[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 127 (Tuesday, July 2, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31629-31640]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-14001]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2019-0140]
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 June 4, 2019, to June 17, 2019. The last
biweekly notice was published on June 18, 2019.
DATES: Comments must be filed by August 1, 2019. A request for a
hearing must be filed by September 3, 2019.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
Federal Rulemaking website: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2019-0140. 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 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: Shirley Rohrer, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington,
D.C. 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-5411, email:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments
A. Obtaining Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2019-0140, 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 https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2019-0140.
NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the
ADAMS Public Documents collection at https://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-2019-0140, 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
https://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.
[[Page 31630]]
III. Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility
Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses and Proposed No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under
the Commission's regulations in Sec. 50.92 of title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (10 CFR), this means that operation of the facility
in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or
(3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis
for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown
below.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final
determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period if circumstances change during the 30-day comment
period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for
example in derating or shutdown of the facility. If the Commission
takes action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or
the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a notice of
issuance. If the Commission makes a final no significant hazards
consideration determination, any hearing will take place after
issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will
occur very infrequently.
A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing and Petition for Leave To Intervene
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any
persons (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by this action may
file a request for a hearing and petition for leave to intervene
(petition) with respect to the action. Petitions shall be filed in
accordance with the Commission's ``Agency Rules of Practice and
Procedure'' in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult a
current copy of 10 CFR 2.309. The NRC's regulations are accessible
electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's website at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. Alternatively, a copy of
the regulations is available at the NRC's Public Document Room, located
at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first
floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. If a petition is filed, the
Commission or a presiding officer will rule on the petition and, if
appropriate, a notice of a hearing will be issued.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309(d) the petition should specifically
explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with
particular reference to the following general requirements for
standing: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the
petitioner; (2) the nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to
be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the
petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding;
and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be
entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f), the petition must also set
forth the specific contentions which the petitioner seeks to have
litigated in the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific
statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In
addition, the petitioner must provide a brief explanation of the bases
for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or
expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner
intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The
petitioner must also provide references to the specific sources and
documents on which the petitioner intends to rely to support its
position on the issue. The petition must include sufficient information
to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant or licensee on
a material issue of law or fact. Contentions must be limited to matters
within the scope of the proceeding. The contention must be one which,
if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner who
fails to satisfy the requirements at 10 CFR 2.309(f) with respect to at
least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding,
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene.
Parties have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the
hearing with respect to resolution of that party's admitted
contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence, consistent
with the NRC's regulations, policies, and procedures.
Petitions must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of
publication of this notice. Petitions and motions for leave to file new
or amended contentions that are filed after the deadline will not be
entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the
filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10
CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i) through (iii). The petition must be filed in
accordance with the filing instructions in the ``Electronic Submissions
(E-Filing)'' section of this document.
If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the
Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no
significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve
to establish when the hearing is held. If the final determination is
that the amendment request involves no significant hazards
consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it
immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any
hearing would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final
determination is that the amendment request involves a significant
hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before
the issuance of the amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent
danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will
issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.
A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian
Tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to
participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition should
state the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the
proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission no later
than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. The petition
must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the
``Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)'' section of this document, and
should meet the requirements for petitions set forth in this section,
except that under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(2) a State, local governmental body,
or Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof does not need
to address the standing requirements in 10 CFR 2.309(d) if the facility
is located within
[[Page 31631]]
its boundaries. Alternatively, a State, local governmental body,
Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof may participate as
a non-party under 10 CFR 2.315(c).
If a hearing is granted, any person who is not a party to the
proceeding and is not affiliated with or represented by a party may, at
the discretion of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited
appearance pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person
making a limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of
his or her position on the issues but may not otherwise participate in
the proceeding. A limited appearance may be made at any session of the
hearing or at any prehearing conference, subject to the limits and
conditions as may be imposed by the presiding officer. Details
regarding the opportunity to make a limited appearance will be provided
by the presiding officer if such sessions are scheduled.
B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a
request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition), any
motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the
submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and
documents filed by interested governmental entities that request to
participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the
NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007, as amended at 77 FR
46562; August 3, 2012). The E-Filing process requires participants to
submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in
some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Detailed
guidance on making electronic submissions may be found in the Guidance
for Electronic Submissions to the NRC and on the NRC website at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants may not submit
paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in
accordance with the procedures described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10
days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the
Office of the Secretary by email at [email protected], or by
telephone at 301-415-1677, to (1) request a digital identification (ID)
certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or
representative) to digitally sign submissions and access the E-Filing
system for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise
the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a petition or
other adjudicatory document (even in instances in which the
participant, or its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-
issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the
Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the hearing in this
proceeding if the Secretary has not already established an electronic
docket.
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is
available on the NRC's public website at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/getting-started.html. Once a participant has obtained a
digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant
can then submit adjudicatory documents. Submissions must be in Portable
Document Format (PDF). Additional guidance on PDF submissions is
available on the NRC's public website at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/electronic-sub-ref-mat.html. A filing is considered complete at the
time the document is submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be
timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system
no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of
a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends
the submitter an email notice confirming receipt of the document. The
E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access
to the document to the NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any
others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to
participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the
document on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and
other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for
and receive a digital ID certificate before adjudicatory documents are
filed so that they can obtain access to the documents via the E-Filing
system.
