[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 195 (Tuesday, October 9, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50691-50700]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-21669]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2018-0224]
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 September 11, 2018, to September 24, 2018.
The last biweekly notice was published on September 25, 2018.
DATES: Comments must be filed by November 8, 2018. A request for a
hearing must be filed by December 10, 2018.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods
(unless this document describes a different method for submitting
comments on a specific subject):
Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2018-0224. Address
questions about Docket IDs in Regulations.gov 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-
[[Page 50692]]
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: Ikeda Betts, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-
0001; telephone: 301-415-1959, email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments
A. Obtaining Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2018-0224 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-2018-0224.
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]. For the convenience of the reader,
instructions about obtaining materials referenced in this document are
provided in the ``Availability of Documents'' section.
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-2018-0224 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 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
[[Page 50693]]
include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists
with the applicant or licensee on a material issue of law or fact.
Contentions must be limited to matters within the scope of the
proceeding. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle
the petitioner to relief. A petitioner who fails to satisfy the
requirements at 10 CFR 2.309(f) with respect to at least one contention
will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding,
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene.
Parties have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the
hearing with respect to resolution of that party's admitted
contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence, consistent
with the NRC's regulations, policies, and procedures.
Petitions must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of
publication of this notice. Petitions and motions for leave to file new
or amended contentions that are filed after the deadline will not be
entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the
filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10
CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i) through (iii). The petition must be filed in
accordance with the filing instructions in the ``Electronic Submissions
(E-Filing)'' section of this document.
If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the
Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no
significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve
to establish when the hearing is held. If the final determination is
that the amendment request involves no significant hazards
consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it
immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any
hearing would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final
determination is that the amendment request involves a significant
hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before
the issuance of the amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent
danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will
issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.
A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian
Tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to
participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition should
state the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the
proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission no later
than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. The petition
must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the
``Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)'' section of this document, and
should meet the requirements for petitions set forth in this section,
except that under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(2) a State, local governmental body,
or Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof does not need
to address the standing requirements in 10 CFR 2.309(d) if the facility
is located within its boundaries. Alternatively, a State, local
governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof
may participate as a non-party under 10 CFR 2.315(c).
If a hearing is granted, any person who is not a party to the
proceeding and is not affiliated with or represented by a party may, at
the discretion of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited
appearance pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person
making a limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of
his or her position on the issues but may not otherwise participate in
the proceeding. A limited appearance may be made at any session of the
hearing or at any prehearing conference, subject to the limits and
conditions as may be imposed by the presiding officer. Details
regarding the opportunity to make a limited appearance will be provided
by the presiding officer if such sessions are scheduled.
B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a
request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition), any
motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the
submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and
documents filed by interested governmental entities that request to
participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the
NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007, as amended at 77 FR
46562; August 3, 2012). The E-Filing process requires participants to
submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in
some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Detailed
guidance on making electronic submissions may be found in the Guidance
for Electronic Submissions to the NRC and on the NRC website at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants may not submit
paper copies of their filings 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
[[Page 50694]]
NRC's Electronic Filing Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' link
located on the NRC's public website at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by email to [email protected], or by a toll-free
call at 1-866-672-7640. The NRC Electronic Filing Help Desk is
available between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through
Friday, excluding government holidays.
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not
submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in
accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing
stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and
requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper
format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention:
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or
expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and
Adjudications Staff. Participants filing adjudicatory documents in this
manner are responsible for serving the document on all other
participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of
the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or
expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the
provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an
exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or
party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines
that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no
longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
https://adams.nrc.gov/ehd, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the
Commission or the presiding officer. If you do not have an NRC-issued
digital ID certificate as described above, click cancel when the link
requests certificates and you will be automatically directed to the
NRC's electronic hearing dockets where you will be able to access any
publicly available documents in a particular hearing docket.
Participants are requested not to include personal privacy information,
such as social security numbers, home addresses, or personal phone
numbers in their filings, unless an NRC regulation or other law
requires submission of such information. For example, in some
instances, individuals provide home addresses in order to demonstrate
proximity to a facility or site. With respect to copyrighted works,
except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory
filings and would constitute a Fair Use application, participants are
requested not to include copyrighted materials in their submission.
