[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 167 (Tuesday, August 28, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43901-43911]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-18028]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2018-0181]
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 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 31, 2018, to August 13, 2018. The last
biweekly notice was published on August 14, 2018.
DATES: Comments must be filed by September 27, 2018. A request for a
hearing must be filed by October 29, 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-2018-0181. 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, see ``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Janet Burkhardt, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1384; email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments
A. Obtaining Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2018-0181, 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-2018-0181.
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-2018-0181, 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
[[Page 43902]]
before making the comment submissions available to the public or
entering the comment into ADAMS.
II. Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility
Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses and Proposed No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under
the Commission's regulations in Sec. 50.92 of title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (10 CFR), this means that operation of the facility
in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated, or (2) create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or
(3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis
for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown
below.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final
determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period if circumstances change during the 30-day comment
period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for
example in derating or shutdown of the facility. If the Commission
takes action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or
the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a notice of
issuance. If the Commission makes a final no significant hazards
consideration determination, any hearing will take place after
issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will
occur very infrequently.
A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing and Petition for Leave To Intervene
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any
persons (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by this action may
file a request for a hearing and petition for leave to intervene
(petition) with respect to the action. Petitions shall be filed in
accordance with the Commission's ``Agency Rules of Practice and
Procedure'' in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult a
current copy of 10 CFR 2.309. The NRC's regulations are accessible
electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's website at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. Alternatively, a copy of
the regulations is available at the NRC's Public Document Room, located
at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (First
Floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. If a petition is filed, the
Commission or a presiding officer will rule on the petition and, if
appropriate, a notice of a hearing will be issued.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309(d) the petition should specifically
explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with
particular reference to the following general requirements for
standing: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the
petitioner; (2) the nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to
be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the
petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding;
and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be
entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f), the petition must also set
forth the specific contentions which the petitioner seeks to have
litigated in the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific
statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In
addition, the petitioner must provide a brief explanation of the bases
for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or
expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner
intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The
petitioner must also provide references to the specific sources and
documents on which the petitioner intends to rely to support its
position on the issue. The petition must include sufficient information
to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant or licensee on
a material issue of law or fact. Contentions must be limited to matters
within the scope of the proceeding. The contention must be one which,
if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner who
fails to satisfy the requirements at 10 CFR 2.309(f) with respect to at
least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding,
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene.
Parties have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the
hearing with respect to resolution of that party's admitted
contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence, consistent
with the NRC's regulations, policies, and procedures.
Petitions must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of
publication of this notice. Petitions and motions for leave to file new
or amended contentions that are filed after the deadline will not be
entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the
filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10
CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i) through (iii). The petition must be filed in
accordance with the filing instructions in the ``Electronic Submissions
(E-Filing)'' section of this document.
If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the
Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no
significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve
to establish when the hearing is held. If the final determination is
that the amendment request involves no significant hazards
consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it
immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any
hearing would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final
determination is that the amendment request involves a significant
hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before
the issuance of the amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent
danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will
issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.
A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian
Tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to
participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition should
state the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the
proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission no later
than 60 days from 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-
[[Page 43903]]
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 https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/getting-started.html. Once a participant has obtained a
digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant
can then submit adjudicatory documents. Submissions must be in Portable
Document Format (PDF). Additional guidance on PDF submissions is
available on the NRC's public website at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/electronic-sub-ref-mat.html. A filing is considered complete at the
time the document is submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be
timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system
no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of
a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends
the submitter an email notice confirming receipt of the document. The
E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access
to the document to the NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any
others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to
participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the
document on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and
other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for
and receive a digital ID certificate before adjudicatory documents are
filed so that they can obtain access to the documents via the E-Filing
system.
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-
Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC's Electronic
Filing Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC's
public website at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by
email to [email protected], or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-
7640. The NRC Electronic Filing Help Desk is available between 9 a.m.
and 6 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government
holidays.
