[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 215 (Tuesday, November 6, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55568-55578]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-23782]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2018-0246]
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 October 6, 2018, to October 22, 2018. The
last biweekly notice was published on October 23, 2018.
DATES: Comments must be filed by December 6, 2018. A request for a
hearing must be filed by January 7, 2019.
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-2018-0246. 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-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: Paula Blechman, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2242, email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments
A. Obtaining Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2018-0246 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-2018-0246.
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-2018-0246 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.
[[Page 55569]]
II. Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility
Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses and Proposed No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under
the Commission's regulations in section 50.92 of title 10 of the Code
of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), this means that operation of the
facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1)
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated;
or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis
for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown
below.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final
determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period if circumstances change during the 30-day comment
period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for
example in derating or shutdown of the facility. If the Commission
takes action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or
the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a notice of
issuance. If the Commission makes a final no significant hazards
consideration determination, any hearing will take place after
issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will
occur very infrequently.
A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing and Petition for Leave To Intervene
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any
persons (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by this action may
file a request for a hearing and petition for leave to intervene
(petition) with respect to the action. Petitions shall be filed in
accordance with the Commission's ``Agency Rules of Practice and
Procedure'' in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult a
current copy of 10 CFR 2.309. The NRC's regulations are accessible
electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's website at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. Alternatively, a copy of
the regulations is available at the NRC's Public Document Room, located
at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (First
Floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. If a petition is filed, the
Commission or a presiding officer will rule on the petition and, if
appropriate, a notice of a hearing will be issued.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309(d) the petition should specifically
explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with
particular reference to the following general requirements for
standing: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the
petitioner; (2) the nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to
be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the
petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding;
and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be
entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f), the petition must also set
forth the specific contentions which the petitioner seeks to have
litigated in the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific
statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In
addition, the petitioner must provide a brief explanation of the bases
for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or
expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner
intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The
petitioner must also provide references to the specific sources and
documents on which the petitioner intends to rely to support its
position on the issue. The petition must include sufficient information
to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant or licensee on
a material issue of law or fact. Contentions must be limited to matters
within the scope of 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
[[Page 55570]]
its boundaries. Alternatively, a State, local governmental body,
Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof may participate as
a non-party under 10 CFR 2.315(c).
If a hearing is granted, any person who is not a party to the
proceeding and is not affiliated with or represented by a party may, at
the discretion of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited
appearance pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person
making a limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of
his or her position on the issues but may not otherwise participate in
the proceeding. A limited appearance may be made at any session of the
hearing or at any prehearing conference, subject to the limits and
conditions as may be imposed by the presiding officer. Details
regarding the opportunity to make a limited appearance will be provided
by the presiding officer if such sessions are scheduled.
B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a
request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition), any
motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the
submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and
documents filed by interested governmental entities that request to
participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the
NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007, as amended at 77 FR
46562; August 3, 2012). The E-Filing process requires participants to
submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in
some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Detailed
guidance on making electronic submissions may be found in the Guidance
for Electronic Submissions to the NRC and on the NRC website at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants may not submit
paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in
accordance with the procedures described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10
days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the
Office of the Secretary by email at [email protected], or by
telephone at 301-415-1677, to (1) request a digital identification (ID)
certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or
representative) to digitally sign submissions and access the E-Filing
system for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise
the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a petition or
other adjudicatory document (even in instances in which the
participant, or its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-
issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the
Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the hearing in this
proceeding if the Secretary has not already established an electronic
docket.
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is
available on the NRC's public website at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/getting-started.html. Once a participant has obtained a
digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant
can then submit adjudicatory documents. Submissions must be in Portable
Document Format (PDF). Additional guidance on PDF submissions is
available on the NRC's public website at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/electronic-sub-ref-mat.html. A filing is considered complete at the
time the document is submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be
timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system
no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of
a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends
the submitter an email notice confirming receipt of the document. The
E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access
to the document to the NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any
others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to
participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the
document on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and
other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for
and receive a digital ID certificate before adjudicatory documents are
filed so that they can obtain access to the documents via the E-Filing
system.
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-
Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC's Electronic
Filing Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC's
public website at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by
email to [email protected], or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-
7640. The NRC Electronic Filing Help Desk is available between 9 a.m.
and 6 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government
holidays.
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not
submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in
accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing
stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and
requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper
format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention:
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or
expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and
Adjudications Staff. Participants filing adjudicatory documents in this
manner are responsible for serving the document on all other
participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of
the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or
expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the
provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an
exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or
party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines
that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no
longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
https://adams.nrc.gov/ehd, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the
Commission or the presiding officer. If you do not have an NRC-issued
digital ID certificate as described above, click cancel when the link
requests certificates and you will be automatically directed to the
NRC's electronic hearing dockets where you will be able to access any
publicly available documents in a particular hearing docket.
