[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 136 (Tuesday, July 16, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33983-33993]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-14624]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2019-0143]
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
[[Page 33984]]
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 18, 2019 to June 28, 2019. The last
biweekly notice was published on July 2, 2019.
DATES: Comments must be filed by August 15, 2019. A request for a
hearing must be filed by September 16, 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 https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2019-0143. Address
questions about NRC docket IDs in Regulations.gov to Jennifer Borges;
telephone: 301-287-9127; email: [email protected]. For technical
questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this document.
Mail comments to: 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: Kay Goldstein, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1506, email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments
A. Obtaining Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2019-0143 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-2019-0143.
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-2019-0143 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.
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.
[[Page 33985]]
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 https://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 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 https://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
[[Page 33986]]
[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 https://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 https://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 https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by
email to [email protected], or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-
7640. The NRC Electronic Filing Help Desk is available between 9 a.m.
and 6 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government
holidays.
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not
submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in
accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing
stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and
requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper
format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention:
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or
expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and
Adjudications Staff. Participants filing adjudicatory documents in this
manner are responsible for serving the document on all other
participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of
the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or
expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the
provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an
exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or
party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines
that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no
longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
https://adams.nrc.gov/ehd, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the
Commission or the presiding officer. If you do not have an NRC-issued
digital ID certificate as described above, click ``Cancel'' when the
link requests certificates and you will be automatically directed to
the NRC's electronic hearing dockets where you will be able to access
any publicly available documents in a particular hearing docket.
Participants are requested not to include personal privacy information,
such as social security numbers, home addresses, or personal phone
numbers in their filings, unless an NRC regulation or other law
requires submission of such information. For example, in some
instances, individuals provide home addresses in order to demonstrate
proximity to a facility or site. With respect to copyrighted works,
except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory
filings and would constitute a Fair Use application, participants are
requested not to include copyrighted materials in their submission.
For further details with respect to these license amendment
applications, see the application for amendment which is available for
public inspection in ADAMS and at the NRC's PDR. For additional
direction on accessing information related to this document, see the
``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' section of this
document.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-293, Pilgrim Nuclear
Power Station (PNPS), Plymouth County, Massachusetts
Date of amendment request: April 25, 2019. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19115A225.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would remove the
existing Cyber Security Plan (CSP) requirements contained in License
Condition 3.G of the PNPS Renewed Facility Operating License and the
commitment to fully implement the CSP by the Milestone 8 commitment
date of December 31, 2020 (ADAMS Accession No. ML17290A487).
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.
Following cessation of power operations and removal of all spent
fuel from the reactor, spent fuel at PNPS will be stored in the SFP
[spent fuel pool] and in the independent spent fuel storage
installation (ISFSI). In this configuration, the spectrum of
possible transients and accidents is significantly reduced compared
to an operating nuclear power reactor. The only design basis
accident that could potentially result in an offsite radiological
release at PNPS is the FHA [fuel handling accident], which is
predicated on spent fuel being stored in the SFP. An analysis has
been performed that concludes that once PNPS has been permanently
shut down for 46 days, there is no longer any possibility of an
offsite radiological release from a design basis accident that could
exceed the EPA's [Environmental Protection Agency] PAGs [protective
action guidelines]. The results of this analysis have been
previously submitted to the NRC (ADAMS Accession No. ML18186A635)
(Reference 4 [of Entergy's letter dated April 25, 2019]). With the
significant reduction in radiological risk based on PNPS being shut
down for more
[[Page 33987]]
than 46 days, the consequences of a cyber-attack are also
significantly reduced.
This proposed change does not alter previously evaluated
accident analysis assumptions, introduce or alter any initiators, or
affect the function of facility structures, systems, and components
(SSCs) relied upon to prevent or mitigate any previously evaluated
accident or the manner in which these SSCs are operated, maintained,
modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed change does not involve
any facility modifications which affect the performance capability
of any SSCs relied upon to prevent or mitigate the consequences of
any previously evaluated accidents.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
This proposed change does not alter accident analysis
assumptions, introduce or alter any initiators, or affect the
function of facility SSCs relied upon to prevent or mitigate any
previously evaluated accident, or the manner in which these SSCs are
operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed
change does not involve any facility modifications which affect the
performance capability of any SSCs relied upon to mitigate the
consequences of previously evaluated accidents and does not create
the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any
accident previously evaluated.
