[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 117 (Tuesday, June 18, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28339-28352]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-12573]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2019-0135]
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 May 21, 2019 to June 3, 2019. The last
biweekly notice was published on June 4, 2019.
DATES: Comments must be filed by July 18, 2019. A request for a hearing
must be filed by August 19, 2019.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods
(unless this document describes a different method for submitting
comments on a specific subject):
Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2019-0135. Address
questions about NRC dockets IDs in Regulations.gov to Jennifer Borges;
telephone: 301-287-9127; email: [email protected]. For technical
questions, contact the individual(s) listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.
Mail comments to: Office of Administration, Mail Stop:
TWFN-7-A60M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-
0001, ATTN: Program Management, Announcements and Editing Staff.
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting
comments, see ``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beverly Clayton, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-3475, email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments
A. Obtaining Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2019-0135 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-2019-0135.
NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-
[[Page 28340]]
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-2019-0135 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 Section 189a.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is
publishing this regular biweekly notice. The Act requires the
Commission to publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to
be issued, and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make
immediately effective any amendment to an operating license or combined
license, as applicable, upon a determination by the Commission that
such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration,
notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a
hearing from any person.
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 section 50.92 of title 10 of the Code
of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), this means that operation of the
facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1)
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated;
or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis
for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown
below.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final
determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period if circumstances change during the 30-day comment
period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for
example in derating or shutdown of the facility. If the Commission
takes action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or
the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a notice of
issuance. If the Commission makes a final no significant hazards
consideration determination, any hearing will take place after
issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will
occur very infrequently.
A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing and Petition for Leave To Intervene
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any
persons (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by this action may
file a request for a hearing and petition for leave to intervene
(petition) with respect to the action. Petitions shall be filed in
accordance with the Commission's ``Agency Rules of Practice and
Procedure'' in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult a
current copy of 10 CFR 2.309. The NRC's regulations are accessible
electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's website at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. Alternatively, a copy of
the regulations is available at the NRC's Public Document Room, located
at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first
floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. If a petition is filed, the
Commission or a presiding officer will rule on the petition and, if
appropriate, a notice of a hearing will be issued.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309(d) the petition should specifically
explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with
particular reference to the following general requirements for
standing: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the
petitioner; (2) the nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to
be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the
petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding;
and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be
entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f), the petition must also set
forth the specific contentions which the petitioner seeks to have
litigated in the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific
statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In
addition, the petitioner must provide a brief explanation of the bases
for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or
expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner
intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The
petitioner must also provide references to the specific sources and
documents on which the petitioner intends to rely to support its
position on the issue. The petition must include sufficient information
to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant or licensee on
a material issue of law or fact. Contentions must be limited to matters
within the scope of the proceeding. The contention must be one which,
if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner who
fails to satisfy the requirements at 10 CFR 2.309(f) with respect to at
least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding,
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene.
Parties have the opportunity
[[Page 28341]]
to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing with respect to
resolution of that party's admitted contentions, including the
opportunity to present evidence, consistent with the NRC's regulations,
policies, and procedures.
Petitions must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of
publication of this notice. Petitions and motions for leave to file new
or amended contentions that are filed after the deadline will not be
entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the
filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10
CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i) through (iii). The petition must be filed in
accordance with the filing instructions in the ``Electronic Submissions
(E-Filing)'' section of this document.
If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the
Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no
significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve
to establish when the hearing is held. If the final determination is
that the amendment request involves no significant hazards
consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it
immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any
hearing would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final
determination is that the amendment request involves a significant
hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before
the issuance of the amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent
danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will
issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.
A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian
Tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to
participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition should
state the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the
proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission no later
than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. The petition
must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the
``Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)'' section of this document, and
should meet the requirements for petitions set forth in this section,
except that under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(2) a State, local governmental body,
or Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof does not need
to address the standing requirements in 10 CFR 2.309(d) if the facility
is located within its boundaries. Alternatively, a State, local
governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof
may participate as a non-party under 10 CFR 2.315(c).
If a hearing is granted, any person who is not a party to the
proceeding and is not affiliated with or represented by a party may, at
the discretion of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited
appearance pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person
making a limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of
his or her position on the issues but may not otherwise participate in
the proceeding. A limited appearance may be made at any session of the
hearing or at any prehearing conference, subject to the limits and
conditions as may be imposed by the presiding officer. Details
regarding the opportunity to make a limited appearance will be provided
by the presiding officer if such sessions are scheduled.
B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a
request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition), any
motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the
submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and
documents filed by interested governmental entities that request to
participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the
NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007, as amended at 77 FR
46562; August 3, 2012). The E-Filing process requires participants to
submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in
some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Detailed
guidance on making electronic submissions may be found in the Guidance
for Electronic Submissions to the NRC and on the NRC website at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants may not submit
paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in
accordance with the procedures described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10
days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the
Office of the Secretary by email at [email protected], or by
telephone at 301-415-1677, to (1) request a digital identification (ID)
certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or
representative) to digitally sign submissions and access the E-Filing
system for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise
the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a petition or
other adjudicatory document (even in instances in which the
participant, or its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-
issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the
Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the hearing in this
proceeding if the Secretary has not already established an electronic
docket.
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is
available on the NRC's public website at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/getting-started.html. Once a participant has obtained a
digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant
can then submit adjudicatory documents. Submissions must be in Portable
Document Format (PDF). Additional guidance on PDF submissions is
available on the NRC's public website at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/electronic-sub-ref-mat.html. A filing is considered complete at the
time the document is submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be
timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system
no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of
a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends
the submitter an email notice confirming receipt of the document. The
E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access
to the document to the NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any
others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to
participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the
document on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and
other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for
and receive a digital ID certificate before adjudicatory documents are
filed so that they can obtain access to the documents via the E-Filing
system.
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-
Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC's Electronic
Filing Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC's
public website at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by
email to [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
[[Page 28342]]
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.
Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50-397, Columbia Generating Station
(Columbia), Benton County, Washington
Date of amendment request: March 27, 2019. A publicly available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19086A315.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
remove License Condition 2.C.(11), ``Shield Wall Deferral (Section
12.3.2, SSER #4, License Amendment #7)'' and its related Attachment 3,
``List of Shield Walls'' from Columbia's Renewed Facility Operating
License, as these items are outdated and no longer applicable to
Columbia's operation.