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not
submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in
accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing
stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and
requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper
format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention:
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or
expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and
Adjudications Staff. Participants filing adjudicatory documents in this
manner are responsible for serving the document on all other
participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of
the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or
expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the
provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an
exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or
party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines
that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no
longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
https://adams.nrc.gov/ehd, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the
Commission or the presiding officer. If you do not have an NRC-issued
digital ID certificate as described above, click cancel when the link
requests certificates and you will be automatically directed to the
NRC's electronic hearing dockets where you will be able to access any
publicly available documents in a particular hearing docket.
Participants are requested not to include personal privacy information,
such as social security numbers, home addresses, or personal phone
numbers in their filings, unless an NRC regulation or other law
requires submission of such information. For example, in some
instances, individuals provide home addresses in order to demonstrate
proximity to a facility or site. With respect to copyrighted works,
except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory
filings and would constitute a Fair Use application, participants are
requested not to include copyrighted materials in their submission.
[[Page 43904]]
For further details with respect to these license amendment
applications, see the application for amendment which is available for
public inspection in ADAMS and at the NRC's PDR. For additional
direction on accessing information related to this document, see the
``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' section of this
document.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370, McGuire
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Date of amendment request: May 31, 2018. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18159A035.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would modify
Technical Specification 3.1.7, ``Rod Position Indication,'' to add a
new Condition for more than one inoperable digital rod position
indication (DRPI) per rod group, and revise the Action Note and to
clarify the wording of current Required Actions A.1 and B.1. This
change is consistent with NRC-approved Technical Specification Task
Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-234-A, ``Add Action for More Than One [D]RPI
Inoperable,'' Revision 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 amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment provides a Condition and Required Actions
for more than one inoperable digital rod position indications (DRPI)
per rod group. The DRPls are not an initiator of any accident
previously evaluated. The DRPls are one indication used by operators
to verify control rod insertion following an accident; however other
indications are available. Therefore, allowing a finite period of
time to correct more than one inoperable DRPI prior to requiring a
plant shutdown will not result in an increase in the consequences of
any accident previously evaluated. The proposed amendment does not
involve an increase in the probability or consequences of any
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 does not involve a physical alteration to
the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be
installed) or a change to the methods governing normal plant
operation. The changes do not alter the assumptions made in the
safety analysis. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create
the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any
accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in the margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment provides time to correct the condition of
more than one DRPI inoperable in a rod group. Compensatory measures
are required to verify that the rods monitored by the inoperable
DRPls are not moved to ensure that there is no effect on core
reactivity. Requiring a plant shutdown with inoperable rod position
indications introduces plant risk and should not be initiated unless
the rod position indication cannot be repaired in a reasonable
period. As a result, the safety benefit provided by the proposed
Condition offsets the small decrease in safety resulting from
continued operation with more than one inoperable DRPI. Therefore,
the proposed amendment does not involve a 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: Kate B. Nolan, Deputy General Counsel, Duke
Energy Carolinas, LLC, 550 South Tryon Street, M/C DEC45A, Charlotte,
NC 28202-1802.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287,
Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, Oconee County, South
Carolina
Date of amendment request: May 17, 2018. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18144A788.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise
Technical Specification (TS) 3.8.1, ``AC [Alternating Current]
Sources--Operating,'' by adding a surveillance requirement that
verifies the ability of the Keowee Hydroelectric Unit auxiliary power
system to automatically transfer from its normal auxiliary power source
to its alternate auxiliary power source.
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?
No. The proposed TS change, which adds a Surveillance
Requirement to TS 3.8.1 to test the automatic Keowee auxiliary power
transfer circuitry, will allow ONS [Oconee Nuclear Station] to
credit an existing design feature to facilitate mitigation of a
postulated single failure. The proposed change does not modify the
reactor coolant system pressure boundary, nor make any physical
changes to the facility design, material, or construction standards.
The proposed change is needed to eliminate a previously unrecognized
single failure concern that resulted in a non-conservative TS. The
proposed change does not affect the safety analyses thus dose
consequences will remain within analyzed and acceptable limits. The
probability of any design basis accident (DBA) is not increased by
this change, nor are the consequences of any DBA increased by this
change. The proposed change does not involve changes to any
structures, systems, or components (SSCs) that can alter the
probability for initiating a DBA event.