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-
Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC's Electronic
Filing Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC's
public website at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by
email to [email protected], or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-
7640. The NRC Electronic Filing Help Desk is available between 9 a.m.
and 6 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government
holidays.
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not
submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in
accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing
stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and
requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper
format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention:
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or
expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and
Adjudications Staff. Participants filing adjudicatory documents in this
manner are responsible for serving the document on all other
participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of
the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or
expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the
provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an
exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or
party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines
that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no
longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
https://adams.nrc.gov/ehd, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the
Commission or the presiding officer. If you do not have an NRC-issued
digital ID certificate as described above, click cancel when the link
requests certificates and you will be automatically directed to the
NRC's electronic hearing dockets where you will be able to access any
publicly available documents in a particular hearing docket.
Participants are requested not to include personal privacy information,
such as social security numbers, home addresses, or personal phone
numbers in their filings, unless an NRC regulation or other law
requires submission of such information. For example, in some
instances, individuals provide home addresses in order to demonstrate
proximity to a facility or site. With respect to copyrighted works,
except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory
filings and would constitute a Fair Use application, participants are
requested not to include copyrighted materials in their submission.
For further details with respect to these license amendment
applications, see the application for amendment which is available for
public inspection in ADAMS and at the NRC's PDR. For additional
direction on accessing
[[Page 31632]]
information related to this document, see the ``Obtaining Information
and Submitting Comments'' section of this document.
Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Docket No. 50-400, Shearon Harris Nuclear
Power Plant, Unit 1, Wake and Chatham Counties, North Carolina
Date of amendment request: February 18, 2019. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19049A027.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the
Technical Specifications (TSs) to permit one train of the Essential
Services Chilled Water System (ESCWS) to be inoperable for up to 7
days, from the current 72 hours allowed outage time. In addition, the
amendment would remove an expired note previously added to TSs by
implementation of License Amendment 153.
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 operable train of the ESCWS and supported equipment will
remain fully operable during the 7-day allowed outage time. The
unavailable train of the ESCWS and supported equipment function as
accident mitigators. The removal of a train of the ESCWS from
service for a limited period of time does not affect any accident
initiator and therefore cannot change the probability of an
accident. The proposed change has been evaluated to assess the
impact on systems affected and the upon design basis safety
functions.
The activities covered by this LAR [license amendment request]
also include defense-in-depth compensatory measures. There will be
no effect on the analysis of any accident or the progression of the
accident since the operable ESCWS train is capable of serving 100
percent of all the required heat loads. As such, there is no impact
on consequence mitigation for any transient or accident.
The proposed changes to TS 3.1.2.4, TS 3.5.2, TS 3.6.2.1, TS
3.6.2.2, TS 3.6.2.3, TS 3.7.1.2, TS 3.7.3, TS 3.7.4, TS 3.7.6, TS
3.7.7, TS 3.7.13, and TS 3.8.1.1 that remove an expired note are
administrative, non-technical changes which remove temporary TS
requirements added as part of the HNP License Amendment 153 issued
on September 16, 2016 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management
System Accession No. ML16253A059), that are currently obsolete.
As a result, operation of the facility in accordance with the
proposed changes will not significantly increase the consequences of
accidents previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
[Response: No.]
The proposed amendment is an extension of the allowed outage
time from 72 hours to 7 days for the ESCWS and its supported TS
systems that includes Charging Pumps, ECCS [emergency core cooling
system] subsystems, Containment Spray System, Containment Cooling
System, and the Emergency Service Water System, `B' Train. The
requested change does not involve the addition or removal of any
plant system, structure, or component.
The proposed TS changes do not affect the basic design,
operation, or function of any of the systems associated with the TS
impacted by the amendment. Implementation of the proposed amendment
will not create the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from that previously evaluated.
The proposed changes to TS 3.1.2.4, TS 3.5.2, TS 3.6.2.1, TS
3.6.2.2, TS 3.6.2.3, TS 3.7.1.2, TS 3.7.3, TS 3.7.4, TS 3.7.6, TS
3.7.7, TS 3.7.13, and TS 3.8.1.1 that remove an expired note are
administrative, non-technical changes which remove temporary TS
requirements added as part of the HNP License Amendment 153 issued
on September 16, 2016, that are currently obsolete.
In conclusion, this proposed LAR does not impact any plant
systems that are accident initiators and does not impact any safety
analysis. Therefore, operation of the facility in accordance with
the proposed changes will 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 margin of safety is related to the confidence in the ability
of the fission product barriers to perform their design functions
during and following an accident condition. These barriers include
the fuel cladding, the reactor coolant system, and the containment
system. The performance of the fuel cladding, reactor coolant, and
containment systems will not be impacted by the proposed LAR.
Additionally, the proposed amendment does not involve a change
in the operation of the plant. The activity only extends the amount
of time a train of the ESCWS is allowed to be inoperable to complete
maintenance for equipment reliability. The incremental conditional
core damage probability (ICCDP) and incremental conditional large
early release probability (ICLERP) calculated for the 7-day AOT are
within the limits presented in Regulatory Guides 1.174 and 1.177.