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 amendment involves the removal of an outdated
license condition. The proposed amendment does not impact any
accident initiators, analyzed events, or assumed mitigation of
accident or transient events. The proposed change does not involve
the addition or removal of any equipment or any design changes to
the facility. The proposed change does not affect any plant
operations, design functions, or analyses that verify the capability
of structures, systems, and components (SSCs) to perform a design
function. The proposed change does not change any of the accidents
previously evaluated in the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR). The
proposed change does not affect SSCs, operating procedures, and
administrative controls that have the function of preventing or
mitigating any of these accidents.
Therefore, the proposed change does not represent a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment only involves the removal of an outdated
license condition. No actual plant equipment or accident analyses
will be affected by the proposed change. The proposed change will
not change the design function or operation of any SSCs. The
proposed change will not result in any new failure mechanisms,
malfunctions, or accident initiators not considered in the design
and licensing bases. The proposed amendment does not impact any
accident initiators, analyzed events, or assumed mitigation of
accident or transient events.
Therefore, this proposed change does not create the possibility
of an accident of a new or different kind than previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment only involves the removal of an outdated
license condition. The proposed change does not involve any physical
changes to the plant or alter the manner in which plant systems are
operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed
change does not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting
safety system settings or limiting conditions for operation are
determined. The safety analysis acceptance criteria are not affected
by this change. The proposed change will not result in plant
operation in a configuration outside the design basis. The proposed
change does not adversely affect systems that respond to safely
shutdown the plant and to maintain the plant in a safe shutdown
condition.
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: William A. Horin, Esq., Winston & Strawn,
1700 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20006-3817.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-003, 50-247, and 50-
286, Indian Point Nuclear Generating (Indian Point) Unit Nos. 1, 2, and
3, Westchester County, New York
Date of amendment request: April 15, 2019. A publicly available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19105B278.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the
Indian Point Site Emergency Plan (SEP) for the permanently shutdown and
defueled 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 changes to the IPEC [Indian Point Energy Center]
SEP do not impact the
[[Page 28343]]
function of plant structures, systems, or components (SSCs). The
proposed changes do not affect accident initiators or precursors,
nor does it alter design assumptions. The proposed changes do not
prevent the ability of the on-shift staff and augmented ERO
[Emergency Response Organization] to perform their intended
functions to mitigate the consequences of any accident or event that
will be credible in the permanently shut down and defueled
condition. The proposed changes only remove positions that will no
longer be credited in the IPEC SEP.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes reduce the number of on-shift and augmented
ERO positions commensurate with the hazards associated with a
permanently shut down and defueled facility. The proposed changes do
not involve installation of new equipment or modification of
existing equipment, so that no new equipment failure modes are
introduced. Also, the proposed changes do not result in a change to
the way that the equipment or facility is operated so that no new
accident initiators are created.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
Margin of safety is associated with confidence in the ability of
the fission product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, reactor coolant
system pressure boundary, and containment structure) to limit the
level of radiation dose to the public. The proposed changes are
associated with the IPEC SEP and do not impact operation of the
plant or its response to transients or accidents. The change does
not affect the Technical Specifications. The proposed changes do not
involve a change in the method of plant operation, and no accident
analyses will be affected by the proposed changes. Safety analysis
acceptance criteria are not affected by the proposed changes. The
revised IPEC SEP will continue to provide the necessary response
staff with the proposed changes.
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: Jeanne Cho, Assistant General Counsel,
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 440 Hamilton Avenue, White Plains, NY
10601.
NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-247 and 50-286, Indian
Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 (Indian Point 2 and 3 or IP2
and IP3), Westchester County, New York
Date of amendment request: April 15, 2019. A publicly available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19105B236.
Description of amendment request: The amendments propose changes to
the staffing and training requirements for the Indian Point staff
contained in Section 5.0, ``Administrative Controls,'' of the Indian
Point 2 and Indian Point 3 Technical Specifications (TSs). Additional
changes are also proposed to Section 1.1, ``Definitions''; Section 4.0,
``Design Features''; and Section 5.0, ``Administrative Controls,'' that
are no longer applicable to a permanently defueled facility once Indian
Point 2, and subsequently Indian Point 3, are permanently defueled.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment would not take effect until IP2 has
permanently ceased operation and entered a permanently defueled
condition and the Certified Fuel Handler Training and Retraining
Program is approved by the NRC. The proposed amendment would modify
the IP2 TS by deleting the portions of the TS that are no longer
applicable to a permanently defueled facility, while modifying the
other sections to correspond to the permanently defueled condition.
The deletion and modification of provisions of the
administrative controls do not directly affect the design of
structures, systems, and components (SSCs) necessary for safe
storage of irradiated fuel or the methods used for handling and
storage of such fuel in the spent fuel pool. The changes to the
administrative controls are administrative in nature and do not
affect any accidents applicable to the safe management of irradiated
fuel or the permanently shutdown and defueled condition of the
reactor. Thus, the consequences of an accident previously evaluated
are not increased.
In a permanently defueled condition, the only credible accidents
are the fuel handling accident (FHA) and those involving radioactive
waste systems remaining in service. The probability of occurrence of
previously evaluated accidents is not increased, because extended
operation in a defueled condition will be the only operation
allowed. This mode of operation is bounded by the existing analyses.
Additionally, the occurrence of postulated accidents associated with
reactor operation is no longer credible in a permanently defueled
reactor. This significantly reduces the scope of applicable
accidents.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes have no impact on facility SSCs affecting
the safe storage of irradiated fuel, or on the methods of operation
of such SSCs, or on the handling and storage of irradiated fuel
itself. The administrative removal or modifications of the TS that
are related only to administration of the facility cannot result in
different or more adverse failure modes or accidents than previously
evaluated because the reactor will be permanently shutdown and
defueled and IP2 will no longer be authorized to operate the reactor
or retain or place fuel in the reactor vessel.
The proposed changes to the IP2 TS do not affect systems
credited in the accident analysis for the FHA or radioactive waste
system upsets at IP2. The proposed TS will continue to require
proper control and monitoring of safety significant parameters and
activities.
