[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 242 (Tuesday, December 18, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64889-64902]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-26968]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2018-0275]
Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility
Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant
Hazards Considerations
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Biweekly notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the
Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is publishing this
regular biweekly notice. The Act requires the Commission to publish
notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to be issued, and grants
the Commission the authority to issue and make immediately effective
any amendment to an operating license or combined license, as
applicable, upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment
involves no significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the
pendency before the Commission of a request for a hearing from any
person.
This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or
proposed to be issued, from November 20, 2018 to December 3, 2018. The
last biweekly notice was published on December 4, 2018.
DATES: Comments must be filed by January 17, 2019. A request for a
hearing must be filed by February 19, 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-2018-0275. Address
questions about Docket IDs in Regulations.gov to Krupskaya Castellon;
telephone: 301-287-9221; email: [email protected]. For
technical questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.
Mail comments to: May Ma, Office of Administration, Mail
Stop: TWFN-7-A60M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001.
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting
comments,
[[Page 64890]]
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-2018-0275, 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-2018-0275.
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-2018-0275, 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. Background
Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act),
the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is publishing this regular
biweekly notice. The Act requires the Commission to publish notice of
any amendments issued, or proposed to be issued, and grants the
Commission the authority to issue and make immediately effective any
amendment to an operating license or combined license, as applicable,
upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no
significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before
the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person.
III. 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
[[Page 64891]]
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 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
[[Page 64892]]
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 information related to this document, see the
``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' section of this
document.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon), Docket No. 50-219, Oyster
Creek Nuclear Generating Station (OCNGS), Ocean County, New Jersey
Date of amendment request: November 12, 2018. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18317A022.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would remove the
existing Cyber Security Plan (CSP) requirements contained in License
Condition 2.C.(4) of the OCNGS Renewed Facility Operating License and
the commitment to fully implement the CSP by the Milestone 8 commitment
date of August 31, 2021 (ADAMS Accession No. ML17289A222).
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.
Following cessation of power operations and removal of all spent
fuel from the reactor, spent fuel at OCNGS will be stored in the
spent fuel pool (SFP) and in the independent spent fuel storage
installation (ISFSI). In this configuration, the spectrum of
possible transients and accidents is significantly reduced compared
to an operating nuclear power reactor. The only design basis
accident that could potentially result in an offsite radiological
release at OCNGS is the fuel handling accident (FHA), which is
predicated on spent fuel being stored in the SFP. An analysis has
been performed that concludes that once OCNGS has be[en] permanently
shut down for 33 days, there is no longer any possibility of an
offsite radiological release from a design basis accident that could
exceed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Protective
Action Guidelines (PAGs). The results of this analysis have been
previously submitted to the NRC (ADAMS Accession No. ML17234A082)
(Reference 5 [of Exelon's letter dated November 12, 2018]). With the
significant reduction in radiological risk based on OCNGS being shut
down for more than 33 days, the consequences of a cyber-attack are
also significantly reduced.
Additionally, per an NRC Memorandum, ``Cyber Security
Requirements for Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants'' (Reference 4
[of Exelon's letter dated November 12, 2018], ADAMS Accession No.
ML16172A284), the NRC staff has determined that 10 CFR 73.54 does
not apply to reactor licensees that have submitted certifications of
permanent cessation of power operations and permanent removal of
fuel under 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1), and whose certifications have been
docketed by the NRC (10 CFR 50.82(a)(2) (References 2 and 3 [of
Exelon's letter dated November 12, 2018], Accession Nos. ML18045A084
and ML18268A258), once sufficient time has passed such that the
spent fuel stored in the spent fuel pool cannot reasonably heat up
to clad ignition temperature within 10 hours. Exelon has provided a
site-specific analysis, ``Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station
Zirconium Fire Analysis for Drained Spent Fuel Pool,'' in Reference
5 [of Exelon's letter dated November 12, 2018] (ADAMS Accession No.
ML17234A082), that provides the determination that sufficient time
will have passed prior to the requested implementation date such
that the spent fuel stored in the spent fuel pool cannot reasonably
heat up to clad ignition temperature within 10 hours. Exelon has
subsequently submitted a revised OCNGS site-specific Zirconium-Fire
Analysis (References 7 and 8 [of Exelon's letter dated November 12,
2018], ML18295A384 and ML18310A306) that supports that the minimum
cooling time may be reduced to 9.38 months (235 days).
This proposed change does not alter previously evaluated
accident analysis assumptions, introduce or alter any initiators, or
affect the function of facility structures, systems, and components
(SSCs) relied upon to prevent or mitigate any previously evaluated
accident or the manner in which these SSCs are operated, maintained,
modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed change does not involve
any facility modifications which affect the performance capability
of any SSCs relied upon to prevent or mitigate the consequences of
any previously evaluated accidents.
[[Page 64893]]
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.
This proposed change does not alter accident analysis
assumptions, introduce or alter any initiators, or affect the
function of facility SSCs relied upon to prevent or mitigate any
previously evaluated accident, or the manner in which these SSCs are
operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed
change does not involve any facility modifications which affect the
performance capability of any SSCs relied upon to mitigate the
consequences of previously evaluated accidents and does not create
the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any
accident previously evaluated.
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.