Therefore, the proposed TS change does not significantly
increase 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?
No. The proposed new Surveillance Requirement to test the
automatic Keowee auxiliary power transfer circuitry will allow ONS
to credit an existing design feature to facilitate mitigation of a
postulated single failure. The proposed change does not alter the
plant configuration (no new or different type of equipment will be
installed) or make changes in methods governing normal plant
operation. The automatic Keowee auxiliary power transfer circuitry
is currently installed and in use but not credited for accident
mitigation. No new failure modes are identified, nor are any SSCs
required to be operated outside the design bases. Therefore, the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any kind of
accident previously evaluated is not created.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
No. The proposed new Surveillance Requirement to test the
automatic Keowee auxiliary power transfer circuitry will allow ONS
to credit an existing design feature to facilitate mitigation of a
postulated single failure. The proposed change does not involve: (1)
A physical alteration of the Oconee Units; (2) the installation of
new or different equipment; (3) a change to any set points for
parameters which initiate protective or mitigation action; or (4)
any impact on the fission product barriers or safety limits. As long
as the equipment continues to perform as expected and within the
guidelines captured in the safety analyses, the change does not
involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
[[Page 43905]]
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Kate B. Nolan, Deputy General Counsel, Duke
Energy Carolinas, LLC, 550 South Tryon Street, M/C DEC45A, Charlotte,
NC 28202-1802.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Florida Power & Light Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389,
St. Lucie Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, St. Lucie County, Florida
Date of amendment request: August 2, 2018. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18218A075.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the
Technical Specifications (TS) by deleting Figure 5.1-1, ``Site Area
Map,'' removing references in the TS to Figure 5.1-1, and adding a site
description.
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 does not modify any plant equipment or
affect plant operation. The proposed change neither impacts any
structures, systems, or components (SSCs), nor alters any plant
processes or procedures. The proposed change is administrative in
nature and cannot adversely impact safety.
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.
The proposed change has no impact on the design, function or
operation of the plants. The proposed change is administrative in
nature, and thereby cannot introduce new failure modes or
unanticipated outcomes.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not affect plant safety margins or the
reliability of the equipment assumed to operate in the safety
analyses. The proposed change is administrative in nature, and
thereby cannot affect any safety analysis assumptions, safety limits
or limiting safety system settings.
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, FL 33408-0420.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Booma Venkataraman.
Indiana Michigan Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-315 and 50-316, Donald
C. Cook Nuclear Plant (CNP), Units Nos. 1 and 2, Berrien County,
Michigan
Date of amendment request: June 11, 2018. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18164A033.
Description of amendment request: The proposed change would allow
for deviation from National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 805
requirements, to allow for the use of flexible metallic conduit in
configurations other than to connect components, and also in lengths
greater than short lengths.
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 use of flexible metallic conduit to be used other than to
connect components or to be used in greater than short lengths does
not impact fire prevention. Flexible metallic conduit has been in
use since original plant construction, is allowed by the National
Electrical Code and is not expected to increase the potential for a
fire to start.
The introduction of flexible metallic conduit does not create
ignition sources and does not impact fire prevention. Cable
installation procedures are utilized to ensure that the use of
flexible metallic conduit is in accordance with the CNP design
change process. Also, the use of flexible metallic conduit does not
result in compromising automatic fire suppression functions, manual
fire suppression functions, fire protection for systems and
structures, or post-fire safe shutdown capability.
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.
The proposed changes do allow future physical changes to the
facility that deviate from NFPA 805 requirements. However, the
proposed changes do not alter any assumptions made in the safety
analyses, nor do they involve any changes to plant procedures for
ensuring that the plant is operated within analyzed limits. As such,
no new failure modes or mechanisms that could cause a new or
different kind of accident from any previously evaluated are being
introduced.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not alter the manner in which safety
limits or limiting safety system settings are determined. No changes
to instrument/system actuation setpoints are involved. The safety
analysis acceptance criteria are not affected by this change and the
proposed changes will not permit plant operation in a configuration
outside 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: Robert B. Haemer, Senior Nuclear Counsel,
One Cook Place, Bridgman, MI 49106.
NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.
Nebraska Public Power District, Docket No. 50-298, Cooper Nuclear
Station, Nemaha County, Nebraska
Date of amendment request: June 11, 2018. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18169A147.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise
Technical Specification (TS) 3.8.3, ``Diesel Fuel Oil, Lube Oil, and
Starting Air,'' by relocating the current stored diesel fuel oil and
lube oil numerical volume requirements from the TSs to the TS Bases.
The proposed changes are consistent with Technical Specifications Task
Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-501, Revision 1, ``Relocate Stored Fuel Oil
and Lube Oil Volume Values to Licensee Control.'' The amendment would
also revise TS 3.8.1, ``AC [Alternating Current] Sources--Operating,''
by relocating the specific
[[Page 43906]]
diesel fuel oil day tank numerical volume requirement to the TS Bases
and replacing it with the day tank time requirement. The availability
of this TS improvement was announced in the Federal Register on May 26,
2010 (75 FR 29588), as part of the consolidated line item improvement
process.
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 removes the volume of diesel fuel oil and
lube oil required to support 7-day operation of an onsite diesel
generator, and the volume equivalent to a 6-day supply, to licensee
control. The specific volume of fuel oil equivalent to a 7 and 6-day
supply is calculated using the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
approved methodology described in Regulatory Guide 1.137, Revision
1, ``Fuel-Oil Systems for Standby Diesel Generators'' and ANSI
[American National Standards Institute] N195 1976, ``Fuel Oil
[S]ystems for Standby Diesel-Generators.'' The specific volume of
lube oil equivalent to a 7-day and 6-day supply is based on a
conservative consumption value of 3 gallons/hour for the run time of
the diesel generator. Because the requirement to maintain a 7-day
supply of diesel fuel oil and lube oil is not changed and is
consistent with the assumptions in the accident analyses, and the
actions taken when the volume of fuel oil and lube oil are less than
a 6-day supply have not changed, neither the probability nor the
consequences of any accident previously evaluated will be affected.
The proposed change also relocates the volume of diesel fuel oil
required to support 3.9 hours of diesel generator operation at full
load in the day tank. The specific volume and time is not changed
and is consistent with the existing plant design basis to support
the emergency diesel generator under accident loading conditions.
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 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 change
does not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis but ensures
that the diesel generator operates as assumed in the accident
analysis. The proposed change is consistent with the safety analysis
assumptions.
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 relocates the volume of diesel fuel oil and
lube oil required to support 7-day operation of an onsite diesel
generator, the volume equivalent to a 6-day supply, and 3.9 hour day
tank supply to licensee control. As the bases for the existing
limits on diesel fuel oil, and lube oil are not changed, no change
is made to the accident analysis assumptions and no margin of safety
is reduced as part of this change.
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: Mr. John C. McClure, Nebraska Public Power
District, Post Office Box 499, Columbus, NE 68602-0499.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
Northern States Power Company--Minnesota, Docket No. 50-263, Monticello
Nuclear Generating Plant (MNGP), Wright County, Minnesota
Date of amendment request: July 3, 2018. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18187A400.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
modify the MNGP technical specifications to adopt Technical
Specification Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-551, Revision 3, ``Revise
Secondary Containment Surveillance Requirements.''
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 addresses conditions during which the
secondary containment SRs [surveillance requirements] are not met.
The secondary containment is not an initiator of any accident
previously evaluated. As a result, the probability of any accident
previously evaluated is not increased. The consequences of an
accident previously evaluated while utilizing the proposed changes
are no different than the consequences of an accident while
utilizing the existing four hour Completion Time for an inoperable
secondary containment. In addition, the proposed Note for SR
3.6.4.1.1 provides an alternative means to ensure the secondary
containment safety function is met. As a result, the consequences of
an accident previously evaluated are not significantly increased.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not alter the protection system design,
create new failure modes, or change any modes of operation. The
proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant
and no new or different kind of equipment will be installed.