Participants are requested not to include personal privacy information,
such as social security numbers, home addresses, or personal phone
numbers in their filings, unless an NRC regulation or other law
requires submission of such information. For example, in some
instances, individuals provide home addresses in order to demonstrate
proximity to a facility or site. With respect to copyrighted works,
except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory
filings and would constitute a Fair Use application, participants are
requested not to include copyrighted materials in their submission.
For further details with respect to these license amendment
applications, see the application for amendment which is available for
public inspection in ADAMS and at the NRC's PDR. For additional
direction on accessing
[[Page 55571]]
information related to this document, see the ``Obtaining Information
and Submitting Comments'' section of this document.
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 30, 2018. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18242A395.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would add
new Required Actions (RAs) and Completion Times (CTs) for three
inoperable Control Room air conditioning (AC) subsystems to Technical
Specification (TS) 3.7.4, ``Control Room Air Conditioning (AC)
System.''
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 does not involve a physical alteration of
the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be
installed). The proposed change adds new RAs and CTs for three
inoperable Control Room AC subsystems. The equipment qualification
temperature of the control room equipment is not affected. Future
changes to the Bases or licensee-controlled document will be
evaluated pursuant to the requirements of 10 CFR 50.59, Changes,
tests and experiments, to ensure that such changes do not result in
more than a minimal increase in the probability or consequences of
an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed change does not adversely affect accident
initiators or precursors nor alter the design assumptions,
conditions, and configuration of the facility or the way the plant
is operated and maintained. The proposed change does not adversely
affect the ability of structures, systems and components (SSCs) to
perform their intended safety function to mitigate the consequences
of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits. The
proposed change does not affect the source term, containment
isolation, or radiological consequences of any accident previously
evaluated. Further, the proposed change does not increase the types
and the amounts of radioactive effluent that may be released, nor
significantly increase individual or cumulative occupation/public
radiation exposures.
Therefore, the proposed amendments do not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change adds new RAs and CTs for three inoperable
Control Room AC subsystems. The change does not involve a physical
altering of the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment
will be installed) or a change in methods governing normal plant
operation. The proposed TSs continue to require maintaining the
control room temperature within the design limits.
Therefore, the proposed amendments do not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change adds new RAs and CTs for three inoperable
Control Room AC subsystems. Instituting the proposed change will
continue to maintain the control room temperature within design
limits. Changes to the Bases or licensee-controlled document are
performed in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59. This approach provides an
effective level of regulatory control and ensures that the control
room temperature will be maintained within design limits.
Therefore, the proposed amendments do not result in a
significant reduction in the margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Kathryn B. Nolan, Deputy General Counsel,
550 South Tryon Street, M/C DEC45A, Charlotte, NC 28202.
NRC Branch Chief: Undine Shoop.
Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Docket No. 50-400, Shearon Harris Nuclear
Power Plant, Unit 1 (HNP), Wake and Chatham Counties, North Carolina
Date of amendment request: August 13, 2018. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18226A022.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the
Emergency Plan Emergency Action Level (EAL) scheme for HNP associated
with the fission product barrier degradation EAL thresholds, and the
cold shutdown/refueling system malfunction EAL thresholds.
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 affect the HNP Emergency Plan EAL scheme
and do not alter any of the requirements of the Operating License or
the Technical Specifications. The proposed changes do not reduce the
effectiveness of the HNP Emergency Plan or the HNP Emergency
Response Organization. The proposed changes do not modify any plant
equipment and do not impact any failure modes that could lead to an
accident. Additionally, the proposed changes do not impact the
consequence of any analyzed accident since the changes do not affect
any equipment related to accident mitigation. Based on this
discussion, the proposed amendment does not 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?
Response: No.
The proposed changes affect the HNP Emergency Plan EAL scheme
and do not alter any of the requirements of the Operating License or
the Technical Specifications. These changes do not modify any plant
equipment and there is no impact on the capability of the existing
equipment to perform their intended functions. No new failure modes
are introduced by the proposed changes. The proposed amendment does
not introduce any accident initiator or malfunctions that would
cause a new or different kind of accident. 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.
These changes affect the HNP Emergency Plan EAL scheme and do
not alter any of the requirements of the Operating License or the
Technical Specifications. The proposed changes do not affect any of
the assumptions used in the accident analysis, nor do they affect
any operability requirements for equipment important to plant
safety. Therefore, the proposed changes will not result in a
significant reduction in the margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: David Cummings, Associate General Counsel,
Duke Energy Corporation, 550 South Tryon St., M/C DEC45A, Charlotte, NC
28202.
NRC Branch Chief: Undine Shoop.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-293, Pilgrim Nuclear
[[Page 55572]]
Power Station (PNPS), Plymouth County, Massachusetts
Date of amendment request: August 1, 2018. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18218A184.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the
PNPS Emergency Plan and Emergency Action Level (EAL) scheme to support
a permanently shutdown and defueled condition at PNPS.
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 to the PNPS Emergency Plan and EAL scheme
do not impact the function of facility structures, systems, or
components. The proposed changes do not affect accident initiators
or precursors, nor do they alter design assumptions that could
increase the probability or consequences of previously evaluated
accidents. The proposed changes do not prevent the ability of the
on-shift staff and emergency response organization to perform their
intended functions to mitigate the consequences of any accident or
event that will be credible in the permanently defueled condition.
