[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 157 (Tuesday, August 14, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40342-40355]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-17132]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2018-0164]
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 July 17, 2018, to July 30, 2018. The last
biweekly notice was published on July 31, 2018.
DATES: Comments must be filed by September 13, 2018. A request for a
hearing must be filed by October 15, 2018.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
Federal Rulemaking website: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2018-0164. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Jennifer Borges; telephone: 301-287-
9127; 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: TWFN-7-A60M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001.
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting
comments,
[[Page 40343]]
see ``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paula Blechman, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2242; email [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments
A. Obtaining Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2018-0164, 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-2018-0164.
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 ``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-2018-0164, facility name, unit
number(s), plant docket number, application date, and subject in your
comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact
information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your
comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into
ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove
identifying or contact information.
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons
for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to
include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be
publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should
state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to
remove such information before making the comment submissions available
to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
II. Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility
Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses and Proposed No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under
the Commission's regulations in section 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
[[Page 40344]]
the proceeding. The contention must be one which, if proven, would
entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner who fails to satisfy the
requirements at 10 CFR 2.309(f) with respect to at least one contention
will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding,
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene.
Parties have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the
hearing with respect to resolution of that party's admitted
contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence, consistent
with the NRC's regulations, policies, and procedures.
Petitions must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of
publication of this notice. Petitions and motions for leave to file new
or amended contentions that are filed after the deadline will not be
entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the
filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10
CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i) through (iii). The petition must be filed in
accordance with the filing instructions in the ``Electronic Submissions
(E-Filing)'' section of this document.
If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the
Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no
significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve
to establish when the hearing is held. If the final determination is
that the amendment request involves no significant hazards
consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it
immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any
hearing would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final
determination is that the amendment request involves a significant
hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before
the issuance of the amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent
danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will
issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.
A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian
Tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to
participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition should
state the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the
proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission no later
than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. The petition
must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the
``Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)'' section of this document, and
should meet the requirements for petitions set forth in this section,
except that under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(2) a State, local governmental body,
or Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof does not need
to address the standing requirements in 10 CFR 2.309(d) if the facility
is located within its boundaries. Alternatively, a State, local
governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof
may participate as a non-party under 10 CFR 2.315(c).
If a hearing is granted, any person who is not a party to the
proceeding and is not affiliated with or represented by a party may, at
the discretion of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited
appearance pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person
making a limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of
his or her position on the issues but may not otherwise participate in
the proceeding. A limited appearance may be made at any session of the
hearing or at any prehearing conference, subject to the limits and
conditions as may be imposed by the presiding officer. Details
regarding the opportunity to make a limited appearance will be provided
by the presiding officer if such sessions are scheduled.
B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a
request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition), any
motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the
submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and
documents filed by interested governmental entities that request to
participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the
NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007, as amended at 77 FR
46562; August 3, 2012). The E-Filing process requires participants to
submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in
some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Detailed
guidance on making electronic submissions may be found in the Guidance
for Electronic Submissions to the NRC and on the NRC website at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants may not submit
paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in
accordance with the procedures described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10
days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the
Office of the Secretary by email at [email protected], or by
telephone at 301-415-1677, to (1) request a digital 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
[[Page 40345]]
[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.
Arizona Public Service Company, et al., Docket Nos. STN 50-528, STN 50-
529, and STN 50-530, Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos.
1, 2, and 3, Maricopa County, Arizona
Date of amendment request: July 31, 2015, as supplemented by
letters dated April 11, 2016; November 3, 2017; May 18, 2018; and June
1, 2018. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS under Accession Nos.
ML15218A300, ML16102A463, ML17307A188, ML18138A480, and ML18152B874,
respectively.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would modify the
technical specification (TS) requirements related to Completion Times
(CTs) for Required Actions to provide the option to calculate longer,
risk-informed CTs. The methodology for using the Risk Informed
Completion Time (RICT) Program is described in Nuclear Energy Institute
(NEI) topical report NEI 06-09, ``Risk-Informed Technical
Specifications Initiative 4b, Risk-Managed Technical Specifications
(RMTS) Guidelines,'' Revision 0-A (ADAMS Accession No. ML12286A322),
which was approved by the NRC on May 17, 2007. The license amendment
request (LAR) was originally noticed in the Federal Register on
December 8, 2015 (80 FR 76317). The licensee originally proposed to
adopt, with plant-specific variations, Technical Specifications Task
Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-505, Revision 1, ``Provide Risk-Informed
Extended Completion Times--RITSTF [Risk Informed TSTF] Initiative 4b''
(ADAMS Accession No. ML111650552). By letter dated November 15, 2016
(ADAMS Accession No. ML16281A021), the NRC staff informed the TSTF of
its decision to suspend NRC approval of TSTF-505, Revision 1, because
of concerns identified during the review of plant-specific LARs for
adoption of the traveler. The NRC staff's letter also stated that it
would continue reviewing applications already received and site-
specific proposals to address the staff's concerns. Although the scope
of the amendment request has not changed, the basis for the amendments
will no longer rely on TSTF-505. This notice is being reissued in its
entirety to include the revised description of the amendment request.
The proposed no significant hazards consideration determination is
identical to the one published in the Federal Register on December 8,
2015.
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 permits the use of RICTs provided the
associated risk is assessed and managed in accordance with the NRC-
accepted RICT Program. The proposed use of RICTs does not involve a
significant increase in the probability of an accident previously
evaluated because the change only affects TS Conditions, Required
Actions and CTs associated with risk informed technical
specifications and does not involve changes to the plant, its modes
of operation, or TS mode applicability. The proposed license
amendment references regulatory commitments to achieve the baseline
PRA [probabilistic risk assessment] risk metrics specified in the
NRC model evaluation. The changes proposed by regulatory commitments
will be implemented under the requirements of 10 CFR 50.59 without
the need for prior NRC approval. The proposed change does not
increase the consequences of an accident because the accident
mitigation functions of the affected systems, structures, or
components (SSCs) are not changed.