Additionally, per an NRC Memorandum, Cyber Security Requirements
for Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants (Reference 3 [of Entergy's
letter dated April 25, 2019, ADAMS Accession No. ML16172A284, dated
December 5, 2016]), the NRC staff has determined that 10 CFR 73.54
does not apply to reactor licensees that have submitted
certifications of permanent cessation of power operations and
permanent removal of fuel under 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1), and whose
certifications have been docketed by the NRC 10 CFR 50.82(a)(2).
PNPS [has] permanently remove[d] all fuel under 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1)
in June 2019 and submit[ted] the required documentation stating so
[ADAMS Accession No. ML19161A033]. Entergy has provided a site-
specific analysis (Calculation No. PNPS-EC-73355-M1418, Adiabatic
Heatup Analysis for Drained Spent Fuel Pool) (PNPS site-specific
Zirconium-Fire Analysis) that provides the determination that
sufficient time will have passed prior to the requested
implementation date such that the spent fuel stored in the spent
fuel pool cannot reasonably heat up to clad ignition temperature
within 10 hours.
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 change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
Plant safety margins are established through limiting conditions
for operation and design features specified in the PNPS Permanently
Defueled Technical Specifications that were submitted to the NRC on
September 13, 2018 (Reference 8 [of Entergy's letter dated April 25,
2019, ADAMS Accession No. ML18260A085, dated September 13, 2018]).
The NRC anticipates approval of the submittal in July 2019. The
proposed change does not involve any changes to the initial
conditions that establish safety margins and does not involve
modifications to any SSCs which are relied upon to provide a margin
of safety. Because there is no change to established safety margins
as a result of this proposed change, no significant reduction in a
margin of safety is involved.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Susan H. Raimo, Senior Counsel, Entergy
Services, Inc., 101 Constitution Avenue NW, Suite 200 East, Washington,
DC 20001.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Lisa M. Regner.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Georgia Power Company,
Oglethorpe Power Corporation, Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia,
City of Dalton, Georgia, Docket Nos. 50-32 1 and 50-366, Edwin I. Hatch
Nuclear Plant (HNP), Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Appling County, Georgia
Date of amendment request: April 24, 2019. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19114A456.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise
certain technical specifications to remove the requirements for
engineered safety feature (ESF) systems (e.g., secondary containment,
secondary containment valve isolation capability, and standby gas
treatment (SGT) system) to be operable after sufficient radioactive
decay of irradiated fuel has occurred following a plant shutdown. The
amendments would revise technical specification (TS) TS 3.3.6.2,
``Secondary Containment Isolation Instrumentation;'' TS 3.6.4.1,
``Secondary Containment;'' TS 3.6.4.2, ``Secondary Containment
Isolation Valves;'' and TS 3.6.4.3, ``Standby Gas Treatment System.''
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment does not affect accident initiators or
precursors nor adversely alter the design assumptions, conditions,
and configuration of the facility. The proposed amendment does not
alter any plant equipment or operating practices with respect to
such initiators or precursors in a manner that the probability of an
accident is increased.
The proposed amendment does not involve a physical change to the
secondary containment or spent fuel area systems, nor does it change
the safety function of the secondary containment, secondary
containment isolation valves, SGT system, and associated refueling
floor exhaust radiation isolation instrumentation. The subject ESF
systems are not assumed in the mitigation of an [fuel handling
accident] FHA after sufficient radioactive decay of irradiated fuel
has occurred. In addition, FHA dose analysis shows that [main
control room] MCR dose remains below the 10 CFR 50.67(b)(2)(iii)
dose limit and off-site dose remains below the accident dose limit
specified in the NRC [standard review plan] SRP, which represents a
small fraction of 10 CFR 50.67 dose limits.