The proposed amendment does not result in any new mechanisms
that could initiate damage to the remaining relevant safety barriers
for defueled plants (fuel cladding and spent fuel cooling). Extended
operation in a defueled condition will be the only operation
allowed, and it is bounded by the existing analyses, such a
condition does not create the possibility of a new or different kind
of accident.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Since the 10 CFR part 50 license for IP2 will no longer
authorize operation of the reactor or emplacement or retention of
fuel into the reactor vessel once the certifications required by 10
CFR 50.82(a)(1) are docketed, as specified in 10 CFR 50.82(a)(2),
the occurrence of postulated accidents associated with reactor
operation is no longer credible. The only remaining credible
accidents are a FHA and those involving radioactive waste systems
remaining in service. The proposed amendment does not adversely
affect the inputs or assumptions of any of the design basis analyses
that impact these analyzed conditions.
The proposed changes are limited to those portions of the TS
that are not related to the safe storage of irradiated fuel. The
requirements that are proposed to be revised or deleted from the IP2
TS are not credited in the existing accident analysis for the
remaining applicable postulated accident;
[[Page 28344]]
and as such, do not contribute to the margin of safety associated
with the accident analysis. Postulated design basis accidents
involving the reactor are no longer possible because the reactor
will be permanently shutdown and defueled and IP2 will no longer be
authorized to operate the reactor or retain or place fuel in the
reactor vessel.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in the margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Jeanne Cho, Assistant General Counsel,
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 440 Hamilton Avenue, White Plains, NY
10601.
NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-247, Indian Point
Nuclear Generating Unit No. 2 (Indian Point 2 or IP2), Westchester
County, New York
Date of amendment request: April 15, 2019. A publicly available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19105B241.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the
Indian Point 2 Operating License (OL) and revise the Technical
Specifications (TSs) in Appendix A to Permanently Defueled TSs, the
Environmental TS Requirements in Appendix B of the OL, and the Inter-
Unit Transfer TSs in Appendix C. The proposed changes would revise
certain requirements contained within the Indian Point 2 OL and
Appendices A through C TSs and remove the requirements that would no
longer be applicable after Indian Point 2 is permanently shut down and
defueled.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment would not take effect until IP2 has
permanently ceased operation, entered a permanently defueled
condition, met the decay requirements established in the analysis of
the Fuel Handling Accident (FHA), implemented NRC approved License
Amendments regarding fuel storage requirements and administrative
controls for the permanently defueled condition, and received NRC
approval of the Certified Fuel Handler Training and Retraining
Program. The proposed amendment would modify the IP2 OL and TSs in
Appendices A through C by deleting the portions of the OL and TSs
that are no longer applicable to a permanently defueled facility,
while modifying other portions to correspond to the permanently
defueled condition. These proposed changes are consistent with the
criteria set forth in 10 CFR 50.36 for the contents of TSs.
Section 14 of the IP2 Updated Final Safety Analysis Report
(UFSAR) describes the DBA [design-basis accident] and transient
scenarios applicable to IP2 during power operations. After the
reactor is in a permanently defueled condition, the spent fuel pit
(SFP) and its cooling systems will be dedicated only to spent fuel
storage. In this condition, the spectrum of credible accidents will
be much smaller than for an operational plant. After the
certifications are docketed for IP2 in accordance with 10 CFR
50.82(a)(1), and the consequent removal of authorization to operate
the reactor or to place or retain fuel in the reactor vessel in
accordance with 10 CFR 50.82(a)(2), the majority of the accident
scenarios previously postulated in the UFSAR will no longer be
possible and will be removed from the UFSAR under the provisions of
10 CFR 50.59.
The deletion of TS definitions and rules of usage and
application requirements that will not be applicable in a defueled
condition has no impact on facility structures, systems, and
components (SSCs) or the methods of operation of such SSCs. The
deletion of design features and safety limits not applicable to the
permanently shut down and defueled status of IP2 has no impact on
the remaining applicable DBAs.
The removal of LCOs [limiting conditions for operation] or SRs
[surveillance requirements] that are related only to the operation
of the nuclear reactor or only to the prevention, diagnosis, or
mitigation of reactor-related transients or accidents do not affect
the applicable DBAs previously evaluated since these DBAs are no
longer applicable in the permanently defueled condition. The safety
functions involving core reactivity control, reactor heat removal,
reactor coolant system (RCS) inventory control, and containment
integrity are no longer applicable at IP2 as a permanently shut down
and defueled facility. The analyzed accidents involving damage to
the RCS, main steam lines, reactor core, and the subsequent release
of radioactive material will no longer be possible at IP2.
After IP2 permanently ceases operation, the future generation of
fission products will cease and the remaining source term will
decay. The radioactive decay of the irradiated fuel following shut
down of the reactor will have reduced the consequences of the FHA
below those previously analyzed.
The SFP water level, boron concentration, and fuel storage TSs
are retained to preserve the current requirements for safe storage
of irradiated fuel. SFP cooling and make-up related equipment and
support equipment (e.g., electrical power systems) are not required
to be continuously available since there will be sufficient time to
effect repairs, establish alternate sources of make-up flow, or
establish alternate sources of cooling in the event of a loss of
cooling and make-up flow to the SFP.
The deletion and modification of provisions of the
administrative controls of the Appendix A TSs and the non-
radiological environmental protection requirements in Appendix B do
not directly affect the design of SSCs necessary for safe storage of
irradiated fuel or the methods used for handling and storage of such
fuel in the SFP. The changes do not affect any accidents applicable
to the safe management of irradiated fuel or the permanently shut
down and defueled condition of the reactor.
The probability of occurrence of previously evaluated accidents
is not increased, since extended operation in a defueled condition
will be the only operation allowed, and therefore bounded by the
existing analyses. Additionally, the occurrence of postulated
accidents associated with reactor operation will no longer be
credible in a permanently defueled reactor. This significantly
reduces the scope of applicable accidents.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to the IP2 OL and Appendices A through C
TSs have no impact on facility SSCs affecting the safe storage of
irradiated fuel, or on the methods of operation of such SSCs, or on
the handling and storage of irradiated fuel itself. The removal of
TSs that are related only to the operation of the nuclear reactor or
only to the prevention, diagnosis, or mitigation of reactor-related
transients or accidents, cannot result in different or more adverse
failure modes or accidents than previously evaluated because the
reactor will be permanently shut down and defueled and IP2 will no
longer be authorized to operate the reactor.
The proposed deletion and modification of requirements of the
IP2 OL and Appendices A through C TSs do not affect systems credited
in the accidents that remain applicable at IP2 in the permanently
defueled condition. The proposed OL and TSs will continue to require
proper control and monitoring of safety significant parameters and
activities.