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 or different
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change permits the use of RICTs provided the
associated risk is assessed and managed in accordance with the NRC-
accepted RICT Program. The proposed use of RICTs does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated because the change only affects TS Conditions,
Required Actions and CTs associated with risk informed technical
specifications. The proposed change does not involve a physical
alteration of the plant and does not involve installation of new or
different kind of equipment. The proposed license amendment
references regulatory commitments to achieve the baseline PRA risk
metrics specified in the NRC model evaluation. The changes proposed
by
[[Page 40346]]
regulatory commitments will be implemented under the requirements of
10 CFR 50.59 without the need for prior NRC approval. The proposed
change does not alter the accident mitigation functions of the
affected SSCs and does not introduce new or different SSC failure
modes than already 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 permits the use of RICTs provided the risk
levels associated with inoperable equipment within the scope of the
RICT program are assessed and managed in accordance with the NRC
approved RICT Program. The proposed change implements a risk-
informed Configuration Risk Management Program (CRMP) to assure that
adequate margins of safety are maintained. Application of these new
specifications and the CRMP considers cumulative effects of multiple
systems or components being out of service and does so more
effectively than the current TS. In this regard, the implementation
of the CRMP is considered an improvement in safety.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
that 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 involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Michael G. Green, Senior Regulatory Counsel,
Pinnacle West Capital Corporation, P.O. Box 52034, Mail Station 8695,
Phoenix, Arizona 85072-2034.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
DTE Electric Company, Docket No. 50-341, Fermi 2, Monroe County,
Michigan
Date of amendment request: March 14, 2018. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18073A137.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment modifies
the technical specification definition of ``Shutdown Margin'' (SDM) to
require calculation of the SDM at a reactor moderator temperature of 68
degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F) per hour or a higher temperature that
represents the most reactive state throughout the operating cycle. This
change is needed to address new boiling water reactor (BWR) fuel
designs, which may be more reactive at shutdown temperatures above
68[emsp14][deg]F.
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 the definition of SDM. SDM is not an
initiator to any accident previously evaluated. Accordingly, the
proposed change to the definition of SDM has no effect on the
probability of any accident previously evaluated. SDM is an
assumption in the analysis of some previously evaluated accidents
and inadequate SDM could lead to an increase in consequences for
those accidents. However, the proposed change revises the SDM
definition to ensure that the correct SDM is determined for all fuel
types at all times during the fuel cycle.
As a result, the proposed change does not adversely affect the
consequences of any accident previously evaluated.
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 the definition of SDM. The change
does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or
different type of equipment will be installed) or a change in the
methods governing normal plant operations. The change does not alter
assumptions made in the safety analysis regarding SDM.
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 the definition of SDM. The proposed
change does not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting
safety system settings or limiting conditions for operation are
determined. The proposed change ensures that the SDM assumed in
determining safety limits, limiting safety system settings or
limiting conditions for operation is correct for all BWR fuel types
at all times during the fuel cycle. 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: Jon P. Christinidis, DTE Energy, Expert
Attorney--Regulatory, 688 WCB, One Energy Plaza, Detroit, MI 48226-
1279.
NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414, Catawba
Nuclear Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 (CNS), York County, South Carolina
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370, McGuire
Nuclear Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 (MNS), Mecklenburg County, North
Carolina
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287,
Oconee Nuclear Station, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (ONS), Oconee County,
South Carolina
Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-325 and 50-324, Brunswick
Steam Electric Plant (BNP), Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Brunswick County, North
Carolina
Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Docket No. 50-261, H. B. Robinson Steam
Electric Plant, Unit No. 2 (RNP), Darlington County, South Carolina
Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Docket No. 50-400, Shearon Harris Nuclear
Power Plant, Unit 1 (HNP), Wake County, North Carolina
Date of amendment request: June 20, 2018. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18172A315.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the
Emergency Action Levels (EALs) for CNS, MNS, ONS, BNP, HNP, and RNP
consistent with Emergency Preparedness Frequently Asked Questions
(EPFAQs) 2015-013 (EAL HG1.1) and 2016-002 (EALs CA6.1 and SA9.1 (SA8.1
for BNP)). The amendments would revise the EALs for HNP and RNP
consistent with EPFAQ 2015-014 (EAL HS6.1).
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to EALs HG1.1, CA6.1, SA9.1 (SA8.1 for
BNP), and HS6.1 do not reduce the capability to meet the emergency
planning requirements established in 10 CFR 50.47 and 10 CFR [Part]
50, Appendix E. The proposed changes do not reduce the
functionality, performance, or capability of Duke Energy's Emergency
Response Organization (ERO) to respond in mitigating the
consequences of any design basis accident. The proposed changes do
not involve any physical changes to plant
[[Page 40347]]
equipment or systems, nor do they alter the assumptions of any
accident analyses. The proposed changes do not adversely affect
accident initiators or precursors nor do they alter the design
assumptions, conditions, and configuration or the manner in which
the plants are operated and maintained. The proposed changes do not
adversely affect the ability of Structures, Systems, or Components
(SSCs) to perform their intended safety functions in mitigating the
consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance
limits. There is no impact on the source term or pathways assumed in
accidents previously assumed. No analysis assumptions are violated
and there are no adverse effects on the factors that contribute to
offsite or onsite dose as the result of an accident.
Therefore, the proposed changes do 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 changes to EALs HG1.1, CA6.1, SA9.1 (SA8.1 for
BNP), and HS6.1 do not involve any physical changes to plant systems
or equipment. The proposed changes do not involve the addition of
any new plant equipment. The proposed changes will not alter the
design configuration, or method of operation of plant equipment
beyond its normal functional capabilities. All Duke Energy ERO
functions will continue to be performed as required. The proposed
changes do not create any new credible failure mechanisms,
malfunctions, or accident initiators.