The proposed changes to TS 3.1.2.4, TS 3.5.2, TS 3.6.2.1, TS
3.6.2.2, TS 3.6.2.3, TS 3.7.1.2, TS 3.7.3, TS 3.7.4, TS 3.7.6, TS
3.7.7, TS 3.7.13, and TS 3.8.1.1 that remove an expired note are
administrative, non-technical changes which remove temporary TS
requirements added as part of the HNP License Amendment 153 issued
on September 16, 2016, that are currently obsolete.
Therefore, operation of the facility in accordance with the
proposed changes will 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: David Cummings, Associate General Counsel,
Duke Energy Corporation, Mail Code DEC45, 550 South Tryon St.,
Charlotte, NC 28202.
NRC Branch Chief: Undine Shoop.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-255, Palisades Nuclear
Plant (PNP), Van Buren County, Michigan
Date of amendment request: March 28, 2019, as supplemented by
letter dated May 6, 2019. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS
under Accession Nos. ML19098A966, and ML19127A018, respectively.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise and
modify the PNP technical specifications (TSs) by relocating specific
surveillance frequencies to a licensee-controlled program with the
implementation of Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler
TSTF-425, ``Relocate Surveillance Frequencies to Licensee Control--
RITSTF [Risk-Informed TSTF] Initiative 5b,'' Revision 3.
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:
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its
analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The NRC
staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis against the standards of 10
CFR 50.92(c). The NRC staff's analysis 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 relocates the specified frequencies for
periodic surveillance requirements to licensee control under a new
Surveillance Frequency Control Program [SFCP]. Surveillance
frequencies are not an initiator to any accident previously
evaluated. As a result, the probability of any accident previously
evaluated is not significantly increased. The systems and
[[Page 31633]]
components required by the technical specifications for which the
surveillance frequencies are relocated are still required to be
operable, meet the acceptance criteria for the surveillance
requirements, and be capable of performing any mitigation function
assumed in the accident analysis. As a result, the consequences of
any accident previously evaluated are not significantly increased.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
Response: No.
No new or different accidents result from utilizing the proposed
change. The changes do not involve a physical alteration of the
plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be
installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant
operation. In addition, the changes do not impose any new or
different requirements. The changes do not alter assumptions made in
the safety analysis. The proposed changes are consistent with the
safety analysis assumptions and current plant operating practice.
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
the margin of safety?
Response: No.
The design, operation, testing methods, and acceptance criteria
for systems, structures, and components (SSCs), specified in
applicable codes and standards (or alternatives approved for use by
the NRC) will continue to be met as described in the plant licensing
basis (including the Final Safety Analysis Report and Bases to TS),
since these are not affected by changes to the surveillance
frequencies. Similarly, there is no impact to safety analysis
acceptance criteria as described in the plant licensing basis. To
evaluate a change in the relocated surveillance frequency, Entergy
will perform a probabilistic risk evaluation using the guidance
contained in NRC approved [Nuclear Energy Institute] NEI 04-10,
Revision 1 in accordance with the TS SFCP. NEI 04-10, Revision 1,
methodology provides reasonable acceptance guidelines and methods
for evaluating the risk increase of proposed changes to surveillance
frequencies consistent with Regulatory Guide 1.177.
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: Anna V. Jones, Senior Counsel, Entergy
Services, Inc., 101 Constitution Avenue NW, Suite 200 East, Washington,
DC 20001.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Lisa M. Regner.
Entergy Operations, Inc. (Entergy), Docket Nos. 50-313 and 50-368,
Arkansas Nuclear One, Units 1 (ANO-1) and 2 (ANO-2), Pope County,
Arkansas
Date of amendment request: April 29, 2019. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19119A090.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the
license basis documents for ANO-1 and ANO-2, to utilize the Tornado
Missile Risk Evaluator (TMRE) methodology as the licensing basis to
qualify several components that have been identified as not conforming
to the unit-specific current licensing basis.
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 is to revise the ANO-1 and ANO-2 unit-
specific SARs [Safety Analysis Reports] by reflecting the results of
the TMRE analysis, which demonstrated that tornado-generated missile
protection is not required for identified nonconforming structures,
systems, and components (SSCs) on each unit. TMRE is an alternative
methodology which can only be applied to discovered conditions where
tornado missile protection was not provided, and cannot be used to
avoid providing tornado missile protection in the plant modification
process.
The proposed amendment does not involve an increase in the
probability of an accident previously evaluated. The relevant
accident previously evaluated is a Design Basis tornado impacting
the ANO site. The probability of a Design Basis tornado is driven by
external factors and is not affected by the proposed amendment.
There are no changes required to any of the previously evaluated
accidents in the SAR.
The proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase
in the consequences of a Design Basis tornado. TMRE is a risk-
informed methodology for determining whether certain safety-related
features that are currently not protected from tornado-generated
missiles require such protection. The criteria for significant
increase in consequences was established in the NRC Policy Statement
on probabilistic risk assessment, which were incorporated into
Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.174, ``An Approach for Using Probabilistic
Risk Assessment in Risk-Informed Decisions on Plant-specific Changes
to the Licensing Basis.'' The TMRE calculations performed by Entergy
meet the acceptance criteria of RG 1.174.
