[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 10, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15412-15420]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-06668]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2018-0064]
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 March 13, 2018, to March 26, 2018. The last
biweekly notice was published on March 27, 2018.
DATES: Comments must be filed by May 10, 2018. A request for a hearing
must be filed by June 11, 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-2018-0064. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Jennifer Borges; telephone: 301-287-
9127; email: [email protected]. For technical questions, contact
the individual(s) listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section
of this document.
Mail Comments to: May Ma, Office of Administration, Mail
Stop: TWFN-7-A60M, 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, 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-2018-0064, 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-2018-0064.
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-2018-0064, facility name, unit
number(s), plant docket number, application date, and subject in your
comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact
information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your
comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov, as well as enter the comment submissions into
ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove
identifying or contact information.
[[Page 15413]]
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons
for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to
include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be
publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should
state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to
remove such information before making the comment submissions available
to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
II. Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility
Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses and Proposed No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under
the Commission's regulations in Sec. 50.92 of title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (10 CFR), this means that operation of the facility
in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated, or (2) create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or
(3) involve a significant reduction in a 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
[[Page 15414]]
the date of publication of this notice. The petition must be filed in
accordance with the filing instructions in the ``Electronic Submissions
(E-Filing)'' section of this document, and should meet the requirements
for petitions set forth in this section, except that under 10 CFR
2.309(h)(2) a State, local governmental body, or Federally-recognized
Indian Tribe, or agency thereof does not need to address the standing
requirements in 10 CFR 2.309(d) if the facility is located within its
boundaries. Alternatively, a State, local governmental body, Federally-
recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof may participate as a non-
party under 10 CFR 2.315(c).
If a hearing is granted, any person who is not a party to the
proceeding and is not affiliated with or represented by a party may, at
the discretion of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited
appearance pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person
making a limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of
his or her position on the issues but may not otherwise participate in
the proceeding. A limited appearance may be made at any session of the
hearing or at any prehearing conference, subject to the limits and
conditions as may be imposed by the presiding officer. Details
regarding the opportunity to make a limited appearance will be provided
by the presiding officer if such sessions are scheduled.
B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a
request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition), any
motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the
submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and
documents filed by interested governmental entities that request to
participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the
NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007, as amended at 77 FR
46562; August 3, 2012). The E-Filing process requires participants to
submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in
some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Detailed
guidance on making electronic submissions may be found in the Guidance
for Electronic Submissions to the NRC and on the NRC website at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants may not submit
paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in
accordance with the procedures described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10
days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the
Office of the Secretary by email at [email protected], or by
telephone at 301-415-1677, to (1) request a digital 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
[[Page 15415]]
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.
Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Docket No. 50-261, H. B. Robinson Steam
Electric Plant, Unit No. 2 (HBRSEP), Darlington County, South Carolina
Date of amendment request: February 7, 2018. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18038B289.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise
Technical Specification (TS) Section 3.4.3, ``RCS [Reactor Coolant
System] Pressure and Temperature (P/T) Limits,'' to reduce the
applicability terms from 50 effective full power years (EFPY) to 46.3
EFPY in Figures 3.4.3-1 and 3.4.3-2, as a result of the removal of part
length fuel assemblies (PLSAs) and the migration to 24-month fuel
cycles.
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 3.4.3 to reflect that Figures
3.4.3-1 and 3.4.3-2 (P/T limit curves) are applicable up to 46.3
EFPY instead of 50 EFPY with the removal of PLSAs and migration to
24-month fuel cycles. The proposed change does not involve physical
changes to the plant or alter the reactor coolant system (RCS)
pressure boundary (i.e., there are no changes in operating pressure,
materials or seismic loading). The P/T limit curves and Adjusted
Reference Temperature (ART) values will remain as-is. Only the term
to which the limit curves applies is effected by the proposed
change. The P/T limit curves in TS 3.4.3 with an applicability term
of 46.3 EFPY provide continued assurance that the fracture toughness
of the reactor pressure vessel (RPV) is consistent with analysis
assumptions and NRC regulations. The methodology used to develop the
existing P/T limit curves provides assurance that the probability of
a rapidly propagating failure will be minimized. The P/T limit
curves, with the applicability term reduced to a proposed 46.3 EFPY,
will continue to prohibit operation in regions where it is possible
for brittle fracture of reactor vessel materials to occur, thereby
assuring that the integrity of the RCS pressure boundary is
maintained.