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.
Margin of safety is related to the confidence in the ability of
the fission product barriers to perform their design functions
during and following an accident. These barriers include the fuel
cladding, the reactor coolant system, and the containment system.
The proposed changes to EALs HG1.1, CA6.1, SA9.1 (SA8.1 for
BNP), and HS6.1 do not alter or exceed a design basis or safety
limit. There is no change 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.
There are no changes to setpoints or environmental conditions of any
SSC or the manner in which any SSC is operated. Margins of safety
are unaffected by the proposed changes. The applicable requirements
of 10 CFR 50.47 and 10 CFR [Part] 50, Appendix E will continue to be
met.
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: Kathryn B. Nolan, Deputy General Counsel,
Duke Energy Corporation, 550 South Tryon Street, Mail Code DEC45A,
Charlotte NC 28202.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Booma Venkatamaraman.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-255, Palisades Nuclear
Plant (PNP), Van Buren County, Michigan
Date of amendment request: May 30, 2018. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18152A922.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise the PNP Technical Specification (TS) 3.3.5, ``Diesel Generator
(DG)--Undervoltage Start (UV Start),'' Surveillance Requirement (SR)
3.3.5.2a by adding a channel calibration requirement for the combined
time delay setpoints for the degraded voltage sensing relay and the
degraded voltage time delay relay.
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 amendment would revise a TS SR to include, for each
degraded voltage channel, calibration of the time delay setpoint for
the degraded voltage sensing relay in combination with the setpoint
for the time delay relay. The minimum time delay setpoint in the
revised TS SR would be long enough to override any brief voltage
disturbances. The maximum time delay setpoint in the revised TS SR
would be short enough to not exceed the maximum time delays assumed
in the PNP Final Safety Analysis Report accident analyses for the
operation of safety related equipment and to not result in failure
of safety related equipment due to sustained degraded voltage
conditions. Therefore, safety related loads would be available to
perform their required safety functions under these conditions.
The proposed change does not adversely affect accident
initiators or precursors, and does not affect the design
assumptions, conditions, or configuration of the plant, or the
manner in which the plant is operated or maintained.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment would revise a TS SR to include, for each
degraded voltage channel, calibration of the time delay setpoint for
the degraded voltage sensing relay in combination with the time
delay setpoint for the time delay relay. The conduct of surveillance
tests on safety related plant equipment is a means of assuring that
the equipment is capable of performing its functions that are
credited in the safety analyses for the facility. The proposed
amendment would not affect the operation of safety related equipment
assumed in accident analyses, and would not create any new failure
mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident initiators not considered in
the design and licensing bases.
Therefore, the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any previously evaluated has not been created.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment would revise a TS SR to include, for each
degraded voltage channel, calibration of the time delay setpoint for
the degraded voltage sensing relay in combination with the time
delay setpoint for the time delay relay. The conduct of surveillance
tests on safety related plant equipment is a means of assuring that
the equipment is capable of maintaining the margin of safety
established in the safety analyses for the facility. The proposed
amendment would not introduce changes to limits established in the
accident analyses. The minimum time delay setpoint in the revised TS
SR would be long enough to override any brief voltage disturbances.
The maximum time delay setpoint in the revised TS SR would be short
enough to not exceed the maximum time delays assumed in the PNP
Final Safety Analysis Report accident analyses for the operation of
safety related equipment and to not result in failure of safety
related equipment due to sustained degraded voltage conditions.
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: Anna Jones, Senior Counsel, Entergy
Services, Inc., 101 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20001.
NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.
[[Page 40348]]
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-461, Clinton Power
Station, Unit No. 1, DeWitt County, Illinois
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-237 and 50-249, Dresden
Nuclear Power Station, Unit Nos. 2 and 3, Grundy County, Illinois
Exelon Generation Company, LLC and Exelon FitzPatrick, LLC, Docket No.
50-333, James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant, Oswego County, New
York
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-374, LaSalle
County Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, LaSalle County, Illinois
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-352 and No. 50-353,
Limerick Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Montgomery County,
Pennsylvania
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-220 and 50-410, Nine
Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Oswego County, New York
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-
277 and 50-278, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Unit Nos. 2 and 3,
York and Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-254 and 50-265, Quad
Cities Nuclear Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Rock Island County,
Illinois
Date of amendment request: June 15, 2018. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18166A197.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the
technical specification (TS) requirements associated with the average
power range monitors (APRMs).
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 APRM system and the RPS [reactor protection system] are not
initiators of any accidents previously evaluated. As a result, the
proposed change does not affect the probability of any accident
previously evaluated. The APRM system and the RPS functions act to
mitigate the consequences of accidents previously evaluated. The
reliability of the APRM system and the RPS is not significantly
affected by removing the gain adjustment requirement on the APRM
channels when the APRMs are calibrated conservatively with respect
to the calculated heat balance. This is because the actual core
thermal power at which the reactor will automatically trip is lower,
thereby increasing the margin to the core thermal limits and the
limiting safety system settings assumed in the safety analyses. The
consequences of an accident during the adjustment of the APRM
instrumentation are no different from those during the existing
surveillance testing period or the existing time allowed to restore
the instruments to operable status. As a result, the ability of the
APRM system and the RPS to mitigate any accident previously
evaluated is not significantly affected.
Therefore, the proposed changes do 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 changes do not alter the protection system designs,
create new failure modes, or change any modes of operation. The
proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant;
no new or different kind of equipment will be installed.
Consequently, there are no new initiators that could result in a new
or different kind of accident.