Consequently, there are no new initiators that could result in a new
or different kind of accident.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change addresses conditions during which the
secondary containment SR is not met. Conditions in which the
secondary containment vacuum is less than the required vacuum are
acceptable provided the conditions do not affect the ability of the
SGT [Standby Gas Treatment] System to establish the required
secondary containment vacuum under post-accident conditions within
the time assumed in the accident analysis. This condition is
incorporated in the proposed change by requiring an analysis of
actual environmental and secondary containment pressure conditions
to confirm the capability of the SGT System is maintained within the
assumptions of the accident analysis. Therefore, the safety function
of the secondary containment is not affected. The allowance for both
an inner and outer secondary containment door to be open
simultaneously for entry and exit does not affect the safety
function of the secondary containment as the doors are promptly
closed after entry or exit, thereby restoring the secondary
containment boundary.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Peter M. Glass, Assistant General Counsel,
Xcel Energy Services, Inc., 414 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, MN 55401.
[[Page 43907]]
NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.
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. ML18180A291.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise
Technical Specification (TS) \3/4\.3.1, ``Reactor Trip System
Instrumentation''; TS \3/4\.3.2, ``Engineered Safety Feature Actuation
System Instrumentation''; TS \3/4\.7.1.5, ``Main Steam Isolation
Valves''; and add a new TS for feedwater isolation to better align the
TS with the design basis analyses and the design of the
instrumentation.
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 the TS will not alter the way any
structure, system, or component (SSC) functions, and will not alter
the manner in which the plant is operated. The proposed changes do
not alter the design of any SSC. Therefore the probability of an
accident previously evaluated is not significantly increased.
The proposed changes more accurately align the TS with the
design bases accident analysis for the main steam line break,
feedwater line break and feedwater malfunction. Therefore, the
consequences of an accident previously evaluated are not increased.
Therefore, these proposed changes do not represent 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 involve a modification to the
physical configuration of the plant or changes in the methods
governing normal plant operation. The proposed changes do not impose
any new or different requirement or introduce a new accident
initiator, accident precursor, or malfunction mechanism.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Do[es] the proposed [change] involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to the TS impose requirements that are
consistent with assumptions in the safety analyses. The proposed
changes will not result in changes to system design or setpoints
that are intended to ensure timely identification of plant
conditions that could be precursors to accidents or potential
degradation of accident mitigation systems.
The proposed amendment will not result in a design basis or
safety limit being exceeded or altered. Therefore, since the
proposed changes do not impact the response of the plant to a design
basis accident, 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: Ryan K. Lighty, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP,
1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004-2541
NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna.
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. ML18183A025.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would delete
duplicative Technical Specification (TS) requirements to the refueling
water storage tank (RWST) in TS 3.1.2.6, ``Borated Water Sources--
Operating,'' and would revise TS 3.5.5, ``Refueling Water Storage
Tank,'' to ensure compliance with assumptions used in the design basis
accident and containment response analyses and to make Salem TS
requirements for the RWST consistent with NUREG-1431, Revision 4,
``Standard Technical Specifications--Westinghouse Plants.''
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 do not adversely affect accident initiators
or precursors or alter the design assumptions, conditions, or
configuration of the facility or the manner in which the plant is
operated and maintained. The proposed changes do not alter or
prevent the ability of structures, systems, and components (SSCs) to
perform their intended function to mitigate the consequences of an
initiating event within the acceptance limits. The proposed changes
do not affect the source term, containment isolation, or
radiological release assumptions used in evaluating the radiological
consequences of an accident previously evaluated. The proposed
change is consistent with and continues to support 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 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 or involve any design basis
accident initiators. The changes to the Technical Specifications
regarding RWST operational limits are primarily administrative in
nature and do not affect the design or operation of the plant.
Increasing the allowable out of service time (AOT) for the RWST does
not cause any plant systems to become initiators of a new or
different type of accident. Systems and equipment will be operated
in the same configuration and manner that is currently allowed and
for which the systems were designed.
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 change does not alter the permanent plant design,
including instrument set points, nor does it change the assumptions
contained in the safety analyses.
The RWST continues to meet the design requirements relative to
core and containment cooling and reactivity control; there is no
reduction in capability or change in design configuration.
