[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 20 (Tuesday, January 30, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4289-4296]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-01469]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2018-0012]
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 30, 2017, to January 12, 2018. The
last biweekly notice was published on January 16, 2018.
DATES: Comments must be filed by March 1, 2018. A request for a hearing
must be filed by April 2, 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-2018-0012. 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: Lynn Ronewicz, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1927, email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments
A. Obtaining Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2018-0012, 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-2018-0012.
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-2018-0012, facility name, unit
number(s), plant docket number, application date, and subject in your
comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact
information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your
comment submission. The NRC posts all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as entering the comment submissions into
ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove
identifying or contact information.
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons
for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to
include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be
publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should
state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to
remove such information before making the comment submissions available
to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.
II. Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility
Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses and Proposed No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under
the Commission's regulations in Sec. 50.92 of title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (10 CFR), this means that operation of the facility
in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated, or (2) create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or
(3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis
for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown
below.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final
determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period if circumstances change during the 30-day comment
period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for
example in derating or shutdown of the facility. If the Commission
takes action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or
the notice period, it will publish in
[[Page 4290]]
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's 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
[[Page 4291]]
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.
Entergy Louisiana, LLC, and Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-
458, River Bend Station, Unit 1 (RBS), West Feliciana Parish, Louisiana
Date of amendment request: September 8, 2017. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17255A463.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the
RBS Technical Specifications (TSs) by adding a new specification
related to ``Control Building Air Conditioning (AC) System,'' TS
Limiting Condition for Operation 3.7.7. This new TS specifically would
address the AC function for switchgear and other electrical equipment
located in the RBS control building. A TS Surveillance Requirement
3.7.7.1 would be added to verify that the control building AC (CBAC)
system has the capability to remove the assumed heat load. The proposed
amendment also requests a correction to the RBS license antitrust
conditions, Appendix C, due to an administrative error.
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 addition of Technical Specification (TS) 3.7.7
creates a Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) for the CBAC system
required to support TS equipment. The Completion Time presented in
the proposed TS is consistent with other [engineered safety feature
(ESF)] mechanical system Completion Times and is supported by the
inputs used in the current analysis.
[[Page 4292]]
The CBAC systems, including the Control Building Heating,
Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) and the Control Building
Chilled Water systems, are designed for the mitigation of design
basis accidents or transients, such as a Loss of Coolant Accident
(LOCA). They are not designed, nor do they serve, for the prevention
of those events. Consequently, the proposed amendment does not
increase the probability of a previously evaluated accident
occurring.
Should an accident occur during the period of time that one
subsystem of the CBAC system is out of service, the other subsystem
components would serve to provide the minimum required air
conditioning and chilled water assumed in the accident analysis.
Therefore, the radiological consequences of associated accidents
assuming no additional failures are not impacted by the proposed
amendment.
Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not
significantly increase the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change provides a new technical specification
providing a new completion time [(CT)] for one CBAC subsystem out of
service CT. The change does not involve any unanalyzed modifications
to the design or operational limits. The new CT does not introduce
any new or unanalyzed modes of operation. No new accident scenarios,
failure mechanisms or limiting single failures are introduced as
result of the proposed change. The change has no adverse effects on
any safety related system. Therefore, no new failure modes or
accident precursors are created.
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 does not change any accident analyses. The
proposed change does not exceed or alter a design basis or safety
limit, including limits on Control Building temperatures; therefore
it does not significantly reduce the margin of safety. The proposed
change establishes TS Allowed Outage Times for CBAC which are longer
than the current governing LCO's. The risk implications of this
amendment request were evaluated and found to be acceptable.
During the proposed Completion Time, the supported systems will
remain capable of providing adequate airflow and chilled water to
maintain the supported systems capable of mitigating the
consequences of a design basis event such as LOCA with no additional
single failure.
The proposed change does not impact accident offsite dose,
containment pressure or temperature, emergency core cooling system
(ECCS) or reactor protection system (RPS) settings or other
parameter that could affect a margin of safety.
Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: William B. Glew, Jr., Associate General
Counsel--Entergy Services, Inc., 440 Hamilton Avenue, White Plains, NY
10601.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
Entergy Louisiana, LLC, and Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-
458, River Bend Station, Unit 1 (RBS), West Feliciana Parish, Louisiana
Date of amendment request: November 15, 2017. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17319A898.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the
RBS Technical Specifications (TSs) by replacing the existing
specifications related to ``operation with a potential for draining the
reactor vessels'' (OPDRVs) with revised 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 reactor vessel water level
to be greater than the top of active irradiated fuel. The proposed
amendment would adopt changes, with variations as noted in the license
amendment request, and is based on the NRC-approved safety evaluation
for Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-542,
Revision 2, ``Reactor Pressure Vessel Water Inventory Control,'' dated
December 20, 2016 (ADAMS Accession No. ML16343B065).
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.
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
[[Page 4293]]
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 B. Glew, Jr., Associate General
Counsel--Entergy Services, Inc., 440 Hamilton Avenue, White Plains, NY
10601.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, Docket No. 50-440, Perry Nuclear
Power Plant, Unit No. 1, Lake County, Ohio
Date of amendment request: December 6, 2017. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17347A788.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would add, replace,
and modify numerous technical specification (TS) requirements related
to operations that have the potential for draining the reactor vessel
(OPDRVs) with new requirements on reactor pressure vessel water
inventory control (RPV WIC) to protect TS Safety Limit 2.1.1.3. The
proposed changes are based on Technical Specifications Task Force
(TSTF) Traveler TSTF-542, ``Reactor Pressure Vessel Water Inventory
Control.''
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change replaces existing TS requirements related to
OPDRVs with new requirements on RPV WIC that will protect Safety
Limit 2.1.1.3. Draining of RPV water inventory in Mode 4, (i.e.,
cold shutdown) and Mode 5 (i.e., refueling) is not an accident
previously evaluated and, therefore, replacing the existing TS
controls to prevent or mitigate such an event with a new set of
controls has no effect on any accident previously evaluated. RPV
water inventory control in Mode 4 or Mode 5 is not an initiator of
any accident previously evaluated. The existing OPDRV controls or
the proposed RPV WIC controls are not mitigating actions assumed in
any accident previously evaluated.
The proposed change reduces the probability of an unexpected
draining event (which is not a previously evaluated accident) by
imposing new requirements on the limiting time in which an
unexpected draining event could result in the reactor vessel water
level dropping to the top of 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 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 accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change replaces existing TS requirements related to
OPDRVs with new requirements on RPV WIC that will protect Safety
Limit 2.1.1.3. The proposed change will not alter the design
function of the equipment involved. Under the proposed change, some
systems that are currently required to be operable during OPDRVs
would be required to be available within the limiting drain time or
to be in service depending on the limiting drain time. Should those
systems be unable to be placed into service, the consequences are no
different than if those systems were unable to perform their
function under the current TS requirements.
The event of concern under the current requirements and the
proposed change is an unexpected draining event. The proposed change
does not create new failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident
initiators that would cause a draining event or a new or different
kind of accident not previously evaluated or included in the design
and license bases.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change 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 license 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
[[Page 4294]]
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 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: David W. Jenkins, FirstEnergy Corporation,
Mail Stop A-GO-15, 76 South Main Street, Akron, OH 44308.
NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50-354, Hope Creek Generating Station,
Salem County, New Jersey
Date of amendment request: September 21, 2017. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17265A847.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the
Hope Creek Generating Station Technical Specifications (TSs) by
replacing the existing specifications related to ``operation with a
potential for draining the reactor vessel'' (OPDRV) with revised
requirements for reactor pressure vessel (RPV) water inventory control
(WIC) to protect Safety Limit 2.1.4. Safety Limit 2.1.4 requires
reactor vessel water level to be greater than the top of active
irradiated fuel. The amendment would adopt changes with variations as
noted in the license amendment request and is based on the NRC-approved
safety evaluation for Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF)
Traveler TSTF-542, Revision 2, ``Reactor Pressure Vessel Water
Inventory Control,'' 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 2.1.4. Draining of RPV water inventory in OPCON [Operational
Condition] 4 (i.e., cold shutdown) and OPCON 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 OPCON 4 or OPCON 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 OPCONs 4 and 5. The current TS requirements
do not require any water injection systems, ECCS or otherwise, to be
Operable in certain conditions in OPCON 5. The change in requirement
from two ECCS subsystems to one ECCS subsystem in OPCONs 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 2.1.4. 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 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 2.1.4. 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: Jeffrie J. Keenan, PSEG Nuclear LLC--N21,
P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038.
NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna.
[[Page 4295]]
III. Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses
and Combined Licenses
During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice,
the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has
determined for each of these amendments that the application complies
with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,
as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The
Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the
Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR chapter I, which are set
forth in the license amendment.
A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility
operating license or combined license, as applicable, proposed no
significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a
hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the Federal
Register as indicated.
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that
these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in
accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b),
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be
prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an
environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in
10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment,
it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the action see (1) the
applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's
related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as
indicated. All of these items can be accessed as described in the
``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' section of this
document.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414, Catawba
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York County, South Carolina
Date of amendment request: December 15, 2016, as supplemented by
letters dated June 8, 2017, and July 17, 2017.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments modified Technical
Specification (TS) 3.9.4, ``Residual Heat Removal (RHR) and Coolant
Circulation--High Water Level,'' and TS 3.9.5, ``Residual Heat Removal
(RHR) and Coolant Circulation--Low Water Level.'' Condition A of TS
3.9.4 applies when RHR requirements are not met and includes four
required actions. Required Action A.4 requires, within 4 hours, the
closure of all containment penetrations providing direct access from
containment atmosphere to outside atmosphere. The proposed changes
revise Required Action A.4 and add new Required Actions A.5, A.6.1, and
A.6.2 to clarify that the intent of the required actions is to
establish containment closure. Each of these required actions will have
a completion time of 4 hours. Condition B of TS 3.9.5 applies when no
RHR loop is in operation and includes three required actions. Required
Action B.3 requires the closure of all containment penetrations
providing direct access from containment atmosphere to outside
atmosphere. The proposed changes are the same as the proposed changes
to TS 3.9.4, consisting of a revision to Required Action B.3 and the
addition of new Required Actions B.4, B.5.1, and B.5.2. These proposed
changes are consistent with Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF)
Traveler TSTF-197-A, Revision 2, ``Require Containment Closure When
Shutdown Cooling Requirements Are Not Met.''
Date of issuance: January 4, 2018.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 120 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 297 (Unit 1) and 293 (Unit 2). A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17296A208; documents related
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with
the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-35 and NPF-52:
Amendments revised the Renewed Licenses and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 23, 2017 (82 FR
23618).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated January 4, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370, McGuire
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Date of amendment request: January 11, 2017, as supplemented by
letter dated June 8, 2017.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments modified Technical
Specification (TS) 3.9.4, ``Residual Heat Removal (RHR) and Coolant
Circulation--High Water Level,'' and TS 3.9.5, ``Residual Heat Removal
(RHR) and Coolant Circulation--Low Water Level.'' Condition A of TS
3.9.4 applies when RHR requirements are not met and includes four
required actions. Required Action A.4 requires, within 4 hours, the
closure of all containment penetrations providing direct access from
containment atmosphere to outside atmosphere. The proposed changes
revise Required Action A.4 and add new Required Actions A.5, A.6.1, and
A.6.2 to clarify that the intent of the required actions is to
establish containment closure. Each of these required actions will have
a completion time of 4 hours. Condition B of TS 3.9.5 applies when no
RHR loop is in operation and includes three required actions. Required
Action B.3 requires the closure of all containment penetrations
providing direct access from containment atmosphere to outside
atmosphere. The proposed changes are the same as the proposed changes
to TS 3.9.4, consisting of a revision to Required Action B.3 and the
addition of new Required Actions B.4, B.5.1, and B.5.2. These proposed
changes are consistent with Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF)
Traveler TSTF-197-A, Revision 2, ``Require Containment Closure When
Shutdown Cooling Requirements Are Not Met.''