The Appendix A TSs regarding SFP water level, boron
concentration, and fuel storage are retained to preserve the current
requirements for safe storage of irradiated fuel. The restriction on
the SFP water level is fulfilled by normal operating conditions and
preserves initial conditions assumed in the analyses of the
postulated DBA.
The proposed amendment does not result in any new mechanisms
that could initiate damage to the remaining relevant safety barriers
for defueled plants (fuel cladding and spent fuel cooling). Since
extended operation in a defueled condition will be the only
operation allowed, and therefore
[[Page 28345]]
bounded by the existing analyses, such a condition does not create
the possibility of a new or different kind of accident.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
Because the 10 CFR part 50 license for IP2 will no longer
authorize operation of the reactor or emplacement or retention of
fuel in the reactor vessel after the certifications required by 10
CFR 50.82(a)(1) are docketed for IP2 as specified in 10 CFR
50.82(a)(2), the occurrence of postulated accidents associated with
reactor operation are no longer credible. The only remaining
credible accidents are the FHA and the accidental release of waste
liquids or waste gas. The proposed amendment does not adversely
affect the inputs or assumptions of any of the design basis analyses
that impact the remaining DBAs.
The proposed amendment would modify the IP2 OL and TSs in
Appendices A through C by deleting the portions of the OL and TSs
that are no longer applicable to a permanently defueled facility,
while modifying other portions to correspond to the permanently
defueled condition. The requirements that are proposed to be deleted
from the IP2 OL and Appendix A TSs are not credited in the existing
accident analyses for the remaining DBAs; and as such, do not
contribute to the margin of safety associated with the accident
analyses. Postulated DBAs involving the reactors will no longer be
possible because the reactor will be permanently shut down and
defueled and IP2 will no longer be authorized to operate the
reactor.
The Appendix A TSs regarding SFP water level, boron
concentration, and fuel storage are retained to preserve the current
requirements for safe storage of irradiated fuel.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
reduction in the margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Jeanne Cho, Assistant General Counsel,
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 440 Hamilton Avenue, White Plains, NY
10601.
NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC and PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-277
and 50-278, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3, York and
Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: April 26, 2019. A publicly available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19116A196.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise Peach
Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3, Technical Specification
(TS) 3.8.1, ``AC [Alternating Current] Power--Operating,'' Required
Action A.3, to provide a temporary one-time extension of the completion
time to allow sufficient time to perform physical modifications to
replace 27 inaccessible electrical cables. These electrical cables are
reaching the end of their dependable service life and are in need of
replacement.
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 temporary one-time change to extend the Completion
Time for TS 3.8.1, Required Action A.3, will not increase the
probability of an accident, since the proposed Completion Time
extension in the time duration that one qualified offsite circuit is
out of service has no direct physical impact on the plant. The
proposed inoperable offsite circuit limits the available redundancy
of the offsite electrical system to a period not to exceed 21 days.
Therefore, the proposed TS change does not have a direct impact on
the plant that would make an accident more likely to occur due to
extended Completion Time. Other sources of offsite and onsite power
remain available.
During transients or events which require these systems/
subsystems to be operating, there is sufficient capacity in the
operable systems/subsystems to support plant operation or shutdown.
Therefore, failures that are accident initiators will not occur more
frequently than previously postulated as a result of the proposed
temporary one-time TS change.
In addition, the consequences of an accident previously
evaluated in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) will
not be increased. With one offsite circuit inoperable, the
consequences of any postulated accidents occurring on Unit 2 or Unit
3 during the proposed one-time Completion Time extension are bounded
by the previous analyses as described in the UFSAR. The minimum
equipment required to mitigate the consequences of an accident and/
or safely shut down the plant will be operable or available during
the extended Completion Time period of 21 days.
A risk evaluation has also been performed for the temporary one-
time 21-day Completion Time extension. The evaluation concluded that
the probability of a Loss of Offsite Power (LOOP) for the proposed
configuration is very low. Therefore, the proposed change does not
significantly increase the probability of an accident previously
evaluated because: (a) The emergency buses continue to be fed from a
reliable offsite source and; (b) the effect of the proposed
configuration on the probability of a LOOP is very low.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed temporary one-time change to extend the Completion
Time for TS 3.8.1, Required Action A.3, will not create the
possibility of a new or different type of accident since it will
only extend the time period that one of the offsite circuits can be
out of service; the extension of the time duration for one offsite
circuit being inoperable has no direct physical impact on the plant
and does not create any new accident initiators. Other sources of
offsite and onsite power remain available. The systems involved are
accident mitigation systems. The possible impacts that the
inoperable equipment may have on supported systems was previously
analyzed in the UFSAR. The impact of inoperable support systems was
also previously assessed, and any accident initiators created by the
inoperable systems were evaluated. Extending the duration of the
Completion Time does not create any additional accident initiators
for the plant.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The existing TS Completion Time limit of seven (7) days for one
offsite circuit inoperable was established to ensure that sufficient
safety-related equipment is available for response to all accident
conditions and that sufficient decay heat removal capability is
available for a Loss of Coolant Accident (LOCA) coincident with a
LOOP on one unit and simultaneous safe shutdown of the other unit.
Although a very slight reduction in the margin of safety might be
incurred during the proposed one-time extended Completion Time
period, this slight reduction is judged to be minimal due to the low
probability of an event occurring during the extended period. Other
sources of offsite and onsite power remain available and operable
during the 21-day extended period along with maintaining the
availability of essential Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS)/decay
heat removal capability. The very slight reduction in the margin of
safety resulting from extending the Completion Time from seven (7)
days to 21 days when an offsite circuit is inoperable is not
considered significant, since the remaining operable offsite
circuit, the emergency Diesel Generators (DGs), the Station Blackout
(SBO) line, and the FLEX DGs are available and provide an effective
defense-in-depth plan to support the station electrical plant
configurations during the extended 21-day Completion Time period.
[[Page 28346]]
The proposed TS change to extend the Completion Time does not
affect the acceptance criteria for any analyzed event, nor is there
a change to any safety limit. The proposed TS change does not affect
any Structures, Systems or Components (SSC) or their capability to
perform their intended functions. The proposed change does not alter
the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system settings,
or limiting conditions for operation are determined. Neither the
safety analyses nor the safety analysis acceptance criteria are
affected by this change. The proposed change will not result in
plant operation in a configuration outside the current design basis.
The margin of safety is maintained by maintaining the capability to
supply emergency buses with a redundant, separate, reliable offsite
power source, and maintaining the onsite power sources in their
design basis configuration.
