 1 Table 2.2.3-4, inspections, tests, analyses, and
acceptance criteria information, with corresponding changes to the
associated COL Appendix C information.
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 affect the operation or reliability
of any system, structure or component (SSC) required to maintain a
normal power operating condition or to mitigate anticipated
transients without safety-related systems. The existence or failure
of an unqualified coating in a Service Level I area could not
initiate an accident previously evaluated. Safe shutdown using
nonsafety-related systems is achieved without significant
containment steaming, and does not rely on containment heat transfer
or containment recirculation. The proposed changes do not affect the
operation of equipment whose failure could initiate an accident
previously analyzed. The existence or failure of unqualified
coatings in Service Level I areas does not affect normal equipment
operation. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a
significant increase in the probability of an accident previously
evaluated.
The proposed changes do not adversely affect the reliability or
function of an SSC relied upon to mitigate an accident previously
analyzed. A coating nonconformance that could adversely affect the
reliability or function of the containment vessel would not be
accepted under the quality assurance (QA) program arrangements. The
existence of unqualified coatings in Service Level I areas will not
adversely affect the heat transfer through the containment vessel.
The existence or failure of unqualified coatings in Service Level I
areas will not adversely affect passive core cooling system (PXS)
performance during containment recirculation because the total
allowable amount of unqualified coating is restricted to within
analyzed limits. Therefore, the requested amendment does not involve
a significant increase in the consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.
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 systems or
equipment that could 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. Under the existing quality assurance
arrangements (procedures, policies, processes, etc.),
nonconformances that adversely affect reliability or function of a
safety-related SSC would not be accepted. The proposed changes do
not affect the physical design and operation of the containment
vessel or the PXS. The existence or failure of an unqualified
coating in a Service Level I area as controlled by the quality
assurance program nonconformance disposition process for managing
unqualified coatings could not create new failure modes, new
malfunctions, or change a sequence of events such that a new or
different kind of accident is created.
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 do not affect existing safety margins. The
heat transfer capabilities and structural integrity of the
containment vessel are maintained with the proposed changes. The
safety injection and containment recirculation functions of the PXS
and containment vessel are maintained with the proposed changes.
Management of coatings continues to comply with recommended industry
standards and with NRC Regulatory Guide 1.54. The existence of
unqualified coatings in Service Level I areas will not require
revision to any safety analysis or safety margin. Because the
quantity of unqualified coatings will be restricted to within
analyzed limits, no safety analysis or design basis acceptance
criterion is challenged or exceeded due to 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: M. Stanford Blanton, Balch & Bingham LLP,
1710 Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 35203-2015.
NRC Branch Chief: Jennifer Dixon-Herrity.
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
[[Page 60231]]
Submitting Comments'' section of this document.
DTE Electric Company, Docket No. 50-341, Fermi 2, Monroe County,
Michigan
Date of amendment request: July 25, 2016, as supplemented by letter
dated August 15, 2017.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment eliminated the
Technical Specification (TS) Section 5.5.6, ``Inservice Testing and
Inspection Program,'' to remove requirements duplicated in American
Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Code for Operations and
Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants and ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel
Code, Section XI. The amendment also added a new defined term,
``INSERVICE TESTING PROGRAM,'' to TS Section 1.1, ``Definitions.'' The
elimination of TS 5.5.6 and the addition of the new defined term
``INSERVICE TESTING PROGRAM'' is consistent with TSTF-545, Revision 3,
``TS Inservice Testing Program Removal & Clarify SR Usage Rule
Application to Section 5.5 Testing.'' In addition, the amendment
modified TS 5.5.4, ``Radioactive Effluent Control Program,'' to clarify
that Surveillance Requirements 3.0.2 and 3.0.3 are applicable to the
requirement for that program contained in Offsite Dose Calculation
Manual.
