[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 10 (Tuesday, January 16, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2224-2234]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-00386]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2018-0005]
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 December 19, 2017 to December 29, 2017. The
last biweekly notice was published on January 2, 2018.
DATES: Comments must be filed by February 15, 2018. A request for a
hearing must be filed by March 19, 2018.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods.
Federal Rulemaking website: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and
search for Docket ID NRC-2018-0005. Address questions about NRC dockets
to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-3463; email:
[email protected]. For technical questions, contact the
individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this document.
Mail comments to: May Ma, Office of Administration, Mail
Stop: OWFN-2-A13, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001.
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting
comments, see ``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kay Goldstein, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1506, email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments
A. Obtaining Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2018-0005, 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-2018-0005.
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-2018-0005, facility name, unit
number(s), plant docket number, application date, and subject in your
comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact
information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your
comment submission. The NRC posts all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as entering the comment submissions into
ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove
identifying or contact information.
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons
for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to
include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be
publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should
state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to
remove such information before making the comment submissions available
to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.
II. Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility
Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses and Proposed No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under
the Commission's regulations in
[[Page 2225]]
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 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
[[Page 2226]]
provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person making a limited appearance may
make an oral or written statement of his or her position on the issues
but may not otherwise participate in the proceeding. A limited
appearance may be made at any session of the hearing or at any
prehearing conference, subject to the limits and conditions as may be
imposed by the presiding officer. Details regarding the opportunity to
make a limited appearance will be provided by the presiding officer if
such sessions are scheduled.
B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a
request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition), any
motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the
submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and
documents filed by interested governmental entities that request to
participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the
NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007, as amended at 77 FR
46562, August 3, 2012). The E-Filing process requires participants to
submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in
some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Detailed
guidance on making electronic submissions may be found in the Guidance
for Electronic Submissions to the NRC and on the NRC's 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 information related to this document, see the
``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' section of this
document.
[[Page 2227]]
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414, Catawba
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 (CNS), York County, South Carolina
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370, McGuire
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 (MNS), Mecklenburg County, North
Carolina
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287,
Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 (ONC), Oconee County, South
Carolina
Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Docket No. 50-400, Shearon Harris Nuclear
Power Plant, Unit 1 (HNP), Wake County, North Carolina
Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Docket No. 50-261, H.B. Robinson Steam
Electric Plant, Unit No. 2 (RNP), Darlington County, South Carolina
Date of amendment request: November 7, 2017. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17312A362.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the
technical specifications (TSs) based on Technical Specification Task
Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-545, Revision 3, ``TS Inservice Testing
[IST] Program Removal & Clarify SR [Surveillance Requirement] Usage
Rule Application to Section 5.5 Testing'' (ADAMS Accession No.
ML15294A555), with some variations. For each plant, the changes include
deleting the current TS for the IST Program, adding a new defined term,
``INSERVICE TESTING PROGAM,'' to the TSs, and revising other TSs to
reference this new defined term instead of the deleted TS.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises TS Chapter 5 (TS Chapter 6 for HNP),
``Administrative Controls,'' Section 5.5 (Section 6.8.4 for HNP),
``Programs and Manuals,'' by replacing the current contents of the
``Inservice Testing Program'' specification with a note referring to
the TS Definition of ``INSERVICE TESTING PROGRAM.'' Most
requirements in the Inservice Testing Program are removed, as they
are duplicative of requirements in the ASME OM Code [American
Society of Mechanical Engineers Code for Operations and Maintenance
of Nuclear Power Plants], as clarified by Code Case OMN-20,
``Inservice Test Frequency.'' The remaining requirements in the
Section 5.5 (Section 6.8.4 for HNP) IST Program are eliminated
because the NRC has determined their inclusion in the TS is contrary
to regulations. A new defined term, ``INSERVICE TESTING PROGRAM,''
is added to the TS, which references the requirements of 10 CFR
50.55a(f).
Performance of inservice testing is not an initiator to any
accident previously evaluated. As a result, the probability of
occurrence of an accident is not significantly affected by the
proposed change. Inservice test frequencies under Code Case OMN-20
are equivalent to the current testing period allowed by the TS with
the exception that testing frequencies greater than or equal to 2
years may be extended by up to 6 months to facilitate test
scheduling and consideration of plant operating conditions that may
not be suitable for performance of the required testing. The testing
frequency extension will not affect the ability of the components to
mitigate any accident previously evaluated as the components are
required to be operable during the testing period extension.