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 revises TS 3.4.3 to reflect that Figures
3.4.3-1 and 3.4.3-2 (P/T limit curves) are applicable up to 46.3
EFPY instead of 50 EFPY with the removal of PLSAs and migration to
24-month fuel cycles. The proposed change does not affect the design
or assumed accident performance of any structure, system or
component, or introduce any new modes of system operation or failure
modes. Compliance with the proposed P/T curves (same as the existing
P/T curves with the applicability term reduced to 46.3 EFPY) will
provide sufficient protection against brittle fracture of reactor
vessel materials to assure that the RCS pressure boundary performs
as previously evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises TS 3.4.3 to reflect that Figures
3.4.3-1 and 3.4.3-2 (P/T limit curves) are applicable up to 46.3
EFPY instead of 50 EFPY with the removal of PLSAs and migration to
24-month fuel cycles. HBRSEP adheres to applicable NRC regulations
(i.e., 10 CFR 50, Appendices G and H) and NRC-approved methodologies
(i.e., Regulatory Guides 1.99 and 1.190) with respect to the P/T
limit curves in TS 3.4.3 in order to provide an adequate margin of
safety to the conditions at which brittle fracture may occur. The P/
T limit curves, with the applicability term reduced to 46.3 EFPY,
continue to provide assurance that the established P/T limits are
not exceeded.
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: Kathryn B. Nolan, Deputy General Counsel,
Duke Energy Corporation, 550 South Tryon Street, DEC45A, Charlotte NC
28202.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Brian W. Tindell.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-374, LaSalle
County Station (LSCS), Units 1 and 2, LaSalle County, Illinois
Date of amendment request: February 7, 2018. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18039A123.
Description of amendment request: LSCS Technical Specifications
(TS) 3.6.1.3, ``Primary Containment Isolation Valves (PCIVs),''
currently requires performance of Surveillance Requirement (SR)
3.6.1.3.8 on each excess flow check valve (EFCV) during each refueling
outage. The proposed amendments would revise the number of EFCVs tested
by TS SR 3.6.1.3.8 from ``each'' to a ``representative sample.'' The
representative sample is based on approximately 20 percent of the
reactor instrumentation line EFCVs such that each EFCV will be tested
at least once every 10 years (nominal). Therefore, approximately 20
percent of the EFCVs will be tested every operating cycle.
The reduced testing associated with the proposed change will result
in an increase in the availability of the associated instrumentation
during outages and will result in dose savings.
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 analyzed?
Response: No.
The EFCVs at LSCS, Unit 1 and Unit 2, are designed so that they
will not close accidently during normal operations, will close if a
rupture of the instrument line is indicated downstream of the valve,
can be reopened when appropriate, and have their status indicated in
the control room. This proposed change relaxes the number of EFCVs
tested for TS SR 3.6.1.3.8 from ``each'' to a ``representative
sample'' in accordance with the SFCP [Surveillance Frequency Control
Program]. There are no physical plant modifications associated with
this change. Industry and LSCS operating experience demonstrate a
high reliability of these valves. Neither EFCVs nor their failures
are capable of initiating previously evaluated accidents; therefore,
there can be no increase in the probability of occurrence of an
accident regarding this proposed change.
The LSCS Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR)
demonstrates, consistent with BWROG [Boiling Water Reactor Owners
Group] topical report NEDO-32977-A, that the failure of an EFCV has
very low
[[Page 15416]]
consequences. The LSCS UFSAR evaluates a circumferential rupture of
an instrument line that is connected to the primary coolant system.