Increasing the RWST AOT for reasons directly related to boron
concentration or temperature does not affect any accident analysis
assumptions, initial conditions, or results. Adding an upper
temperature limit to the LCO [limiting condition for operation] for
TS 3.5.5 ensures the RWST remains within temperature ranges assumed
in the plant's safety analyses. Removing the upper limit on RWST
volume does not alter the RWST design and the limit is not used as
an input or assumption in any plant safety analysis. The proposed
changes do not alter a design basis or safety limit.
Therefore, it is concluded that 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
[[Page 43908]]
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.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-327 and 50-328, Sequoyah
Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Hamilton County, Tennessee
Date of amendment request: March 16, 2018. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18075A365.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would adopt 10 CFR
50.69, ``Risk-informed categorization and treatment of structures,
systems and components for nuclear power reactors.'' The provisions of
50.69 allow improved focus on equipment that has safety significance,
resulting in improved plant safety.
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 consequence of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change will permit the use of a risk-informed
categorization process to modify the scope of structures, systems,
and components (SSCs) subject to Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
special treatment requirements and to implement alternative
treatments per the regulations. The process used to evaluate SSCs
for changes to NRC special treatment requirements and the use of
alternative requirements ensures the ability of the SSCs to perform
their design function. The potential change to special treatment
requirements does not change the design and operation of the SSCs.
As a result, the proposed change does not significantly affect any
initiators to accidents previously evaluated or the ability to
mitigate any accidents previously evaluated. The consequences of the
accidents previously evaluated are not affected because the
mitigation functions performed by the SSCs assumed in the safety
analysis are not being modified. The SSCs required to safely shut
down the reactor and maintain it in a safe shutdown condition
following an accident will continue to perform their design
functions.
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 will permit the use of a risk-informed
categorization process to modify the scope of SSCs subject to NRC
special treatment requirements and to implement alternative
treatments per the regulations. The proposed change does not change
the functional requirements, configuration, or method of operation
of any SSC. Under the proposed change, no additional plant 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 will permit the use of a risk-informed
categorization process to modify the scope of SSCs subject to NRC
special treatment requirements and to implement alternative
treatments per the regulations. The proposed change does not affect
any safety limits or operating parameters used to establish the
safety margin. The safety margins included in analyses of accidents
are not affected by the proposed change. The regulation requires
that there be no significant effect on plant risk due to any change
to the special treatment requirements for SSCs and that the SSCs
continue to be capable of performing their design basis functions,
as well as to perform any beyond design basis functions consistent
with the categorization process and results.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority,
400 West Summit Hill Drive, 6A West Tower, Knoxville, TN 37902.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Booma Venkataraman.
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 notice was previously published as a separate
individual notice. The notice content was the same as above. It was
published as an individual notice either because time did not allow the
Commission to wait for this biweekly notice or because the action
involved exigent circumstances. It is repeated here because the
biweekly notice lists all amendments issued or proposed to be issued
involving no significant hazards consideration.
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.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 50-390, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant,
Unit 1, Rhea County, Tennessee
Date of amendment request: July 8, 2018. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18189A001.
Brief description of amendment request: The proposed amendment
would modify the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 1, Technical
Specifications to extend Surveillance Requirements 3.3.1.5, 3.3.2.2,
and 3.3.6.2.
Date of publication of individual notice in Federal Register: July
16, 2018 (83 FR 32912).
Expiration date of individual notice: August 15, 2018 (public
comments); September 14, 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.
[[Page 43909]]
For further details with respect to the action see (1) the
applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's
related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as
indicated. All of these items can be accessed as described in the
``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' section of this
document.
Entergy Louisiana, LLC, and Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-
458, River Bend Station, Unit 1 (RBS), West Feliciana Parish, Louisiana
Date of amendment request: September 8, 2017, as supplemented by
letter dated March 28, 2018.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the RBS
technical specifications (TSs) by adding a new TS 3.7.7, ``Control
Building Air Conditioning (CBAC) System.'' This new TS specifically
addresses the air conditioning function for switchgear and other
electrical equipment located in the RBS control building. A TS
Surveillance Requirement 3.7.7.1 was added to verify that each CBAC
subsystem has the capability to remove the assumed heat load. The
amendment also corrected the RBS operating license Antitrust
Conditions, Appendix C, due to an administrative error.