The probability of occurrence of previously evaluated accidents
is not increased because most previously analyzed accidents can no
longer occur and the probability of the few remaining credible
accidents are unaffected by the proposed amendment.
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 reduce the scope of the PNPS Emergency Plan
and EAL scheme commensurate with the hazards associated with a
permanently shut down and defueled facility. The proposed changes do
not involve installation of new equipment or modification of
existing equipment that could create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident. Also, the proposed changes do not result
in a change to the way that the equipment or facility is operated so
that no new or different kinds of accident initiators are created.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed 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 are
associated with the PNPS Emergency Plan and EAL scheme and do not
impact operation of the facility or its response to transients or
accidents. The change does not affect the Technical Specifications.
The proposed changes do not involve a change in the method of
facility operation, and no accident analyses will be affected by the
proposed changes. Safety analysis acceptance criteria are not
affected by the proposed changes. The revised Emergency Plan will
continue to provide the necessary response staff commensurate with
the reduction in consequences of radiological events that will be
possible at PNPS when the facility is in the permanently defueled
condition and therefore, there is no reduction in the margin of
safety.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
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: Susan H. Raimo, Senior Counsel, Entergy
Services, Inc., 101 Constitution Avenue NW, Suite 200 East, Washington,
DC 20001.
NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-293, Pilgrim Nuclear
Power Station (PNPS), Plymouth County, Massachusetts
Date of amendment request: September 13, 2018. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18260A085.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the
Renewed Facility Operating License (RFOL) and the associated Technical
Specifications (TSs) to Permanently Defueled Technical Specifications
consistent for a facility in a permanently shutdown and defueled
condition. The amendment would revise certain requirements contained
within the RFOL and TS and remove the requirements that would no longer
be applicable upon docketing the certification of permanent fuel
removal from the reactor vessel at PNPS. The amendment would also make
administrative and editorial changes, such as renumbering of pages,
where appropriate, and condense and reduce the number of pages.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment would not take effect until PNPS has
permanently ceased operation, entered a permanently defueled
condition, and met the decay requirements established in the
analysis of the Fuel Handling Accident (FHA). The proposed amendment
would modify the PNPS [RF]OL and TS by deleting the portions of the
OL and TS that are no longer applicable to a permanently defueled
facility, while modifying the other sections to correspond to the
permanently defueled condition. This change is consistent with the
criteria set forth in 10 CFR 50.36 for the contents of TS.
Section 14 of the PNPS Updated Final Safety Analysis Report
(UFSAR) describes the design basis accident (DBA) and transient
scenarios applicable to PNPS during power operations. After the
reactor is in a permanently defueled condition, the spent fuel pool
(SFP) and its cooling systems will be dedicated only to spent fuel
storage. In this condition, the spectrum of credible accidents will
be much smaller than for an operational plant. After the
certifications are docketed for PNPS in accordance with 10 CFR
50.82(a)(1), and the consequent removal of authorization to operate
the reactor or to [em]place or retain fuel in the reactor vessel in
accordance with 10 CFR 50.82(a)(2), the majority of the accident
scenarios previously postulated in the UFSAR will no longer be
possible and will be removed from the UFSAR under the provisions of
10 CFR 50.59.
The deletion of TS definitions and rules of usage and
application requirements that will not be applicable in a defueled
condition has no impact on facility structures, systems, and
components (SSCs) or the methods of operation of such SSCs. The
deletion of design features and safety limits not applicable to the
permanently shut down and defueled status of PNPS has no impact on
the remaining applicable DBAs, i.e., the FHA and the radioactive
waste handling accident (High Integrity Container (HIC) Drop Event).
The removal of LCOs [limiting conditions of operations] or SRs
[surveillance requirements] that are related only to the operation
of the nuclear reactor or only to the prevention, diagnosis, or
mitigation of reactor-related transients or accidents do not affect
the applicable DBAs previously evaluated since these DBAs are no
longer applicable in the permanently defueled condition. The safety
functions involving core reactivity control, reactor heat removal,
reactor coolant system inventory control, and containment integrity
are no longer applicable at PNPS as a permanently shut down and
defueled facility. The analyzed accidents involving damage to the
reactor
[[Page 55573]]
coolant system, main steam lines, reactor core, and the subsequent
release of radioactive material will no longer be possible at PNPS.
After PNPS permanently ceases operation, the future generation
of fission products will cease and the remaining source term will
decay. The radioactive decay of the irradiated fuel following shut
down of the reactor will have reduced the consequences of the FHA
below those previously analyzed.
The SFP water level and fuel storage TSs are retained to
preserve the current requirements for safe storage of irradiated
fuel. SFP cooling and makeup related equipment and support equipment
(e.g., electrical power systems) are not required to be continuously
available since there will be sufficient time to effect repairs,
establish alternate sources of makeup flow, or establish alternate
sources of cooling in the event of a loss of cooling and makeup flow
to the SFP.