For further details with respect to these license amendment
application(s), 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. 50-413 and 50-414, Catawba
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 (Catawba), York County, South Carolina
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370, McGuire
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 (McGuire), Mecklenburg County, North
Carolina
Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Docket No. 50-400, Shearon Harris Nuclear
Power Plant, Unit 1 (Harris), Wake County, North Carolina
Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Docket No. 50-261, H.B. Robinson Steam
Electric Plant, Unit No. 2 (Robinson), Darlington County, South
Carolina
Date of amendment request: May 10, 2018. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18131A068.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the
Technical Specifications (TSs) for Catawba and McGuire to remove
ventilation system heaters. Specifically, ventilation system heaters
would be removed from Catawba TSs 3.6.10, ``Annulus Ventilation System
(AVS),'' 3.7.10, ``Control Room Area Ventilation System (CRAVS),''
3.7.12, ``Auxiliary Building Filtered Ventilation Exhaust System
(ABFVES),'' 3.7.13, ``Fuel Handling Ventilation Exhaust System
(FHVES),'' 3.9.3, ``Containment Penetrations,'' 5.5.11, ``Ventilation
Filter Testing Program (VFTP),'' and 5.6.6, ``Ventilation Systems
Heater Report,'' and McGuire TSs 3.6.10, ``Annulus Ventilation System
(AVS),'' 3.7.9, ``Control Room Area Ventilation System (CRAVS),''
5.5.11, ``Ventilation Filter Testing Program (VFTP),'' and 5.6.6,
``Ventilation Systems Heater Failure Report.'' The specified relative
humidity (RH) for charcoal testing in the ventilation system
Surveillance Requirement (for Harris) and Ventilation Filter Testing
Program (for Robinson) is revised from 70% to 95% and the ventilation
system heaters will be removed from the Harris TSs 3/4.7.6, ``Control
Room Emergency Filtration System,'' 3/4.7.7, ``Reactor Auxiliary
Building (RAB) Emergency Exhaust System,'' 3/4.9.12, ``Fuel Handling
Building Emergency Exhaust System,'' TSs 3.7.11, ``Fuel Building Air
Cleanup System (FBACS),'' and 5.5.11, ``Ventilation Filter Testing
Program (VFTP).'' The proposed changes are consistent with Technical
Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-522, ``Revise
Ventilation System Surveillance Requirements to Operate for 10 Hours
per Month,'' Revision 0. Additionally, an administrative error is being
corrected in McGuire's TS 5.5.11, ``Ventilation Filter Testing Program
(VFTP).''
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 affects various CNS [Catawba], MNS
[McGuire], HNP [Harris], and RNP [Robinson] ventilation system TS.
For both CNS and MNS, the proposed change removes the requirement to
test the heaters in these systems, and removes the Conditions in the
associated TS which provide Required Actions, including reporting
requirements, for inoperable heaters. In addition, the proposed
change revises the CNS Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.9.3.2 to
operate for 15 continuous minutes without heaters running. For HNP
and RNP, the proposed change removes the operability of the heaters
from the SR. In addition, the electric heater output test is
proposed to be deleted and a corresponding change in the charcoal
filter testing to be made to require the testing be conducted at a
humidity of at least 95% RH, which is more stringent than the
current testing requirement of 70% RH.
These systems are not accident initiators and therefore, these
changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability of
an accident. The proposed system and filter testing changes are
consistent with current regulatory guidance for these systems and
will continue to assure that these systems perform their design
function, which may include mitigating accidents. Thus the change
does not involve a significant increase in the consequences of an
accident.
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
[[Page 50695]]
accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change affects various CNS, MNS, HNP, and RNP
ventilation system TS. For both CNS and MNS, the proposed change
removes the requirement to test the heaters in these systems, and
removes the Conditions in the associated TS which provide Required
Actions, including reporting requirements, for inoperable heaters.
In addition, the proposed change revises the CNS Surveillance
Requirement (SR) 3.9.3.2 to operate for 15 continuous minutes
without heaters running. For HNP and RNP, the proposed change
removes the operability of the heaters from the SR. In addition, the
electric heater output test is proposed to be deleted and a
corresponding change in the charcoal filter testing to be made to
require the testing be conducted at a humidity of at least 95% RH,
which is more stringent than the current testing requirement of 70%
RH.