Date of issuance: July 31, 2018.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 192. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML18177A387; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-47: The amendment revised the
Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 30, 2018 (83 FR
4291). The supplement dated March 28, 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 31, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-271, Vermont Yankee
Nuclear Power Station (VY), Windham County, Vermont
Date of amendment request: March 29, 2017, as supplemented by
letters dated June 28 and September 14, 2017, and January 18, 2018.
Brief description of amendments: The amendment replaces the VY
Physical Security Plan with an Independent Spent Fuel Storage
Installation (ISFSI) Only Security Plan. The NRC staff determined that
the proposed VY ISFSI-Only Security Plan continues to meet the
standards in 10 CFR 72.212, ``Conditions of general license issued
under Sec. 72.210,'' paragraph (b)(9). As such, the VY ISFSI-Only
Security Plan provides reasonable assurance that adequate protective
measures can and will be taken in the event of a design basis threat of
radiological sabotage related to the spent fuel. These changes more
fully reflect the status of the facility, as well as the reduced scope
of potential physical security challenges at the site once all spent
fuel has been moved to dry cask storage within the onsite ISFSI, an
activity which is currently scheduled for completion in 2018.
Date of issuance: July 25, 2018.
Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days following VY's submittal of a written certification to
the NRC that all spent nuclear fuel assemblies have been transferred
out of the spent fuel pool and placed in storage within the onsite
ISFSI.
Amendment No.: 269: A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML18165A423; the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the
amendment includes safeguards information that is withheld from public
disclosure.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-28: The amendment
revised the Renewed Facility Operating License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 26, 2017 (82
FR 44847).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 25, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353, Limerick
Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: June 28, 2017, as supplemented by
letters dated August 14, 2017, and January 19, April 23, and July 27,
2018.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments added a new license
condition to the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses to allow the
implementation of risk-informed categorization and treatment of
structures, systems, and components for nuclear power reactors in
accordance with 10 CFR 50.69.
Date of issuance: July 31, 2018.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment Nos.: 230 (Unit 1) and 193 (Unit 2). A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18165A162; documents related
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with
the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-39 and NPF-85: The
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 26, 2017 (82
FR 44854). The supplemental letters dated letters dated August 14,
2017, and January 19, April 23, and July 27, 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 31, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. STN 50-456 and STN 50-457,
Braidwood Station (Braidwood), Units 1 and 2, Will County, Illinois
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. STN 50-454 and STN 50-455,
Byron Station (Byron), Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Ogle County, Illinois
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-317 and 50-318, Calvert
Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant (Calvert Cliffs), Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Calvert
County, Maryland
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-461, Clinton Power
Station (Clinton), Unit No. 1, DeWitt County, Illinois
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-237 and 50-249, Dresden
Nuclear Power Station (Dresden), Units 2 and 3, Grundy County, Illinois
[[Page 43910]]
Exelon Generation Company, LLC and Exelon FitzPatrick, LLC, Docket No.
50-333, James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant (FitzPatrick), Oswego
County, New York
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-374, LaSalle
County Station (LaSalle), Units 1 and 2, LaSalle County, Illinois
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353, Limerick
Generating Station (Limerick), Units 1 and 2, Montgomery County,
Pennsylvania
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-220 and 50-410, Nine
Mile Point Nuclear Station (Nine Mile), Units 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 (Peach Bottom), Units
2 and 3, York and Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-254 and 50-265, Quad
Cities Nuclear Power Station (Quad Cities), Units 1 and 2, Rock Island
County, Illinois
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-244, R. E. Ginna Nuclear
Power Plant (Ginna), Wayne County, New York
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-289, Three Mile Island
Nuclear Station (TMI), Unit 1, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: March 1, 2018.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the
technical specifications for each facility to relocate the staff
qualification requirements to the Exelon Generation Company, LLC
quality assurance topical report.