Therefore, the proposed changes do 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 margin of safety provided by the APRM system and the RPS is
to ensure that the reactor is shut down automatically when plant
parameters exceed the setpoints for the system. Any reduction in the
margin of safety resulting from the adjustment of the APRM channels
while continuing operation is considered to be offset by delaying a
plant shutdown (i.e., a transient) for a short time with the APRM
system, the primary indication of core power and an input to the
RPS, not calibrated. Additionally, the short time period required
for adjustment is consistent with the time allowed by TS to restore
the core power distribution parameters to within limits and is
acceptable based on the low probability of a transient or design
basis accident occurring simultaneously with inaccurate APRM
channels.
The proposed changes do not alter setpoints or limits
established or assumed by the accident analyses. The TS continue to
require operability of the RPS functions, which provide core
protection for postulated reactivity insertion events occurring
during power operating conditions consistent with the plant safety
analyses.
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
requested amendments involve no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel,
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL
60555.
NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-374, LaSalle
County Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, LaSalle County, Illinois
Date of amendment request: April 19, 2018. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18157A123.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise
licenses and the technical specifications (TSs) as follows:
Division 3 Battery Surveillance Testing
The proposed amendments would revise TS 3.8.4, ``DC Sources-
Operating,'' and TS 3.8.6, ``Battery Parameters,'' by removing the Mode
restrictions for performance of TS surveillance requirements (SRs)
3.8.4.3 and 3.8.6.6 for the Division 3 direct current (DC) electrical
power subsystem battery. The Division 3 DC electrical power subsystem
feeds emergency DC loads associated with the high pressure core spray
(HPCS) system. Surveillance Requirement 3.8.4.3 verifies that the
battery capacity is adequate for the battery to perform its required
functions. Surveillance Requirement 3.8.6.6 verifies battery capacity
is greater than or equal to (>=) 80 percent of the manufacturer's
rating when subjected to a performance discharge test (or a modified
performance discharge test). The proposed amendments would remove these
Mode restrictions for the Division 3 battery, allowing performance of
SRs 3.8.4.3 and 3.8.6.6 for the Division 3 battery during Mode 1 or 2,
potentially minimizing impact on HPCS unavailability. Eliminating the
requirement to perform SRs 3.8.4.3 and 3.8.6.6 only during Mode 3, 4,
or 5 (hot shutdown, cold shutdown, or refueling conditions) will
provide greater flexibility in scheduling Division 3 battery testing
activities by allowing the testing to be performed during non-outage
times.
High Pressure Core Spray Diesel Generator Surveillance Testing
The proposed amendments would revise TS 3.8.1, ``AC Sources-
Operating,'' by revising certain SRs pertaining to the Division 3
diesel generator (DG). The Division 3 DG is an
[[Page 40349]]
independent source of onsite alternating current (AC) power dedicated
to the HPCS system. The TSs currently prohibit performing the testing
required by SRs 3.8.1.9, 3.8.1.10, 3.8.1.11, 3.8.1.12, 3.8.1.13,
3.8.1.16, 3.8.1.17, and 3.8.1.19, in Modes 1 or 2. The proposed
amendments would remove these Mode restrictions and allow all eight of
the identified SRs to be performed in any operating Mode for the
Division 3 DG. The Mode restrictions will remain applicable to the
other two safety-related (Division 1 and Division 2) DGs.
The proposed change will provide greater flexibility in scheduling
Division 3 DG testing activities by allowing the testing to be
performed during non-outage times. Having a completely tested Division
3 DG available for the duration of a refueling outage will reduce the
number of system re-alignments and operator workload during an outage.
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 Division 3 HPCS DG electrical power subsystem and its
associated emergency loads are accident mitigating features, not
accident initiators. Therefore, the proposed TS changes to allow the
performance of certain Division 3 AC Sources surveillance testing in
any plant operating Mode will not significantly impact the
probability of any previously evaluated accident.
The design and function of plant equipment is not being modified
by the proposed changes. Neither the battery test frequency nor the
time that the TSs allow the HPCS system to be inoperable are being
revised. Battery testing in accordance with the proposed TS changes
will continue to verify that the Division 3 DC electrical power
subsystem is capable of performing its required function of
providing DC power to HPCS system equipment, consistent with the
plant safety analyses. The battery testing will occur during a
planned HPCS outage and therefore will not result in an increase in
risk above the current work practices of planned HPCS system
maintenance outages. Any risk associated with the testing of the
Division 3 battery will be bounded and addressed with the risk
associated with the HPCS system outage. In addition, the HPCS system
reliability and availability are monitored and evaluated in
relationship to Maintenance Rule goals to ensure that total outage
times do not degrade operational safety over time.
Testing is limited to only one electrical division of equipment
at a time to ensure that design basis requirements are met. Should a
fault occur while testing the Division 3 battery, there would be no
significant impact on any accident consequences since the other two
divisional DC electrical power subsystems and their associated
emergency loads would be available to provide the minimum safety
functions necessary to shut down the unit and maintain it in a
safety shutdown condition.
The Division 3 HPCS DG and its associated emergency loads are
accident mitigating features, not accident initiators. Therefore,
the proposed TS changes to allow the performance of Division 3 DG
surveillance testing in any plant operating mode will not
significantly impact the probability of any previously evaluated
accident.
The design of plant equipment is not being modified by the
proposed changes. As such, the ability of the Division 3 DG to
respond to a design basis accident will not be adversely impacted by
the proposed changes. The proposed changes to the TS surveillance
testing requirements for the Division 3 DG do not affect the
operability requirements for the DG, as verification of such
operability will continue to be performed as required. Continued
verification of operability supports the capability of the Division
3 DG to perform its required function of providing emergency power
to HPCS system equipment, consistent with the plant safety analyses.
Limiting testing to only one DG at a time ensures that design basis
requirements are met. Should a fault occur while testing the
Division 3 DG, there would be no significant impact on any accident
consequences since the other two divisional DGs and associated
emergency loads would be available to provide the minimum safety
functions necessary to shut down the unit and maintain it in a safe
shutdown condition.
Therefore, the proposed change does not result in 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.