The change proposed for these ventilation systems do not change
any system operations or maintenance activities. Testing
requirements will be revised and will continue to demonstrate that
the Limiting Conditions for Operation are met and the system
components are capable of performing their intended safety
functions. The change does not create new failure modes or
mechanisms and no new accident precursors are generated.
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 affects various CNS, MNS, HNP, and RNP
ventilation system TS. For both CNS and MNS, the proposed change
removes the requirement to test the heaters in these systems, and
removes the Conditions in the associated TS which provide Required
Actions, including reporting requirements, for inoperable heaters.
In addition, the proposed change revises the CNS Surveillance
Requirement (SR) 3.9.3.2 to operate for 15 continuous minutes
without heaters running. For HNP and RNP, the proposed change
removes the operability of the heaters from the SR. In addition, the
electric heater output test is proposed to be deleted and a
corresponding change in the charcoal filter testing to be made to
require the testing be conducted at a humidity of at least 95% RH,
which is more stringent than the current testing requirement of 70%
RH.
The proposed increase to 95% RH in the required testing of the
charcoal filters for HNP and RNP, compensates for the function of
the heaters, which was to reduce the humidity of the incoming air to
below the currently-specified value of 70% RH for the charcoal. The
proposed change is consistent with regulatory guidance and continues
to ensure that the performance of the charcoal filters is
acceptable.
The CNS and MNS ventilation systems are tested at 95% relative
humidity, and, therefore, do not require heaters to heat the
incoming air and reduce the relative humidity. The proposed change
eliminates Technical Specification requirements for testing of
heater operation, and removes administrative actions for heater
inoperability.
The proposed changes are consistent with the regulatory guidance
and 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: Kathryn B. Nolan, Deputy General Counsel,
Duke Energy Corporation, 550 South Tryon Street, Mail Code DEC45A,
Charlotte, NC 28202.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael Markley.
Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-325 and 50-324, Brunswick
Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, Brunswick County, North Carolina
Date of amendment request: August 14, 2018. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18227A535.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would adopt
Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-439,
``Eliminate Second Completion Times Limiting Time from Discovery of
Failure to Meet an LCO [Limiting Condition of Operation].'' The
proposed change deletes second Completion Times from the affected
Required Actions contained in the Technical Specifications (TSs), along
with removing the example contained in TS Section 1.3, and adding a
discussion about alternating between Conditions.
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 eliminates second Completion Times from the
Technical Specifications. Completion Times are not an initiator to
any accident previously evaluated. 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 probability and consequences of an accident
previously evaluated are not affected by this change. The proposed
change does not alter or prevent the ability of systems, structures,
and components (SSCs) 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 change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration to
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 will not alter the design function,
nor create new failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident
initiators for the equipment related to the TS being altered.
Thus, based on the above, this change does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from an accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change 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 limited 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 change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
requested amendments involve no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Kathryn B. Nolan, Deputy General Counsel,
550 South Tryon Street, M/C DEC45A, Charlotte, NC 28202.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Booma Venkataraman.
[[Page 50696]]
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-317 and 50-318, Calvert
Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Calvert County, Maryland
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. 50-220 and 50-410, Nine
Mile Point Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Oswego County, New York
Date of amendment request: August 31, 2018. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18249A096.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the
emergency response organization (ERO) positions identified in the
emergency plan for each site.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration for each site, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to the [site] Emergency Plan do not
increase the probability or consequences of an accident. The
proposed changes do not impact the function of plant Structures,
Systems, or Components (SSCs). The proposed changes do not affect
accident initiators or accident precursors, nor do the changes alter
design assumptions. The proposed changes do not alter or prevent the
ability of the onsite ERO to perform their intended functions to
mitigate the consequences of an accident or event. The proposed
changes remove ERO positions no longer credited or considered
necessary in support of Emergency Plan implementation.