The evaluation credits the 0.25-inch diameter flow-restricting
orifice installed in the line with limiting flow following the
instrumentation line break and does not credit the EFCV with
actuating to limit leakage. The dose consequences of the instrument
line break are determined using the calculated mass of coolant
released over approximately a five-hour period. The reactor was
assumed to be operating at design power conditions prior to the
break. The Standby Gas Treatment System (SGTS) and secondary
containment are not impaired by the event. The evaluation concludes
that the consequences of the event are well within 10 CFR 100
limits. Thus, the failure of an EFCV, though not expected as a
result of the proposed change, does not affect the dose consequences
of an instrument line break.
Based on the above, it is concluded that the proposed change to
the EFCV surveillance requirement does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously analyzed.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
This proposed change allows a reduced number of EFCVs to be
tested in accordance with the SFCP [Surveillance Frequency Control
Program]. The proposed change would revise SR 3.6.1.3.8 to verify
that a ``representative sample'' (i.e., approximately 20 percent) of
reactor instrumentation line EFCVs are tested, in accordance with
the SFCP, such that each EFCV will be tested at least once every 10
years (nominal). No other changes in the requirements are being
proposed. Industry and LSCS-specific operating experience
demonstrates the high degree of reliability of the EFCVs and the low
consequences of an EFCV failure. The potential failure of an EFCV to
isolate by the proposed reduction in test frequency is bounded by
the previous evaluation of an instrument line rupture. This change
will not alter the operation or process variables, structures,
systems, or components as described in the safety analysis. Thus, a
new or different kind of accident will not be created from
implementation of the proposed change.
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 change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in
the margin of safety. The LSCS UFSAR evaluates a circumferential
rupture of an instrument line that is connected to the primary
coolant system. The evaluation credits the 0.25-inch diameter flow-
restricting orifice installed in the line with limiting flow
following the instrumentation line break and does not credit the
EFCV with actuating to limit leakage. The dose consequences of the
instrument line break are determined using the calculated mass of
coolant released over approximately a five-hour period. The reactor
was assumed to be operating at design power conditions prior to the
break. The SGTS [Standby Gas Treatment System] and secondary
containment are not impaired by the event. The evaluation concludes
that the consequences of the event are well within 10 CFR 100
limits. Thus, the failure of an EFCV, though not expected as a
result of the proposed change, does not affect the dose consequences
of an instrument line break.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel,
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL
60555.
NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, (EGC) Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-374,
LaSalle County Station (LSCS), Units 1 and 2, LaSalle County, Illinois
Date of amendment request: February 27, 2018. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18058A257.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would
revise LSCS Technical Specifications (TS) 3.4, Reactor Coolant System
(RCS), Section 3.4.4, ``Safety/Relief Valves (S/RVs).''
Specifically, EGC proposes a new safety function lift setpoint
lower tolerance for the S/RVs as delineated in Surveillance Requirement
3.4.4.1. The proposed change will revise the lower setpoint tolerances
from -3 percent (%) to -5%.
This change is limited to the lower tolerances and does not affect
the upper tolerances; therefore, the upper tolerance will remain at +3%
of the safety function lift setpoint. In addition, this change only
applies to the as-found tolerance and not to the as-left tolerance,
which will remain unchanged at 1% of the safety lift
setpoint. The as-found tolerances are used for determining operability
and to increase sample sizes for S/RV testing should the tolerance be
exceeded. There will be no revision to the actual setpoints of the
valves installed in the plant due to this change.
This proposed change will preclude the submittal of previously-
reportable licensee event reports (LERs) to the NRC due to setpoint
drift in the low (conservative) direction.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Do the proposed amendments involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
This change has no influence on the probability or consequences
of any accident previously evaluated. The lower setpoint tolerance
change does not affect the operation of the valves and it does not
change the as-left setpoint tolerance. The change only affects the
lower tolerance for valve opening and does not change the upper
tolerance, which is the limit that protects from overpressurization.
The proposed amendments do not involve physical changes to the
valves, nor do they change the safety function of the valves. The
proposed TS revision involves no significant changes to the
operation of any systems or components in normal or accident
operating conditions and no changes to existing structures, systems,
or components.