Date of issuance: November 29, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 120 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 207. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML17128A316; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-43: This amendment
revised the renewed facility operating license and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 22, 2016 (81
FR 83874). The supplemental letter dated August 15, 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 November 29, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287,
Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, Oconee County, South
Carolina
Date of amendment request: February 26, 2016, as supplemented by
letters dated January 30, June 1, and October 13, 2017.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical
Specification 3.8.1, ``AC [Alternating Current] Sources--Operating,''
to allow sufficient time to replace the stator of each Keowee Hydro
Unit.
Date of issuance: November 20, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 406 (Unit 1), 408 (Unit 2), and 407 (Unit 3). A
publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17124A608;
documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety
Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-38, DPR-47, and DPR-55:
Amendments revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical
Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 5, 2016 (81 FR
43650). The supplemental letters dated January 30, June 1, and October
13, 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 November 20, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-333, James A. FitzPatrick
Nuclear Power Plant (FitzPatrick), Oswego County, New York
Date of amendment request: July 24, 2017.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the renewed
facility operating license to reflect the transfer of the direct
ownership of FitzPatrick and the FitzPatrick Independent Spent Fuel
Storage Installation General License from Exelon Generation Company,
LLC, to Exelon FitzPatrick, LLC.
Date of issuance: November 30, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 317. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML17313A077; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed in a letter dated November 7,
2017 (ADAMS Accession No. ML17240A069).
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-59: The amendment
revised the renewed facility operating license.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 17, 2017 (82 FR
39139).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in the Safety Evaluation dated November 7, 2017.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-254 and 50-265, Quad
Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Rock Island County,
Illinois
Date of amendment request: April 27, 2017, as supplemented by
letters dated July 27 and September 28, 2017.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical
Specification (TS) 5.5.12, ``Primary Containment Leakage Rate Testing
Program,'' to allow for the permanent extension of the Type A
integrated leak rate testing and Type C leak rate testing frequencies.
The amendments also deleted a Type A test extension that expired in
2009 for Unit 1, and 2008 for Unit 2, from TS 5.5.12.a.
Date of issuance: December 1, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 1--269; Unit 2--264. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17311A162; documents related
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with
the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-29 and DPR-30:
Amendments revised the TSs and licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 19, 2017 (82 FR
27888). The supplemental letters dated July 27 and September 28, 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 December 1, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
[[Page 60232]]
Northern States Power Company--Minnesota, Docket Nos. 50-263, 50-282,
and 50-306, Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant (MNGP), and Prairie
Island Nuclear Generating Plant (PINGP), Units 1 and 2, Wright County
and Goodhue County, Minnesota
Date of amendment request: March 31, 2017.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the PINGP,
Units 1 and 2, Technical Specification (TS) Section 5.3, ``Plant Staff
Qualifications,'' and MNGP, TS 5.3, ``Unit Staff Qualifications,''
subsections 5.3.1 to add an exception for licensed operators from the
education and experience eligibility requirements of American National
Standards Institute (ANSI) N18.1-1971, ``Selection and Training of
Nuclear Power Plant Personnel,'' by requiring that licensed operators
comply only with the requirements of 10 CFR 55, ``Operators'
Licenses.'' The amendment also revised the PINGP, Units 1 and 2, and
MNGP TS 5.0, ``Administrative Controls,'' subsections 5.1-5.3 by making
changes to standardize and align formatting to the extent possible
between the TSs.
Date of issuance: November 28, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 195--MNGP; 221--PINGP Unit 1; and 208--PINGP Unit
2. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No.
ML17310B239; documents related to these amendments are listed in the
Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-22, DPR-42, and DPR-60:
The amendments revised the renewed facility operating licenses and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 6, 2017 (82 FR
26133).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated November 28, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Northern States Power Company--Minnesota, Docket Nos. 50-282 and 50-
306, Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, Goodhue
County, Minnesota
Date of amendment request: November 17, 2015, as supplemented by
letters dated May 23, 2016, February 16, 2017, and October 4, 2017.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the
Technical Specification (TS) 3.7.16, ``Spent Fuel Storage Pool Boron
Concentration,'' and TS 4.3.1, ``Fuel Storage Criticality,'' to allow
spent fuel pool storage of fresh and spent nuclear fuel containing a
boron-based neutron absorber in the form of zirconium diboride integral
fuel burnable absorber.