Date of issuance: January 5, 2018.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 120 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 305 (Unit 1) and 284 (Unit 2). A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17297A917; documents related
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with
the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-9 and NPF-17:
Amendments revised the Renewed Licenses and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 23, 2017 (82 FR
23619).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated January 5, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: Yes. One
comment from a member of the public was received; however, it was not
related to the proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination or to the proposed license amendment request.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-247, Indian Point
Nuclear Generating Unit No. 2, Westchester County, New York
Date of amendment request: April 7, 2017, as supplemented by letter
dated August 17, 2017.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical
Specification Section 3.5.4, ``Refueling Water Storage Tank (RWST),''
to allow for the temporary connection between
[[Page 4296]]
the non-seismically qualified piping of the boric acid recovery system
to the seismically qualified piping of the RWST for the purpose of
purifying the contents of the RWST in advance of the Indian Point
Nuclear Generating Unit No. 2 spring 2018 refueling outage. Operation
in this mode will be under administrative controls and will only be
applicable through the end of the spring 2018 refueling outage.
Date of issuance: January 11, 2018.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days.
Amendment No.: 288. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML17348A695; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Facility Operating License No. DPR-26: The amendment revised the
Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 18, 2017 (82 FR
32881). The supplemental letter dated August 17, 2017, provided
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change
the NRC staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated January 11, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Operations, Inc.; System Energy Resources, Inc.; Cooperative
Energy, A Mississippi Electric Cooperative; and Entergy Mississippi,
Inc., Docket No. 50-416, Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (GGNS),
Claiborne County, Mississippi
Date of amendment request: December 29, 2016, as supplemented by
letter dated August 25, 2017.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment modified GGNS
Technical Specification (TS) 5.5.12, ``10 CFR Appendix J, Testing
Program,'' and TS Surveillance Requirement 3.6.5.1.1 to allow for a one
cycle extension to the 10-year frequency of the GGNS containment
leakage rate test (i.e., Integrated Leakage Rate Test or Type A test)
and the drywell bypass leakage rate test, respectively.
Date of issuance: December 29, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
by February 18, 2018.
Amendment No: 214. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML17334A739; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-29: The amendment
revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 23, 2017 (82 FR
23625). The supplemental letter dated August 25, 2017, provided
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change
the NRC staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 29, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-237 and 50-249, Dresden
Nuclear Power Station (DNPS), Unit Nos. 2 and 3, Grundy County,
Illinois
Date of amendment request: February 10, 2017, as supplemented by
letters dated July 13, December 20, and December 21, 2017.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the DNPS,
Unit Nos. 2 and 3, Technical Specifications (TSs) by replacing the
existing specifications related to ``operations with a potential for
draining the reactor vessel'' with revised requirements for reactor
pressure vessel water inventory control to protect Safety Limit
2.1.1.3. Safety Limit 2.1.1.3 requires reactor vessel water level to be
greater than the top of active irradiated fuel. The amendments adopt
changes, with variations, as noted in the license amendment request,
and are based on the NRC-approved safety evaluation for Technical
Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-542, Revision 2,
``Reactor Pressure Vessel Water Inventory Control,'' dated December 20,
2016.
Date of issuance: January 8, 2018.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
prior to the beginning of the DNPS, Unit No. 3, refueling outage
currently planned for fall of 2018.
Amendment Nos.: 256 (Unit No. 2) and 249 (Unit No. 3). A publicly-
available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17272A783;
documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety
Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-19 and DPR-25:
Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 11, 2017 (82 FR
17457). The supplemental letters dated July 13, December 20, and
December 21, 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 January 8, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, on January 23, 2018.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Greg A. Casto,
Acting Deputy Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office
of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2018-01469 Filed 1-29-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P