Performance of inservice tests utilizing the allowances in OMN-20
will not significantly affect the reliability of the tested
components. As a result, the availability of the affected
components, as well as their ability to mitigate the consequences of
accidents previously evaluated, is not affected.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not alter the design or configuration
of the plant. The proposed change does not involve a physical
alteration of the plant; no new or different kind of equipment will
be installed. The proposed change does not alter the types of
inservice testing performed. In most cases, the frequency of
inservice testing is unchanged. However, the frequency of testing
would not result in a new or different kind of accident from any
previously evaluated since the testing methods are not altered.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change eliminates some requirements from the TS in
lieu of requirements in the ASME Code, as modified by use of Code
Case OMN-20. Compliance with the ASME Code is required by 10 CFR
50.55a. The proposed change also allows inservice tests with
frequencies greater than or equal to 2 years to be extended by 6
months to facilitate test scheduling and consideration of plant
operating conditions that may not be suitable for performance of the
required testing. The testing frequency extension will not affect
the ability of the components to respond to an accident as the
components are required to be operable during the testing period
extension. The proposed change will eliminate the existing TS SR
3.0.3 allowance to defer performance of missed inservice tests up to
the duration of the specified testing frequency, and instead will
require an assessment of the missed test on equipment operability.
This assessment will consider the effect on a margin of safety
(equipment operability). Should the component be inoperable, the
Technical Specifications provide actions to ensure that the margin
of safety is protected. The proposed change also eliminates a
statement that nothing in the ASME Code should be construed to
supersede the requirements of any TS. The NRC has determined that
statement to be incorrect. However, elimination of the statement
will have no effect on plant operation or safety.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
requested amendments involve no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Kathryn B. Nolan, Deputy General Counsel,
Duke Energy Corporation, 550 South Tryon Street, Mail Code DEC45A,
Charlotte NC 28202.
NRC Branch Chief: Undine Shoop.
Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50-397, Columbia Generating Station,
Benton County, Washington
Date of amendment request: October 23, 2017, as supplemented by
letter dated November 15, 2017. Publicly-available versions are in
ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML17296B380, and ML17320A314, respectively.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
adopt Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) traveler TSTF-542,
Revision 2, ADAMS Accession No. ML16343B008 ``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 (OPDRVs)
with new requirements on Reactor Pressure Vessel (RPV) Water Inventory
Control (WIC) to protect Safety Limit 2.1.1.3. Safety Limit 2.1.1.3
requires 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
[[Page 2228]]
licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant
hazards consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change replaces existing TS requirements related to
OPDRVs with new requirements RPV WIC that will protect Safety Limit
2.1.1.3. Draining of RPV water inventory in Mode 4 (i.e., cold
shutdown) and Mode 5 (i.e., refueling) is not an accident previously
evaluated and, therefore, replacing the existing TS controls to
prevent or mitigate such an event with a new set of controls has no
effect on any accident previously evaluated. RPV water inventory
control in Mode 4 or Mode 5 is not an initiator of any accident
previously evaluated. The existing OPDRV controls or the proposed
RPV WIC controls are not mitigating actions assumed in any accident
previously evaluated.
The proposed change reduces the probability of an unexpected
draining event (which is not a previously evaluated accident) by
imposing new requirements on the limiting time in which an
unexpected draining event could result in the reactor vessel water
level dropping to the top of the active fuel (TAF). These controls
require cognizance of the plant configuration and control of
configurations with unacceptably short drain times. These
requirements reduce the probability of an unexpected draining event.
The current TS requirements are only mitigating actions and impose
no requirements that reduce the probability of an unexpected
draining event.
The proposed change reduces the consequences of an unexpected
draining event (which is not a previously evaluated accident) by
requiring an Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) subsystem to be
operable at all times in Modes 4 and 5. The current TS requirements
do not require any water injection systems, ECCS or otherwise, to be
Operable in certain conditions in Mode 5. The change in requirement
from two ECCS subsystems to one ECCS subsystem in Modes 4 and 5 does
not significantly affect the consequences of an unexpected draining
event because the proposed Actions ensure equipment is available
within the limiting drain time that is as capable of mitigating the
event as the current requirements. The proposed controls provide
escalating compensatory measures to be established as calculated
drain times decrease, such as verification of a second method of
water injection and additional confirmations that containment and/or
filtration would be available if needed.
The proposed change reduces or eliminates some requirements that
were determined to be unnecessary to manage the consequences of an
unexpected draining event, such as automatic initiation of an ECCS
subsystem and control room ventilation. These changes do not affect
the consequences of any accident previously evaluated since a
draining event in Modes 4 and 5 is not a previously evaluated
accident and the requirements are not needed to adequately respond
to a draining event.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change replaces existing TS requirements related to
OPDRVs with new requirements on RPV WIC that will protect Safety
Limit 2.1.1.3. The proposed change will not alter the design
function of the equipment involved. Under the proposed change, some
systems that are currently required to be operable during OPDRVs
would be required to be available within the limiting drain time or
to be in service depending on the limiting drain time. Should those
systems be unable to be placed into service, the consequences are no
different than if those systems were unable to perform their
function under the current TS requirements.