The deletion and modification of provisions of the
administrative controls do not directly affect the design of SSCs
necessary for safe storage of irradiated fuel or the methods used
for handling and storage of such fuel in the fuel pool. The changes
to the administrative controls do not affect any accidents
applicable to the safe management of irradiated fuel or the
permanently shut down and defueled condition of the reactor.
The probability of occurrence of previously evaluated accidents
is not increased, since extended operation in a defueled condition
will be the only operation allowed, and therefore bounded by the
existing analyses. Additionally, the occurrence of postulated
accidents associated with reactor operation will no longer be
credible in a permanently defueled reactor. This significantly
reduces the scope of applicable accidents.
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 to the PNPS OL and TSs have no impact on
facility SSCs affecting the safe storage of irradiated fuel, or on
the methods of operation of such SSCs, or on the handling and
storage of irradiated fuel itself. The removal of TS that are
related only to the operation of the nuclear reactor or only to the
prevention, diagnosis, or mitigation of reactor-related transients
or accidents, cannot result in different or more adverse failure
modes or accidents than previously evaluated because the reactor
will be permanently shut down and defueled and PNPS will no longer
be authorized to operate the reactor.
The proposed deletion of requirements of the PNPS OL and TS do
not affect systems credited in the accident analyses for the FHA or
the HIC Drop Event at PNPS. The proposed OL and TS will continue to
require proper control and monitoring of safety significant
parameters and activities.
The TS regarding SFP water level and fuel storage required is
retained to preserve the current requirements for safe storage of
irradiated fuel. The restriction on the SFP water level is fulfilled
by normal operating conditions and preserves initial conditions
assumed in the analyses of the postulated DBA.
The proposed amendment does not result in any new mechanisms
that could initiate damage to the remaining relevant safety barriers
for defueled plants (fuel cladding and spent fuel cooling). Since
extended operation in a defueled condition will be the only
operation allowed, and therefore bounded by the existing analyses,
such a condition does not create the possibility of 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.
Because the 10 CFR part 50 license for PNPS will no longer
authorize operation of the reactor or emplacement or retention of
fuel into the reactor vessel after the certifications required by 10
CFR 50.82(a)(1) are docketed for PNPS as specified in 10 CFR
50.82(a)(2), the occurrence of postulated accidents associated with
reactor operation are no longer credible. The only remaining
credible accidents are the FHA and a radioactive waste handling
accident (HIC Drop Event). The proposed amendment does not adversely
affect the inputs or assumptions of any of the design basis analyses
that impact the remaining DBAs.
The proposed changes are limited to those portions of the OL and
TS that are not related to the safe storage of irradiated fuel. The
requirements that are proposed to be revised or deleted from the
PNPS OL and TS are not credited in the existing accident analyses
for the remaining DBAs; and as such, do not contribute to the margin
of safety associated with the accident analyses. Postulated design
basis accidents involving the reactor will no longer be possible
because the reactor will be permanently shut down and defueled and
PNPS will no longer be authorized to operate the reactor.
Therefore, the proposed 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
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Susan H. Raimo, Senior Counsel, Entergy
Services, Inc., 101 Constitution Avenue NW, Suite 200 East, Washington,
DC 20001.
NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. STN 50-455, Byron Station,
Unit No. 2, Ogle County, Illinois
Date of amendment request: March 8, 2018. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18067A431.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would add a License
Condition to the Byron Station, Unit No. 2, Renewed Facility Operating
License, Appendix C, ``Additional Conditions,'' that authorizes use of
two lead test assemblies (LTAs) containing a limited number of accident
tolerant fuel (ATF) lead test rods (LTRs) during Byron, Unit No. 2,
Refueling Cycles 22, 23, and 24.
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 involves only a very small number of LTRs,
which will be conservatively designed from a neutronic standpoint,
and are thermal-hydraulically and mechanically compatible with all
plant Systems, Structures and Components (SSCs). The fuel pellets
and fuel rods themselves will have no impact on accident initiators
or precursors. There will not be a significant impact on the
operation of any plant SSC or on the progression of any operational
transient or design basis accident. There will be no impact on any
procedure or administrative control designed to prevent or mitigate
any accident.
The Westinghouse Encore[supreg] and ADOPTTM (with and
without chromium-coated cladding) LTAs are of the same design as the
co-resident fuel in the core, with the exception of containing a
limited number of LTRs in place of the standard fuel rods. The LTAs
will be placed in nonlimiting core locations. The Byron Station,
Unit 2, [Refueling] Cycle, 22, 23 and 24 reload designs will meet
all applicable design criteria. Evaluations of the LTAs will be
performed as part of the [refueling] cycle specific reload safety
analysis to confirm that the acceptance criteria of the existing
safety analyses will continue to be met. Operation of the
Westinghouse Encore[supreg] and ADOPTTM fuel will not
significantly increase the predicted radiological consequences of
accidents currently postulated in the Updated Final Safety Analysis
Report.