No changes are being made to the plant that would introduce any
new accident causal mechanisms. Equipment will be operated in the
same configuration with the exception of the plant operating mode in
which the Division 3 battery and DG surveillance testing are
conducted. Performance of these surveillance tests while online will
continue to verify operability of the Division 3 battery and DG. The
battery testing will potentially minimize the out-of-service time
for the HPCS system. The proposed amendments do not impact any plant
systems that are accident initiators and do not adversely impact any
accident mitigating systems.
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 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.
Margin of safety is related to confidence in the ability of the
fission product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, reactor coolant
system, and primary containment) to perform their design functions
during and following postulated accidents. The proposed changes to
the TS surveillance testing requirements for the Division 3 AC
Sources and DG do not affect the operability requirements, as
verification of such operability will continue to be performed as
required. Continued verification of operability supports the
capability of the Division 3 AC Sources and DG to perform the
required functions of providing emergency power to HPCS system
equipment, consistent with the plant safety analyses.
Consequently, the performance of the fission product barriers
will not be adversely impacted by implementation of the proposed
amendments. In addition, the proposed changes do not alter setpoints
or limits established or assumed by the accident analysis.
The additional online unavailability of the HPCS system does not
constitute a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The
battery testing will be performed when the HPCS system is already
out of service for a planned system outage and therefore the testing
will not result in an increase in risk above the current work
practices of planned system maintenance outages, as currently
allowed by the TS.
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.
Florida Power and Light Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389,
St. Lucie Plant, Unit Nos.1 and 2, St. Lucie County, Florida
Date of amendment request: December 5, 2014; as supplemented by
letters dated July 8 and July 22, 2016; February 25, 2017; and February
1, March 15, and June 7, 2018. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS
under Accession Nos. ML14353A016, ML16193A659, ML16208A061,
ML17058A181, ML18032A614, ML18074A116, and ML18158A228, respectively.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would modify the
Technical Specification (TS) requirements related to Completion Times
for Required Actions to provide the option to calculate longer, risk-
[[Page 40350]]
informed Completion Times. The amendments would also add a new program,
the Risk Informed Completion Time (RICT) Program, to TS Section 6.0,
``Administrative Controls.'' The methodology for using the Risk
Informed Completion Time Program is described in Nuclear Energy
Institute (NEI) topical report NEI 06-09, ``Risk-Informed Technical
Specifications Initiative 4b, Risk-Managed Technical Specifications
(RMTS) Guidelines,'' Revision 0-A (ADAMS Accession No. ML12286A322),
which was approved by the NRC on May 17, 2007. The license amendment
request was originally noticed in the Federal Register on March 17,
2015 (80 FR 13908). The licensee originally proposed to adopt, with
plant specific variations, Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF)
Traveler TSTF-505, Revision 1, ``Provide Risk-Informed Extended
Completion Times--RITSTF [Risk Informed TSTF] Initiative 4b''
(Accession No. ML111650552). By letter dated November 15, 2016 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML16281A021), the NRC staff informed the TSTF of its
decision to suspend NRC approval of TSTF-505, Revision 1, because of
concerns identified during the review of plant-specific license
amendment requests for adoption of the traveler. The NRC staff's letter
also stated that it would continue reviewing applications already
received and site-specific proposals to address the staff's concerns.
Although the scope of the amendment request has not changed, the basis
for the amendments will no longer rely on TSTF-505. The notice is being
reissued in its entirety to include the 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 change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change permits the extension of Completion Times
provided the associated risk is assessed and managed in accordance
with the NRC[-]approved Risk Informed Completion Time Program. The
proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the
probability of an accident previously evaluated because the change
involves no change to the plant or its modes of operation. The
proposed change does not increase the consequences of an accident
because the design-basis mitigation function of the affected systems
is not changed and the consequences of an accident [occurring]
during the extended Completion Time are no different from those
[occurring] during the existing Completion Time.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not change the design, configuration,
or method of operation of the plant. The proposed change does not
involve a physical alteration of the plant (no new or different kind
of equipment will be installed).
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 permits the extension of Completion Times
provided risk is assessed and managed in accordance with the NRC[-
]approved Risk Informed Completion Time Program. The proposed change
implements a risk-informed configuration management program to
assure that adequate margins of safety are maintained. Application
of these new specifications and the configuration management program
considers cumulative effects of multiple systems or components being
out of service and does so more effectively than the current TS.
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: Debbie Hendell, Managing Attorney--Nuclear,
Florida Power & Light Company, 700 Universe Blvd. MS LAW/JB, Juno
Beach, Florida 33408-0420.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Booma Venkataraman.
Northern States Power Company (NSPM), Docket Nos. 50-282 and 50-306,
Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, (PINGP)
Goodhue County, Minnesota
Date of amendment request: May 18, 2018. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18138A402.
Brief description of amendment request: The proposed amendments
would modify paragraph 2.C(4)(c) of the PINGP Renewed Facility
Operating Licenses (RFOLs) which requires the implementation of
modification to PINGP as described in Attachment S, Table S-2, of the
PINGP license amendment request (LAR) dated December 14, 2016, to adopt
the National Fire Protection Association Standard (NFPA) 805.
Specifically, NSPM is requesting the deletion of five modifications
from Table S-2 of the December 14, 2016, LAR.
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 amendment adds a reference to this letter to the
PINGP, Units 1 and 2, RFOLs. The changes encompassed by this
proposed amendment are to delete five modifications that are no
longer needed from a risk perspective. The revision is based on five
changes to Table S-2 proposed in this license amendment request
(LAR). The proposed changes have been reviewed in the fire
Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) model approved as part of
PINGP's transition to NFPA 805 and the results were found to be
acceptable. Fire protection defense in depth and adequate safety
margins are maintained with the changes proposed in this LAR.