The event of concern under the current requirements and the
proposed change is an unexpected draining event. The proposed change
does not create new failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident
initiators that would cause a draining event or a new or different
kind of accident not previously evaluated or included in the design
and licensing bases.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change replaces existing TS requirements related to
OPDRVs with new requirements on RPV WIC. The current requirements do
not have a stated safety basis and no margin of safety is
established in the licensing basis. The safety basis for the new
requirements is to protect Safety Limit 2.1.1.3. New requirements
are added to determine the limiting time in which the RPV water
inventory could drain to the top of the fuel in the reactor vessel
should an unexpected draining event occur. Plant configurations that
could result in lowering the RPV water level to the TAF within one
hour are now prohibited. New escalating compensatory measures based
on the limiting drain time replace the current controls. The
proposed TS establish a safety margin by providing defense-in-depth
to ensure that the Safety Limit is protected and to protect the
public health and safety. While some less restrictive requirements
are proposed for plant configurations with long calculated drain
times, the overall effect of the change is to improve plant safety
and to add safety margin.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: William A. Horin, Esq., Winston & Strawn,
1700 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20006-3817.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-382, Waterford Steam Electric
Station, Unit 3 (Waterford 3), St. Charles Parish, Louisiana
Date of amendment request: November 28, 2017, as supplemented by
letter dated December 7, 2017. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS
under Accession Nos. ML17332A898, and ML17341B295, respectively.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise Section 4.3.3 of the Waterford 3 Updated Final Safety Analysis
Report to indicate that the RAPTOR-M3G code is used for reactor vessel
fluence calculations. The use of the RAPTOR-M3G code would meet the
criteria present in Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.190, ``Calculational and
Dosimetry Methods for Determining Pressure Vessel Neutron Fluence,''
dated March 2001.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The probability of occurrence of an accident previously
evaluated for Waterford 3 is not altered by the proposed license
amendment. The accidents currently analyzed in the Waterford 3 Final
Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) remain the same. The proposed change
does not impact the integrity of the reactor coolant pressure
boundary (RCPB) (i.e., there is no change to the operating pressure,
materials, loadings, etc.). The proposed change does not affect the
probability nor consequences of any design basis accident (DBA). The
proposed neutron fluence calculational methodology meets the
criteria in RG 1.190 and will be used to ensure that the P/T
[pressure-temperature] limit curves, maximum heatup and cooldown
rates, and LTOP [low-temperature overpressure protection] enable
temperature remain acceptable to maintain reactor pressure vessel
integrity.
Fracture toughness test data are obtained from material
specimens contained in capsules that are periodically withdrawn from
the reactor vessel. These data, combined
[[Page 2229]]
with the neutron fluence calculations, permit determination of the
conditions under which the vessel can be operated with adequate
safety margins against brittle fracture throughout its service life.
For each analyzed transient and steady state condition, the
allowable pressure is determined as a function of reactor coolant
temperature considering postulated flaws in the reactor vessel
beltline, inlet nozzle, outlet nozzle, and closure head.
The predicted radiation induced [Delta]RTNDT [delta
reference temperature nil ductility transition] is calculated using
the respective reactor vessel beltline materials' copper and nickel
contents and the neutron fluence determination. The RTNDT
and, in turn, the operating limits for Waterford 3 are adjusted, if
necessary, to account for the effects of irradiation on the fracture
toughness of the reactor vessel materials and maintain reactor
vessel integrity within design assumptions.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change to the neutron fluence calculational method
will not create a new accident scenario. The requirements to have P/
T limits and LTOP protection are part of the licensing basis for
Waterford 3. The neutron fluence calculation method will validate,
and when necessary, provide input to the development of new
operating limits. The data analysis for the vessel surveillance
specimens are used to confirm that the vessel materials are
responding as predicted based on previous neutron fluence
projections.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change to the neutron fluence calculational method
conforms to the criteria presented in RG 1.190 and will ensure that
Waterford 3 continues to operate within the operating margins
allowed by 10 CFR 50.60 and the ASME [American Society of Mechanical
Engineers] Code.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Ms. Anna Vinson Jones, Senior Counsel,
Entergy Services, Inc., 101 Constitution Avenue NW, Suite 200 East,
Washington, DC 20001.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon), Docket No. 50-219, Oyster
Creek Nuclear Generating Station (OCNGS), Ocean County, New Jersey
Date of amendment request: November 16, 2017. A publicly-available
version is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17320A411.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the
OCNGS renewed facility operating license (RFOL) and the associated
Technical Specifications (TSs) to Permanently Defueled Technical
Specifications (PDTS) consistent with the permanent cessation of
reactor operation and permanent defueling of the reactor. By letter
dated January 7, 2011 (ADAMS Accession No. ML110070507), Exelon
provided formal notification to the NRC of Exelon's contingent
determination to permanently cease operations at OCNGS no later than
December 31, 2019. The amendment would eliminate those TSs applicable
in operating modes or modes where fuel is placed in the reactor vessel.