The proposed amendments do not change any other behavior or
operation of any safety/relief valves (S/RVs), and, therefore, has
no significant impact on reactor operation. They also have no
significant impact on response to any perturbation of reactor
operation including transients and accidents previously analyzed in
the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR).
Based on the above, it is concluded that the proposed change to
the S/RV surveillance requirement does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Do the proposed amendments create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change to the S/RV safety lower setpoint tolerance
from -3% to -5% only affects the criteria to determine when an as-
found S/RV test is considered to be acceptable. This change does not
affect the criteria for the upper setpoint tolerance.
The proposed lower setpoint tolerance change does not adversely
affect the operation of any safety-related components or equipment.
The proposed amendments do not involve physical changes to the S/
RVs, nor do they change the safety function of the S/RVs. The
proposed amendments do not require any physical change or alteration
of any existing plant equipment. No new or different equipment is
being installed, and installed equipment is not being operated in a
new or different manner. There is no alteration to the parameters
within which the plant is normally operated. This change does not
alter the manner in which equipment operation is initiated, nor will
the functional demands on credited equipment be changed. No
alterations in the procedures that ensure
[[Page 15417]]
the plant remains within analyzed limits are being proposed, and no
changes are being made to the procedures relied upon to respond to
an off-normal event as described in the UFSAR. As such, no new
failure modes are being introduced. The change does not alter
assumptions made in the safety analysis and licensing basis.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Do the proposed amendments involve a significant reduction in
a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed lower setpoint tolerance change only affects the
criteria to determine when an as-found S/RV test is considered to be
acceptable. This change does not affect the criteria for the S/RV
setpoint upper setpoint tolerance. The TS setpoints for the S/RVs
are not changed. The as-left setpoint tolerances are not changed by
this proposed change and remain at 1% of the safety lift
setpoint.
The margin of safety is established through the design of the
plant structures, systems, and components, the parameters within
which the plant is operated, and the establishment of the setpoints
for the actuation of equipment relied upon to respond to an event.
The proposed change does not significantly impact the condition or
performance of structures, systems, and components relied upon for
accident mitigation.
Therefore, this 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: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel,
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL
60555.
NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. STN 50-456 and STN 50-
457, Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, Will County, Illinois
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. STN 50-454 and STN 50-
455, Byron Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Ogle County, Illinois
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-461, Clinton Power
Station, Unit No. 1, DeWitt County, Illinois
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-010, 50-237, and 50-249,
Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, Grundy County,
Illinois
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-374, LaSalle
County Station, Units 1 and 2, LaSalle County, Illinois
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-254 and 50-265, Quad
Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Rock Island County,
Illinois
Date of amendment request: January 31, 2018. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Package Accession No. ML18053A159.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the
emergency response organization (ERO) positions identified in the
emergency plan for each site.
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 for each site, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to the [site] Emergency Plan do not
increase the probability or consequences of an accident. The
proposed changes do not impact the function of plant Structures,
Systems, or Components (SSCs). The proposed changes do not affect
accident initiators or accident precursors, nor do the changes alter
design assumptions. The proposed changes do not alter or prevent the
ability of the onsite ERO to perform their intended functions to
mitigate the consequences of an accident or event. The proposed
changes remove ERO positions no longer credited or considered
necessary in support of Emergency Plan implementation.
Therefore, the proposed changes to the [site] Emergency Plan do
not involve a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes have no impact on the design, function, or
operation of any plant SSCs. The proposed changes do not affect
plant equipment or accident analyses. The proposed changes do not
involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or
different type of equipment will be installed), a change in the
method of plant operation, or new operator actions. The proposed
changes do not introduce failure modes that could result in a new
accident, and the proposed changes do not alter assumptions made in
the safety analysis. The proposed changes remove ERO positions no
longer credited or considered necessary in support of Emergency Plan
implementation.
Therefore, the proposed changes to the [site] Emergency Plan 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.
Margin of safety is associated with confidence in the ability of
the fission product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, reactor coolant
system pressure boundary, and containment structure) to limit the
level of radiation dose to the public.