The proposed change does not adversely affect accident
initiators or precursors, nor alter the design assumptions,
conditions, and configuration of the facility or the manner in which
the plant is operated and maintained. The proposed changes do not
adversely affect the ability of structures, systems and components
(SSCs) to perform their intended safety function to mitigate the
consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance
limits. The proposed change does not increase the probability or
consequences of an accident as verified by the risk analysis
performed.
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 amendment adds a reference to this letter to the
PINGP, Units 1 and 2, RFOLs. The changes encompassed by this
proposed amendment are to delete five modifications that are no
longer needed from a risk perspective. The revision is based on five
changes to Table S-2 proposed in this LAR. The proposed changes have
been reviewed in the fire PRA model approved as part of PINGP's
transition to NFPA 805 and the results were found to be acceptable.
Fire protection defense in depth and adequate safety margins are
maintained with the changes proposed in this LAR.
The proposed changes will not result in any new or different
kinds of accident from that previously evaluated because it does not
[[Page 40351]]
change any precursors or equipment that is previously credited for
accident mitigation.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment adds a reference to this letter to the
PINGP, Units 1 and 2, RFOLs. The changes encompassed by this
proposed amendment are to delete five modifications that are no
longer needed from a risk perspective. The revision is based on five
changes to Table S-2 proposed in this LAR. The proposed changes have
been reviewed in the fire PRA model approved as part of PINGP's
transition to NFPA 805 and the results were found to be acceptable.
Fire protection defense in depth and adequate safety margins are
maintained with the changes proposed in this LAR.
The proposed change does not adversely affect any SSCs credited
for accident mitigation. The margins of safety previously evaluated
are not significantly affected. The change does not affect the
design function or capabilities of any plant systems.
Therefore, the proposed changes will not impact or reduce any
margins of safety previously evaluated.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Peter M. Glass, Assistant General Counsel,
Xcel Energy Services, Inc., 414 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, MN 55401.
NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.
Northern States Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-282 and 50-306, Prairie
Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, (PINGP) Goodhue
County, Minnesota
Date of amendment request: June 26, 2018. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18177A450.
Brief description of amendment request: The proposed amendments
would revise PINGP Technical Specifications (TSs) by eliminating second
Completion Times limiting time from discovery of failure to meet a
limiting condition for operation (LCO). These changes are consistent
with NRC-approved Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler
TSTF-439, Revision 2, ``Eliminate Second Completion Times Limiting Time
from Discovery of Failure to Meet an LCO.''
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 eliminates second Completion Times from the
Technical Specifications. Completion Times are not an initiator to
any accident previously evaluated. As a result, the probability of
an accident previously evaluated is not affected. The consequences
of an accident during the revised Completion Time are no different
than the consequences of the same accident during the existing
Completion Times. As a result, the consequences of an accident
previously evaluated are not affected by this change. The proposed
change does not alter or prevent the ability of SSCs [structures,
systems, and components] from performing their intended function to
mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within the assumed
acceptance limits. The proposed change does not affect the source
term, containment isolation, or radiological release assumptions
used in evaluating the radiological consequences of an accident
previously evaluated. Further, the proposed change does not increase
the types or amounts of radioactive effluent that may be released
offsite nor significantly increase individual or cumulative
occupational/public radiation exposures. The proposed change is
consistent with the safety analysis assumptions and resultant
consequences.
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 does not involve a physical alteration of
the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be
installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant
operation. The proposed change does not alter any assumptions made
in the safety analysis.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change to delete the second Completion Time does
not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system
settings, or limiting conditions for operation are determined. The
safety analysis acceptance criteria are not affected by this change.
The proposed change will not result in plant operation in a
configuration outside of the design basis.
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: Peter M. Glass, Assistant General Counsel,
Xcel Energy Services, Inc., 414 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, MN 55401.
NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50-354, Hope Creek Generating Station,
Salem County, New Jersey
PSEG Nuclear LLC and Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-272
and 50-311, Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Salem
County, New Jersey
Date of amendment request: June 29, 2018. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18183A343.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise
technical specification (TS) requirements in Section 3/4.0,
``Applicability,'' regarding Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) and
Surveillance Requirement (SR) usage. These changes are consistent with
NRC-approved Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-
529, ``Clarify Use and Application Rules.''
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 changes to LCO 3.0.4 have no effect on the
requirement for systems to be Operable and have no effect on the
application of TS actions. The proposed change to SR 4.0.3 states
that the allowance may only be used when there is a reasonable
expectation the surveillance will be met when performed. Since the
proposed changes do not significantly affect system Operability, the
proposed changes will have no significant effect on the initiating
events for accidents previously evaluated and will have no
significant effect on the ability of the systems to mitigate
accidents previously evaluated.
Therefore, it is concluded that this 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.
[[Page 40352]]
The proposed change to the TS usage rules does not affect the
design or function of any plant systems. The proposed change does
not change the Operability requirements for plant systems or the
actions taken when plant systems are not operable.
Therefore, it is concluded that this 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 clarifies the application of LCO 3.0.4 and
does not result in changes in plant operation. SR 4.0.3 is revised
to allow application of SR 4.0.3 when an SR has not been previously
performed and there is reasonable expectation that the SR will be
met when performed. This expands the use of SR 4.0.3 while ensuring
the affected system is capable of performing its safety function. As
a result, plant safety is either improved or unaffected.
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: Ryan K. Lighty, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP,
1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004-2541.
NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna.
United States Maritime Administration (MARAD), Docket No. 50-238,
Nuclear Ship SAVANNAH (NSS), Baltimore, Maryland
Date of amendment request: June 19, 2018. A publically-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18173A128.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise Technical Specification (TS) Section 2.0, ``Radioactive
Releases,'' from its original custom form to industry typical 10 CFR
50.36a TSs for effluents from nuclear power reactors.
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 amendment is administrative and does not involve
modification of any plant equipment or affect basic plant operation.