Therefore, 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 amendment is to revise the ANO-1 and ANO-2 unit-
specific SARs by reflecting the results of the TMRE analysis, which
demonstrated that tornado-generated missile protection is not
required for identified nonconforming SSCs on each unit. TMRE is an
alternative methodology which can only be applied to discovered
conditions where tornado missile protection was not provided, and
cannot be used to avoid providing tornado missile protection in the
plant modification process.
The proposed amendment involves no physical changes to the
existing plants; therefore, no new malfunctions could create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident. The proposed
amendment makes no changes to conditions external to the plants that
could create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident.
The proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident due to new accident precursors, failure
mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident initiators not considered in
the design and licensing bases. The existing unit-specific SAR
accident analyses will continue to meet requirements for the scope
and type of accidents that require analysis.
Therefore, this change does not create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from an accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment is to revise the ANO-1 and ANO-2 unit-
specific SARs by reflecting the results of the TMRE analysis, which
demonstrated that tornado-generated missile protection is not
required for identified nonconforming SSCs on each unit. TMRE is an
alternative methodology which can only be applied to discovered
conditions where tornado missile protection was not provided, and
cannot be used to avoid providing tornado missile protection in the
plant modification process.
The change does not exceed or alter any controlling numerical
value for a parameter established in the ANO-1 or ANO-2 SAR or
elsewhere in the ANO unit-specific licensing basis related to design
basis or safety limits. The change does not impact any unit specific
accident analyses, and those analyses remain valid. The change does
not reduce diversity or redundancy as required by regulation or
credited in the unit-specific SAR. The change does not reduce
defense-in-depth as described in the unit-specific SAR.
Therefore, 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
[[Page 31634]]
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: Anna Vinson Jones, Senior Counsel, Entergy
Services, Inc., 101 Constitution Avenue NW, Suite 200 East, Washington,
DC 20001.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-368, Arkansas Nuclear One
(ANO), Unit 2, Pope County, Arkansas
Date of amendment request: April 30, 2019. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19120A086.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would modify the
ANO, Unit 2, Technical Specifications (TSs) by adopting Technical
Specifications Task Force (TSTF)-563, ``Revise Instrument Testing
Definitions to Incorporate the Surveillance Frequency Control
Program,'' which would revise the definitions of Channel Calibration
and Channel Functional Tests in the ANO, Unit 2 TSs.
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 revises the TS definitions of Channel
Calibration and Channel Functional Test to allow the frequency for
testing the components or devices in each step to be determined in
accordance with the TS SFCP [surveillance frequency control
program]. All components in the channel continue to be tested. The
frequency at which a channel test is performed is not an initiator
of any accident previously evaluated; therefore, the probability of
an accident is not affected by the proposed change. The channels
surveilled in accordance with the affected definitions continue to
be required to be operable and the acceptance criteria of the
surveillances are unchanged. As a result, any mitigating functions
assumed in the accident analysis will continue to be performed.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises the TS definitions of Channel
Calibration and Channel Functional Test to allow the frequency for
testing the components or devices in each step to be determined in
accordance with the TS SFCP. The design function or operation of the
components involved are not affected and there is no physical
alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment
will be installed). No credible new failure mechanisms,
malfunctions, or accident initiators not considered in the design
and licensing bases are introduced. The changes do not alter
assumptions made in the safety analysis. The proposed changes are
consistent with the safety analysis assumptions.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises the TS definitions of Channel
Calibration and Channel Functional Test to allow the frequency for
testing the components or devices in each step to be determined in
accordance with the TS SFCP. The SFCP assures 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 as a result
of the proposed change. Margins of safety are unaffected by method
of determining surveillance test intervals under an NRC-approved
licensee-controlled program.
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: Anna Vinson Jones, Senior Counsel, Entergy
Services, Inc., 101 Constitution Avenue NW, Suite 200 East, Washington,
DC 20001.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-317 and 50-318,
Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant (CCNPP), Units 1 and 2, Calvert
County, Maryland
Date of amendment request: May 6, 2019. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19127A076.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise
CCNPP, Units 1 and 2, Technical Specification Limiting Condition for
Operation 3.4.15, ``RCS [Reactor Coolant System] Specific Activity,''
and associated surveillance requirements. The proposed changes would
replace the current technical specification limit on reactor coolant
system gross specific activity with a new limit on reactor coolant
system noble gas specific activity. The noble gas specific activity
limit would be based on a new definition of ``DOSE EQUIVALENT XE-133''
that would replace the current definition of ``[Emacr]-AVERAGE
DISINTEGRATION ENERGY.'' Also, the current definition of ``DOSE
EQUIVALENT I-131'' would be revised. The proposed changes are
consistent with NRC-approved Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF)
Traveler, TSTF-490, Revision 0, ``Deletion of E Bar Definition and
Revision to RCS Specific Activity Tech Spec.''
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.
Reactor coolant specific activity is not an initiator for any
accident previously evaluated. The Completion Time when primary
coolant gross activity is not within limit is not an initiator for
any accident previously evaluated. The current variable limit on
primary coolant iodine concentration is not an initiator to any
accident previously evaluated. As a result, the proposed change does
not significantly increase the probability of an accident. The
proposed change will limit primary coolant noble gases to
concentrations consistent with the accident analyses. The proposed
change to the Completion Time has no impact on the consequences of
any design basis accident since the consequences of an accident
during the extended Completion Time are the same as the consequences
of an accident during the Completion Time. As a result, the
consequences of any accident previously evaluated are not
significantly increased.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change in specific activity limits does not alter
any physical part of the plant nor does it affect any plant
operating parameter. The change does not create the potential for a
new or different kind of accident from any previously calculated.