As a result, 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 accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
With respect to a new or different kind of accident, there are
no proposed design changes to the safety related plant structures,
systems, and components (SSCs); nor are there any changes in the
method by which safety related plant SSCs perform their specified
safety functions. The proposed amendment will not affect the normal
method of plant operation or revise any operating parameters. No new
accident scenarios, transient precursor, failure mechanisms, or
limiting single failures will be introduced as a result of this
proposed change and the failure modes and effects analyses of SSCs
important to safety are not altered as a result of this proposed
change. The proposed amendment does not alter the design or
performance of the related SSCs, and, therefore, does not constitute
a new type of test.
No changes are being proposed to the procedures that operate the
plant equipment and the change does not have a detrimental impact on
the manner in which plant equipment operates or responds to an
actuation signal.
Therefore, the proposed change will not create the possibility
of a new or different accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
[[Page 33988]]
Response: No.
The margin of safety is related to the ability of the fission
product barriers to perform their design functions during and
following an accident. These barriers include the fuel cladding, the
reactor coolant system, and the containment.
Instrumentation safety margin is established by ensuring the
limiting safety system settings (LSSSs) automatically actuate the
applicable design function to correct an abnormal situation before a
safety limit is exceeded. Safety analysis limits are established for
reactor trip system and ESF actuation system instrumentation
functions related to those variables having significant safety
functions. The proposed change does not alter the design of these
protection systems; nor are there any changes in the method by which
safety related plant SSCs perform their specified safety functions.
The proposed amendment does not involve a physical change to the
secondary containment or spent fuel area systems, nor does it change
the safety function of the secondary containment, secondary
containment isolation valves, SGT system, and associated refueling
floor exhaust radiation isolation instrumentation. The subject ESF
systems are not assumed in the mitigation of an FHA after sufficient
radioactive decay of irradiated fuel has occurred. The HNP FHA dose
analysis shows that MCR dose remains below the 10 CFR
50.67(b)(2)(iii) dose limit and off-site dose remains below the
accident dose limit specified in the NRC SRP, which represents a
small fraction of 10 CFR 50.67 dose limits.
The controlling parameters established to isolate or actuate
required ESF systems during an accident or transient are not
affected by the proposed amendment and no design basis or safety
limit is altered as a result of the proposed change. Therefore, the
proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin
of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
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.
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 30, 2019. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19123A101.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise Unit
1 and Unit 2 technical specification (TS) 3.3.8.1, ``Loss of Power
(LOP) Instrumentation'' to modify the instrument allowable values for
the Unit 1 4.16 kilovolt (kV) emergency bus degraded voltage
instrumentation and delete the annunciation requirements for the Unit 1
4.16 kV emergency bus under voltage instrumentation, including
associated TS actions. These proposed amendments would also delete Unit
1 License Condition 2.C(11) and Unit 2 License Condition 2.C(3)(i).
Additionally, the proposed amendments would revise surveillance
requirement (SR) 3.8.1.8 in TS 3.8.1, ``AC Sources--Operating,'' to
increase the voltage limit in the emergency diesel generator (DG) full
load rejection test for the Unit 1 DGs.
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 incorporates concomitant changes to the
[loss of power] LOP instrumentation requirements to reflect an
electrical power system modification by deleting the unnecessary
loss of voltage annunciation requirements and increasing the
[allowable values] AVs for the degraded voltage protection
instrumentation.
The proposed license change does not involve a physical change
to the LOP instrumentation, nor does it change the safety function
of the LOP instrumentation or the equipment supported by the LOP
instrumentation.