Date of issuance: August 2, 2018.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 197/197 (Braidwood Units 1 and 2); 203/203 (Byron
Units 1 and 2); 325/303 (Calvert Cliffs Units 1 and 2); 219 (Clinton);
258/251 Dresden Units 2 and 3); 320 (FitzPatrick); 229/215 (LaSalle,
Units 1 and 2); 231/194 (Limerick Units 1 and 2); 231/172 (Nine Mile
Units 1 and 2); 319/322 (Peach Bottom Units 2 and 3); 270/265 (Quad
Cities Units 1 and 2); 129 (Ginna); and 294 (TMI). A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18206A282. Documents related
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with
the amendments.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-72, NPF-77, NPF-37, NPF-66,
DPR-53, DPR-69, NPF-62, DPR-19, DPR-25, DPR-59, NPF-11, NPF-18, NPF-39,
NPF-85, DPR-63, NPF-69, DPR-44, DPR-56, DPR-29, DPR-30, DPR-18, and
DPR-50: Amendments revised the Facility Operating Licenses and
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 24, 2018 (83 FR
17862).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a safety evaluations dated August 2, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Nebraska Public Power District, Docket No. 50-298, Cooper Nuclear
Station, Nemaha County, Nebraska
Date of amendment request: August 7, 2017, as supplemented by
letter dated January 31, 2018.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment replaced the existing
technical specification (TS) requirements related to ``operations with
a potential for draining the reactor vessel'' (OPDRVs) with new
requirements on reactor pressure vessel (RPV) water inventory control
to protect Safety Limit 2.1.1.3. Safety Limit 2.1.1.3 requires RPV
water level to be greater than the top of active irradiated fuel. The
changes are based on NRC-approved Technical Specifications Task Force
(TSTF) Traveler TSTF-542, Revision 2, ``Reactor Pressure Vessel Water
Inventory Control.''
Date of issuance: August 1, 2018.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
prior to the fall 2018 refueling outage (RE30).
Amendment No.: 260. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML18186A549; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-46: Amendment revised
the Renewed Facility Operating License and TS.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 24, 2017 (82 FR
49238). The supplemental letter dated 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 August 1, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC, Docket No. 50-443, Seabrook Station, Unit
No. 1, Rockingham County, New Hampshire
Date of amendment request: July 28, 2017.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical
Specifications (TS) such that a direct current (DC) electrical train is
operable with one 100 percent capacity battery aligned to both DC buses
in the associated electrical train.
Date of issuance: August 7, 2018.
Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days of the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 157. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML18199A609; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-86: Amendment revised the
Facility Operating License and TS.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 10, 2017 (82 FR
47038).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated August 7, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-
425, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, Burke County,
Georgia
Date of amendment request: June 22, 2017, as supplemented by
letters dated February 6, February 21, April 26, and August 6, 2018.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments incorporate the use
of the peer-reviewed plant-specific seismic probabilistic risk
assessment into the previously approved 10 CFR 50.69 categorization
process.
Date of issuance: August 10, 2018.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 1--196; Unit 2--179. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18180A062; documents related
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with
the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-68 and NPF-81:
Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses.
[[Page 43911]]
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 29, 2017 (82 FR
41072). The supplemental letters dated February 6, February 21, April
26, and August 6, 2018, provided additional information that clarified
the application, did not expand the scope of the application as
originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no
significant hazards consideration determination as published in the
Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated August 10, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-327 and 50-328, Sequoyah
Nuclear Plant (SQN), Units 1 and 2, Hamilton County, Tennessee
Date of amendment request: September 29, 2017, as supplemented by
letter dated March 14, 2018.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the SQN
Emergency Plan to change staff composition and to extend staff
augmentation times for Emergency Response Organization functions.
Date of issuance: August 6, 2018.
Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 180 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 342--Unit 1 and 335--Unit 2. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18159A461; documents related
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with
the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-77 and DPR-79.
Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 27, 2018 (83
FR 8520). The supplemental letter dated March 14, 2018, provided
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change
the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated August 6, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 16th day of August 2018.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Gregory F. Suber,
Deputy Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of
Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2018-18028 Filed 8-27-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P