Plant safety margins are established through limiting conditions
for operation and design features specified in the OCNGS Permanently
Defueled Technical Specifications that were approved by the NRC
Safety Evaluation dated October 26, 2018 (Reference 11 [of Exelon's
letter dated November 12, 2018], ADAMS Accession No. ML18227A338).
The proposed change does not involve any changes to the initial
conditions that establish safety margins and does not involve
modifications to any SSCs which are relied upon to provide a margin
of safety. Because there is no change to established safety margins
as a result of this proposed change, no significant reduction in a
margin of safety is involved.
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: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel,
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL
60555.
NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353, Limerick
Generating Station (LGS), Units 1 and 2, Montgomery County,
Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: October 19, 2018. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18292A451.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the
LGS, Units 1 and 2, Technical Specification (TS) requirements for
inoperable isolation actuation instrumentation to allow for isolation
of the flow path(s) that penetrate the primary containment (PC)
boundary instead of requiring closure of a specific PC isolation valve
(PCIV). The proposed changes also clarify the TS action for inoperable
isolation actuation instrumentation for the reactor enclosure manual
isolation function.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes would modify specific TS Actions for
inoperable PC Isolation Actuation Instrumentation to allow for
isolation of the PC penetration flow path(s) instead of requiring
closure of a specific PCIV. Closure of either the inboard or
outboard PCIV provides the same safety function for isolating the PC
penetration. The proposed changes provide for an increase in
operational flexibility and avoid the potential for an extended
isolation of a PC penetration. The proposed changes also modify the
TS action for inoperable Isolation Actuation Instrumentation to
include a clarification for the Reactor Enclosure manual isolation
function. The change simplifies the description of the operator
actions required to be taken and is based on the end result of
performing the safety function for ensuring SC [secondary
containment] integrity is maintained. These changes are consistent
with existing LGS TS actions for inoperable PCIVs. These changes are
also consistent with Improved Standard Technical Specifications
(ISTS) actions for inoperable Isolation Actuation Instrumentation.
The proposed changes do not alter the physical design of any
plant structure, system, or component; therefore, the proposed
changes have no adverse effect on plant operation, or the
availability or operation of any accident mitigation equipment. The
plant response to the design basis accidents does not change. The
proposed changes will maintain plant operation within the bounds of
the current analysis for the accident source term dose limits in the
Loss of Coolant Accident (LOCA) analysis, and therefore, the changes
do not adversely affect the consequences of any accident previously
evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes would modify specific TS Actions for
inoperable PC Isolation Actuation Instrumentation to allow for
isolation of the PC penetration flow path(s) instead of requiring
closure of a specific PCIV. Closure of either the inboard or
outboard PCIV provides the same safety function for isolating the
penetration. The proposed changes provide for an increase in
operational flexibility and avoid the potential for an extended
isolation of a PC penetration. The proposed changes also modify the
TS action for inoperable Isolation Actuation Instrumentation to
include a clarification for the Reactor Enclosure manual isolation
function. The change simplifies the description of the operator
actions required to be taken and is based on the end result of
performing the safety function for ensuring SC integrity is
maintained. The proposed changes will maintain plant operation
within the bounds of the current analysis and assumptions for the
accident and special event analysis.
The proposed changes do not alter the plant configuration (no
new or different type of equipment is being installed) or require
any new or unusual operator actions. The proposed changes do not
alter the safety limits or safety analysis assumptions associated
with the operation of the plant. The proposed changes do not
introduce any new failure modes that could result in a new accident.
The proposed changes do not reduce or adversely affect the
capabilities of any plant structure, system, or component in the
performance of their safety function. Also, the response of the
plant and the operators following the design basis accidents is
unaffected by the proposed changes.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes would modify specific TS Actions for
inoperable PC Isolation Actuation Instrumentation to allow for
isolation of the PC penetration flow path(s) instead of requiring
closure of a specific PCIV. Closure of either the inboard or
outboard PCIV provides the same safety function for isolating the PC
penetration. The proposed changes provide for an increase in
operational flexibility and avoid the potential for an extended
isolation of a PC penetration. The proposed changes also modify the
TS action for inoperable Isolation Actuation Instrumentation to
include a clarification for the Reactor Enclosure manual isolation
function. The change simplifies the description of the operator
actions required to be taken and is based on the end result of
performing the safety function for ensuring SC integrity is
maintained. The proposed changes will maintain plant operation
within the bounds of the current analysis and assumptions for the
accident and special event analysis.
[[Page 64894]]
The proposed changes have no adverse effect on plant operation,
or the availability or operation of any accident mitigation
equipment. The plant response to the design basis accidents does not
change. 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 is no change being made to
safety analysis assumptions, safety limits or limiting safety system
settings that would adversely affect plant safety as a result of the
proposed changes.
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: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel,
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL
60555.
NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-220, Nine Mile Point
Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Oswego County, New York
Date of amendment request: June 26, 2018. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18177A044.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would modify
Technical Specification (TS) 3.3.1, ``Oxygen Concentration,'' to
require inerting the primary containment to less than 4 percent by
volume oxygen concentration within 24 hours of exceeding 15 percent of
rated thermal power (RTP), and allow de-inerting the containment 24
hours prior to reducing thermal power to less than or equal to 15
percent of RTP. Also, the amendment would add a new requirement to
identify required actions if the primary containment oxygen
concentration increases to greater than or equal to four volume percent
while in the power operating condition.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change modifies the Technical Specifications (TS)
by adopting containment inerting and de-inerting requirements that
are consistent with the guidance of NUREG-1433, ``Standard Technical
Specifications--General Electric BWR/4 Plants, Volume 1, Revision
4.0,'' published April 2012. The proposed change will allow inerting
of the primary containment within 24 hours of exceeding 15 percent
(%) Rated Thermal Power (RTP), and de-inerting 24 hours prior to
reducing reactor power to less than or equal to 15% RTP. Also, a new
TS condition will be added to identify required actions if the
primary containment oxygen concentration increases to greater than
or equal to 4% by volume while in the power operating condition. The
proposed change does not alter the physical configuration of the
plant, nor does it affect any previously analyzed accident
initiators. The accident analysis assumes that a Loss of Coolant
Accident (LOCA) occurs at 100% RTP. The consequences of a LOCA at
less than or equal to 15% RTP would be much less severe, and produce
less hydrogen than a LOCA at 100% RTP.
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 adopts the STS guidance regarding
containment inerting/de-inerting requirements. The proposed change
introduces no new mode of plant operation and does not involve any
physical modification to the plant. The proposed change is
consistent with the current safety analysis assumptions. No
setpoints are being changed which would alter the dynamic response
of plant equipment. Accordingly, no new failure modes are
introduced.
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.
The proposed change revises the Applicability presentation of
the Oxygen Concentration TS. No safety limits are affected. The
Oxygen Concentration TS requirements assure sufficient safety
margins are maintained, and that the design, operation, surveillance
methods, and acceptance criteria specified in applicable codes and
standards (or alternatives approved for use by the NRC) will
continue to be met as described in the plants' licensing basis. The
proposed change does not adversely affect existing plant safety
margins or the reliability of the equipment assumed to operate in
the safety analysis. As such, there are no changes being made to
safety analysis assumptions, safety limits, or limiting safety
system settings that would adversely affect plant safety.
Therefore, the proposed change does not result in 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: James G. Danna.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-219, Oyster Creek Nuclear
Generating Station (OCNGS), Ocean County, New Jersey
Date of amendment request: October 22, 2018. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18295A384.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the
effective and implementation dates of License Amendment No. 294,
Permanently Defueled Emergency Plan (PDEP) and Emergency Action Level
(EAL) scheme for the permanently defueled condition. On October 17,
2018 (ADAMS Accession No. ML18221A400), the NRC approved License
Amendment No. 294, OCNGS PDEP and Permanently Defueled EAL Scheme. The
PDEP and Permanently Defueled EAL scheme were predicated on approval of
request for exemptions from portions of 10 CFR 50.47(b); 10 CFR
50.47(c)(2); and 10 CFR part 50, Appendix E, Section IV, which were
approved on October 16, 2018 (ADAMS Accession No. ML18220A980). The
basis for the approval of the exemptions from offsite emergency
preparedness requirements included a site-specific analysis that showed
that the fuel stored in the spent fuel pool (SFP) would not reach the
zirconium ignition temperature in fewer than 10 hours from the time at
which it was assumed a loss of both water and air cooling of the spent
fuel (zirc-fire window). The revised adiabatic calculation provided in
the submittal dated October 22, 2018, results in a reduced decay period
from 365 days to 285 days for the zirc-fire window after the final
reactor shut down.
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.
[[Page 64895]]
The proposed change to the effective and implementation dates of
License Amendment No. 294, OCNGS PDEP, Permanently Shutdown EAL
scheme, and associated Exemptions at 9.38 months (285 days) does not
impact the function of plant structures, systems, or components
(SSCs). The proposed change does not affect accident initiators or
precursors, nor does it alter design assumptions. The proposed
change does not prevent the ability of the on-shift staff and
emergency response organization (ERO) 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, since 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 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 to effective and implementation dates for
License Amendment No. 294, PDEP, Permanently Shutdown EAL scheme,
and associated Exemptions at 9.38 months (285 days) is commensurate
with the hazards associated with a permanently shutdown and defueled
facility based on the updated site-specific analysis that showed the
fuel stored in the SFP would not reach the zirconium ignition
temperature in fewer than 10 hours from the time at which it was
assumed a loss of both water and air cooling of the spent fuel. The
proposed change does not involve installation of new equipment or
modification of existing equipment, so that no new equipment failure
modes are introduced. In addition, the proposed change does 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 change is
associated with changing the effective and implementation dates of
License Amendment No. 294, PDEP, Permanently Shutdown EAL scheme and
associated Exemptions; it does not impact operation of the plant or
its response to transients or accidents. The change does not affect
the Technical Specifications. The proposed change does not involve a
change in the method of plant operation, and no design bases
accident analyses will be affected by the proposed changes. Safety
analysis acceptance criteria are not affected by the proposed
changes. The PDEP will continue to provide the necessary response
staff with the appropriate guidance to protect the health and safety
of the public.
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: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel,
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL
60555.
NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-317 and 50-318, Calvert
Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant (Calvert Cliffs), Units 1 and 2, Calvert
County, Maryland
Date of amendment request: August 13, 2018. A publicly available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18226A189.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the
Technical Specifications (TSs) and licensing basis for the Calvert
Cliffs, Units 1 and 2 Renewed Facility Operating Licenses, as
documented in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). The
changes would incorporate use of both a deterministic and a risk-
informed approach to address safety issues discussed in Generic Safety
Issue (GSI)-191, ``Assessment of Debris Accumulation on PWR
[Pressurized-Water Reactor] Sump Performance,'' and close Generic
Letter (GL) 2004-02, ``Potential Impact of Debris Blockage on Emergency
Recirculation During Design Basis Accidents at Pressurized-Water
Reactors,'' dated September 13, 2004 (ADAMS Accession No. ML042360586).
New TS 3.6.9, ``Containment Emergency Sump,'' would be added, and
administrative changes would be made to TS 3.5.2, ``ECCS [Emergency
Core Cooling System]--Operating,'' and TS 3.5.3, ``ECCS--Shutdown.''
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 adds a new Technical Specification (TS) for
the Containment Emergency Sump and moves an existing surveillance
requirement (SR) from the ECCS TS to the new Containment Emergency
Sump TS. The proposed changes support a methodology change for
assessment of debris effects that adds the results of a risk-
informed evaluation to the Calvert Cliffs licensing basis. The
methodology change concludes that the ECCS and Containment System
will have sufficient defense-in-depth and safety margin and with
high probability will operate following a LOCA [loss-of-coolant
accident] when considering the impacts and effects of debris
accumulation on containment emergency recirculation sump strainer in
recirculation mode. The methodology change also supports the changes
to the TS.
There is no significant increase in the probability of an
accident previously evaluated. The proposed changes address
mitigation of loss of coolant accidents and have no effect on the
probability of the occurrence of a LOCA. The proposed methodology
and TS changes do not implement any physical changes to the facility
or any Structures Systems and Components (SSCs), and do not
implement any changes in plant operation that could lead to a
different kind of accident.
The methodology change confirms that required SSCs supported by
the emergency recirculation sumps with a high probability will
perform their safety functions as required and does not alter or
prevent the ability of SSCs to perform their intended function to
mitigate the consequences of an accident previously evaluated within
the acceptance limits. The safety analysis acceptance criteria in
the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) continue to be met
for the proposed methodology change. The evaluation of the changes
determined that containment integrity will be maintained. The dose
consequences were considered in the assessment and quantitative
evaluation of the effects on dose using input from the risk-informed
approach shows the increase in dose consequences is small.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of any the accident
previously evaluated in the UFSAR.
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 a new Technical Specification for the
Containment Emergency sump and moves an existing SR from the ECCS TS
to the new Containment Emergency Sump TS. The proposed changes are a
methodology change for assessment of debris effects from LOCAs that
are already evaluated in the Calvert Cliffs UFSAR, an extension of
TS required completion time for potential LOCA debris related
effects on ECCS and CS and associated administrative changes to the
TS. No new or different kind
[[Page 64896]]
[of] accident is being evaluated. None of the changes install or
remove any plant equipment, or alter the design, physical
configuration, or mode of operation of any plant structure, system
or component. The proposed changes do not introduce any new failure
mechanisms or malfunctions that can initiate an accident. The
proposed changes do not introduce failure modes, accident
initiators, or equipment malfunctions that would cause a new or
different kind of accident.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility
for a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change adds a new TS for the containment emergency
sump and moves an existing SR from the ECCS TS to the new
Containment Emergency Sump TS. The proposed change includes a
methodology change for assessment of debris effects from LOCAs.
The sump strainer debris loads from a full spectrum of LOCAs of
all piping sizes up to and including double-ended guillotine breaks
of the largest pipe in the reactor coolant system, are analyzed.
Appropriate redundancy and consideration of loss of offsite power
and worst case single failure are retained, such that defense-in-
depth is maintained.
Application of the risk-informed methodology showed that the
increase in risk from the contribution of the analyzed debris
effects is very small as defined by RG [Regulatory Guide] 1.174 and
that there is adequate defense in depth and safety margin.
Consequently, Calvert Cliffs determined that the risk-informed
method does not involve a significant reduction in margin of safety
and demonstrated that the containment emergency sump will continue
to support the ability of safety related components to perform their
design functions when the effects of debris are considered. The
proposed change does not alter the manner in which safety limits are
determined or acceptance criteria associated with a safety limit.
The proposed change does not implement any changes to plant
operation and does not significantly affect SSCs that respond to
safely shutdown the plant and to maintain the plant in a safe
shutdown condition. The proposed change does not affect the existing
safety margins in the barriers for the release of radioactivity.
There are no changes to any of the safety analyses in the UFSAR.
Defense in depth and safety margin was extensively evaluated for
the methodology change and the associated TS changes. The evaluation
determined that there is substantial defense in depth and safety
margin that provide a high level of confidence that the calculated
risk for the methodology and TS changes is acceptable.
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: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel,
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL
60555.
NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-317, 50-318 and 72-8,
Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant (CCNPP), Units 1 and 2, and
Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation, Calvert County, Maryland
Date of amendment request: August 30, 2018. A publicly available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18242A067.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would relocate and
consolidate the Emergency Operations Facility (EOF) and Joint
Information Center (JIC) for CCNPP with the existing Exelon Generation
Company, LLC joint EOF and JIC located at 175 North Caln Road,
Coatesville, Pennsylvania. (This facility in Coatesville, Pennsylvania,
is currently used as an EOF/JIC for Limerick Generating Station, Units
1 and 2 (LGS); Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3
(PBAPS); and Three Mile Island Nuclear Station (TMI).)