Therefore, the proposed changes to the [site] Emergency Plan do
not involve a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes have no impact on the design, function, or
operation of any plant SSCs. The proposed changes do not affect
plant equipment or accident analyses. The proposed changes do not
involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or
different type of equipment will be installed), a change in the
method of plant operation, or new operator actions. The proposed
changes do not introduce failure modes that could result in a new
accident, and the proposed changes do not alter assumptions made in
the safety analysis. The proposed changes remove ERO positions no
longer credited or considered necessary in support of Emergency Plan
implementation.
Therefore, the proposed changes to the [site] Emergency Plan do
not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident
from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
Margin of safety is associated with confidence in the ability of
the fission product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, reactor coolant
system pressure boundary, and containment structure) to limit the
level of radiation dose to the public.
The proposed changes do not adversely affect existing plant
safety margins or the reliability of the equipment assumed to
operate in the safety analyses. There are no changes being made to
safety analysis assumptions, safety limits, or limiting safety
system settings that would adversely affect plant safety as a result
of the proposed changes. Margins of safety are unaffected by the
proposed changes to the ERO staffing. The proposed changes are
associated with the [site] Emergency Plan staffing and do not impact
operation of the plant or its response to transients or accidents.
The proposed changes do not affect the Technical Specifications. The
proposed changes do not involve a change in the method of plant
operation, and no accident analyses will be affected by the proposed
changes. Safety analysis acceptance criteria are not affected by
these proposed changes. The proposed changes to the Emergency Plan
will continue to provide the necessary onsite ERO response staff.
Therefore, the proposed changes to the [site] Emergency Plan do
not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis for each site
and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10
CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to
determine that the requested amendments involve no significant hazards
consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel,
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL
60555.
NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.
Florida Power & Light Company, et al., Docket No. 50-389, St. Lucie
Plant (St. Lucie), Unit No. 2, St. Lucie County, Florida
Date of amendment request: June 29, 2018, as supplemented by letter
dated August 17, 2018. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS under
Accession Nos. ML18180A094 and ML18229A050, respectively.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the
Technical Specifications (TSs) by reducing the total number of control
element assemblies (CEAs) specified in the TSs from 91 to 87.
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.
A change is proposed in this License Amendment Request [(LAR)]
to eliminate all four 4-element Control Element Assemblies (CEAs)
currently used in the reactor core. These CEAs are part of 22 CEAs
comprising the Shutdown Bank A. CEAs are required to provide
sufficient shutdown margin during accident conditions. Removing
these four CEAs does not have any adverse impact on the probability
of these accidents, even for events were [sic] CEAs may be the
accident initiator (e.g., CEA withdrawal, CEA drop, CEA ejection).
On the contrary, for single CEA events the probability may even
decrease since the number of chances for an event to occur will
decrease with a lesser number of CEAs available. Also, since the
Core Operating Limits Report (COLR) shutdown margin requirements
will continue to be met, the accident analysis limits will not be
challenged, so the consequences of previously evaluated accidents
will remain unaffected.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
A change is proposed in this LAR to eliminate all four 4-element
CEAs currently used in the St. Lucie Unit 2 core, reducing the
number of CEAs in the core from 91 down to 87. With the proposed
changes, no new or different type of equipment will be installed.
The proposed change will not introduce credible new failure
mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident initiators not considered in
the design and/or licensing bases. As a result, the removal of the
4-element CEAs does not introduce a mechanism for creating 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 previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
A change is proposed in this LAR to eliminate all four 4-element
CEAs currently used in the St. Lucie Unit 2 core. This constitutes a
very small reduction of CEA worth available for shutdown margin, but
will not affect the minimum shutdown margin requirement as used in
the accident
[[Page 50697]]
analysis. Thus, this will not translate into a significant reduction
in a margin of safety.
The margin of safety is established through the core design
limits defined in the COLR, in addition to the equipment design,
operating parameters, and the setpoints at which automatic actions
are initiated for accident conditions. The proposed changes will not
adversely affect operation of plant equipment. These changes will
not result in a change to the setpoints at which protective actions
are initiated. The response of the plant systems to accidents and
transients design limits reported in the Updated Final Safety
Analysis Report (UFSAR) is unaffected by this change as nuclear
design and fuel management will ensure that the COLR specified
shutdown margin requirements are met. The change does not exceed or
alter a design basis or safety limit in the UFSAR or the license.
Therefore, accident analysis acceptance criteria are not affected.