The amendment would change other TS limiting conditions for operation
(LCOs), definitions, surveillance requirements (SRs), administrative
controls, as well as several license conditions.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration (NSHC)
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of NSHC, 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 would not take effect until OCNGS has
permanently ceased operation, entered a permanently defueled
condition, and at least 60 days of irradiated fuel decay time after
reactor shutdown. The proposed changes would revise the OCNGS RFOL
and TS by deleting or modifying certain portions of the TS that are
no longer applicable to a permanently shutdown and defueled
facility. This change is consistent with the criteria set forth in
10 CFR 50.36 for the contents of TS.
Chapter 15 of the OCNGS Updated Final Safety Analysis Report
(UFSAR) described the design basis accident (DBA) and transient
scenarios applicable to OCNGS during power operations. The analyzed
accidents that remains applicable to OCNGS in the permanently shut
down and defueled condition is a Fuel Handling Accident (FHA) in the
[spent fuel pool (SFP)] (a dropped fuel assembly onto the top of the
core will no longer be applicable) and the Postulated Radioactive
Tank Failure and Release of Radioactive Liquid Waste while
radioactive liquids are still present. The FHA is the remaining
accident with radiological consequences and has been revised for the
permanently shutdown and defueled condition. The liquid tank
accidents analysis remains bounding and unchanged; therefore, is not
discussed further in this NSHC evaluation.
Once the reactor is in a permanently defueled condition, the
spent fuel pool (SFP) and its cooling systems will be dedicated only
to spent fuel storage. In this condition, the spectrum of credible
accidents will be much smaller than for an operational plant. Once
the certifications are docketed by OCNGS pursuant to 10 CFR
50.82(a)(1), and the consequent removal of authorization to operate
the reactor or to place or retain fuel in the reactor vessel
pursuant to 10 CFR 50.82(a)(2), the majority of the accident
scenarios previously postulated in the UFSAR will no longer be
possible and will be removed from the UFSAR under the provisions of
10 CFR 50.59.
The deletion of TS definitions and rules of usage and
application, that will not be applicable in a defueled condition,
has no impact on facility structures, systems, and components (SSCs)
or the methods of operation of such SSCs. The deletion of design
features and safety limits not applicable to the permanently
shutdown and defueled status of OCNGS has no impact on the remaining
applicable DBA. The removal of LCOs or SRs that are related to only
the operation of the nuclear reactor or to only the prevention,
diagnosis, or mitigation of reactor-related transients or accidents
do not affect the applicable DBAs previously evaluated since these
DBAs are no longer applicable in the defueled mode. The safety
functions involving core reactivity control, reactor heat removal,
reactor coolant system inventory control, and containment integrity
are no longer applicable at OCNGS as a permanently defueled plant.
The analyzed accidents involving damage to the reactor coolant
system, main steam lines, reactor core, and the subsequent release
of radioactive material will no longer be possible at OCNGS.
After OCNGS permanently ceases operation, the future generation
of fission products will cease and the remaining source term will
decay. The radioactive decay of the irradiated fuel following
shutdown of the reactor will have reduced the consequences of the
FHA in the SFP below those previously analyzed. The relevant
parameter (water level) associated with the fuel pool provides an
initial condition for the FHA analysis and is included in the PDTS.
The SFP water level and spent fuel storage TSs are retained to
preserve the current requirements for safe storage of irradiated
fuel. SFP cooling and makeup related equipment and support equipment
(e.g., electrical power systems) are not required to be continuously
available since there will be sufficient time to effect repairs,
establish alternate sources of makeup flow, or establish alternate
sources of cooling in the event of a loss of cooling and makeup flow
to the SFP.
The deletion and modification of provisions of the
administrative controls do not directly affect the design of SSCs
necessary for safe storage of irradiated fuel or the methods used
for handling and storage of
[[Page 2230]]
such fuel in the fuel pool. The changes to the administrative
controls are administrative in nature and do not affect any
accidents applicable to the safe management of irradiated fuel or
the permanently shutdown and defueled condition of the reactor.
The probability of occurrence of previously evaluated accidents
is not increased, since extended operation in a defueled condition
will be the only operation allowed, and therefore bounded by the
existing analyses. Additionally, the occurrence of postulated
accidents associated with reactor operation will no longer be
credible in a permanently defueled reactor. This significantly
reduces the scope of applicable accidents.
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 to delete and/or modify certain TS have no
impact on facility SSCs affecting the safe storage of spent
irradiated fuel, or on the methods of operation of such SSCs, or on
the handling and storage of spent irradiated fuel itself. The
removal of TS that are related only to the operation of the nuclear
reactor or only to the prevention, diagnosis, or mitigation of
reactor related transients or accidents, cannot result in different
or more adverse failure modes or accidents than previously evaluated
because the reactor will be permanently shutdown and defueled and
OCNGS will no longer be authorized to operate the reactor.
The proposed deletion of requirements of the OCNGS RFOL and TS
do not affect systems credited in the accident analysis for the FHA
in the SFP at OCNGS. The proposed RFOL and PDTS will continue to
require proper control and monitoring of safety significant
parameters and activities.