Operations personnel are fully qualified and trained to respond
to, and mitigate, a Design Basis Accident (DBA), including actions
needed to ensure decay heat removal systems are available while
PBAPS [Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station], Units 2 and 3, are in the
operational electrical configurations described within this
submittal. Accordingly, existing procedures are in place that
address safe plant shutdown and decay heat removal for situations
applicable during the extended one-time Completion Time period.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel,
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL
60555.
NRC Branch Chief: 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, as supplemented by
letters dated February 25, 2019, and May 17, 2019 (ADAMS Accession Nos.
ML18177A044, ML19056A387, and ML19137A070, respectively).
Description of amendment request: The license amendment request was
originally noticed in the Federal Register on December 18, 2018 (83 FR
64894). This notice is being reissued in its entirety to include a
revised description of the amendment request. The amendment would
modify Technical Specification 3.3.1, ``Oxygen Concentration,'' to
require inerting the primary containment to less than 4 percent by
volume oxygen concentration within 72 hours of entering power operating
condition. 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 [Standard Technical
Specifications] 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.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026,
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), Units 3 and 4, Burke County,
Georgia
Date of amendment request: April 26, 2019. A publicly available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19119A249.
Description of amendment request: The amendment request proposes
changes to the Combined License (COL) Numbers NPF-91 and NPF-92 for
VEGP, Units 3 and 4, and Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR)
in the form of departures from the incorporated plant-specific Design
Control Document Tier 2 * and Tier 2 information related to the design-
specific pre-operational Automatic Depressurization System (ADS)
Blowdown Test. The requested amendment involves changes to credit the
previously completed ADS Blowdown first three plant tests as described
in the licensing basis documents, including COL Condition 2.D.(2)(a).
Specifically, the proposed change would revise the COL, License
Condition 2.D.(2)(a)2, by removing the requirement to perform the ADS
Slowdown first three plant test during preoperational testing.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination:
[[Page 28347]]
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 with changes made by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
shown in square brackets:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not affect the operation of any systems
or equipment that initiates an analyzed accident or alter any
structures, systems, or components (SSC) accident initiator or
initiating sequence of events. The proposed changes remove the
requirement to perform the ADS Blowdown first three plant test based
on the successful completion of the tests at the lead AP1000 units.
The change does not adversely affect any methodology which would
increase the probability or consequences of a previously evaluated
accident.
The change does not impact the support, design, or operation of
mechanical or fluid systems. There is no change to plant systems or
the response of systems to postulated accident conditions. There is
no change to predicted radioactive releases due to normal operation
or postulated accident conditions. The plant response to previously
evaluated accidents or external events is not adversely affected,
nor does the proposed change create any new accident precursors.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of a previously
evaluated accident.
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 does not affect the operation of any systems
or equipment that may initiate a new or different kind of accident,
or alter any SSC such that a new accident initiator or initiating
sequence of events is created.
The proposed change credits previously completed ADS Blowdown
first three plant testing based on the successful completion of the
tests at the lead AP1000 units. The proposed changes do not
adversely affect any design function of any SSC design functions or
methods of operation in a manner that results in a new failure mode,
malfunction, or sequence of events that affect safety-related or
non-safety-related equipment. This activity does not allow for a new
fission product release path, result in a new fission product
barrier failure mode, or create a new sequence of events that result
in significant fuel cladding failures.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change maintains existing safety margin and
provides adequate protection through continued application of the
existing requirement in the UFSAR. The proposed change satisfies the
same design functions in accordance with the same codes and
standards as stated in the UFSAR. This change does not adversely
affect any design code, function, design analysis, safety analysis
input or result, or design/safety margin. No safety analysis or
design basis acceptance limit/criterion is challenged or exceeded by
the proposed change.
Since no safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/
criterion is challenged or exceeded by this change, no significant
margin of safety is reduced.
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: M. Stanford Blanton, Balch & Bingham LLP,
1710 Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 35203-2015.
NRC Branch Chief: Jennifer Dixon-Herrity.
STP Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 50-498 and 50-499, South
Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, Matagorda County, Texas
Date of amendment request: May 1, 2019. A publicly available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19126A309.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the
South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, Technical Specifications in Section
3.0 and Section 4.0 regarding limiting condition for operation (LCO)
and surveillance requirement (SR) usage. The proposed changes are
consistent with the NRC-approved Technical Specifications Task Force
(TSTF) Traveler TSTF-529, ``Clarify Use and Application Rules,'' using
the consolidated line item improvement process (ADAMS Accession No.
ML16062A271). The model safety evaluation was approved by the NRC in a
letter dated April 21, 2016 (ADAMS Accession No. ML16060A441).
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 to Technical Specification LCO 3.0.4 has no
effect on the requirement for systems to be Operable and has no
effect on the application of Technical Specification actions. The
proposed change to Technical Specification SR 4.0.3 states that the
allowance may only be used when there is a reasonable expectation
the surveillance will be met when performed. Since the proposed
change does not significantly affect system Operability, the
proposed change will have no significant effect on the initiating
events for accidents previously evaluated and will have no
significant effect on the ability of the systems to mitigate
accidents previously evaluated.
Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change to the Technical Specifications usage rules
does not affect the design or function of any plant systems. The
proposed change does not change the Operability requirements for
plant systems or the actions taken when plant systems are not
Operable.
Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change clarifies the application of Technical
Specification LCO 3.0.4 and does not result in changes in plant
operation. Technical Specification SR 4.0.3 is revised to allow
application of Technical Specification SR 4.0.3 when a Surveillance
Requirement has not been previously performed if there is reasonable
expectation that the Surveillance Requirement will be met when
performed. This expands the use of Technical Specification SR 4.0.3
while ensuring the affected system is capable of performing its
safety function. As a result, plant safety is either improved or
unaffected.
Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
request for amendments involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Kym Harshaw, Vice President and General
Counsel, STP Nuclear Operating Company, P.O. Box 289, Wadsworth, TX
77483.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
[[Page 28348]]
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), Docket Nos. 50-390 and 50-391, Watts
Bar Nuclear Plant (WBN), Units 1 and 2, Rhea County, Tennessee
Date of amendment request: November 26, 2018, as supplemented by
letter dated May 13, 2019. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS
under Accession Nos. ML18331A134 and ML19134A233, respectively.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise
technical specifications (TSs) to support performance of 6.9 kiloVolt
and associated 480 Volt shutdown board (SDBD) maintenance. The proposed
changes provide operational flexibility for two-unit operation by
providing sufficient time to perform preventive maintenance on SDBDs
associated with a defueled unit while the opposite unit is operating in
Modes 1, 2, 3, or 4.