[[Page 31635]]
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises the limits on noble gas
radioactivity in the primary coolant. The proposed change is
consistent with the assumptions in the safety analyses and will
ensure the monitored values protect the initial assumptions in the
safety analyses. Based upon the reasoning presented above and the
previous discussion of the amendment request, the requested change
does not involve a significant hazards consideration.
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.
Florida Power & Light Company, et al., Docket No. 50-389, St. Lucie
Plant, Unit No. 2, St. Lucie County, Florida
Date of amendment request: May 20, 2019. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19140A100.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the
Technical Specifications (TSs) by relocating the requirements for the
Motor Operated Valve (MOV) Thermal Overload Protection Bypass Devices
to licensee-controlled documents.
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 relocates the MOV Thermal Overload
Protection Bypass Devices requirements to licensee control whereby
future changes are subject to the regulatory controls of 10 CFR
50.59. Relocating the MOV Thermal Overload Protection Bypass Devices
requirements neither affects the physical design of any plant
structure, system, or component (SSC), nor the manner in which SSCs
are operated and controlled. MOV thermal overload protection, and
the need to bypass the protection, do not satisfy the four 10 CFR
50.36c(2)(ii) criterion for TS inclusion and are thereby appropriate
for relocation, consistent with the NRC Final Policy Statement on TS
Improvements. Implementing NRC policies developed to assure
compliance with applicable regulations cannot adversely affect the
likelihood or outcome of any design basis accident.
Therefore, the proposed license amendments would not involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change to relocate the MOV Thermal Overload
Protection Bypass Devices requirements to licensee control does not
install new plant equipment or modify existing plant equipment or
modify the manner in which existing plant equipment is operated and
controlled. Hence no new failures modes can result from the proposed
change. MOV Thermal Overload Protection and the need to bypass the
protection during accident conditions are not credited in safety
analyses and therefore cannot alter or create new inputs,
assumptions or limits associated with accident analyses. MOV thermal
overload protection, and the need to bypass the protection, do not
satisfy the four 10 CFR 50.36c(2)(ii) criterion for TS inclusion and
are thereby appropriate for relocation consistent with the NRC Final
Policy Statement on TS Improvements. Implementing NRC policies
developed to assure compliance with applicable regulations cannot
create new. or different kinds of accidents.
Therefore, the proposed license amendments would 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 relocates the MOV Thermal Overload
Protection Bypass Devices requirements to licensee control whereby
future changes will be subject to the regulatory controls of 10 CFR
50.59. The proposed change does not involve changes to any safety
analyses, safety limits or limiting safety system settings. The
proposed change does not adversely impact plant operating margins or
the reliability of equipment credited in safety analyses. The
proposed change implements the NRC Final Policy Statement on TS
Improvements for the MOV thermal overload protection bypass devices.
Implementing NRC policies developed to assure compliance with
applicable regulations cannot result in a reduction in the margin of
safety.
Therefore, the proposed license amendment would 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: Debbie Hendell, Managing Attorney--Nuclear,
Florida Power & Light Company, 700 Universe Blvd. MS LAW/JB, Juno
Beach, Florida 33408-0420.
NRC Branch Chief: Undine Shoop.
NextEra Energy Duane Arnold, LLC, Docket No. 50-331, Duane Arnold
Energy Center (DAEC), Linn County, Iowa
Date of amendment request: April 19, 2019. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19109A031.
Description of amendment request: The licensee proposes to change
the technical specifications (TSs) for DAEC to permit changes in plant
operations when the plant is permanently defueled in the fourth quarter
of 2020. Specifically, the licensee proposes to revise the TSs to
support the implementation of the certified fuel handler and non-
certified operator positions. In addition, certain organization,
staffing, and training requirements in the TSs will be revised. The
proposed amendment would also make other administrative changes.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not involve any physical changes to
plant Structures, Systems, and Components (SSCs) or the manner in
which SSCs are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected.
The proposed changes do not involve a change to any safety limits,
limiting safety system settings, limiting control settings, limiting
conditions for operation, surveillance requirements, or design
features.
The deletion and modification of provisions of the
administrative controls do not directly affect the design of SSCs
necessary for safe storage of spent irradiated fuel or the methods
used for handling and storage of such fuel in the Spent Fuel Pool
(SFP). The proposed changes are administrative in nature and do not
affect any accidents applicable to the safe management of spent
irradiated fuel or the permanently shutdown and defueled condition
of the reactor.
DAEC's accident analyses are contained in Chapter 15 of the
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). In a permanently
[[Page 31636]]
defueled condition, the only credible UFSAR described accident that
remains is the Fuel Handling Accident (FHA). Other Chapter 15
accidents will no longer be applicable to a permanently defueled
reactor plant.
The probability of occurrence of previously evaluated accidents
is not increased, since extended operation in a permanently 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 is no longer credible in
a permanently defueled reactor. This significantly reduces the scope
of applicable accidents.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve an increase in
the probability or consequences of a previously evaluated 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 changes have no impact on facility SSCs affecting
the safe storage of the spent irradiated fuel, or on the methods of
operation of such SSCs, or on the handling and storage of spent
irradiated fuel itself. The proposed changes do not result in
different or more adverse failure modes or accidents than previously
evaluated because the reactor will be permanently shut down and
defueled and DAEC will no longer be authorized to operate the
reactor.