The proposed changes do not adversely affect existing plant
safety margins or the reliability of the equipment assumed to
operate in the safety analyses. There are no changes being made to
safety analysis assumptions, safety limits, or limiting safety
system settings that would adversely affect plant safety as a result
of the proposed changes. Margins of safety are unaffected by the
proposed changes to the ERO staffing.
The proposed changes are associated with the [site] Emergency
Plan staffing and do not impact operation of the plant or its
response to transients or accidents. The proposed changes do not
affect the Technical Specifications. The proposed changes do not
involve a change in the method of plant operation, and no accident
analyses will be affected by the proposed changes. Safety analysis
acceptance criteria are not affected by these proposed changes. The
proposed changes to the Emergency Plan will continue to provide the
necessary onsite ERO response staff.
Therefore, the proposed changes to the [site] Emergency Plan do
not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis for each site
and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10
CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to
determine that the requested amendments involve no significant hazards
consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel,
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL
60555.
NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.
Florida Power & Light Company, Docket Nos. 50-250 and 251, Turkey Point
Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 3 and 4, Miami-Dade County, Florida
Date of application for amendment: June 28, 2017, as supplemented
by letter dated February 28, 2018. Publicly-available versions are in
ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML17180A447 and ML18075A023, respectively.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would modify the
Technical Specifications (TSs) by
[[Page 15418]]
relocating to licensee-controlled documents select acceptance criteria
specified in TS surveillance requirements (SRs) credited for satisfying
Inservice Testing (IST) Program and Inservice Inspection Program
requirements; deleting the SRs for the American Society of Mechanical
Engineers Code Class 1, 2, and 3 components; replacing references to
the Surveillance Frequency Control Program (SFCP) with reference to the
Turkey Point IST Program where appropriate; establishing a Reactor
Coolant Pump (RCP) Flywheel Inspection Program; and related editorial
changes. Additionally, the amendments would delete a redundant SR for
Accumulator check valve testing and add a footnote to the SR for
Pressure Isolation Valve (PIV) testing.
The license amendment request was originally noticed in the Federal
Register on August 29, 2017 (82 FR 41069). The notice is being reissued
in its entirety to include the revised scope, description of the
amendment request, and proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes provide assurance that inservice testing
will be performed in the manner and within the timeframes
established by 10 CFR 50.55(a). The deletion of SR 4.0.5 and the
deletion of IST acceptance criteria from SR 4.5.2.c and SR 4.6.2.1.b
neither affect the conduct nor the periodicity of the inservice
testing. The addition of references to the IST Program in SR(s)
where applicable and the deletion of references to the SFCP in SR
testing credited by the IST Program are administrative in nature and
can neither initiate nor affect the outcome of any accident
previously evaluated. The deletion of SR 4.0.5 and the relocation of
the RCP flywheel inspection requirements within the TS are
administrative changes and cannot affect the likelihood or the
outcome of accident previously evaluated. Deletion of the SR
4.4.6.2.2.c requirement regarding returning PIV(s) to service
following maintenance, repair or replacement, deletion of a SR
4.5.1.1.d footnote previously applicable during Unit 3 Cycle 26, and
related editorial changes are administrative changes and cannot
affect the likelihood or the outcome of any accident previously
evaluated. In addition, deletion of a redundant Accumulator check
valve SR 4.5.1.1.d, and the addition of a footnote to TS SR
4.4.6.2.2.d to avoid PIV repetitive loop testing do not affect the
likelihood or the outcome of any accident previously evaluated.
Therefore, facility operation in accordance with the proposed
changes would 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 deletion of IST acceptance criteria from the TS does not
affect the manner in which any SSC [structure, system, or component]
is maintained or operated and does not introduce new SSCs or new
methods for maintaining existing plant SSCs. Inservice testing will
continue in the manner and periodicity specified in the IST program
such that no new or different kind of accident can result. The
addition of references to the IST Program in SR(s) where applicable
and the deletion of references to the SFCP in SR testing credited by
the IST Program are administrative changes and cannot introduce new
or different kinds of accidents. The deletion of SR 4.0.5 and the
relocation of the RCP flywheel inspection requirements within the TS
are administrative changes and cannot be an initiator of a new or
different kind of accident. Deletion of the SR 4.4.6.2.2.c
requirement regarding returning PIV(s) to service following
maintenance, repair or replacement, deletion of a SR 4.5.1.1.d
footnote previously applicable during Unit 3 Cycle 26, and the other
editorial changes are administrative changes and cannot introduce
new or different kinds of accidents. In addition, deletion of a
redundant Accumulator check valve SR 4.5.1.1.d, and the addition of
a footnote to TS SR 4.4.6.2.2.d to avoid PIV repetitive loop testing
do not introduce new or different kinds of accidents.