Automatic starting of the [emergency diesel generator] DGs is
assumed in the mitigation of a design basis event upon a loss of
offsite power. This includes transferring the normal offsite power
source to an alternate or emergency power source in the event of a
sustained degraded voltage condition. The LOP instrumentation
continues to provide this capability and is not altered by the
proposed license change. The proposed change does not adversely
affect accident initiators or precursors including a loss of offsite
power or station blackout. The revised LOP degraded instrumentation
setpoints ensure that the Class 1E electrical distribution system is
separated from the offsite power system prior to damaging the safety
related loads during sustained degraded voltage conditions while
avoiding an inadvertent separation of safety-related buses from the
offsite power system. Additionally, the degraded voltage
instrumentation time delay will isolate the Class 1E electrical
distribution system from offsite power before the diesel generators
are ready to assume the emergency loads, which is the limiting time
basis for mitigating system responses to design basis accidents.
In addition, the proposed change includes an increase of the
voltage limit in the DG full load rejection surveillance test for
the Unit 1 DGs. The DGs' safety function is solely mitigative and is
not needed unless there is a loss of offsite power. The DGs do not
affect any accident initiators or precursors of any accident
previously evaluated. The proposed increase in the TS SR voltage
limit does not affect the DGs' interaction with any system whose
failure or malfunction can initiate an accident.
Therefore, the probability of occurrence of an accident
previously evaluated is not significantly increased. The DG safety
function is to provide power to safety related components needed to
mitigate the consequences of an accident following a loss of offsite
power.
The purpose of the [technical specification] TS [surveillance
requirement] SR voltage limit is to assure DG damage protection
following a full load rejection. The technical analysis performed to
support this proposed amendment has demonstrated that the DGs can
withstand voltages above the proposed limit without a loss of
protection. The proposed higher limit will continue to provide
assurance that the DGs are protected, and the safety function of the
DGs will be unaffected by the proposed change. Therefore, the
consequences of an accident previously evaluated will not be
significantly increased.
As a result, the proposed change does not significantly alter
assumptions relative to the mitigation of an accident or transient
event and 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.
With respect to a new or different kind of accident, the
proposed change does not alter the design or performance of the LOP
instrumentation or electrical power system; nor are there any
changes in the method by which safety related plant structures,
systems, and components (SSCs) perform their specified safety
functions as a result of the proposed license amendment. The
proposed change deletes the loss of voltage annunciation
requirements and increases the AVs for the degraded voltage
protection instrumentation as a result of an electrical power system
modification, which [Southern Nuclear Company] SNC has evaluated
independently of this proposed license amendment. The proposed
license amendment will not affect the normal method of plant
operation or revise any operating parameters. Additionally, there is
no detrimental impact on the manner in which plant equipment
operates or responds to an actuation signal as a result of the
proposed license change. No new accident
[[Page 33989]]
scenarios, transient precursor, failure mechanisms, or limiting
single failures will be introduced as a result of this proposed
change and the failure modes and effects analyses of SSCs important
to safety are not altered as a result of this proposed change.
The process of operating and testing the LOP instrumentation
uses current procedures, methods, and processes already established
and currently in use and is not being altered by the proposed
license amendment. Therefore, the proposed change does not
constitute a new type of test.
With respect to a new or different kind of accident for the
increase of the voltage limit in the DG full load rejection
surveillance test for the Unit 1 DGs, there are no new DG failure
modes created and the DGs are not an initiator of any new or
different kind of accident. The proposed increase in the TS SR
voltage limit does not affect the interaction of the DGs with any
system whose failure or malfunction can initiate an accident. The
proposed amendment will not affect the normal method of plant
operation or revise any operating parameters. No new accident
scenarios, transient precursor, failure mechanisms, or limiting
single failures will be introduced as a result of this proposed
change and the failure modes and effects analyses of the DGs are not
altered as a result of this proposed change.
Accordingly, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
Margin of safety is provided by the performance capability of
plant equipment in preventing or mitigating challenges to fission
product barriers under postulated operational transient and accident
conditions. The proposed license change deletes the loss of voltage
annunciation requirements and increases the AVs for the degraded
voltage protection instrumentation as a result of an electrical
power system modification, which SNC has evaluated independently of
this proposed license amendment. The proposed deletion of the loss
of voltage annunciation requirements is offset by the more
restrictive degraded voltage instrumentation AVs thereby providing
an automatic emergency bus transfer to the alternate or emergency
power supply in the event of a sustained degraded voltage condition.