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.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-
026, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4, Burke County,
Georgia
Date of amendment request: August 27, 2018. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18239A375.
Description of amendment request: The requested amendment proposes
to depart from information in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report
(UFSAR) (which includes the plant-specific Design Control Document Tier
2 information) and involves related changes to plant-specific Tier 1
information, with corresponding changes to the associated Combined
License (COL) Appendix C information. Specifically, the requested
amendment would revise the COL and licensing basis documents to add
vent lines to the piping between the passive core cooling system (PXS)
collection boxes and in-containment refueling water storage tank
(IRWST) to remove entrained air and improve the drain line flow rates.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes modify the PXS drain lines to add vent
lines to the piping between the PXS collection boxes and IRWST to
remove entrained air and improve drain line flow rates, the
corresponding ITAAC [inspections, tests, analyses, and acceptance
criteria] is modified to reflect this design change. The proposed
changes do not have any adverse effects on the design functions of
the PXS. The probabilities of accidents evaluated in the UFSAR are
not affected.
The changes do not adversely impact the support, design, or
operation of mechanical and fluid systems. The changes do not impact
the support, design, or operation of any safety-related structures.
There is no adverse change to the plant systems or response of the
systems to postulated accident conditions. There is no change to the
predicted radioactive releases due to normal operation or postulated
accident conditions. The plant response to previously evaluated
accidents or external events is not adversely affected, nor do the
proposed changes create any new accident precursors.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes modify the PXS drain lines to add vent
lines to the piping between the PXS collection boxes and IRWST to
remove entrained air and improve drain line flow rates, the
corresponding ITAAC is modified to reflect this design change. The
proposed changes do not have any adverse effects on the design
functions of the PXS, the structures or systems in which the PXS is
used, or any other systems, structures, and components (SSCs) design
functions or methods of operation that result in a new failure mode,
malfunction, or sequence of events that affect safety-related or
non-safety related equipment. This activity does not allow for a new
fission product release path, [does not] result in a new fission
product barrier [failure mode] mode, or create a new sequence of
events that result in a significant fuel cladding failure.
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 a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes modify the PXS drain lines to add vent
lines to the piping between the PXS collection boxes and IRWST to
remove entrained air and improve drain line flow rates, the
corresponding ITAAC is modified to reflect this design change.
The proposed changes do not have any adverse effects on the
design functions of the PXS.
No safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is
challenged or exceeded by these changes. Therefore, the proposed
changes do not involve a significant reduction in the margin of
safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
requested amendments involve no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Mr. M. Stanford Blanton, Balch & Bingham
LLP, 1710 Sixth Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203-2015.
NRC Branch Chief: Jennifer Dixon-Herrity.
Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-280 and 50-281,
Surry Power Station (Surry), Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Surry County, Virginia
Date of amendment request: July 31, 2018. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18218A170.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the
Technical Specifications (TSs) for Facility Operating License Numbers
DRP-32 and DRP-37 for Surry, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, respectively. The
proposed license amendment request (LAR) replaces the current Small
Break Loss of Coolant Accident (SBLOCA) methodologies contained in the
TS list of NRC-approved methodologies for determining core operating
limits with a new SBLOCA methodology. Specifically, the proposed LAR
adds the Framatome Topical Report EMF-2328(P)(A), ``PWR [Pressurized-
Water Reactor] Small Break LOCA Evaluation Model S-RELAP5 Based,'' as
supplemented by the Surry-specific application report ANP-3676P,
``Surry Fuel-Vendor Independent Small Break LOCA Analysis,'' to the
list of methodologies approved for reference in the Core Operating
Limits Report (COLR) in TS 6.2.C. This reference replaces two existing
COLR references for the current Westinghouse SBLOCA Evaluation Model.