Therefore, the proposed changes do 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 changes do not involve changes to any safety
analyses assumptions, safety limits, or limiting safety system
settings and do not adversely impact plant operating margins or the
reliability of equipment credited in safety analyses. The proposed
changes provides assurance that inservice inspection and inservice
testing will be performed in the manner and within the timeframes
established by 10 CFR 50.55(a). The deletion of SR 4.0.5 and the
relocation of the RCP flywheel inspection requirements within the TS
are administrative changes with no impact on the margin of safety
currently described the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report.
Deletion of the SR 4.4.6.2.2.c requirement regarding returning
PIV(s) to service following maintenance, repair or replacement,
deletion of a SR 4.5.1.1.d footnote previously applicable during
Unit 3 Cycle 26, and the other editorial changes are administrative
changes with no impact on nuclear safety. In addition, deletion of a
redundant Accumulator check valve SR 4.5.1.1.d, and the addition of
a footnote to TS SR 4.4.6.2.2.d to avoid PIV repetitive loop testing
do not affect any safety analyses assumptions, safety limits, or
limiting safety system settings.
Therefore, operation of the facility in accordance with the
proposed changes will not involve a significant reduction in the
margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Debbie Hendel, Managing Attorney--Nuclear,
Florida Power & Light Company, 700 Universe Blvd. MS LAW/JB, Juno
Beach, FL 33408-0420.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Brian W. Tindell.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 50-259, Browns Ferry Nuclear
Plant (BFN), Unit 1, Limestone County, Alabama
Date of amendment request: March 16, 2018. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18080A171.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise
License Condition 2.C(18)(a)3 for Unit 1 that requires the submittal of
a revised BFN Unit 1 replacement steam dryer (RSD) analysis utilizing
the BFN Unit 3 on-dryer strain gauge based end-to-end bias and
uncertainties at extended power conditions ``at least 90 days prior to
the start of the BFN Unit 1 EPU [extended power uprate] outage.''
Specifically, the amendment reduces the time from 90 days to 15 days
before the BFN Unit 1 EPU outage for the submittal of the revised
analysis of the RSD.
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 license amendment reduces the length of time, from
90 days to 15 days, prior to the outage by which a revised analysis
of the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN) Unit 1 replacement steam
dryer (RSD), performed using an NRC-approved methodology benchmarked
on the BFN Unit 3 RSD, must be submitted to the NRC for
[[Page 15419]]
information. There is no required review or approval of the revised
analysis needed to satisfy the license condition. The proposed
change is an administrative change to the period before the outage
and does not impact any system, structure or component in such a way
as to affect the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated. The proposed amendment is purely
administrative and has no technical or safety aspects. 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 license amendment reduces the length of time, from
90 days to 15 days, prior to the outage by which a revised analysis
of the BFN Unit 1 RSD must be submitted to the NRC for information.
The proposed amendment is purely administrative and has no technical
or safety aspects. 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 license amendment reduces the length of time, from
90 days to 15 days, prior to the outage by which a revised analysis
of the BFN Unit 1 RSD must be submitted to the NRC for information.
The proposed amendment is purely administrative and has no technical
or safety aspects. 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 Acting Branch Chief: Brian W. Tindell.
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.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC and Exelon FitzPatrick, LLC, Docket No.
50-333, James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant, Oswego County, New
York
Date of amendment request: July 31, 2017.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the license
to authorize the description of the emergency response organization
requalification training frequency defined in the Emergency Plan to be
changed from ``annually'' to ``once per calendar year not to exceed 18
months between training sessions.''