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 any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change modifies the required actions for the
opposite unit's onsite and offsite AC power sources and electrical
distribution system. The opposite unit's AC power sources and
electrical distribution system are required to be operable to
support the associated unit's required features. In addition, a
change is proposed to remove the details regarding the required
input power to the vital inverters. This change will not affect the
probability of an accident, since the AC power sources, vital
inverters, and electrical distribution system are not initiators of
any accident sequence analyzed in the WBN dual-unit Updated Final
Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). Rather, the AC power sources, vital
inverters, and electrical distribution system support equipment used
to mitigate accidents. The consequences of an analyzed accident will
not be significantly increased since the minimum requirements for AC
power sources, vital inverters, and electrical distribution system
will be maintained to ensure the availability of the required power
to mitigate accidents assumed in the UFSAR. Operation in accordance
with the proposed TS will ensure that sufficient AC power sources,
vital inverters, and electrical distribution subsystems are
operable, as required to support the unit's required features.
Therefore, the mitigating functions supported by the AC power
sources, vital inverters, and electrical distribution system will
continue to provide the protection assumed by the accident analysis.
The integrity of fission product barriers, plant configuration, and
operating procedures as described in the UFSAR will not be affected
by the proposed changes. Thus, the consequences of previously
analyzed accidents will not increase by implementing these changes.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
Response: No
The proposed changes involve restructuring the TS for the AC
electrical power system to provide more flexibility in performing
maintenance on electrical system components. The AC electrical power
system is not an initiator to any accident sequence analyzed in the
UFSAR. Rather, the AC electrical power system supports equipment
used to mitigate accidents. The proposed changes to modify the
required actions associated with inoperable opposite unit AC power
sources and shutdown boards and proposed changes to the details of
the required power supplies to the vital inverters will maintain the
same level of equipment performance required for mitigating
accidents assumed in the UFSAR. Therefore, operation of the facility
in accordance with this proposed change will 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
the margin of safety?
Response: No.
The margin of safety is established through equipment design,
operating parameters, and the setpoints at which automatic actions
are initiated. The equipment margins will be maintained in
accordance with the plant-specific design bases as a result of the
proposed changes. The proposed changes will not adversely affect
operation of plant equipment. These changes will not result in a
change to the setpoints at which protective actions are initiated.
Sufficient AC capability to support operation of mitigation
equipment is ensured. The equipment fed by the AC electrical sources
will continue to provide adequate power to safety-related loads in
accordance with analysis assumptions. The proposed TS changes
maintain the same level of equipment performance stated in the UFSAR
and the current TSs. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve
a significant reduction 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.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-390 and 50-391, Watts Bar
Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Rhea County, Tennessee
Date of amendment request: November 29, 2018. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18334A389.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would modify the
Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Technical Specification
requirements related to direct current (DC) electrical systems to be
consistent with Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler
TSTF-500, Revision 2, ``DC Electrical Rewrite--Update to TSTF-360''
(ADAMS Accession No. ML092670242).
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 any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes restructure the Technical Specifications
(TS) for the direct current (DC) electrical power system and are
consistent with TSTF-500, Revision 2. The proposed changes modify TS
Actions relating to battery and battery charger inoperability. The
DC electrical power system, including associated battery chargers,
is not an initiator of any accident sequence analyzed in the Final
Safety Analysis Report (FSAR). Rather, the DC electrical power
system supports equipment used to mitigate accidents. The proposed
changes to restructure TS and change surveillances for batteries and
chargers to incorporate the updates included in TSTF-500, Revision
2, will maintain the same level of equipment performance required
for mitigating accidents assumed in the FSAR. Operation in
accordance with the proposed TS would ensure that the DC electrical
power system is capable of performing its specified safety function
as described in the FSAR. Therefore, the mitigating functions
supported by the DC electrical power system will continue to provide
the protection assumed by the analysis. The relocation of preventive
maintenance surveillances, and certain operating limits and actions,
to a licensee-controlled Battery Monitoring and Maintenance Program
will not challenge the ability of the DC electrical power system to
perform its design function. Appropriate monitoring and maintenance
that are consistent with industry standards will continue to be
performed. In addition, the DC electrical power system is within the
scope of 10 CFR 50.65, ``Requirements for monitoring the
effectiveness of maintenance at nuclear power plants,'' which will
ensure the control of maintenance activities
[[Page 28349]]
associated with the DC electrical power system.
The integrity of fission product barriers, plant configuration,
and operating procedures as described in the FSAR will not be
affected by the proposed changes. Therefore, the consequences of
previously analyzed accidents will not increase by implementing
these changes. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes involve restructuring the TS for the DC
electrical power system. The DC electrical power system, including
associated battery chargers, is not an initiator to any accident
sequence analyzed in the FSAR. Rather, the DC electrical power
system supports equipment used to mitigate accidents. The proposed
changes to restructure the TS and change surveillances for batteries
and chargers to incorporate the updates included in TSTF-500,
Revision 2, will maintain the same level of equipment performance
required for mitigating accidents assumed in the FSAR.
Administrative and mechanical controls are in place to ensure the
design and operation of the DC systems continues to meet the plant
design basis described in the FSAR. Therefore, operation of the
facility in accordance with this proposed change will 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
the margin of safety?
Response: No.
The margin of safety is established through equipment design,
operating parameters, and the setpoints at which automatic actions
are initiated. The equipment margins will be maintained in
accordance with the plant-specific design bases because of the
proposed changes. The proposed changes will not adversely affect
operation of plant equipment. These changes will not result in a
change to the setpoints at which protective actions are initiated.
Sufficient DC capacity to support operation of mitigation equipment
is ensured. The changes associated with the new battery Maintenance
and Monitoring Program will ensure that the station batteries are
maintained in a highly reliable manner. The equipment fed by the DC
electrical sources will continue to provide adequate power to
safety-related loads in accordance with analysis assumptions. TS
changes made in accordance with TSTF-500, Revision 2, maintain the
same level of equipment performance stated in the FSAR and the
current TSs. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a
significant reduction [in the margin] of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
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.
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: March 18, 2019. A publicly available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19086A113.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-4 and NPF-7 for the North
Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2, respectively, by revising the
Technical Specification (TS) requirements regarding the Emergency
Diesel Generators. Specifically, TS 3.8.1, ``AC Sources--Operating,''
would be revised to reduce the maximum voltage specified in the
associated surveillance requirements.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
Modifying the maximum steady-state voltage requirement does not
increase the probability of an accident. Verifying proper operation
of the EDGs to maintain adequate voltage ensures proper electrical
and mechanical system function and does not increase the
consequences of an accident.