The proposed changes do not affect systems credited in the
accident analysis for the FHA at DAEC. The proposed changes will
continue to require proper control and monitoring of safety
significant parameters and activities.
The proposed changes do not result in any new mechanisms that
could initiate damage to the remaining relevant safety barriers in
support of maintaining the plant in a permanently shutdown and
defueled condition (e.g., fuel cladding and SFP cooling). Since
extended operation in a defueled condition will be the only
operation allowed, and therefore bounded by the existing analyses,
such a condition does not create the possibility of a new of
different kind of accident.
The proposed changes do not alter the protection system design,
create new failure modes, or change any modes of operation. The
proposed changes do not involve a physical alteration of the plant,
and no new or different kind of equipment will be installed.
Consequently, there are no new initiators that could result in a new
or different kind of accident. Therefore, the proposed 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 proposed changes involve adding TS definitions and deleting
and/or modifying certain TS administrative controls once the DAEC
facility has been permanently shut down and defueled. As specified
in 10 CFR 50.82(a)(2), the 10 CFR 50 license for DAEC will no longer
authorize operation of the reactor or emplacement or retention of
fuel into the reactor vessel following submittal of the
certifications required by 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1). As a result, the
occurrence of certain design basis postulated accidents are no
longer considered credible when the reactor is permanently defueled.
The only remaining credible UFSAR described accident is a FHA.
The proposed changes do not adversely affect the inputs or
assumptions of any of the design basis analyses that impact the FHA.
The proposed changes are limited to those portions of the TS
definitions and administrative controls that are related to the safe
storage and maintenance of spent irradiated fuel. The requirements
that are proposed to be revised and/or deleted from the DAEC TS are
not credited in the existing accident analysis for the remaining
postulated accident (i.e., FHA); therefore, they do not contribute
to the margin of safety associated with the accident analysis.
Certain postulated DBAs [design-basis accidents] involving the
reactor are no longer possible because the reactor will be
permanently shut down and defueled and DAEC will no longer be
authorized to operate the reactor.
Therefore, the proposed changes have no impact to 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: Steven Hamrick, Managing Attorney--Nuclear,
Florida Power Light Company, P.O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Lisa M. Regner.
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: May 10, 2019. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19134A059.
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. The requested amendment proposes to delete
redundant plant-specific emergency planning Inspections, Tests,
Analyses, and Acceptance Criteria (ITAAC) from VEGP Units 3 and 4 COL
Appendix C that are bounded by other ITAAC or redundant to document
submittal regulatory requirements. The proposed changes do not involve
changes to the approved emergency plan, the plant-specific Tier 2
Design Control Document, or the VEGP Unit 3 and 4 emergency
preparedness exercise schedule requirements prescribed in 10 CFR part
50, Appendix E, Sections IV.F.2.a.ii, IV.F.2.a.iii, IV.F.2.b and
IV.F.2.c for multi-unit sites.
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 VEGP Unit 3 and 4 emergency planning Inspections, Tests,
Analyses, and Acceptance Criteria (ITAAC) provide assurance that the
facility has been constructed and will be operated in conformity
with the license, the provisions of the Act, and the Commission's
rules and regulations. The proposed changes do not affect the design
of a system, structure, or component (SSC) used to meet the design
bases of the nuclear plant. The changes do not affect the
construction or operation of the nuclear plant itself, so there is
no change to the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated. The deletion of redundant VEGP Unit 3 and 4
emergency planning ITAAC does not affect prevention and/or
mitigation of abnormal events (e.g., accidents, anticipated
operational occurrences, earthquakes, floods, or turbine missiles)
or the applicable safety and design analyses. No safety-related SSC
or function is adversely affected. The changes do not involve or
interface with any SSC accident initiator or initiating sequence of
events, so the probabilities of the accidents evaluated in the
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) are not affected.
The proposed activity will not allow for a new fission product
release path, nor will it result in a new fission product barrier
failure mode or create a new sequence of events that would result in
fuel cladding failures. The changes do not involve any safety-
related SSC or function used to mitigate an accident. Therefore, the
consequences of accidents previously evaluated in the UFSAR are not
affected.
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 VEGP Unit 3 and 4 emergency planning ITAAC provide assurance
that the facility has been constructed and will be operated in
conformity with the license, the provisions of the Act, and the
Commission's rules and regulations. The deletion of redundant VEGP
Unit 3 and 4 emergency planning ITAAC does not affect the design of
a system, structure, or component (SSC) used to meet the design
bases of the nuclear plant.
[[Page 31637]]
The changes do not affect the construction or operation of any
systems or equipment such that a new or different kind of accident,
failure mode, or malfunction is created, or alter any SSC such that
a new accident initiator or initiating sequence of events is
created.
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 VEGP Unit 3 and 4 emergency planning ITAAC provide assurance
that the facility has been constructed and will be operated in
conformity with the license, the provisions of the Act, and the
Commission's rules and regulations. The deletion of redundant VEGP
Unit 3 and 4 emergency planning ITAAC does not adversely affect
safety-related equipment or fission product barriers. No safety
analysis or design basis acceptance limit or criterion is challenged
or exceeded by the proposed change.