Based on the above discussion, 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 previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change involves the use of a very small number of
LTRs in two LTAs which are very similar in all aspects to the co-
resident fuel, as noted in Question 1. The proposed change does not
change the design function or operation of any SSC, and does
[[Page 55574]]
not introduce any new failure mechanism, malfunction, or accident
initiator not considered in the current design and licensing bases.
The Byron Station Unit 2 reactor cores will be designed to meet
all applicable design and licensing basis criteria. Demonstrated
adherence to these standards and criteria precludes new challenges
to components and systems that could introduce a new type of
accident. The reload core designs for the [refueling] cycles in
which the Westinghouse LTAs will operate (i.e., [Refueling] Cycles
22, 23 and 24) will demonstrate that the use of the LTAs in
nonlimiting core locations is acceptable. The relevant design and
performance criteria will continue to be met and no new single
failure mechanisms will be created. The use of Westinghouse LTAs
does not involve any alteration to plant equipment or procedures
that would introduce any new or unique operational modes or accident
precursors.
Therefore, the proposed change will not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident than those previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
Operation of Byron Station Unit 2 with two Westinghouse LTAs
containing a limited number of LTRs, placed in nonlimiting core
locations, does not change the performance requirements on any
system or component such that any design criteria will be exceeded.
The current limits on core operation defined in the Byron Station
Technical Specifications will remain applicable to the subject LTAs
during [Refueling] Cycles 22, 23 and 24. Westinghouse analytical
codes and methods will be used, and supplemented as necessary using
conservative assumptions, to confirm that all applicable limits
associated with the LTAs (e.g., fuel thermal mechanical limits, core
thermal hydraulic limits, Emergency Core Cooling Systems limits,
nuclear limits such as Shutdown Margin, transient analysis limits
and accident analysis limits) remain bounded by the current analysis
of record.
To further assure no reduction in the margin of safety, the LTRs
will be designed with reduced uranium enrichment and will be placed
in non-limiting core locations as noted above. With respect to non-
fuel SSCs, there is no reduction in the margin of safety for any
safety limit, limiting safety system setting, limiting condition of
operation, instrument setpoint, or any other design parameter.
Based on this evaluation, 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: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel,
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL
60555.
NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC and PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-277
and 50-278, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station (PBAPS), Units 2 and 3,
York and Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: September 28, 2018. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18275A023.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the
PBAPS, Units 2 and 3, design and licensing basis described in the
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) to reduce the design
pressure rating of the High Pressure Service Water (HPSW) system. This
change will provide additional corrosion margin in the HPSW system pipe
wall thickness, increasing the margin of safety for the existing
piping. This one-time change would be implemented starting in the fall
of 2019 and would expire for both units on December 31, 2020.
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 HPSW system does not initiate any accidents discussed in
Chapter 14 of the PBAPS, Units 2 and 3 UFSAR. A shutdown cooling
(RHR [residual heat removal] system) malfunction leading to a
moderator temperature decrease could result from mis-operation of
the cooling water controls for the RHR heat exchangers, as described
in UFSAR Section 14.5.2.4. The resulting temperature decrease causes
a slow insertion of positive reactivity into the core. However, the
proposed change to the HPSW system design pressure will not affect
the initiator for this accident. The proposed reduction of the HPSW
system design pressure has been evaluated for effects on system
piping and components using appropriate codes and standards. The
proposed changes do not introduce any failure mechanisms that would
initiate a previously analyzed accident. The HPSW and RHR systems
remain capable of performing their UFSAR-described design functions
for accident mitigation. Moreover, the design and operability
requirements currently addressed by the PBAPS Technical
Specifications (TS) are unaffected and the design basis radiological
analysis of analyzed accidents is unchanged. Thus, the consequences
of analyzed accidents are not increased.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes will reduce the design and operating
pressure in a portion of the HPSW system. This change will not
introduce a new mode of plant operation. The system flowrate and
heat removal rate for design basis events are not changed. No new
accident scenarios, failure mechanisms, or limiting single failures
are introduced as a result of the proposed changes. All accident
analysis criteria continue to be met and there are no adverse
effects on any safety-related system.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The margin of safety is established through the design of the
plant structures, systems, and components, the parameters within
which the plant is operated and the setpoints for the actuation of
equipment relied upon to respond to an event. The reduction in HPSW
system design pressure permits continued operation of the HPSW and
RHR systems in accordance with the plant safety analysis. The core
and containment heat removal functions of the HPSW and RHR systems
are not affected. The proposed change does not alter the safety
limits or safety analysis assumptions associated with the operation
of the plant.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel,
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Rd., Warrenville, IL
60555.
NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna.
Indiana Michigan Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-315 and 50-316, Donald
C. Cook Nuclear Plant (CNP), Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Berrien County,
Michigan
Date of amendment request: September 5, 2018. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18250A185.
Description of amendment request: The proposed change would modify
technical specification (TS) Section 5.5.15, ``Battery Monitoring and
Maintenance Program,'' to align with
[[Page 55575]]
the latest Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
Standard.
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 design of the protection systems will be unaffected. The
reactor protection system and engineered safety feature actuation
system will continue to function in a manner consistent with the
plant design basis. All design, material and construction standards
that were applicable prior to the request are maintained. The
proposed amendment will not alter any assumptions or change any
mitigation actions in the radiological consequence evaluations in
the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR).