The proposed amendment revises all of Technical Specification
Section 2.0, Radioactive Releases from its original custom form to
typical 10 CFR 50.36a, Technical Specifications on effluents from
nuclear power reactors that are consistent with those of plants in
advanced stages of decommissioning. The proposed amendment also
deletes three Technical Specifications whose requirements are
included in STS-005-020, Offsite Dose Calculation Manual and
therefore, are no longer necessary as standalone Technical
Specifications. These three Technical Specifications include one
associated with the annual report, one associated with area
monitoring thermoluminescent dosimeters and one associated with
environmental monitoring.
The NSS's reactor is not operational and the level of
radioactivity in the NSS has significantly decreased from the levels
that existed when the final shutdown was completed on November 8,
1970. No aspect of any of the proposed changes is an initiator of
any accident previously evaluated. Consequently, the probability of
an accident previously evaluated is not significantly increased.
Therefore, the proposed changes 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.
All of the proposed changes are administrative and do not
involve physical alteration of plant equipment that was not
previously allowed by Technical Specifications. The proposed
amendment revises all of Technical Specification Section 2.0,
Radioactive Releases from its original custom form to typical 10 CFR
50.36a, Technical Specifications on effluents from nuclear power
reactors that are consistent with those of plants in advanced stages
of decommissioning. The proposed amendment also deletes three
Technical Specifications whose requirements are included in STS-005-
020, Offsite Dose Calculation Manual and therefore, are no longer
necessary as standalone Technical Specifications. These three
Technical Specifications include one associated with the annual
report, one associated with area monitoring thermoluminescent
dosimeters and one associated with environmental monitoring.
These proposed changes do not change the method by which any
safety-related system performs its function given that all primary,
auxiliary and secondary systems are deactivated, disabled and
perform no active function. No new or different types of equipment
will be installed, and the basic operation of installed equipment is
unchanged. The methods governing plant operation and testing remain
consistent with current safety analysis assumptions.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the change involve a significant reduction in a margin
of safety?
Response: No.
All of the proposed changes are administrative in nature. The
proposed amendment revises all of Technical Specification Section
2.0, Radioactive Releases from its original custom form to typical
10 CFR 50.36a, Technical Specifications on effluents from nuclear
power reactors that are consistent with those of plants in advanced
stages of decommissioning. The proposed amendment also deletes three
Technical Specifications whose requirements are included in STS-005-
020, Offsite Dose Calculation Manual and therefore, are no longer
necessary as standalone Technical Specifications. These three
Technical Specifications include one associated with the annual
report, one associated with area monitoring thermoluminescent
dosimeters and one associated with environmental monitoring.
No margins of safety exist that are relevant to the ship's
defueled and partially dismantled reactor. As such, there are no
changes being made to safety analysis assumptions, safety limits or
safety system settings that would adversely affect plant safety as a
result of the proposed changes.
As such, there are no changes being made to safety analysis
assumptions, safety limits or safety system settings that would
adversely affect plant safety or are relevant to the ship's defueled
and partially dismantled reactor as a result of the proposed
changes.
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.
Advisor for licensee: Erhard W. Koehler, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE,
Washington, DC 20590.
NRC Branch Chief: Bruce Watson.
III. Previously Published Notices of Consideration of Issuance of
Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses,
Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and
Opportunity for a Hearing
The following notices were previously published as separate
individual notices. The notice content was the same as above. They were
published as individual notices either because time did not allow the
Commission to wait for this biweekly notice or because the action
involved exigent circumstances. They are repeated here because the
biweekly notice lists all amendments issued or proposed to be issued
involving no significant hazards consideration.
[[Page 40353]]
For details, see the individual notice in the Federal Register on
the day and page cited. This notice does not extend the notice period
of the original notice.
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: May 17, 2018. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18137A418.
Brief description of amendment request: The proposed amendment
would revise Technical Specifications 2.1.1, ``Reactor Core SLs [safety
limits]'' to change Cycle 24 Safety Limit Minimum Critical Power Ratio
(SLMCPR) numeric values resulting from SLMCPR analyses performed.
Date of publication of individual notice in Federal Register: July
13, 2018 (83 FR 32691).
Expiration date of individual notice: August 13, 2018 (public
comments); September 11, 2018 (hearing requests).
IV. 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.
DTE Electric Company, Docket No. 50-341, Fermi 2, Monroe County,
Michigan
Date of amendment request: July 17, 2017, as supplemented by letter
dated January 8, 2018.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Fermi 2
Technical Specification (TS) 3.7.2, ``Emergency Equipment Cooling Water
(EECW)/Emergency Equipment Service Water (EESW) System and Ultimate
Heat Sink (UHS).'' Specifically, the amendment revised TS 3.7.2
conditions and surveillance requirements to reflect a proposed change
to the design of the two redundant cross-tie lines that are part of the
UHS.
Date of issuance: July 17, 2018.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 120 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 209. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML18144A064; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-43: Amendment revised
the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 26, 2017 (82
FR 44850). The supplemental letter dated January 8, 2018, 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 July 17, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-382, Waterford Steam Electric
Station, Unit No. 3, St. Charles Parish, Louisiana
Date of amendment request: November 28, 2017, as supplemented by
letters dated December 7, 2017, and May 8, 2018.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Section 4.3.3
of the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report to indicate that the
RAPTOR-M3G code is used for reactor vessel fluence calculations. The
use of the RAPTOR-M3G code meets the criteria present in Regulatory
Guide (RG) 1.190, ``Calculational and Dosimetry Methods for Determining
Pressure Vessel Neutron Fluence,'' dated March 2001.
Date of issuance: July 23, 2018.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
30 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 252. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML18180A298; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-38: The amendment revised the
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 16, 2018 (83 FR
2228). The supplement dated May 8, 2018, 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 July 23, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
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: September 14, 2017, as supplemented by
letter dated March 15, 2018.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical
Specification (TS) 3.6.4.1, ``Secondary Containment,'' Surveillance
Requirement (SR) 3.6.4.1.3. The SR is revised to address conditions
during which the secondary containment pressure may not meet the SR
pressure requirements.