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: M. Stanford Blanton, Balch & Bingham LLP,
1710 Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 35203-2015.
NRC Branch Chief: Jennifer L. Dixon-Herrity.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Georgia Power Company,
Oglethorpe Power Corporation, Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia,
City of Dalton, Georgia, Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366, Edwin I. Hatch
Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Appling County, Georgia
Date of amendment request: April 23, 2019. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19113A282.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the
technical specification (TS) safety limit (SL) on minimum critical
power ratio (MCPR) to reduce the need for cycle-specific changes to the
value, while still meeting the regulatory requirement for an SL, by
adoption of Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-
564, Revision 2, ``Safety Limit MCPR,'' which is an approved change to
the Improved Standard Technical Specifications, into the Edwin I. Hatch
Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, TSs.
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 revises the TS [safety limit MCPR] SLMCPR
and the list of core operating limits to be included in the Core
Operating Limits Report (COLR). The SLMCPR is not an initiator of
any accident previously evaluated. The revised safety limit values
continue to ensure for all accidents previously evaluated that the
fuel cladding will be protected from failure due to transition
boiling. The proposed change does not affect plant operation or any
procedural or administrative controls on plant operation that affect
the functions of preventing or mitigating any accidents previously
evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment revises the TS SLMCPR and the list of
core operating limits to be included in the COLR. The proposed
change will not affect the design function or operation of any
structures, systems or components (SSCs). No new equipment will be
installed. As a result, the proposed change will not create any
credible new failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident
initiators not considered in the design and licensing bases.
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 amendment revises the TS SLMCPR and the list of
core operating limits to be included in the COLR. This will result
in a change to a safety limit, but will not result in a significant
reduction in the margin of safety provided by the safety limit. As
discussed in the application, changing the SLMCPR methodology to one
based on a 95% probability with 95% confidence that no fuel rods
experience transition boiling during an anticipated transient
instead of the current limit based on ensuring that 99.9% of the
fuel rods are not susceptible to boiling transition does not have a
significant effect on plant response to any analyzed accident. The
SLMCPR and the TS Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) on MCPR
continue to provide the same level of assurance as the current
limits and do not reduce a margin of safety.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Millicent Ronnlund, Vice President and
General Counsel, Southern Nuclear Operating Co., Inc., P.O. Box 1295,
Birmingham, AL 35201-1295.
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.
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
[[Page 31638]]
Submitting Comments'' section of this document.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287,
Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, Oconee County, South
Carolina
Date of amendment request: May 17, 2018, as supplemented by letter
dated February 26, 2019.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revise Technical
Specification (TS) 3.8.1, ``AC [Alternating Current] Sources--
Operating,'' by adding a surveillance requirement that verifies the
ability of the Keowee Hydroelectric Unit auxiliary power system to
automatically transfer from its normal auxiliary power source to its
alternate auxiliary power source.
Date of issuance: June 14, 2019.
Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 411, 413, and 412. A publicly-available version is
in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19140A026; documents related to these
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the
amendments.
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-38, DPR-47 and DPR-55:
Amendments revised the Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 28, 2018 (83 FR
43904). The supplemental letter dated February 26, 2019, provided
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change
the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 14, 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 (Grand Gulf), Unit
1, Claiborne County, Mississippi
Date of amendment request: April 12, 2018, as supplemented by
letters dated June 7, 2018, November 30, 2018, and March 6, 2019.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Grand
Gulf Technical Specifications (TSs) by relocating specific surveillance
frequencies to a licensee-controlled program with the adoption of
Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-425, Revision
3, ``Relocate Surveillance Frequencies to Licensee Control--RITSTF
[Risk-Informed TSTF] Initiative 5b.'' Additionally, the amendment added
a new program, the Surveillance Frequency Control Program to TS Chapter
5.0, ``Administrative Controls.''
Date of issuance: June 11, 2019.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No: 219. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML19094A799; 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: July 31, 2018 (83 FR
36975). The supplemental letters dated November 30, 2018, and March 6,
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 June 11, 2019.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-219, Oyster Creek Nuclear
Generating Station (Oyster Creek), Ocean County, New Jersey
Date of amendment request: October 22, 2018, as supplemented by
letters dated November 6, 2018, and February 13, 2019.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the effective
and implementation dates of Amendment No. 294 for the Oyster Creek
Permanently Defueled Emergency Plan (PDEP) and Emergency Action Level
(EAL) scheme for the permanently defueled condition.
Date of issuance: June 11, 2019.
Effective date: As of June 29, 2019, and shall be implemented
within 30 days of the effective date.
Amendment No.: 296. A publicly available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML19098A258; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-16: The amendment
revised the Renewed Facility Operating License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 18, 2018 (83
FR 64894). The supplemental letter dated February 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 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 June 11, 2019.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-461, Clinton Power
Station (CPS), Unit No. 1, DeWitt County, Illinois
Date of amendment request: September 17, 2018. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18260A307.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment recaptured low-power
testing time to extend the full-power operating license (FPOL) to
expire on April 17, 2027, instead of the current expiration date of
September 29, 2026.