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.
No new accident scenarios, failure mechanisms, or single
failures are introduced as a result of the proposed change. All
systems, structures, and components previously required for the
mitigation of an event remain capable of fulfilling their intended
design function. The proposed change has no adverse effects on any
safety related systems or components and does not challenge the
performance or integrity of any safety related system. Further,
there are no changes in the method by which any safety-related plant
system performs its safety function. This amendment will not affect
the normal method of power operation or change any operating
parameters.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The margin of safety is established through equipment design,
operating parameters; and the setpoints at which automatic actions
are initiated. The equipment margins will be maintained in
accordance with the plant-specific design bases. 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. Sufficient Direct Current (DC)
capacity to support operation of mitigation equipment is ensured.
The changes associated with the Battery Maintenance and Monitoring
Program will ensure that the station batteries are maintained in a
highly reliable manner. The equipment fed by the DC electrical
sources will continue to provide adequate power to safety-related
loads in accordance with analysis assumptions.
The TS changes maintain the same level of equipment performance
stated in the UFSAR and the current TSs. Therefore, the proposed
changes do not involve a significant reduction in the margin of
safety.
The proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in
a margin of safety because the proposed changes do not reduce the
margin of safety that exists in the present CNP TS or UFSAR. The
operability requirements of the TS are consistent with the initial
condition assumptions of the safety analyses.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Robert B. Haemer, Senior Nuclear Counsel,
Indiana Michigan Power Company, One Cook Place, Bridgman, MI 49106.
NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.
NextEra Energy, Point Beach, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-266 and 50-301, Point
Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Town of Two Creeks, Manitowoc
County, Wisconsin
Date of amendment request: July 30, 2018. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18214A730.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the
requirements on control and shutdown rods, and rod and bank position
indication in Technical Specification (TS) 3.1.4, ``Rod Group Alignment
Limits''; TS 3.1.5, ``Shutdown Bank Insertion Limits''; TS 3.1.6,
``Control Bank Insertion Limits''; and TS 3.1.7, ``Rod Position
Indication.'' The changes provide time to repair rod movement failures
that do not affect rod operability, provide time for analog position
indication instruments to read accurately after rod movement, correct
conflicts between the TS, and increase consistency and improve the
presentation.
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.
Control and shutdown rods are assumed to insert into the core to
shut down the reactor in evaluated accidents. Rod insertion limits
ensure that adequate negative reactivity is available to provide the
assumed shutdown margin (SDM). Rod alignment and overlap limits
maintain an appropriate power distribution and reactivity insertion
profile.
Control and shutdown rods are initiators to several accidents
previously evaluated, such as rod ejection. The proposed change does
not change the limiting conditions for operation for the rods or
make any technical changes to the Surveillance Requirements (SRs)
governing the rods. Therefore, the proposed change has no
significant effect on the probability of any accident previously
evaluated.
Revising the TS Actions to provide a limited time to repair rod
movement control has no effect on the SDM assumed in the accident
analysis as the proposed Action require verification that SDM is
maintained. The effects on power distribution will not cause a
significant increase in the consequences of any accident previously
evaluated as all TS requirements on power distribution continue to
be applicable.
Therefore, the assumptions used in any accidents previously
evaluated are unchanged and there is no significant increase in the
consequences.
The consequences of an accident that might occur during the one-
hour period provided for the analog rod position indication to
stabilize after rod movement are no different from the consequences
of the accident under the existing actions with the rod declared
inoperable.
The proposed change to resolve the conflicts in the TS ensure
that the intended Actions are followed when equipment is inoperable.
Actions taken with inoperable equipment are not assumptions in the
accidents previously evaluated and have no significant effect on the
consequences.
The proposed change to increase consistency within the TS has no
effect on the consequences of accidents previously evaluated as the
proposed change clarifies the application of the existing
requirements and does not change the intent.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of
the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be
installed). The change does not alter assumptions made in the safety
analyses. The proposed change does not alter the limiting conditions
for operation for the rods or make any technical changes to the SRs
governing the rods. The proposed change to actions maintains or
improves safety when equipment is inoperable and does not introduce
new failure modes.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
[[Page 55576]]
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change to allow time for rod position indication to
stabilize after rod movement and to allow an alternative method of
verifying rod position has no effect on the safety margin, as actual
rod position is not affected. The proposed change to provide time to
repair rods that are operable but immovable does not result in a
significant reduction in the margin of safety because all rods must
be verified to be operable, and all other banks must be within the
insertion limits. The remaining proposed changes to make the
requirements internally consistent and to eliminate unnecessary
actions do not affect the margin of safety as the changes do not
affect the ability of the rods to perform their specified safety
function.
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, Mail Stop: LAW/JB, 700 Universe
Boulevard, Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420.
NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 50-390, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant
(WBN), Units 1 and 2, Rhea County, Tennessee
Date of amendment request: July 23, 2018. A publicly available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18205A492.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the
Units 1 and 2 Technical Specification (TS) 4.2.1, ``Fuel Assemblies,''
to allow the use of Optimized ZIRLOTM fuel rod cladding
material. They would also revises Units 1 and 2 TS 5.9.5, ``Core
Operating Limits Report (COLR),'' to add Westinghouse Electric Company
Topical Reports WCAP-12610-P-A and CENPD-404-P-A, Addendum 1-A,
``Optimized ZIRLOTM,'' to the list of analytical methods
used to determine the core operating limits approved by the NRC. In
addition, the amendments would correct the spelling of the word
Zircaloy in WBN Unit 1 TS 4.2.1 only, add the word ``clad'' after the
proposed phrase ``Optimized ZIRLOTM,'' capitalize the word
``Zirlo,'' and add a registered trademark designator to the word
``ZIRLO.''
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 will allow the use of Optimized ZIRLO
clad nuclear fuel at WBN Units 1 and 2. The NRC approved topical
report WCAP-12610-P-A and CENPD-404-P-A, Addendum 1-A, which
addresses Optimized ZIRLO fuel rod cladding and demonstrates that
Optimized ZIRLO fuel rod cladding has essentially the same
properties as currently licensed ZIRLO[supreg] fuel rod cladding.
The use of Optimized ZIRLO fuel rod cladding material will not
result in adverse changes to the operation or configuration of the
facility. The fuel cladding itself is not an accident initiator and
does not affect accident probability. Use of Optimized ZIRLO meets
the fuel design acceptance criteria and hence does not significantly
affect the consequences of an accident.
Therefore, the proposed TS change does not result in a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated within the WBN [Unit 1 and] Unit 2
UFSAR [Updated Final Safety Analysis Report].
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The use of Optimized ZIRLO fuel rod cladding material will not
result in adverse changes to the operation or configuration of the
facility. WCAP-12610-P-A and CENPD-404-P-A, Addendum 1-A
demonstrated that the material properties of Optimized ZIRLO fuel
rod cladding are similar to those of ZIRLO fuel rod cladding.
Therefore, Optimized ZIRLO fuel rod cladding will perform similarly
to ZIRLO fuel rod cladding, thus precluding the possibility of the
fuel rod cladding becoming an accident initiator and causing a new
or different kind of accident.
Therefore, the proposed TS change does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated is not created.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
WCAP-12610-P-A and CENPD-404-P-A, Addendum 1-A, demonstrated
that the material properties of the Optimized ZIRLO fuel rod
cladding are similar to those of ZIRLO fuel rod cladding. Optimized
ZIRLO fuel rod cladding is expected to perform similarly to ZIRLO
fuel rod cladding for normal operating and accident scenarios,
including both loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) and non-LOCA
scenarios. The use of Optimized ZIRLO fuel rod cladding will not
result in adverse changes to the operation or configuration of the
facility.
Therefore, the proposed TS 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 Branch Chief: Undine Shoop.
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.
Vistra Operations Company LLC, Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446, Comanche
Peak Nuclear Power Plant (CPNPP), Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Somervell County,
Texas
Date of amendment request: September 5, 2018, as supplemented by
letters dated September 20 and October 3, 2018. Publicly-available
versions are in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML18250A186, ML18267A059,
and ML18277A207, respectively.
Brief description of amendment request: The amendments would revise
the CPNPP Technical Specification 3.8.4, ``DC [Direct Current]
Sources--Operating,'' by adding a new REQUIRED ACTION to CONDITION B
and an extended COMPLETION TIME, on a one-time basis to repair two
affected battery cells on the CPNPP Unit 1, Train B safety-related
batteries.
Date of publication of individual notice in Federal Register:
October 10, 2018 (83 FR 50971).
Expiration date of individual notice: October 24, 2018 (public
comments); December 10, 2018 (hearing requests).
[[Page 55577]]
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.
Arizona Public Service Company, et al., Docket Nos. STN 50-528, STN 50-
529, and STN 50-530, Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos.
1, 2, and 3 (Palo Verde), Maricopa County, Arizona
Date of amendment request: July 19, 2017, as supplemented by
letters dated May 9, July 13, and August 10, 2018.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments modified the
licensing basis by the addition of a license condition to allow the
implementation of the provisions of 10 CFR 50.69, ``Risk-informed
categorization and treatment of structures, systems and components for
nuclear power reactors,'' for Palo Verde. The provisions of 10 CFR
50.69 allow adjustment of the scope of equipment subject to special
treatment controls (e.g., quality assurance, testing, inspection,
condition monitoring, assessment, and evaluation). For equipment
determined to be of low safety significance, alternative treatment
requirements can be implemented in accordance with this regulation. For
equipment determined to be of high safety significance, requirements
will not be changed or will be enhanced.
Date of issuance: October 10, 2018.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 207 (Unit 1), 207 (Unit 2), and 207 (Unit 3). A
publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18243A280;
documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety
Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-41, NPF-51, and NPF-74:
The amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 26, 2017 (82
FR 44850). The supplements dated May 9, July 13, and August 10, 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 October 10, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. STN 50-456 and STN 50-457,
Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, Will County, Illinois and Docket Nos.