The TS regarding SFP water level and spent fuel storage is
retained to preserve the current requirements for safe storage of
irradiated fuel. The restriction on the SFP water level is fulfilled
by normal operating conditions and preserves initial conditions
assumed in the analyses of the postulated DBA.
The proposed amendment does not result in any new mechanisms
that could initiate damage to the remaining relevant safety barriers
for defueled plants (fuel cladding and spent fuel cooling). Since
extended operation in a defueled condition will be the only
operation allowed, and therefore bounded by the existing analyses,
such a condition does not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident.
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 a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes involve deleting and/or modifying certain
TS once the OCNGS facility has been permanently shutdown, defueled,
and at least 60 days of irradiated fuel decay time after reactor
shutdown. As specified in 10 CFR 50.82(a)(2), the 10 CFR 50 license
for OCNGS will no longer authorize operation of the reactor or
emplacement or retention of fuel into the reactor vessel following
submittal of the certifications required by 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1). As a
result, the occurrence of certain design basis postulated accidents
associated with reactor operation is no longer considered credible.
The only remaining credible accidents are a FHA and the Postulated
Radioactive Releases Due to Liquid Radwaste Tank Failures. The
proposed amendment does not adversely affect the inputs or
assumptions of any of the design basis analyses that impact either
accident.
The proposed changes are limited to those portions of the RFOL
and TS that are not related to the safe storage of irradiated fuel.
The requirements that are proposed to be revised or deleted from the
OCNGS RFOL and TS are not credited in the existing accident analysis
for the remaining applicable postulated accidents; and as such, do
not contribute to the margin of safety associated with the accident
analysis. Postulated design basis accidents involving the reactor
will no longer be possible because the reactor will be permanently
shutdown and defueled and OCNGS will no longer be authorized to
operate the reactor.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
reduction in the margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves NSHC.
Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel,
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL
60555.
NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.
NextEra Energy Duane Arnold, LLC, Docket No. 50-331, Duane Arnold
Energy Center, Linn County, Iowa
Date of amendment request: June 9, 2017, as supplemented by letter
dated November 1, 2017. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS under
Accession Nos. ML17164A076 and ML17305A910, respectively.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
replace the existing technical specification (TS) requirements related
to ``operations with a potential for draining the reactor vessel''
(OPDRVs) with requirements for reactor pressure vessel (RPV) water
inventory control (WIC) to protect Safety Limit 2.1.1.3. Safety Limit
2.1.1.3 requires RPV water level to be greater than the top of active
irradiated fuel. The proposed amendment is based on Technical
Specification Task Force (TSTF) traveler TSTF-542, Revision 2,
``Reactor Pressure Vessel Water Inventory Control,'' which was approved
by the NRC by letter dated December 20, 2016.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change replaces existing TS requirements related to
OPDRVs with new requirements on RPV WIC that will protect Safety
Limit 2.1.1.3. Draining of RPV water inventory in Mode 4 (i.e., cold
shutdown) and Mode 5 (i.e., refueling) is not an accident previously
evaluated and, therefore, replacing the existing TS controls to
prevent or mitigate such an event with a new set of controls has no
effect on any accident previously evaluated. RPV water inventory
control in Mode 4 or Mode 5 is not an initiator of any accident
previously evaluated. The existing OPDRV controls or the proposed
RPV WIC controls are not mitigating actions assumed in any accident
previously evaluated.
The proposed change reduces the probability of an unexpected
draining event (which is not a previously evaluated accident) by
imposing new requirements on the limiting time in which an
unexpected draining event could result in the reactor vessel water
level dropping to the top of the active fuel (TAF). These controls
require cognizance of the plant configuration and control of
configurations with unacceptably short drain times. These
requirements reduce the probability of an unexpected draining event.
The current TS requirements are only mitigating actions and impose
no requirements that reduce the probability of an unexpected
draining event.
The proposed change reduces the consequences of an unexpected
draining event (which is not a previously evaluated accident) by
requiring an Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) subsystem to be
operable at all times in Modes 4 and 5. The current TS requirements
do not require any water injection systems, ECCS or otherwise, to be
Operable in certain conditions in Mode 5. The change in requirement
from two ECCS subsystems to one ECCS subsystem in Modes 4 and 5 does
not significantly affect the consequences of an unexpected draining
event because the proposed Actions ensure equipment is available
within the limiting drain time that is as capable of mitigating the
event as the current requirements. The proposed controls provide
escalating compensatory measures to be established as calculated
drain times decrease, such as verification of a second method of
water injection and additional confirmations that containment and/or
filtration would be available if needed.
[[Page 2231]]
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 2.1.1.3. The proposed change will not alter the design
function of the equipment involved. Under the proposed change, some
systems that are currently required to be operable during OPDRVs
would be required to be available within the limiting drain time or
to be in service depending on the limiting drain time. Should those
systems be unable to be placed into service, the consequences are no
different than if those systems were unable to perform their
function under the current TS requirements.