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 relocates the CCNPP EOF/JIC from its present
location to the existing Coatesville EOF/JIC. This EOF/JIC facility
currently functions as the EOF/JIC for LGS, PBAPS, and TMI. The
functions and capabilities of the relocated CCNPP EOF/JIC will
continue to meet the applicable regulatory requirements. The
proposed changes have no effect on normal plant operation. The
proposed changes do not affect accident initiators or accident
precursors, nor do the changes alter design assumptions. The
proposed changes do not impact the function of plant Structures,
Systems, or Components (SSCs). The proposed changes do not alter or
prevent the ability of the emergency response organization to
perform its intended functions to mitigate the consequences of an
accident or event.
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 only impacts the implementation of the CCNPP
Emergency Plan by relocating and consolidating its EOF/JIC with the
established Coatesville EOF/JIC. The functions and capabilities of
the relocated CCNPP EOF/JIC will continue to meet the applicable
regulatory requirements. The proposed change has no impact on the
design, function, or operation of any plant SSCs. The proposed
change does not affect plant equipment or accident analyses. The
proposed change does 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 change does not introduce failure modes that could
result in a new accident, and the proposed change does not alter
assumptions made in the safety analysis.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change only impacts the implementation of the CCNPP
Emergency Plan by relocating its current EOF/JIC to the existing
Coatesville EOF/JIC. The functions and capabilities of the relocated
EOF/JIC will continue to meet the applicable regulatory
requirements.
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 change is
associated with the Emergency Plans for CCNPP and does not impact
operation of the plant or its response to transients or accidents.
The proposed change does not affect the Technical Specifications.
The proposed change does not involve a change in the method of plant
operation, and no accident analyses will be affected by the proposed
change. Safety analysis acceptance criteria are not affected. The
proposed change does 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 change.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
[[Page 64897]]
Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel,
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL
60555.
NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna.
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50-354, Hope Creek Generating Station
(HCGS), Salem County, New Jersey
Date of amendment request: October 30, 2018. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18304A191.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise
Technical Specification (TS) 3.3.7.4, ``Remote Shutdown System
Instrumentation and Controls,'' to make the HCGS requirements
consistent with Improved Standard Technical Specification 3.3.4,
``Remote Shutdown System.'' The change would increase the allowed
outage time for inoperable remote shutdown system components to a time
that is more consistent with their safety significance. Also, the
amendment would delete Tables 3.3.7.4-1, 3.3.7.4-2, and 4.3.7.4-1, and
relocate them to the Technical Requirements Manual, where they would be
directly controlled by HCGS.
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 TS amendment does not involve potential accident
initiators; therefore, there is no significant increase in the
probability of an accident previously evaluated. There is no
proposed change to the design basis or configuration of the plant
and the extension of the allowed outage time of the Remote Shutdown
System functions is consistent with the low probability of an event
requiring control room evacuation during the allowed outage time and
does not have a significant effect on safety.
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 amendment does not involve physical alteration of
the HCGS. No new equipment is being introduced, and installed
equipment is not being operated in a new or different manner. There
is no change being made to the parameters within which the HCGS is
operated. There are no setpoints at which protective or mitigating
actions are initiated that are affected by this proposed action. The
change does not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis. This
proposed action will not alter the manner in which equipment
operation is initiated, nor will the functional demands on credited
equipment be changed. No alteration is proposed to the procedures
that ensure the HCGS remains within analyzed limits, and no change
is being made to procedures relied upon to respond to an off-normal
event. As such, no new failure modes are being introduced.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
Margin of safety is related to the confidence in the ability of
the fission product barriers to perform their design functions
during and following an accident. These barriers include the fuel
cladding, the reactor coolant system, and the containment system.
The proposed change, which makes the HCGS TS for Remote Shutdown
System consistent with the requirements of NUREG-1433, does not
exceed or alter a setpoint, design basis or safety limit.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Steven Fleischer, PSEG Services Corporation,
80 Park Plaza, T-5, Newark, NJ 07101.
NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-259, 50-260, and 50-296,
Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN), Units 1, 2, and 3, Limestone County,
Alabama
Date of amendment request: October 18, 2018. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18295A109.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the
BFN licensing basis regarding the National Fire Protection Association
(NFPA) 805 program to delete Modification 85 from Table S-2 ``Plant
Modifications Committed,'' and to extend due dates for Modifications
102 and 106 in Table S-2 for 4 months and 6 months, respectively.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment adds the reference to this letter to the
BFN RFOL [Renewed Facility Operating License] License Condition,
Transition Condition 2, paragraphs 2.C.(13), 2.C.(14), and 2.C.(7)
for BFN Units 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The change encompassed by
the proposed amendment is to delete Modification 85 in Attachment S,
Table S-2 of the BFN NFPA 805 Transition Report, and to extend the
due dates of Modifications 102 and 106.
The proposed changes do not adversely affect accident initiators
or precursors nor alter the design assumptions, conditions, and
configuration of the facility or the manner in which the plant is
operated and maintained. The proposed change does not 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.