The increase in the TS SR voltage limit will not affect the
ability of the DGs to perform their safety function. The technical
analysis performed to support this amendment demonstrates that this
ability will be unaffected and an increase in the TS SR voltage
limit will not affect this ability.
Therefore, the margin associated with a design basis or safety
limit parameter are not adversely impacted by the proposed amendment
and, thus 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.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026,
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4, Burke County, Georgia
Date of amendment request: May 17, 2019. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19137A314.
Description of amendment request: The amendment proposes changes to
the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) and the Combined
License Appendix A, Technical Specifications definition for Channel
Calibration to allow a qualitative check (i.e., sensor resistance and
insulation resistance tests) as an acceptable means to perform channel
calibration for the reactor coolant pump (RCP) speed sensors. An
additional change is proposed to the UFSAR to allow the use of a
conservatively allocated response time in lieu of measurement for the
RCP speed sensors and preamplifiers.
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 create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes would revise the licensing basis, including
the plant specific Technical Specifications, to allow a qualitative
check (i.e., sensor resistance and insulation resistance tests) as
an acceptable means to perform channel calibration for the reactor
coolant pump (RCP) speed sensors and to allow the use of a
conservatively allocated response time in lieu of measurement for
the RCP speed sensors and preamplifiers to satisfy the Response Time
test Surveillance Requirement.
The proposed changes do not affect the safety limits as
described in the plant specific Technical Specifications. In
addition, the limiting safety system settings and limiting control
settings continue to be met with the proposed changes to the plant-
specific Technical Specifications surveillance requirements. The
proposed changes do not adversely affect the operation of any
systems or equipment that initiate an analyzed accident or alter any
structures, systems, and components (SSCs) accident initiator or
initiating sequence of events and continue to maintain the initial
conditions and operating limits required by the accident analysis,
and the analyses of normal operation and anticipated operational
occurrences. Therefore, the proposed changes do not result in any
increase in probability of an analyzed accident occurring.
The proposed changes do not involve a change to any mitigation
sequence or the predicted radiological releases due to postulated
accident conditions, thus, the consequences of the accidents
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 proposed changes do not affect the safety limits as
described in the plant specific Technical Specifications. In
addition, the limiting safety system settings and limiting control
settings continue to be met with the proposed changes to the plant-
specific Technical Specifications limiting conditions for operation,
applicability, actions, and surveillance requirements. The proposed
changes do 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.
These proposed changes do not adversely affect any other 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 nonsafety-related equipment. Therefore, 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 results 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 changes do not affect the safety limits as
described in the plant specific Technical Specifications. In
addition, the limiting safety system settings and limiting control
settings continue to be met with the proposed changes to the plant-
specific Technical Specifications limiting conditions for operation,
applicability, actions, and surveillance requirements. The proposed
changes do not affect the initial conditions and operating limits
required by the accident analysis, and the analyses of normal
operation and anticipated operational occurrences, so that the
acceptance limits specified in the UFSAR are not exceeded. The
proposed changes satisfy the same safety functions in accordance
with the same requirements as stated in the UFSAR. These changes do
not adversely affect any design code, function, design analysis,
safety
[[Page 33990]]
analysis input or result, or design/safety margin.
No safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is
challenged or exceeded by the proposed changes, and no margin of
safety is reduced.
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.
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), Docket No. 50-391, Watts Bar Nuclear
Plant (WBN), Unit 2, Rhea County, Tennessee
Date of amendment request: February 7, 2019. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19038A483.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the
technical specifications (TS) to extend, on a one-time basis, the
allowed Completion Time (CT) to restore one Essential Raw Cooling Water
(ERCW) system train to operable status from 72 hours to 7 days. The
change is needed to support performance of maintenance on 6.9 kiloVolt
Shutdown Board 1A-A and associated 480 Volt boards and motor control
centers. A longer CT under certain plant conditions will allow the
necessary flexibility to perform the maintenance with one unit
defueled, while minimizing risk to the operating unit.