The event of concern under the current requirements and the
proposed change is an unexpected draining event. The proposed change
does not create new failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident
initiators that would cause a draining event or a new or different
kind of accident not previously evaluated or included in the design
and licensing bases.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change replaces existing TS requirements related to
OPDRVs with new requirements on RPV WIC. The current requirements do
not have a stated safety basis and no margin of safety is
established in the licensing basis. The safety basis for the new
requirements is to protect Safety Limit 2.1.1.3. New requirements
are added to determine the limiting time in which the RPV water
inventory could drain to the top of the fuel in the reactor vessel
should an unexpected draining event occur. Plant configurations that
could result in lowering the RPV water level to the TAF within one
hour are now prohibited. New escalating compensatory measures based
on the limiting drain time replace the current controls. The
proposed TS establish a safety margin by providing defense-in-depth
to ensure that the Safety Limit is protected and to protect the
public health and safety. While some less restrictive requirements
are proposed for plant configurations with long calculated drain
times, the overall effect of the change is to improve plant safety
and to add safety margin.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: William Blair, P. O. Box 14000, Juno Beach,
FL 33408-0420.
NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), Docket Nos. 50-259, 50-260, and 50-
296, Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN), Units 1, 2, and 3, Limestone
County, Alabama
TVA, Docket Nos. 50-327 and 50-328, Sequoyah Nuclear Plant (SQN), Units
1 and 2, Hamilton County, Tennessee
TVA, Docket Nos. 50-390 and 50-391, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant (WBN),
Units 1 and 2, Rhea County, Tennessee
Date of amendment request: November 17, 2017. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML17324A349.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would add a new
level of protection, ``Unbalanced Voltage,'' to the Technical
Specifications for the loss of power instrumentation. The NRC issued
Bulletin 2012-01, ``Design Vulnerability in Electric Power System,''
which requested addressees to submit specific information regarding
plant design and operating configurations relative to the regulatory
requirements of General Design Criterion (GDC) 17, ``Electric power
systems.'' The Nuclear Energy Institute notified the NRC that the
nuclear industry's chief nuclear officers approved a formal initiative
to address the open phase condition (OPC). It further stated that the
initiative represented a formal commitment among nuclear power plant
licensees to address the OPC design vulnerability for operating
reactors.
The licensee stated, in its November 17, 2017, submittal, that the
primary reason for the proposed change is to provide equipment
protection from the effects of an unbalanced voltage in a similar
fashion to the existing degraded and loss of voltage protection
schemes. The identification of the vulnerability was based on industry
operating experience and subsequent commitment to meet the voluntary
Nuclear Strategic Issues Advisory Committee Open Phase Industry
Initiative, also known as the ``Voluntary Industry Initiative'' (VII)
for GDC 17 Compliance.
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 consequence of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change to add a new unbalanced voltage relay (UVR)
function at BFN, SQN, and WBN provides another level of undervoltage
protection for the Class 1E electrical equipment. The new relay
setpoints ensure that the normally operating Class 1E motors and
equipment, which are powered from the Class 1E buses, are
appropriately isolated from the normal offsite power source and
would not be damaged in the event of sustained unbalanced voltage.
The addition of the UVR function continues to allow the existing
undervoltage protection circuitry to function as originally designed
(i.e., degraded and loss of voltage protection remain in place and
are unaffected by this change). The addition of the new UVR function
has no impact on accident initiators or precursors; does not alter
the accident analysis assumptions or the manner in which the plant
is operated or maintained; and does not affect the probability of
operator error.
Based on the above, the proposed change does not involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change to add a new UVR function at BFN, SQN, and
WBN provides another level of undervoltage protection for the Class
1E electrical equipment. This change ensures that the assumption in
the previously evaluated accidents, which may involve a degraded
voltage condition, continue to be valid. The proposed change does
not result in the creation of any new accident precursors; does not
result in changes to any existing accident scenarios; and does not
introduce any operational changes or mechanisms that would create
the possibility of a new or different kind of accident. The UVR
function would not affect the existing loss of voltage and degraded
voltage protection schemes, would not affect the number of
occurrences of degraded voltage conditions that would cause the
actuation of the existing Loss of Voltage Relays, Degraded Voltage
Relays or the new UVRs; would not affect the failure rate of the
existing protection relays; and would not impact the assumptions in
any existing accident scenario.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
[[Page 2232]]
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The current undervoltage protection circuitry is designed to
isolate the normally operating Class 1E motors/equipment, which are
powered from the Class 1E buses, from the offsite power source such
that the subject equipment would not be damaged in the event of
sustained degraded bus voltage. After the Class 1E buses are
isolated from the offsite power supply, the Class 1E motors would be
sequenced back on the Class 1E bus powered by the diesel generators
(DGs) and continue to perform their design basis function to
mitigate the consequences of an accident, with a specified margin of
safety. With the addition of the new level of undervoltage
protection, the capability of the Class 1E equipment is assured.