Date of issuance: March 26, 2018.
Effective date: As of the date of its issuance and shall be
implemented within 90 days.
Amendment No.: 318. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML17289A175; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-59: The amendment
revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and Emergency Plan.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 26, 2017 (82
FR 44854).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 26, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-461, Clinton Power
Station, Unit No. 1, DeWitt County, Illinois
Date of amendment request: May 1, 2017, as supplemented by letters
dated November 15 and December 20, 2017.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment 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: March 22, 2018.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
prior to entering Mode 4 during the next refueling outage, C1R18,
currently planned for April 2018.
Amendment No.: 216. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML18043A505; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-62: The amendment revised the
Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 5, 2017 (82 FR
31096). The supplement letters dated November 15, 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 amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 22, 2018.
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: November 3, 2017.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment changed the safety
limit
[[Page 15420]]
minimum critical power ratio numeric values for Operating Cycle 17.
Specifically, the amendment increased the numeric values of the safety
limit minimum critical power ratio for Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station,
Unit 2, from >=1.15 to >=1.17 for two recirculation loop operation, and
from >=1.15 to >=1.17 for single recirculation loop operation.
Date of issuance: March 16, 2018.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
prior to startup from the next refueling outage.
Amendment No.: 167. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML18060A016; 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: February 6, 2018 (83 FR
5280).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 16, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Florida Power & Light Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389,
St. Lucie Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, St. Lucie County, Florida
Date of amendment request: January 31, 2018.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the
Emergency Plan for St. Lucie to adopt the fire-related notification of
unusual event requirement of the Nuclear Energy Institute 99-01,
Revision 6, Emergency Action Level scheme.
Date of issuance: March 26, 2018.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days.
Amendment Nos.: 244 and 195. A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No. ML18046A712; documents related to these
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the
amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-67 and NPF-16: The
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 14, 2018 (83
FR 6621). This notice provided an opportunity to request a hearing by
April 15, 2018, but indicated that if the Commission makes a final no
significant hazards consideration determination, any such hearing would
take place after issuance of the amendments.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 26, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Florida Power & Light Company, Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251, Turkey
Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 3 and 4, Miami-Dade County, Florida
Date of amendment request: April 9, 2017, as supplemented by letter
dated October 4, 2017.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the
Technical Specifications (TSs) to remove various reporting
requirements. Specifically, the amendments removed the requirements to
prepare the Startup Report, the Annual Report, and various special
reports. In addition, the amendments revised the TSs to remove the
completion time for restoring spent fuel pool water level, to address
inoperability of one of the two parallel flow paths in the residual
heal removal or safely injection headers for the Emergency Core Cooling
Systems, and to make other administrative changes, including updating
plant staff and responsibilities.
Date of issuance: March 19, 2018.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 279 (Unit No. 3) and 274 (Unit No. 4). A publicly-
available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18019A078;
documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety
Evaluation (SE) enclosed with the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-31 and DPR-41:
Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 19, 2017 (82 FR
27889). The supplemental letter dated October 4, 2017, provided
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change
the 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 an SE dated March 19, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026,
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), Units 3 and 4, Burke County,
Georgia
Date of amendment request: August 31, 2017.
Description of amendment: The amendments authorized changes to the
VEGP Units 3 and 4 Combined Operating License (COL) page 7 and COL
Appendix A, Technical Specifications, to make necessary changes so that
there will be adequate detection of reactor coolant system and main
steam line leakage at all times and that the associated limits account
for instrumentation sensitivities not accounted for in the current VEGP
Technical Specification 3.4.9.
Date of issuance: March 12, 2018.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 115 (Unit 3) and 114 (Unit 4). Publicly-available
versions are in ADAMS Package Accession No. ML18036A782, which includes
the Safety Evaluation that references documents related to these
amendments.
Facility Combined License Nos. NPF-91 and NPF-92: Amendments
revised the Facility Combined Licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 10, 2017 (82 FR
47032).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in the Safety Evaluation dated March 12, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 28th day of March 2018.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Tara Inverso,
Acting Deputy Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office
of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2018-06668 Filed 4-9-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P