Date of issuance: July 19, 2018.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be
implemented within 60 days.
Amendment No.: 319. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML18180A372; 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 TSs.
[[Page 40354]]
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 7, 2017 (82 FR
51650). The supplemental letter dated March 15, 2018, 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 July 19, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-334 and
50-412, Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Beaver County,
Pennsylvania
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket No. 50-346,
Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 1, Ottawa County, Ohio
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket No. 50-440, Perry
Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No. 1, Lake County, Ohio
Date of amendment request: August 11, 2017.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments changed the
respective technical specifications (TSs) as follows:
The changes revised Section 1.3, ``Completion Times,'' and Section
3.0, ``LCO Applicability'' of the TSs to clarify the use and
application of the TS usage rules, as described below:
Section 1.3 is revised to clarify ``discovery'' and to
discuss exceptions to starting the Completion Time at condition entry.
Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) 3.0.4.b is revised
to clarify that LCO 3.0.4.a, LCO 3.0.4.b, and LCO 3.0.4.c are
independent options.
Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.0.3 is revised to allow
application of SR 3.0.3 when an SR has not been previously performed
and to clarify the application of SR 3.0.3.
The changes to the TSs are consistent with Technical Specifications
Task Force (TSTF-529), Revision 4, ``Clarify Use and Application
Rules.'' The NRC staff-issued safety evaluation for TSTF-529 was
provided to the Technical Specifications Task Force in a letter dated
April 21, 2016. This review included a review of the NRC staff's
evaluation, as well as the information provided in TSTF-529.
Date of issuance: July 30, 2018.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 303/192 (Beaver Valley Unit Nos. 1 and 2); 297
(Davis-Besse); and 182 (Perry). A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No. ML18179A467; documents related to these
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the
amendments.
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-66, NPF-73, NPF-3, and NPF-58:
The amendments revised the Licenses and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 7, 2017 (82 FR
51651).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 30, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026,
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Unit Nos. 3 and 4, Burke County,
Georgia
Date of amendment request: January 31, 2018.
Description of amendment: The amendments included changes to
Combined License Appendix A, Technical Specifications (TSs) related to
fuel management. Specifically, the amendments proposed improvements to
the TSs for the Rod Position Indication, the Control Rod Drive
Mechanism, Power Range Neutron Flux Channels and the Mechanical Shim
Augmentation.
Date of issuance: July 19, 2018.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 134 (Unit 3) and 133 (Unit 4). A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18082B374; documents related
to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the
amendment.
Facility Combined Licenses No. NPF-91 and NPF-92: Amendments
revised the Facility Combined Licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 27, 2018 (83
FR 8509).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in the Safety Evaluation dated July 19, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-
364, Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant (Farley), Unit Nos. 1 and 2,
Houston County, Alabama
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-
366, Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant (Hatch), Unit Nos. 1 and 2, City of
Dalton, Georgia
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., (SNC) Docket Nos. 50-424, 50-
425, 52-025, 52-026, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (Vogtle), Unit
Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4, Burke County, Georgia
Date of amendment request: August 30, 2017.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments relocated the
emergency operations facility for the eight units of the SNC nuclear
fleet from the SNC corporate headquarters in Birmingham, Alabama, to a
new location 1.3 miles away.
Date of issuance: July 26, 2018.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
180 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 220 (Farley, Unit 1), 217 (Farley, Unit 2), 291
(Hatch, Unit 1), 236 (Hatch, Unit 2), 195 (Vogtle, Unit 1), 178
(Vogtle, Unit 2), 136 (Vogtle, Unit 3), and 135 (Vogtle, Unit 4). A
publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18183A073;
documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety
Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-2. NPF-8, DPR-57, NPF-5, NPF-
68, NPF-81, NPF-91, and NPF-92: Amendments revised the Facility
Operating Licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 10, 2017 (82 FR
47038).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 26, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
STP Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 50-498 and 50-499, South
Texas Project, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Matagorda County, Texas
Date of amendment request: July 31, 2017, as supplemented by letter
dated February 12, 2018.
Brief description of amendment: The amendments revised the South
Texas Project Electric Generating Station Emergency Plan to change the
emergency response organization (ERO) staffing composition and increase
the staff augmentation times for certain ERO positions from the time of
declaration of an Alert or higher emergency
[[Page 40355]]
classification level. The changes also include formatting,
clarification, and editorial modifications.
Date of issuance: July 19, 2018.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 9 months from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 214 (Unit 1) and 200 (Unit 2). A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18159A212; documents related
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with
the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-76 and NPF-80: The
amendments revised the Site Emergency Plan.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 12, 2017 (82
FR 42855). The supplemental letter dated February 12, 2018, 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 July 19, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-338 and 50-339,
North Anna Power Station, Units Nos. 1 and 2, Louisa County, Virginia
Date of amendment request: May 2, 2017, as supplemented by letters
dated July 19, 2017, and January 31, 2018.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised North Anna
Power Station (NAPS) Technical Specification (TS) 3.7.18, ``Spent Fuel
Pool Storage,'' and TS 4.3.1, ``Criticality,'' to allow the storage of
fuel assemblies with a maximum enrichment of up to 5.0 weight percent
uranium 235 in the NAPS spent fuel pool storage racks and the New Fuel
Storage Area. The amendments further revised the allowable fuel
assembly parameters and fuel storage patterns in the spent fuel pool.
Date of issuance: July 27, 2018.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 180 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 279 (Unit 1) and 262 (Unit 2). A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18180A197; documents related
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with
the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-4 and NPF-7: Amendments
revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and Technical
Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 6, 2018 (83 FR
9553). The supplemental letters dated July 19, 2017, and January 31,
2018, 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 July 27, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 7th day of August, 2018.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Kathryn M. Brock,
Deputy Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of
Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2018-17132 Filed 8-13-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P