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 adds a one-time use new Condition A to TS
3.7.8 for WBN Unit 2. The proposed change will extend the allowed
completion time to restore ERCW System train to operable status from
72 hours to seven days for planned maintenance when Unit 1 is
defueled and UHS [ultimate heat sink] Temperature is less than or
equal to 71 [deg]F. This change does not result in any physical
changes to plant safety-related structures, systems, or components
(SSCs). The UHS and associated ERCW system function is to remove
plant system heat loads during normal and accident conditions. As
such, the UHS and ERCW system are not design basis accident
initiators, but instead perform accident mitigation functions by
serving as the heat sink for safety-related equipment to ensure the
conditions and assumptions credited in the accident analyses are
preserved. During operation under the proposed change with one ERCW
train inoperable, the other ERCW train will continue to perform the
design function of the ERCW system. Therefore, the proposed change
does not involve a significant increase in the probability of an
accident previously evaluated.
Accordingly, as demonstrated by TVA design heat transfer and
flow modeling calculations, operation with one ERCW System
inoperable for seven days for planned maintenance when WBN Unit 1 is
defueled, the fuel cladding, Reactor Coolant System (RCS) pressure
boundary, and containment integrity limits are not challenged during
worst-case post-accident conditions. Accordingly, the conclusions of
the accident analyses will remain as previously evaluated such that
there will be no significant increase in the post-accident dose
consequences.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve any physical changes to
plant safety related SSCs or alter the modes of plant operation in a
manner that is outside the bounds of the current UHS and ERCW system
design heat transfer and flow modeling analyses. The proposed change
adds a one-time use new Condition A to TS 3.7.8, which would extend
the allowed completion time to restore ERCW System train to operable
status from 72 hours to seven days for planned maintenance when Unit
1 is defueled and UHS Temperature is less than or equal to 71
[deg]F. Therefore, although the specified ERCW System alignments
result in reduced heat transfer flow capability, the plant's overall
ability to reject heat to the UHS during normal operation, normal
shutdown, and hypothetical worst-case accident conditions will not
be significantly affected by this proposed change. Because the
safety and design requirements continue to be met and the integrity
of the RCS pressure boundary is not challenged, no new credible
failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident initiators are
created, and there will be no effect on the accident mitigating
systems in a manner that would significantly degrade the plant's
response to an accident.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in
the margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change adds a one-time use new Condition A to TS
3.7.8, which would extend the allowed completion time to restore
ERCW System train to operable status from 72 hours to seven days for
planned maintenance when Unit 1 is defueled and UHS Temperature is
less than or equal to 71 [deg]F. As demonstrated by TVA design basis
heat transfer and flow modeling calculations, the design limits for
fuel cladding, RCS pressure boundary, and containment integrity are
not exceeded under both normal and post-accident conditions. As
required, these calculations include evaluation of the worst-case
combination of meteorology and operational parameters, and establish
adequate margins to account for measurement and instrument
uncertainties. While operating margins have been reduced by the
proposed change in order to support necessary maintenance
activities, the current limiting design basis accidents remain
applicable and the analyses conclusions remain bounding such that
the accident safety margins are maintained. Accordingly, the
proposed change will not significantly degrade the margin of safety
of any SSCs that rely on the UHS and ERCW System for heat removal to
perform their safety related functions.
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: General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority,
400 West Summit Hill Drive, 6A West Tower, Knoxville, TN 37902.
NRC Branch Chief: Undine Shoop.
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
[[Page 33991]]
published in the Federal Register as indicated.
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that
these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in
accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b),
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be
prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an
environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in
10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment,
it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the action see (1) the
applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's
related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as
indicated. All of these items can be accessed as described in the
``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' section of this
document.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414, Catawba
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York County, South Carolina
Date of amendment requests: July 19, 2018.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Catawba
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 (Catawba), Updated Final Safety Analysis
Report (UFSAR), Section 6.2.4.2.2, ``Containment Valve Injection Water
System [NW],'' to remove NW supply from specified Containment Isolation
Valves (CIVs), and to exempt these CIVs from Type-C Local Leak Rate
Testing. Additionally, the amendments would modify UFSAR, Table 6-77,
``Containment Isolation Valve Data,'' to make corresponding changes.