STN 50-454 and STN 50-455, Byron Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Ogle
County, Illinois
Date of amendment request: September 1, 2017, as supplemented by
letters dated April 4, 2018, June 13, 2018, and September 13, 2018.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the
licensing basis by the addition of a license condition to allow for the
implementation of the provisions of 10 CFR 50.69, ``Risk-informed
categorization and treatment of structures, systems and components for
nuclear power reactors.'' The provisions of 10 CFR 50.69 allow
adjustment of the scope of equipment subject to special treatment
controls (e.g., quality assurance, testing, inspection, condition
monitoring, assessment, and evaluation). For equipment determined to be
of low safety significance, alternative treatment requirements can be
implemented in accordance with this regulation. For equipment
determined to be of high safety significance, requirements will not be
changed or will be enhanced.
Date of issuance: October 22, 2018.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos: Braidwood--198/198 and Byron--204/204. A publicly-
available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18264A092;
documents related to these amendments are listed in the related Safety
Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-72, NPF-77, NPF-37, and
NPF-66: The amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 21, 2017 (82
FR 55404).
The supplements dated April 4, 2018, June 13, 2018, and September
13, 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 October 22, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-374, LaSalle
County Station (LSCS), Units 1 and 2, LaSalle County, Illinois
Date of amendment request: December 13, 2017, as supplemented by
letter dated June 18, 2018.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the LSCS,
Units 1 and 2, Technical Specifications to adopt Technical
Specifications Task Force (TSTF)-542, Reactor Pressure Vessel Water
Inventory Control.
Date of issuance: October 15, 2018.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
for LSCS, Units 1 and 2 prior to initial entry into Mode 4 during the
LSCS Unit 2 refueling outage in 2019 (i.e., L2R17), which is currently
scheduled to occur in February 2019.
Amendment Nos.: 230 (Unit 1) and 216 (Unit 2). A publicly-available
[[Page 55578]]
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18226A202; documents related
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with
the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-11 and NPF-18: The
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 13, 2018 (83
FR 6223). The supplemental letter dated June 18, 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 October 15, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-219, Oyster Creek Nuclear
Generating Station, Ocean County, New Jersey
Date amendment request: August 29, 2017, as supplemented by letter
dated February 13, 2018.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the site
emergency plan and emergency action level scheme for the permanently
shutdown and defueled condition.
Date of issuance: October 17, 2018.
Effective date: The amendment is effective 12 months (365 days)
following the permanent cessation of power operations and shall be
implemented within 60 days of the effective date, but no later than
March 28, 2021.
Amendment No.: 294. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML18221A400; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-16: Amendment revised
the emergency plan and emergency action level scheme.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 24, 2017 (82 FR
49238). The supplemental letter dated February 13, 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 October 17, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026,
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), Units 3 and 4, Burke County,
Georgia
Date of amendment request: July 28, 2017, as supplemented by
letters dated January 23, March 23, June 21, and August 9, 2018.
Description of amendment: The amendment authorized the Southern
Nuclear Operating Company to change the VEGP Units 3 and 4 plant-
specific Combined License (COL) Appendix A, Technical Specifications
(TS) as incorporated into the VEGP Units 3 and 4 COLs. The amendment
consisted of changes to the COL Appendix A TS related to reactivity
controls and other miscellaneous changes. The amendment revised the COL
Appendix A, plant-specific TS by modifying the TS to make them
consistent with the design, licensing basis, and other related TS.
Date of issuance: August 23, 2018.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 138 (Unit 3) and 137 (Unit 4). A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18100A110; documents related
to the amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the
amendment.
Facility Combined License Nos. NPF-91 and NPF-92: Amendment revised
the Facility Combined Licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 5, 2017 (82 FR
57469). The supplemental letters dated January 23, March 23, June 21
and August 9, 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 hazard determination as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in the Safety Evaluation dated August 23, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-259, 50-260, and 50-296,
Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (Browns Ferry), Units 1, 2, and 3, Limestone
County, Alabama
Date of amendment request: May 3, 2018.
Brief description of amendment: The amendments revised the Browns
Ferry, Units 1, 2, and 3, Renewed Facility Operating Licenses to
provide a correction to previously submitted information in relation to
their approved fire protection program under 10 CFR 50.48(c),
``National Fire Protection Association Standard NFPA 805.''
Specifically, the amendments modified the Browns Ferry licenses to
reflect changes to Item 3.3.4 in Table B-1, ``Transition of Fundamental
Fire Protection Program & Design Elements,'' of Attachment A in the
NRC-approved amendments regarding NFPA 805 dated March 27, 2013.
Date of issuance: October 9, 2018.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
immediately.
Amendment Nos.: 306 (Unit 1); 329 (Unit 2); and 289 (Unit 3). A
publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18241A319;
documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety
Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-33, DPR-52, and DPR-68:
The amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 17, 2018 (83 FR
33270).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated October 9, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 25th day of October, 2018.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Craig G. Erlanger,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2018-23782 Filed 11-5-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P