Thus the equipment would continue to perform its design basis
function to mitigate the consequences of the previously analyzed
accidents and maintain the existing margin to safety currently
assumed in the accident analyses. A DG start due to a safety
injection signal (i.e., loss of coolant accident) and the subsequent
sequencing of Class 1E loads back onto the Class 1E buses, powered
by the DG, are not adversely affected by this change. If an actual
loss of voltage condition were to occur on the Class 1E buses, the
loss of voltage time delays would continue to isolate the Class 1E
distribution system from the offsite power source prior to the DG
assuming the Class 1E loads. The Class 1E loads would sequence back
on the bus in a specified order and timer interval, again ensuring
that the existing accident analysis assumptions remain valid and the
existing margin to safety is unaffected.
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: General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority,
400 West Summit Hill Drive, 6A West Tower, Knoxville, TN 37902.
NRC Branch Chief: Undine Shoop.
III. Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses
and Combined Licenses
During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice,
the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has
determined for each of these amendments that the application complies
with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,
as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The
Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the
Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR chapter I, which are set
forth in the license amendment.
A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility
operating license or combined license, as applicable, proposed no
significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a
hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the Federal
Register as indicated.
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that
these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in
accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b),
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be
prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an
environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in
10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment,
it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the action see (1) the
applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's
related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as
indicated. All of these items can be accessed as described in the
``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' section of this
document.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-247 and 50-286, Indian
Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 (Indian Point 2 and 3),
Westchester County, New York
Date of amendment request: December 14, 2016, as supplemented by
letters dated April 19, 2017; August 16, 2017; and October 2, 2017.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the
Appendix A Technical Specifications Limiting Condition for Operation
(LCO) 3.7.13, ``Spent Fuel Pit Storage,'' for Indian Point 2 and
Appendix C Technical Specifications LCO 3.1.2, ``Shielded Transfer
Canister (STC) Loading,'' for Indian Point 2 and 3. These LCOs ensure
that the fuel to be loaded into the STC meets the design basis for the
STC and has an acceptable rack location in the Indian Point 2 spent
fuel pool before the STC is loaded with fuel. The proposed changes
increase the population of Indian Point 3 fuel eligible for transfer
via the STC to the Indian Point 2 spent fuel pool.
Date of issuance: December 22, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be
implemented within 60 days.
Amendment Nos.: 287 (Unit No. 2) and 264 (Unit No. 3). A publicly-
available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17320A354;
documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety
Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-26 and DPR-64: The amendments
revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 19, 2017 (82 FR
27885). The supplemental letters dated August 16, 2017, and October 2,
2017, provided additional information that clarified the application,
did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and
did not change the NRC staff's original proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 22, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-271, Vermont Yankee
Nuclear Power Station, Vernon, Vermont
Date of amendment request: May 1, 2017, as supplemented by letter
dated June 13, 2017.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the
completion date for Milestone 8, full implementation of the Cyber
Security Plan, from December 15, 2017, to July 31, 2019.
Date of issuance: December 15, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 266. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML17339A097; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
Facility Operating License No. DPR-28: The amendment revised the
Facility Operating License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 15, 2017 (82 FR
38717). The supplemental letter dated June 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 December 15, 2017.
[[Page 2233]]
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC and PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-277
and 50-278, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3, York and
Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: January 30, 2017, as supplemented by
letters dated August 11, 2017, September 8, 2017, and December 20,
2017.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments replaced existing
Technical Specification requirements related to ``operations with a
potential for draining the reactor vessel'' with new requirements on
reactor pressure vessel water inventory control to protect Safety Limit
2.1.1.3. Safety Limit 2.1.1.3 requires reactor pressure vessel water
level to be greater than the top of active irradiated fuel. The changes
are based on Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-
542, Revision 2, ``Reactor Pressure Vessel Water Inventory Control.''
Date of issuance: December 27, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
prior to the Unit 2 fall 2018 refueling outage (P2R22).
Amendments Nos.: 317 (Unit 2) and 320 (Unit 3). A publicly-
available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17325B708;
documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety
Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-44 and DPR-56: The
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 28, 2017 (82 FR
15382). The supplemental letters dated August 11, 2017, September 8,
2017, and December 20, 2017, provided additional information that
clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application
as originally noticed, and did not change the NRC staff's original
proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as
published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 27, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-410, Nine Mile Point
Nuclear Station, Unit 2, Oswego County, New York
Date of amendment request: April 5, 2017.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Nine Mile
Point Nuclear Station, Unit 2, Technical Specifications to allow
greater flexibility in performing surveillance testing in Modes 1, 2,
or 3 of emergency diesel generators. The changes are based on Technical
Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-283A, Revision 3,
``Modify Section 3.8 Mode Restrictions Notes.''