Date of issuance: June 17, 2019.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 120 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 302 (Unit 1) and 298 (Unit 2). A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19121A551; documents related
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with
the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-35 and NPF-52:
Amendments revised the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November, 20, 2018 (83
FR 58610).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 17, 2019.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Louisiana, LLC, and Entergy Operations, Inc. (Entergy), Docket
No. 50-458, River Bend Station, Unit 1, West Feliciana Parish,
Louisiana
Date of amendment request: November 29, 2018.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the River
Bend Station, Unit 1 Technical Specifications (TSs) to remove the Table
of Contents and place it under the licensee's control. The Table of
Contents is not eliminated but is no longer in the TSs, and therefore,
maintenance and updates are now Entergy's responsibility.
Date of issuance: June 19, 2019.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
90 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 198. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML19071A299; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-47: The amendment revised the
Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 30, 2019 (84 FR
492).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 19, 2019.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50-397, Columbia Generating Station,
Benton County, Washington
Date of amendment request: June 12, 2018, as supplemented by letter
dated August 7, 2018.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the renewed
facility operating license and the technical specifications, including
editorial changes and the removal of obsolete information.
Date of issuance: June 20, 2019.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 253. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML19063A579; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-21: The amendment
revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical
Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 11, 2018 (83
FR 45984).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 20, 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: November 3, 2017, as supplemented by
letters dated December 6, 2017, January 22, 2018, October 24, 2018, and
January 23, 2019.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Grand
Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Updated Final Safety Analysis Report to
incorporate the Tornado Missile Risk Evaluator (TMRE) Methodology
contained in Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 17-02, Revision 1,
``Tornado Missile Risk (TMRE) Industry Guidance Document,'' September
2017. This methodology can only be applied to discovered conditions
where tornado missile protection is not currently provided and cannot
be used to avoid providing tornado missile protection in the plant
modification process.
Date of issuance: June 18, 2019.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
90 days of issuance.
Amendment No: 220. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML19123A014; 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.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 27, 2018 (83
FR 8516). The supplemental letters dated October 24, 2018, and January
23, 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 18, 2019.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-374, LaSalle
County Station (LSCS), Units 1 and 2, LaSalle County, Illinois
Date of amendment request: April 19, 2018, as supplemented by
letters dated
[[Page 33992]]
April 12, 2019, April 24, 2019, and May 23, 2019.
Brief description of amendment: The amendments revised the licenses
and the technical specifications (TSs) as follows:
Division 3 Battery Surveillance Testing
The proposed amendments would revise TSs 3.8.4, ``DC Sources-
Operating,'' and TS 3.8.6, ``Battery Parameters,'' by removing the Mode
restrictions for performance of TS surveillance requirements (SRs)
3.8.4.3 and 3.8.6.6 for the Division 3 direct current (DC) electrical
power subsystem battery. The Division 3 DC electrical power subsystem
feeds emergency DC loads associated with the high-pressure core spray
(HPCS) system. SR 3.8.4.3 verifies that the battery capacity is
adequate for the battery to perform its required functions. SR 3.8.6.6
verifies battery capacity is >=80 percent of the manufacturer's rating
when subjected to a performance discharge test (or a modified
performance discharge test). The proposed amendments would remove these
Mode restrictions for the Division 3 battery, allowing performance of
SR 3.8.4.3 and SR 3.8.6.6 for the Division 3 battery during Mode 1 or
2, potentially minimizing impact on HPCS unavailability. Eliminating
the requirement to perform SR 3.8.4.3 and SR 3.8.6.6 only during Mode
3, 4, or 5 (hot shutdown, cold shutdown, or refueling conditions) will
provide greater flexibility in scheduling Division 3 battery testing
activities by allowing the testing to be performed during non-outage
times.