Therefore, these proposed changes do not involve a significant
increase in the probability of consequences of an accident
previously identified.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment adds the reference to this letter to the
BFN RFOL License Condition, Transition Condition 2, paragraphs
2.C.(13), 2.C.(14), and 2.C.(7) for BFN Units 1, 2, and 3,
respectively. The changes encompassed by the proposed amendment are
to delete Modification 85 in Attachment S, Table S-2 of the BFN NFPA
805 Transition Report, and extend the due dates of Modifications 102
and 106.
There is no risk impact to Core Damage Frequency (CDF) or Large
Early Release Frequency (LERF) because these proposed changes do not
impact the FPRA [fire probabilistic risk assessment] results. These
proposed changes are an NFPA 805 Chapter 3 compliance issue only and
do not require a change to the FPRA. This level of detail is not
modeled in the FPRA.
The proposed change does not result in any new or different
kinds of accident from that previously evaluated because it does not
change any precursors or equipment that is previously credited for
accident mitigation.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment adds the reference to this letter to the
BFN RFOL License Condition, Transition Condition 2, paragraphs
2.C.(13), 2.C.(14), and 2.C.(7) for BFN Units 1, 2, and 3,
respectively. The change encompassed by the proposed amendment is to
delete Modification 85 in
[[Page 64898]]
Attachment S, Table S-2 of the BFN NFPA 805 Transition Report, and
extend the due dates of Modifications 102 and 106.
The proposed change deletes Modification 85 in its entirety from
Table S-2. Modification 85 would have installed pneumatic pre-
discharge alarms and pneumatic time delays in the CO2
systems to meet NFPA 12, 2008 Edition. NFPA 12, 2008 Edition
requires pneumatic predischarge alarms and pneumatic time delays for
CO2 systems. The CO2 system predischarge
alarms and time delays are currently electric and meet the NFPA 12,
1966 Edition code of record.
The deletion of Modification 85 does not affect the Fire PRA or
the fire suppression system currently in place at BFN. This proposed
change does not affect other items listed in Attachment S or
adversely affect the BFN implementation of NFPA 805 at BFN.
The proposed changes associated with Modifications 85, 102, and
106 do not involve any licensing basis analyses. Therefore, the
safety margin inherent in the analyses for fire events has been
preserved.
These proposed changes will not result in any new or different
kinds of accident from that previously evaluated because it does not
change any precursors or equipment that is previously credited for
accident mitigation.
Therefore, based on the above discussion, these proposed changes
do not involve a 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: General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority,
400 West Summit Hill Drive, 6A West Tower, Knoxville, TN 37902.
NRC Branch Chief: Undine Shoop.
IV. 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.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 50-391, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant,
Unit 2, Rhea County, Tennessee
Date of amendment request: October 31, 2018.
Brief description of amendment request: The proposed amendment
would revise the completion date for License Condition 2.C.(5) for the
Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 2, regarding the completion of action to
resolve the issues identified in Bulletin 2012-01, ``Design
Vulnerability in Electric Power System'' (ADAMS Accession No.
ML12074A115), from December 31, 2018, to December 31, 2019, to align
with the remainder of the Tennessee Valley Authority fleet and with the
nuclear industry.
Date of publication of individual notice in Federal Register:
November 14, 2018 (83 FR 56876).
Expiration date of individual notice: December 14, 2018 (public
comments); January 14, 2019 (hearing requests).
V. 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.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414, Catawba
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York County, South Carolina
Date of amendment request: September 14, 2017, as supplemented by
letters dated May 8, August 17, September 20, October 29, and November
15, 2018.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical
Specification 3.7.8, ``Nuclear Service Water System (NSWS).'' A new
Condition D was added, along with other corresponding changes, for one
NSWS pond return header being inoperable due to the NSWS being aligned
for single pond return header operation with a Completion Time of 30
days.
Date of issuance: November 28, 2018.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 120 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 300 (Unit 1) and 296 (Unit 2). A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18275A278; documents related
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with
the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-35 and NPF-52: The
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 13, 2018 (83 FR
10914). The supplemental letters dated May 8, August 17, September 20,
October 19, and November 15, 2018, provided additional information that
clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application
as originally noticed, and did not change the 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 November 28, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: Yes. One
comment from a member of the public was received, however it was not
related to the no significant hazards consideration determination or
the license amendment request.
[[Page 64899]]
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370, McGuire
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Date of amendment request: May 31, 2018.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments modified Technical
Specification 3.1.7, ``Rod Position Indication,'' to add a new
Condition for more than one inoperable digital rod position indication
(DRPI) per rod group, and revise the Actions Note and to clarify the
wording of current Required Actions A.1 and B.1. This change is
consistent with NRC-approved Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF)
Traveler TSTF-234-A, ``Add Action for More Than One [D]RPI
Inoperable,'' Revision 1.
Date of issuance: November 19, 2018.
Effective date: These license amendments are effective as of its
date of issuance and shall be implemented within 30 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 310 (Unit 1) and 289 (Unit 2). A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18277A322; documents related
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with
the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-9 and NPF-17: The
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 28, 2018 (83 FR
43904).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated November 19, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
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: October 10, 2017.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical
Specification (TS) \3/4\.1.1, ``Reactivity Control Systems Boration
Control,'' and TS \3/4\.1.3, ``Reactivity Control Systems Movable
Control Assemblies Group Height,'' to align more closely to the
improved Standard TSs for rod control and to the initial conditions in
the HNP safety analyses.