Date of issuance: June 12, 2019.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No: 224. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML19109A001; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-62: The amendment revised the
Facility Operating License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 31, 2019 (84 FR
813).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 12, 2019.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Northern States Power Company--Minnesota, Docket Nos. 50-282 and 50-
306, Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, Goodhue
County, Minnesota
Date of amendment request: June 26, 2018.
Brief description of amendment: The amendments revised TS 1.3,
``Completion Times'' Example 1.3-3, TS 3.6.5, ``Containment Spray and
Cooling Systems,'' TS 3.7.5, ``Auxiliary Feedwater (AFW) System,'' TS
3.7.8,
[[Page 31639]]
``Cooling Water (CL) System,'' TS 3.8.1, ``AC Sources--Operating,'' and
TS 3.8.9, ``Distribution Systems--Operating'' by eliminating the second
completion time in accordance with Technical Specifications Task Force
(TSTF)-439, Revision 2, ``Eliminate Second Completion Times Limiting
Time from Discovery of Failure to Meet an LCO [limiting condition for
operation].''
Date of issuance: June 6, 2019.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 227-Unit 1; 215-Unit 2. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19128A133; documents related
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with
the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-42 and DPR-60: The
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 14, 2018 (83 FR
40351)
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 6, 2019.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
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: September 27, 2018.
Brief description of amendment: The amendments revised Surveillance
Requirement 4.7.7.b of TS Section \3/4\.7.7, ``Control Room Makeup and
Cleanup Filtration System,'' to operate for at least 15 continuous
minutes at a frequency controlled in accordance with the Surveillance
Frequency Control Program by adoption of Technical Specifications Task
Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-522, Revision 0, ``Revise Ventilation System
Surveillance Requirements to Operate for 10 Hours per Month.'' The NRC
approved TSTF-522, Revision 0, as a part of the consolidated line item
improvement process on September 20, 2012 (77 FR 58421).
Date of issuance: June 6, 2019.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 1--215; Unit 2--201. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19067A222; documents related
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with
the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-76 and NPF-80: The
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 2, 2019 (84 FR
25)
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 6, 2019.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 50-391, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant,
Unit 2, Rhea County, Tennessee
Date of amendment request: May 14, 2018, as supplemented by letter
dated November 8, 2018.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical
Specifications to implement a voltage-based alternate repair criteria
(ARC) for degraded steam generator (SG) tubes in the Unit 2
Westinghouse Model D3 SGs. The ARC follow the guidelines set forth in
NRC Generic Letter 95-05, ``Voltage-Based Criteria for Westinghouse
Steam Generator Tubes Affected by Outside Diameter Stress Corrosion
Cracking.''
Date of issuance: June 3, 2019.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 28. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML19063B721; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-96: Amendment revised the
Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 20, 2018 (83
FR 58618). The supplemental letter dated November 8, 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 June 23, 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: February 28, 2018, as supplemented by
letters dated November 9, 2018, and March 21, 2019.
Brief description of amendment: The amendments revised Technical
Specification 3.8.9 to add a new Condition C with an 8-hour completion
time for performing maintenance on the opposite unit's vital bus when
the opposite unit is in Mode 5, Mode 6, or defueled.
Date of issuance: June 7, 2019.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 126 and 29. A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No. ML19098A774; documents related to these
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the
amendments.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-90 and NPF-96: Amendments
revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 20, 2018 (83
FR 58619). The supplemental letters dated November 9, 2018, and March
21, 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 amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 7, 2019.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
United States Maritime Administration (MARAD), Docket No. 50-238,
Nuclear Ship SAVANNAH (NSS), Baltimore, Maryland
Date of application for amendment: June 19, 2018.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical
Specifications to establish and incorporate reporting requirements for
a Process Control Program, an Offsite Dose Calculation Manual, a
Radioactive Effluent Controls Program, and a Radiological Environmental
Monitoring Program.
Date of issuance: June 18, 2019.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment No.: 17. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML19085A482. The Commission's related evaluation of the
amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated November 26, 2018.
Facility Operating License No. NS-1: This amendment revises the
Technical Specifications of the License.
[[Page 31640]]
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 14, 2018 (83 FR
40352).
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-280 and 50-281,
Surry Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Surry County, Virginia.
Date of amendment request: March 2, 2018, as supplemented by letter
dated October 25, 2018.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the Surry
Power Station (SPS), Unit Nos. 1 and 2 Technical Specifications
consistent with Revision 0 to the Technical Specification Task Force
(TSTF) Traveler, TSTF-490, ``Deletion of E Bar Definition and Revision
to RCS [reactor coolant system] Specific Activity Tech Spec.'' The
amendments adopted TSTF-490, Revision 0, and made associated changes,
which included replacing the current limits on primary coolant gross
specific activity with limits on primary coolant noble gas specific
activity. The amendments also updated the Alternative Source Term (AST)
analyses bases for new codes, revised atmospheric dispersion factors,
new fuel handling accident fuel rod gap fractions and control room
isolation operator action time, and elimination of the locked rotor
accident dose consequences.
Date of issuance: June 12, 2019.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 295 and 295. A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No. ML19028A384; documents related to these
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the
amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-32 and DPR-37:
Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 19, 2018, 83 FR
28465. The supplemental letter dated October 25, 2018 provided
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change
the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 12, 2019.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 26th day of June 2019.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Blake D. Welling,
Acting Deputy Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office
of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2019-14001 Filed 7-1-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P