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 would provide more restrictive acceptance
criteria to be applied to existing technical specification
surveillance tests that demonstrate the capability of the facility
EDGs to perform their design function. The proposed acceptance
criteria changes would not create any new failure mechanisms,
malfunctions, or accident initiators not considered in the design
and licensing bases. Therefore, the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any previously evaluated has not
been created.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change involves decreasing maximum voltage test
acceptance criterion for EDG Surveillance Tests. The conduct of
surveillance tests on safety-related plant equipment is a means of
assuring that the equipment is capable of maintaining the margin of
safety established in the safety analyses for the facility. The
proposed amendment does not affect EDG performance as described in
the design basis analyses, including the capability of the EDG to
maintain required voltage for proper operation of plant safety
loads. The proposed amendment does not introduce changes to limits
established in the accident analyses. 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: Mr. W.S. Blair, Senior Counsel, Dominion
Energy Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar Street, RS-2, Richmond, VA 23219.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
IV. Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and
Combined Licenses
During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice,
the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has
determined for each of these amendments that the application complies
with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,
as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The
Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the
Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR chapter I, which are set
forth in the license amendment.
A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility
operating license or combined license, as applicable, proposed no
significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a
hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the Federal
Register as indicated.
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that
these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in
accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b),
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be
prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an
environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in
10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment,
it is so indicated.
[[Page 28350]]
For further details with respect to the action see (1) the
applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's
related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as
indicated. All of these items can be accessed as described in the
``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' section of this
document.
Arizona Public Service Company, et al., Docket Nos. STN 50-528, STN 50-
529, and STN 50-530, Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos.
1, 2, and 3, Maricopa County, Arizona
Date of application for amendments: July 31, 2015, as supplemented
by letters dated April 11, 2016; November 3, 2017; and May 18, June 1,
September 21, and October 5, 2018.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised certain
technical specification (TS) requirements related to Completion Times
for Required Actions to provide the option to calculate a longer, risk-
informed completion time. The allowance is described in a new program,
``Risk Informed Completion Time Program,'' that was added to TS Section
5.0, ``Administrative Controls.'' The methodology for using the Risk-
Informed Completion Time Program is described in Nuclear Energy
Institute (NEI) Report NEI 06-09, ``Risk-Informed Technical
Specifications Initiative 4b: Risk-Managed Technical Specifications
(RMTS) Guidelines,'' Revision 0-A.
Date of issuance: May 29, 2019.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 270 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 1--209; Unit 2--209; Unit 3--209. A publicly-
available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19085A525.
Documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety
Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-41, NPF-51, and NPF-74:
The amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 8, 2015 (80 FR
76317). By letter dated November 3, 2017, the licensee supplemented its
application. By supplemental letters dated May 18 and June 1, 2018, the
licensee provided additional information that expanded the scope of the
amendment request as originally noticed in the Federal Register.
Accordingly, the NRC published a second proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination in the Federal Register on August 14, 2018
(83 FR 40345), which superseded the original notice in its entirely.
The supplemental letters dated September 21, and October 5, 2018,
provided additional information that clarified the application, did not
expand the scope of the application as noticed, and did not change the
staff's second 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 May 29, 2019.
Dairyland Power Cooperative, Docket No.: 50-409, La Crosse Boiling
Water Reactor, La Crosse County, Wisconsin
Date of application for amendment: June 27, 2016, supplemented by
letter dated December 1, 2016, May 31, 2018, and November 15, 2018.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises the La Crosse
Boiling Water Reactor (LACBWR) license to approve the License
Termination Plan (LTP). The LACBWR LTP provides the details of the plan
for characterizing, identifying, and remediating the remaining residual
radioactivity at the LACBWR site to a level that will allow the site to
be released for unrestricted use. The LACBWR LTP also describes how the
licensee will confirm the extent and success of remediation through
radiological surveys, provide financial assurance to complete
decommissioning, and ensure the environmental impacts of the
decommissioning activities are within the scope originally envisioned
in the associated environmental documents. Decommissioning activities
at the LACBWR site are scheduled to be complete in 2019, with license
termination occurring before the end of 2020.
Date of issuance: May 21, 2019.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment No.: 75.
Possession Only License No. DPR-45: The amendment revised the
Possession Only License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 30, 2016 (81 FR
59663). The supplements dated December 1, 2016, May 31, 2018, 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 affect the applicability of the NRC's generic no
significant hazards consideration determination.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a safety evaluation dated May 21, 2019, which is available in the
Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) at Accession
No. ML19008A079).
No significant hazards consideration comments received: Not
applicable.
Dominion Energy Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Docket No. 50-423, Millstone
Power Station, Unit No. 3, New London County, Connecticut
Date of amendment request: May 3, 2018, as supplemented by letters
dated November 29, 2018; March 27, 2019; and May 7, 2019.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical
Specifications to reflect the results and constraints of a new
criticality safety analysis for fuel assembly storage in the Millstone
Power Station, Unit No. 3, fuel storage racks. Specifically, the
amendment implemented the following items associated with fuel assembly
storage: (1) Increased the Technical Specification minimum spent fuel
pool soluble boron concentration, (2) revised allowed storage patterns
and initial enrichment/burnup/decay time for fuel assemblies in the
spent fuel pool to meet keff requirements under normal and
accident conditions, (3) permitted the storage of any fuel assembly
with certain enrichment that contains a rod cluster control assembly in
Region 2 without restriction, and (4) implemented a revised criticality
analysis for the new fuel storage racks using the updated methods for
the spent fuel pool criticality analysis for consistency.
Date of issuance: May 28, 2019.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 273. A publicly available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML19126A000; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-49: The amendment
revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical
Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 7, 2018 (83 FR
38735). The supplemental letters dated November 29, 2018; March 27,
2019; and May 7, 2019, 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
[[Page 28351]]
consideration determination as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated May 28, 2019.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-313, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit
1 (ANO-1), Pope County, Arkansas
Date of amendment request: March 12, 2018, as supplemented by
letters dated April 26, October 17, and December 11, 2018.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the ANO-1
Technical Specifications and operating license by relocating certain
surveillance frequencies to a licensee-controlled program, consistent
with the NRC-approved Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF)
Improved Standard Technical Specifications Change Traveler TSTF-425,
Revision 3, ``Relocate Surveillance Frequencies to Licensee Control--
RITSTF [Risk-Informed TSTF] Initiative 5b.''