High Pressure Core Spray Diesel Generator Surveillance Testing
The proposed amendments would revise TS 3.8.1, ``AC Sources-
Operating,'' by revising certain SRs pertaining to the Division 3
diesel generator (DG). The Division 3 DG is an independent source of
onsite alternating current (AC) power dedicated to the HPCS system. The
TSs currently prohibit performing the testing required by SRs 3.8.1.9,
3.8.1.10, 3.8.1.11, 3.8.1.12, 3.8.1.13, 3.8.1.16, 3.8.1.17, and
3.8.1.19, in Modes 1 or 2. The proposed amendments would remove these
Mode restrictions and allow all eight of the identified SRs to be
performed in any operating Mode for the Division 3 DG. The Mode
restrictions will remain applicable to the other two safety-related
(Division 1 and Division 2) DGs.
The proposed change will provide greater flexibility in scheduling
Division 3 DG testing activities by allowing the testing to be
performed during non-outage times. Having a completely tested Division
3 DG available for the duration of a refueling outage will reduce the
number of system re-alignments and operator workload during an outage.
Date of issuance: June 24, 2019.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: Unit 1--237; Unit 2--223. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19121A505; documents related
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with
the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-11 and NPF-18: The
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 14, 2018 (83 FR
40348). The supplemental letters dated April 12, 2019, April 24,2019,
and May 23, 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 amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 24, 2019.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket No. 50-346,
Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 1, Ottawa County, Ohio
Date of amendment request: December 16, 2015, as supplemental
letters dated February 2, March 7, July 28, and December 16, 2016;
January 17, June 16, and October 9, 2017; April 2, September 11, and
November 20, 2018; and May 13, 2019.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Davis-
Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 1, license and technical
specifications to establish and maintain a risk-informed, performance-
based fire protection program in accordance with 10 CFR 50.48(c).
Date of issuance: June 21, 2019.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
in accordance with paragraph 2.C(4) of the license.
Amendment No.: 298. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML19100A306; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safely Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-3: The amendment revised
the renewed facility operating license and technical specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 12, 2016 (81 FR
21599). The supplemental letters dated July 28 and December 16, 2016;
January 17, June 16, and October 9, 2017; April 2, September 11, and
November 20, 2018; and May 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 June 21, 2019.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-
425, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, Burke County,
Georgia
Date of amendment request: December 19, 2018, as supplemented by
letter dated April 30, 2019.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the
Conditions, Required Actions, and Completion Times in the Technical
Specification (TS) for the Condition where one steam supply to the
turbine-driven Auxiliary Feedwater (AFW) pump is inoperable concurrent
with an inoperable motor-driven AFW train. In addition, the amendments
revised the TS that establish specific Actions: (1) For when two motor-
driven AFW trains are inoperable at the same time and; (2) for when the
turbine-driven AFW train is inoperable either (a) due solely to one
inoperable steam supply, or (b) due to reasons other than one
inoperable steam supply. The amendments were consistent with U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission-approved Technical Specification Task
Force (TSTF) Traveler, TSTF-412, Revision 3, ``Provide Actions for One
Steam Supply to Turbine Driven AFW/EFW Pump Inoperable.'' The
availability of this TSTF improvement was announced in the Federal
Register on July 17, 2007, as part of the consolidated line item
improvement process.
Date of issuance: June 24, 2019.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 200/183. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS
under Accession No. ML19046A088; documents related to these amendments
[[Page 33993]]
are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-68 and NPF-81: Amendments
revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 12, 2019, (84 FR
8911). The supplemental letter dated April 30, 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 24, 2019.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Susquehanna Nuclear, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-387 and 50-388, Susquehanna
Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: December 4, 2018.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the
Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2, Technical
Specifications to replace the current stored diesel fuel oil numerical
volume requirements with duration-based diesel operating time
requirements.
Date of issuance: June 24, 2019.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 272 (Unit 1) and 254 (Unit 2). A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19154A060; documents related
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with
the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-14 and NPF-22: The
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 30, 2019 (84 FR
497).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 24, 2019.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day of July, 2019.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Blake D. Welling,
Acting Deputy Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office
of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2019-14624 Filed 7-15-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P