Date of issuance: December 21, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 165. A publicly-available version of the amendment
is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17324B178; documents related to this
amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the
amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-69: Amendment revised
the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 19, 2017 (82 FR
27887).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 21, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-219, Oyster Creek Nuclear
Generating Station (OCNGS), Ocean County, New Jersey
Date of amendment request: April 10, 2017, as supplemented by
letters dated October 4 and December 15, 2017.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the OCNGS
renewed facility operating license for the Cyber Security Plan (CSP)
Milestone 8 full implementation completion date, as set forth in the
CSP implementation schedule, and revised the physical protection
license condition. The amendment revised the CSP Milestone 8 completion
date from December 31, 2017, to August 31, 2021.
Date of issuance: December 22, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 292. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML17289A222; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-16: The amendment
revised the renewed facility operating license.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 23, 2017 (82 FR
23626). The supplemental letters dated October 4 and December 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 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 December 22, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Indiana Michigan Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-315 and 50-316, Donald
C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Berrien County, Michigan
Date of amendment request: March 24, 2017.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the Donald
C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Technical Specification (TS)
3.7.2, ``Steam Generator Stop Valves (SGSVs),'' to incorporate the SGSV
actuator trains into the Limiting Condition for Operation statement and
to provide associated Conditions, Required Actions, and Completion
Times to the ACTIONS table. In addition, Surveillance Requirement (SR)
3.7.2.2 was revised to clearly identify that the SGSV actuator trains
are required to be tested in accordance with the SR.
Date of issuance: December 19, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: Unit No. 1-338; Unit No. 2-320. A publicly-
available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17312B030;
documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety
Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-58 and DPR-74:
Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 23, 2017 (82 FR
23626).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 19, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-364,
Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant (FNP), Units 1 and 2, Houston County,
Alabama
Date of amendment request: November 22, 2016, as supplemented by
letters dated May 23, 2017; June 8, 2017;
[[Page 2234]]
September 7, 2017; November 21, 2017; and December 18, 2017.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the
licensing basis of FNP to support a full scope application of an
Alternative Source Term methodology and modified Technical
Specifications (TSs) 3.7.10, 3.9.3, and TS 5.5.18, consistent with
Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Travelers TSTF-448-A,
``Control Room Habitability,'' Revision 3, and TSTF-312,
``Administratively Control Containment Penetrations.''
Date of issuance: December 20, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 120 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 216 (Unit 1) and 213 (Unit 2). A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17271A265; documents related
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with
the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-2 and NPF-8: The
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 3, 2017 (82 FR
160). The supplemental letters dated May 23, 2017; June 8, 2017;
September 7, 2017; November 21, 2017; and December 18, 2017, provided
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change
the NRC staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 20, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-259, 50-260, and 50-296,
Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3 (BFN), Limestone County,
Alabama
Date of amendment request: June 7, 2017. As supplemented by letters
dated September 18 and October 23, 2017.
Brief description of amendment: The amendments revised fire
protection license condition 2.C.(13) for Unit 1, license condition
2.C.(14) for Unit 2, and license condition 2.C.(7) for Unit 3.
Date of issuance: December 19, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
as indicated in Items 2 and 3 under ``Transition License Conditions''
of the Operating Licenses, as shown in the attachment to the license
amendments.
Amendment Nos.: 302 (Unit 1), 326 (Unit 2), and 286 (Unit 3). A
publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17317A422;
documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety
Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-33, DPR-52, and DPR-68:
Amendments revised the licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 5, 2017 (82
FR 41997). The supplemental letters dated September 18 and October 23,
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 evaluations of the amendments are
contained in Safety Evaluations dated December 19, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) Docket Nos. 50-259, 50-260, 50-296,
and 72-052, Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN), Units 1, 2, and 3,
Limestone County, Alabama
TVA Docket Nos. 50-327, 50-328, and 72-034, Sequoyah Nuclear Plant
(SQN), Units 1 and 2, Hamilton County, Tennessee
TVA Docket Nos. 50-390, 50-391, and 72-1048, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant
(WBN), Units 1 and 2, Rhea County, Tennessee
Date of amendment request: January 4, 2017, as supplemented by
letter dated July 7, 2017.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised TVA
Emergency Plans for the above nuclear plants. Specifically, they
adopted the NRC-endorsed Radiological Emergency Plan Emergency Action
Level schemes developed by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI 99-01,
Revision 6, ``Development of Emergency Action Levels for Non-Passive
Reactors'').
Date of issuance: December 22, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 180 days from the date of its issuance or July 3, 2018,
whichever comes later.
Amendment Nos.: BFN, 303 (Unit 1), 327 (Unit 2), and 287 (Unit 3);
SQN, 339 (Unit 1) and 332 (Unit 2); and WBN, 118 (Unit 1) and 18 (Unit
2). A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No.
ML17289A032; documents related to these amendments are listed in the
Safety Evaluations (SEs) enclosed with the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-33, DPR-52, DPR-68,
DPR-77, DPR-79 and Facility Operating License Nos, NPF-90 and NPF-96:
Amendments revised the licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 19, 2017 (82 FR
27891). The supplemental letter dated July 7, 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 SEs dated December 22, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, on January 8, 2018.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Kathryn M. Brock,
Acting Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of
Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2018-00386 Filed 1-12-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P