Date of issuance: November 19, 2018.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 168. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML18262A303; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-63: The amendment
revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 2, 2018 (83 FR
167).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated November 19, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-293, Pilgrim Nuclear
Power Station, Plymouth County, Massachusetts
Date of amendment request: January 12, 2018, as supplemented by
letter dated May 23, 2018.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment consisted of changes
to the Emergency Response Organization's on-shift and augmented
staffing changes to the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station Site Emergency
Plan.
Date of issuance: November 30, 2018.
Effective date: This license amendment is effective upon submittal
of the certification of permanent removal of fuel from the reactor
vessel in accordance with 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1)(ii), and shall be
implemented within 90 days of the effective date.
Amendment No.: 248. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML18284A375; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-35: The amendment
revised the Site Emergency Plan.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 27, 2018 (83 FR
13149). The supplemental letter dated May 23, 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 November 30, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-368, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit
2 (ANO-2), Pope County, Arkansas
Date of amendment request: November 20, 2017, as supplemented by
letters dated August 1, and October 10, 2018.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the ANO-2
Technical Specifications (TSs) to replace the current pressure-
temperature limits for heatup, cooldown, and the inservice leak
hydrostatic tests for the reactor coolant system presented in TS 3.4.9,
which expire at 32 Effective Full Power Years (EFPY), with limitations
that extend out to 54 EFPY.
Date of issuance: November 27, 2018.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 311. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML18298A012; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-6: The amendment revised
the Renewed Facility Operating License and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 27, 2018 (83
FR 8514). The supplemental letters dated August 1, and October 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 amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated November 27, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-313 and 50-368, Arkansas
Nuclear One, Units 1 and 2, Pope County, Arkansas
Entergy Operations, Inc.; System Energy Resources, Inc.; Cooperative
Energy, a Mississippi Electric Cooperative; and Entergy Mississippi,
Inc., Docket No. 50-416, Grand Gulf Nuclear Station (Grand Gulf), Unit
1, Claiborne County, Mississippi
Date of amendment request: September 21, 2017, as supplemented by
letter dated November 15, 2018.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments for Arkansas
Nuclear One, Units 1 and 2, revised Renewed Facility
[[Page 64900]]
Operating License Nos. DPR-51 and NPF-6 to reflect a new limited
liability company, Entergy Arkansas, LLC, as owner, as a result of the
license transfer. The amendment for Grand Gulf, Unit 1, revised Renewed
Facility Operating License No. NPF-29 to reflect a newly formed entity
with antitrust responsibilities, Entergy Mississippi, LLC, as a result
of the license transfer.
Date of issuance: November 30, 2018.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos: 262 (Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1), 312 (Arkansas
Nuclear One, Unit 2), and 215 (Grand Gulf, Unit 1). A publicly-
available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18306A513;
documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety
Evaluation enclosed with the letter dated August 1, 2018 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML18177A236).
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-51, NPF-6, and NPF-29:
The amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses for
Arkansas Nuclear One, Units 1 and 2, and revised the Renewed Facility
Operating License and the antitrust conditions for Grand Gulf, Unit 1.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 29, 2017 (82
FR 61800). The supplemental letter dated November 15, 2018, provided
additional information that clarified the application and did not
expand the scope of the application as originally noticed.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated August 1, 2018.
Exelon FitzPatrick, LLC and Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No.
50-333, James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant (FitzPatrick), Oswego
County, New York
Date of amendment request: January 31, 2018, as supplemented by
letter dated July 12, 2018.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the emergency
plan by changing the emergency action level schemes to those based on
the Nuclear Energy Institute's (NEI's) guidance in NEI-99-01, Revision
6, ``Development of Emergency Action Levels for Non-Passive Reactors,''
dated November 2012, which was endorsed by the NRC by letter dated
March 28, 2013.
Date of issuance: November 28, 2018.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be
implemented on or before December 31, 2019.
Amendment No.: 323. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML18289A432; 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 FitzPatrick emergency plan.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 17, 2018 (83 FR
33267). The supplement dated July 12, 2018, provided additional
information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of
the application as originally noticed, and did not change the NRC
staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated November 28, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353, Limerick
Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: January 29, 2018, as supplemented by
letter dated June 11, 2018.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments lowered the
Technical Specification (TS) Standby Liquid Control System (SLCS)
Surveillance Requirement (SR) (TS \3/4\.1.5) pump flow rate value,
raised the TS SLCS SR Boron-10 enrichment value of the sodium
pentaborate added to the SLCS tank, and expanded the operating range in
the sodium pentaborate solution temperature/concentration requirements
figure.
Date of issuance: November 27, 2018.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 232 (Unit 1) and 195 (Unit 2). A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18255A278; documents related
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with
the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-39 and NPF-85: The
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 27, 2018 (83 FR
13150). The supplemental letter dated June 11, 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 November 27, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
NextEra Energy Duane Arnold, LLC, Docket No. 50-331, Duane Arnold
Energy Center, Linn County, Iowa
Date of amendment request: December 15, 2018, as supplemented by
letters dated July 26, and October 18, 2018.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the emergency
action level (EAL) scheme to one based on the Nuclear Energy Institute
(NEI) document NEI 99-01, Revision 6, ``Development of Emergency Action
Levels for Non-Passive Reactors,'' dated November 21, 2012.