The added reference identifies the analytical methods used to determine
core operating limits for the SBLOCA event described in the Surry
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR), Section 14.5.2.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination:
[[Page 50698]]
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 to TS 6.2.C permits the use of an NRC-
approved methodology for analysis of the Small Break Loss of Coolant
Accident (SBLOCA) to determine if Surry Power Station (Surry) Units
1 and 2 continue to meet the applicable design and safety analysis
acceptance criteria. The proposed change to the list of NRC-approved
methodologies in TS 6.2.C has no direct impact upon plant operation
or configuration. The list of methodologies in TS 6.2.C does not
impact either the initiation of an accident or the mitigation of its
consequences. The results of the revised SBLOCA transient analysis
and existing pre-transient oxidation limits demonstrate that Surry
Units 1 and 2 continue to satisfy the 10 CFR 50.46(b)(1-3) Emergency
Core Cooling System performance acceptance criteria using an NRC-
approved evaluation model.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change will not create the possibility of a new or
different accident due to credible new failure mechanisms,
malfunctions, or accident initiators not previously considered.
There is no change to the parameters within which the plant is
normally operated and no physical plant modifications are being
made; thus, the possibility of a new or different type of accident
is not created.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
No design basis or safety limits are exceeded or altered by this
change. Approved methodologies have been used to ensure that the
plant continues to meet applicable design criteria and safety
analysis acceptance criteria.
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: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion
Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar St., RS-2, Richmond, VA 23219.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
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.
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.
South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, South Carolina Public Service
Authority, Docket No. 50-395, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station
(Summer), Unit No. 1, Fairfield County, South Carolina
Date of amendment request: August 24, 2018, as supplemented by
letter dated August 31, 2018.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the
Summer, Unit No. 1, Technical Specifications (TS) for a one-time
extension to the TS surveillance requirement of channel calibrations of
the Core Exit Temperature Instrumentation. The surveillance requirement
of TS 4.3.3.6 will be revised to allow a one-time extension of the
frequency of the Core Exit Temperature Instrumentation Channel
Calibrations from ``every refueling outage,'' which has been
interpreted as 18 months, to ``every 19 months.''
Date of publication of individual notice in Federal Register:
September 10, 2018 (83 FR 45688).
Expiration date of individual notice: September 23, 2018 (public
comments); November 9, 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: October 9, 2017.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the technical
specification (TS) requirements in TS 3.10.1, ``Inservice Leak and
Hydrostatic Testing Operation,'' by adopting Technical Specification
Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-484, Revision 0, ``Use of TS 3.10.1 for
Scram Time Testing Activities.'' Specifically, the proposed changes
revised the Limiting Condition for Operation 3.10.1 to expand its scope
to include provisions for temperature excursions greater than 200
degrees Fahrenheit as a consequence of maintaining pressure for
inservice leak and hydrostatic testing, and as a consequence of
maintaining pressure for scram time testing initiated in conjunction
with an inservice leak or
[[Page 50699]]
hydrostatic test, while considering operational conditions to be in
Mode 4.
Date of issuance: September 13, 2018.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 210. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML18165A202; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-43: The amendment
revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and TS.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 27, 2018 (83
FR 8509).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments contained in
a Safety Evaluation dated September 13, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
DTE Electric Company, Docket No. 50-341, Fermi 2, Monroe County,
Michigan
Date of amendment request: August 31, 2017, as supplemented by
letters dated April 4, May 17, June 27, and August 7, 2018.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment replaced the existing
technical specification requirements related to ``operations with a
potential for draining the reactor vessel,'' with new requirements on
reactor pressure vessel water inventory control to protect Technical
Specification Safety Limit 2.1.1.3, which requires the reactor vessel
water level to be greater than the top of active irradiated fuel.
Date of issuance: September 17, 2018.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 120 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 211. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML18247A452; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-43: The amendment
revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical
Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 7, 2017 (82 FR
51649). The supplemental letters dated April 4, May 17, June 27, and
August 7, 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 amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 17, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
DTE Electric Company, Docket No. 50-341, Fermi 2, Monroe County,
Michigan
Date of amendment request: August 24, 2017, as supplemented by
letters dated October 18, 2017, February 21 and February 27, 2018.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment eliminated the main
steam line radiation monitor (MSLRM) functions for initiating a reactor
protection system automatic reactor trip and automatic closure of the
main steam isolation valves and main steam line drain valves for the
associated (Group 1) primary containment isolation system (PCIS).