Date of issuance: November 30, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 120 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 222--Unit 1; 209--Unit 2. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17334A178; documents related
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with
the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-42 and DPR-60: The
amendments revised the renewed facility operating licenses and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 5, 2016 (81 FR
19648). The supplemental letters dated May 23, 2016, February 16, 2017,
and October 4, 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 November 30, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Omaha Public Power District, Docket No. 50-285, Fort Calhoun Station,
Unit 1 (FCS), Washington County, Nebraska
Date of amendment request: March 24, 2017.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the renewed
facility operating license Paragraph 3.C, ``Security and Safeguards
Contingency Plans.'' The amendment revised the FCS Cyber Security Plan
implementation schedule for the Milestone 8 full implementation date
from December 31, 2017, to December 28, 2018.
Date of issuance: November 22, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
by December 31, 2017.
Amendment No.: 294. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML17289A060; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-40: The amendment
revised the renewed facility operating license.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 6, 2017 (82 FR
26134).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated November 22, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Georgia Power Company,
Oglethorpe Power Corporation, Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia,
City of Dalton, Georgia, Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366, Edwin I. Hatch
Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Appling County, Georgia
Date of amendment request: July 1, 2016, as supplemented by letters
dated August 24, 2016; February 10, June 1, and July 12, 2017.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the
requirements of Technical Specification 5.5.12, ``Primary Containment
Leakage Rate Testing Program,'' for Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1
and 2. Specifically, the amendments allowed an increase in the existing
testing intervals for the Type A integrated leakage rate test program,
and for the Type C containment isolation valve leakage testing of
selected components.
Date of issuance: November 30, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 6 months of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 1-288; Unit 2-233. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17271A307; documents related
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with
the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-57 and NPF-5:
Amendments revised the renewed facility operating licenses and
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 13, 2016 (81
FR 62930). The supplemental letters dated August 24, 2016; and February
10, June 1, and July 12, 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 November 30, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
[[Page 60233]]
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026,
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), Units 3 and 4, Burke County,
Georgia
Date of amendment request: August 31, 2016.
Description of amendments: The amendments authorized changes to the
VEGP, Units 3 and 4, Updated Final Safety Analysis Report to eliminate
pressurizer spray line monitoring during pressurizer surge line testing
for the first plant testing only. In addition, these changes correct
inconsistencies in testing purpose, testing duration, and the ability
to leave equipment in place following the data collection period.
Date of issuance: August 22, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 83 (Unit 3) and 82 (Unit 4). A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17159A485; documents related
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with
the amendments.
Facility Combined Licenses Nos. NPF-91 and NPF-92: Amendments
revised the Facility Combined Licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 14, 2017 (82
FR 10590).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in the Safety Evaluation dated August 22, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026,
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), Units 3 and 4, Burke County,
Georgia
Date of amendment request: January 31, 2017.
Description of amendments: The amendments authorized changes to the
VEGP, Units 3 and 4, Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) in
the form of departures from the incorporated plant-specific Design
Control Document Tier 2 information and involves changes to the
Facility Combined License Appendix A to modify engineered safety
features logic for containment vacuum relief actuation.
Date of issuance: October 12, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 90 (Unit 3) and 89 (Unit 4). A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17241A101; documents related
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with
the amendments.
Facility Combined Licenses Nos. NPF-91 and NPF-92: Amendments
revised the Facility Combined Licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 28, 2017 (82 FR
15386).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in the Safety Evaluation dated October 12, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
IV. Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and
Combined Licenses and Final Determination of No Significant Hazards
Consideration and Opportunity for a Hearing (Exigent Public
Announcement or Emergency Circumstances)
During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice,
the Commission has issued the following amendment. The Commission has
determined for this amendment that the application for the amendment
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.
Because of exigent or emergency circumstances associated with the
date the amendment was needed, there was not time for the Commission to
publish, for public comment before issuance, its usual notice of
consideration of issuance of amendment, proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination, and opportunity for a hearing.