Date of issuance: May 22, 2019.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 264. A publicly available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML19098A955; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-51: Amendment revised
the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 5, 2018 (83 FR
26102). The supplemental letters dated October 17 and December 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 May 22, 2019.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Operations, Inc., System Energy Resources, Inc., Cooperative
Energy, A Mississippi Electric Cooperative, and Entergy Mississippi,
LLC, Docket No. 50-416, Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Claiborne
County, Mississippi
Date of amendment request: April 10, 2018, as supplemented by
letters dated October 23, 2018, and March 13, 2019.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical
Specifications (TSs) to adopt Technical Specifications Task Force
(TSTF) Traveler TSTF-542, Revision 2, ``Reactor Pressure Vessel Water
Inventory Control.'' The change replaced existing TS requirements
related to ``operations with a potential for draining the reactor
vessel'' with new requirements on reactor pressure vessel water
inventory control to protect Safety Limit 2.1.1.3. Safety Limit 2.1.1.3
requires reactor vessel water level to be greater than the top of
active irradiated fuel.
Date of issuance: May 23, 2019.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 120 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No: 218. A publicly available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML19084A218; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-29: The amendment
revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical
Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 5, 2018 (83 FR
26103). The supplemental letters dated October 23, 2018, and March 13,
2019, 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 May 23, 2019.
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
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-
171, 50-277, and 50-278, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 1, 2,
and 3, York and Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: May 10, 2018, as supplemented by letters
dated November 1 and November 29, 2018.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the
emergency response organization positions identified in the emergency
plan for each site.
Date of issuance: May 24, 2019.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
on or before December 31, 2019.
Amendment Nos.: Limerick--235/198 and Peach Bottom--14/325/328. A
publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19078A018.
Documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety
Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-39, NPF-85, DPR-12, DPR-44, and
DPR-56: Amendments revised the emergency plans.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 17, 2018 (83 FR
33268). The supplemental letters dated November 1 and November 29,
2018, provided additional information that clarified the application,
did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and
did not change the NRC staff's original proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a safety evaluation dated May 24, 2019.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
PSEG Nuclear LLC and Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-272
and 50-311, Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Salem
County, New Jersey
Date of amendment request: June 29, 2018, as supplemented by letter
dated October 27, 2018.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical
Specification (TS) 3/4.3.1, ``Reactor Trip System Instrumentation''; TS
3/4.3.2, ``Engineered Safety Feature Actuation System
Instrumentation''; TS 3/4.7.1.5, ``Main Steam Isolation Valves''; and
added a new TS for feedwater isolation to better align the TSs with the
design-basis analyses and the design of the instrumentation.
Date of issuance: May 31, 2019.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 329 (Unit No. 1) and 310 (Unit No. 2). A publicly
available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19105B171;
documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety
Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-70 and DPR-75: The
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 28, 2018 (83 FR
43907). The supplemental letter dated October 27, 2018, provided
additional information that clarified the
[[Page 28352]]
application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally
noticed, and did not change the NRC staff's original proposed no
significant hazards consideration determination as published in the
Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated May 31, 2019.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-390 and 50-391, Watts Bar
Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Rhea County, Tennessee
Date of amendment request: December 20, 2017, as supplemented by
letters dated February 15, April 9, and October 4, 2018.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical
Specification (TS) 4.2.1, ``Fuel Assemblies,'' for Unit 2 to allow up
to 1,792 tritium producing burnable absorber rods in the reactor; and
revised the Units 1 and 2 TSs related to fuel storage.
Date of issuance: May 22, 2019.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
prior to startup from the outage where any number of tritium producing
burnable absorber rods is inserted in the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit
2, reactor core not to exceed December 31, 2022.
Amendment Nos.: 125 (Unit 1) and 27 (Unit 2). A publicly available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18347B330; documents related
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with
the amendments.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-90 and NPF-96: The amendments
revised the Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 8, 2018 (83 FR
26709). The supplement dated October 4, 2018, provided additional
information that clarified the application, and did not expand the
scope of the application as originally noticed in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated May 22, 2019.
Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation, Docket No. 50-482, Wolf Creek
Generating Station, Unit 1 (Wolf Creek), Coffey County, Kansas
Date of amendment request: January 17, 2017, as supplemented by
letters dated March 22, May 4, July 13, October 18, and November 14,
2017; January 15, January 29, April 19, June 19, August 9, November 15
(two letters), and December 6, 2018; and March 5, May 2, and May 15,
2019.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Wolf
Creek Technical Specifications to replace the existing methodology for
performing core design, non-loss-of-coolant-accident and loss-of-
coolant accident safety analyses with standard Westinghouse Electric
Corporation developed and NRC-approved analysis methodologies. In
addition, the amendment revised the Wolf Creek licensing basis by
adopting the alternative source term (AST) radiological analysis
methodology in accordance with 10 CFR 50.67, ``Accident source term.''
This amendment represented a full scope implementation of the AST as
described in Regulatory Guide 1.183, ``Alternative Radiological Source
Terms for Evaluating Design Basis Accidents at Nuclear Power
Reactors.''
Date of issuance: May 31, 2019.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
during startup (prior to entry into Mode 2) from Refueling Outage 23.
Amendment No.: 221. A publicly available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML19100A122; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-42. The amendment
revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical
Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: On July 5, 2017, the
NRC staff published a proposed no significant hazards consideration
(NSHC) determination in the Federal Register (82 FR 31084) for the
proposed amendment. Subsequently by letters dated July 13, October 18,
and November 14, 2017; January 15, January 29, April 19, June 19, and
August 9, 2018, the licensee provided additional information that
expanded the scope of the amendment request as originally noticed in
the Federal Register. Accordingly, the NRC published a second proposed
NSHC determination in the Federal Register on October 2, 2018 (83 FR
49590), which superseded the original notice in its entirety. The
supplemental letters dated November 15 (two letters) and December 6,
2018; and March 5, May 2, and May 15, 2019, provided additional
information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of
the application as noticed on October 2, 2018, and did not change the
NRC staff's proposed NSHC determination published in the Federal
Register dated October 2, 2018.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated May 31, 2019.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 10th day of June 2019.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Craig G. Erlanger,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2019-12573 Filed 6-17-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P