Specifically, it removed requirements for the MSLRM trip function from
Technical Specification (TS) Table 3.3.1.1-1, ``Reactor Protection
System Instrumentation.'' The amendment also removed requirements for
PCIS Group 1 isolation from TS Table 3.3.6.1-1, ``Primary Containment
Isolation Instrumentation,'' and the MSLRM isolation function is
relocated and retained for the current existing PCIS Group 2 isolation
of the reactor water sample line.
Date of issuance: September 20, 2018.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
during the next refueling outage following approval.
Amendment No.: 212. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML18250A163; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-43: The amendment
revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 2, 2018 (83 FR
164). The supplemental letters dated October 18, 2017, February 21 and
February 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 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 September 20, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Docket No. 50-261, H.B. Robinson Steam
Electric Plant, Unit No. 2, Darlington County, South Carolina
Date of amendment request: September 27, 2017, as supplemented by
letters dated May 16, July 11, and August 1, 2018.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical
Specifications to reflect the addition of a second qualified offsite
power circuit. In addition, the amendment authorized changing the
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report to allow for the use of automatic
load tap changers on the new (230 kilovolt (kV)) and the replacement
(115 kV) startup transformers.
Date of issuance: September 10, 2018.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
by the end of the next refueling outage.
Amendment No.: 261. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML18228A584; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-23: The amendment
revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical
Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 5, 2017 (82 FR
57471). The supplemental letters dated May 16, July 11, and August 1,
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 September 10, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon FitzPatrick, LLC and Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No.
50-333, James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant, Oswego County, New
York
Date of amendment request: May 17, 2018.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical
Specification (TS) 2.1.1, ``Reactor Core SLs [Safety Limits],'' to
change Cycle 24 Safety Limit Minimum Critical Power Ratio (SLMCPR)
numeric values. Specifically, the amendment modified the TS to decrease
the numeric values of SLMCPR for Fitzpatrick from >= 1.10 to >= 1.07
for two recirculation loop operation and from >= 1.13 to >= 1.09 for
single recirculation loop operation.
[[Page 50700]]
Date of issuance: September 19, 2018.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
prior to startup from the fall 2018 refueling outage.
Amendment No.: 322. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML18214A706; 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 TS.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 13, 2018 (83 FR
32692).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 19, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Florida Power & Light Company, Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251, Turkey
Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 3 and 4, Miami-Dade County, Florida
Date of amendment request: August 23, 2017, as supplemented by
letters dated October 19, 2017, and March 27, 2018.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the
Technical Specifications by relocating the explosive gas monitoring
instrumentation, explosive gas mixture, and gas decay tanks system
requirements to licensee-controlled documents and establishing a gas
decay tank explosive gas and radioactivity monitoring program. The
amendments also relocated the standby feedwater system requirements to
licensee-controlled documents and modified related auxiliary feedwater
system requirements.
Date of issuance: September 11, 2018.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 282 (Unit No. 3) and 276 (Unit No. 4). A publicly-
available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18214A125;
documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety
Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-31 and DPR-41: The
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 21, 2017 (82
FR 55406). The supplemental letter dated March 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 September 11, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation, Docket No. 50-482, Wolf Creek
Generating Station, Unit 1 (WCGS), Coffey County, Kansas
Date of amendment request: June 28, 2017, as supplemented by
letters dated February 15, May 29, June 20, and August 30, 2018.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment added new Technical
Specification (TS) 3.7.20, ``Class 1E Electrical Equipment Air
Conditioning (A/C) System,'' to the WCGS TSs. New TS 3.7.20 includes
(1) a limiting condition for operation (LCO) statement, (2) an
Applicability statement, during which the LCO must be met, (3) ACTIONS
to be applied when the LCO is not met, including Conditions, Required
Actions, and Completion Times, and (4) Surveillance Requirements with a
specified Frequency to demonstrate that the LCO is met for the Class 1E
Electrical Equipment A/C System trains at WCGS. Additionally, the Table
of Contents is also revised to reflect the incorporation of new TS
3.7.20.
Date of issuance: September 11, 2018.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 219. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML18219A564; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-42: The amendment
revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical
Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 3, 2017 (82 FR
46099). The supplemental letters dated February 15, May 29, June 20,
and August 30, 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 September 11, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 1st day of October, 2018.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Gregory F. Suber,
Acting Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of
Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2018-21669 Filed 10-5-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P