For exigent circumstances, the Commission has either issued a
Federal Register notice providing opportunity for public comment or has
used local media to provide notice to the public in the area
surrounding a licensee's facility of the licensee's application and of
the Commission's proposed determination of no significant hazards
consideration. The Commission has provided a reasonable opportunity for
the public to comment, using its best efforts to make available to the
public means of communication for the public to respond quickly, and in
the case of telephone comments, the comments have been recorded or
transcribed as appropriate and the licensee has been informed of the
public comments.
In circumstances where failure to act in a timely way would have
resulted, for example, in derating or shutdown of a nuclear power plant
or in prevention of either resumption of operation or of increase in
power output up to the plant's licensed power level, the Commission may
not have had an opportunity to provide for public comment on its no
significant hazards consideration determination. In such case, the
license amendment has been issued without opportunity for comment. If
there has been some time for public comment but less than 30 days, the
Commission may provide an opportunity for public comment. If comments
have been requested, it is so stated. In either event, the State has
been consulted by telephone whenever possible.
Under its regulations, the Commission may issue and make an
amendment immediately effective, notwithstanding the pendency before it
of a request for a hearing from any person, in advance of the holding
and completion of any required hearing, where it has determined that no
significant hazards consideration is involved.
The Commission has applied the standards of 10 CFR 50.92 and has
made a final determination that the amendment involves no significant
hazards consideration. The basis for this determination is contained in
the documents related to this action. Accordingly, the amendments have
been issued and made effective 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 51.12(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
application for amendment, (2) the amendment to Facility Operating
License or Combined License, as applicable, 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.
A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing and Petition for Leave To Intervene
The Commission is also offering an opportunity for a hearing with
respect to
[[Page 60234]]
the issuance of the amendment. 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 website
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 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 website 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
[[Page 60235]]
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 website 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 website 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 website 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.
Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-325 and 50-324, Brunswick
Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, Brunswick County, North Carolina
Date of amendment request: November 22, 2017, as supplemented by
letter dated November 24, 2017.
Description of amendments: The licensee requested a one-time,
deterministic emergency license amendment to revise the Technical
Specifications (TSs) for an extension of the emergency diesel generator
(EDG) No. 4 completion time (CT) from 14 days to 30 days. A
commensurate change would extend the maximum CT of Required Action D.5
associated with discovery of failure to meet Limiting Condition for
Operation (LCO) 3.8.1.a or b (i.e., from 17 days to 33 days). In
addition, the licensee has requested to suspend monthly testing of EDGs
1, 2, and 3 per Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.8.1.2, SR 3.8.1.3, and
SR 3.8.1.6 during the proposed extended CTs, if applicable. The license
removed EDG No. 4 from service for a planned maintenance to repair a
suspected bearing degradation on November 13, 2017. On November 19,
2017, the licensee identified that an increase in the original work
scope would extend the EDG 4 maintenance outage beyond the current TS
3.8.1, Required Action D.5, CT of 0745 EST on November 27, 2017, at
which time TS 3.8.1, Condition H would be entered requiring both units
to be in Mode 3 (hot stand by) within 12 hours. Therefore, the
emergency situation could not have been avoided.
Date of issuance: November 26, 2017.
Effective date: November 27, 2017, at 7:45 a.m. Eastern Standard
Time.
Amendment Nos.: 282 (Unit 1) and 310 (Unit 2). A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17328B072; documents related
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with
the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-71 and DPR-62:
Amendments revised the TSs and additional conditions of the licenses.
Public comments requested as to proposed no significant hazards
consideration (NSHC): No.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment, finding of
emergency circumstances, state consultation, and final NSHC
determination are contained in a Safety Evaluation dated November 26,
2017.
Attorney for licensee: Kathryn B. Nolan, Deputy General Counsel,
550
[[Page 60236]]
South Tryon Street, M/C DEC45A, Charlotte, NC 28202.
NRC Branch Chief: Undine Shoop.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 12th day of December, 2017.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Greg A. Casto,
Acting Deputy Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office
of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2017-27087 Filed 12-18-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P