Date of issuance: November 30, 2018.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 365 days.
Amendment No.: 308. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML18292A566; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-49: The amendment
revised the Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-49.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 13, 2018 (83 FR
10920). The supplemental letters dated July 26, and October 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 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 November 30, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
NextEra Energy Point Beach, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-266 and 50-301, Point
Beach Nuclear Plant (PBNP), Units 1 and 2, Town of Two Creeks,
Manitowoc County, Wisconsin
Date amendment request: August 31, 2017, as supplemented by letters
dated October 26, 2017, August 10, and September 28, 2018.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the Renewed
Facility Operating Licenses for PBNP, Units 1 and 2, to add a new
license
[[Page 64901]]
condition to allow the implementation of 10 CFR 50.69, ``Risk-informed
categorization and treatment of structures, systems and components for
nuclear power reactors.''
Date of issuance: November 26, 2018.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 262 (Unit 1) and 265 (Unit 2). A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18289A378; documents related
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with
the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-24 and DPR-27: The
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 13, 2018 (83
FR 6226). The supplemental letters dated August 10, and September 28,
2018, provided additional information that clarified the application,
did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and
did not change the 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 November 26, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC, Docket No. 50-443, Seabrook Station, Unit
No. 1, Rockingham County, New Hampshire
Date of amendment request: December 1, 2017.
Description of amendment request: The amendment revised certain 18-
month Technical Specification (TS) surveillance requirements to
eliminate the condition that testing be conducted ``during shutdown''
and revised the administrative portion of the TSs regarding plant staff
and responsibilities.
Date of issuance: November 27, 2018.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days.
Amendment No.: 158. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML18247A538; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-86: The amendment revised the
Facility Operating License and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 13, 2018 (83
FR 6227).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated November 27, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Northern States Power Company--Minnesota, Docket No. 50-263, Monticello
Nuclear Generating Plant, Wright County, Minnesota
Date of amendment request: July 3, 2018.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment changed the Technical
Specifications to adopt Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF)
traveler, TSTF-551, Revision 3, ``Revise Secondary Containment
Surveillance Requirements.''
Date of issuance: November 26, 2018.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 199. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML18291B214; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-22: The amendment
revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical
Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 28, 2018 (83 FR
43906).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated November 26, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026,
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4, Burke County, Georgia
Date of amendment request: May 18, 2018.
Description of amendments: These amendments authorized changes to
Technical Specifications Limiting Condition for Operation 3.3.8,
Engineered Safety Feature Actuation System (ESFAS) Instrumentation,
related to Safeguard Actuation Functions. Various ESFAS Functions
require applicability and corresponding action changes to more
accurately reflect their operation and related safety analysis
assumptions.
Date of issuance: November 13, 2018.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 148 (Unit 3) and 147 (Unit 4). A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Package Accession No. ML18296A412; documents
related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation
enclosed with the amendments.
Facility Combined Licenses Nos. NPF-91 and NPF-92: The amendments
revised the Facility Combined License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 17, 2018 (83 FR
33270).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in the Safety Evaluation dated November 13, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-338 and 50-339,
North Anna Power Station, Units No. 1 and No. 2, Louisa County,
Virginia
Date of amendment request: January 22, 2018, as supplemented by
letter dated March 26, 2018.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the North
Anna Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Technical Specification (TS)
3.7.10, ``Main Control Room/Emergency Switchgear Room (MCR/ESGR)
Emergency Ventilation System (EVS),'' and TS 3.7.12, ``Emergency Core
Cooling System (ECCS) Pump Room Exhaust Air Cleanup System (PREACS),''
to adopt the Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-
522, Revision 0, ``Revise Ventilation System Surveillance Requirements
to Operate for 10 hours per Month.'' The amendments further revised TS
5.5.10, ``Ventilation Filter Testing Program (VFTP),'' to remove the
electric heater output test and to increase the specified relative
humidity (RH) for the charcoal testing for the MCR/ESGR EVS from the
current 70 percent to 95 percent RH. Additionally, the amendments made
an administrative change to the Environmental Protection Plan to
reflect updated references to 10 CFR.
Date of issuance: November 27, 2018.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 280 and 263. A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No. ML18290A852; documents related to these
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the
amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-4 and NPF-7: The
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 11, 2018 (83
FR 45988).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated November 27, 2018.
[[Page 64902]]
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Vistra Operations Company LLC, Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446, Comanche
Peak Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 (CPNPP), Somervell County,
Texas
Date of amendment request: March 29, 2018.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical
Specification 3.3.2, ``Engineered Safety Feature Actuation System
(ESFAS) Instrumentation,'' to change the applicability of when the
automatic auxiliary feedwater actuation due to the trip of all main
feedwater pumps is required to be operable at CPNPP.
Date of issuance: November 30, 2018.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 1-171; Unit 2-171. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18304A487; documents related
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with
the amendments.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-87 and NPF-89: The amendments
revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 5, 2018 (83 FR
26107).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated November 30, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 10th day of December 2018.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Kathryn M. Brock,
Deputy Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of
Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2018-26968 Filed 12-17-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P