Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations, 35835-35844 [2017-15986]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 146 / Tuesday, August 1, 2017 / Notices
Documents submitted in adjudicatory
proceedings will appear in 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. Participants are
requested not to include personal
privacy information, such as Social
Security numbers, home addresses, or
home phone numbers in their filings,
unless an NRC regulation or other law
requires submission of such
information. 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.
If a person (other than TVA) requests
a hearing, that person shall set forth
with particularity the manner in which
his interest is adversely affected by this
CO and shall address the criteria set
forth in 10 CFR 2.309(d) and (f).
If a hearing is requested by a person
whose interest is adversely affected, the
Commission will issue an order
designating the time and place of any
hearing. If a hearing is held, the issue to
be considered at such hearing shall be
whether this CO should be sustained.
In the absence of any request for
hearing, or written approval of an
extension of time in which to request a
hearing, the provisions specified in
Section V above shall be final 30 days
from the date of this CO without further
order or proceedings. If an extension of
time for requesting a hearing has been
approved, the provisions specified in
Section V shall be final when the
extension expires if a hearing request
has not been received.
Dated at Atlanta, Georgia, this 27th day of
July, 2017.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Leonard D. Wert,
Deputy Regional Administrator for
Operations.
[FR Doc. 2017–16178 Filed 7–31–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES
[NRC–2017–0169]
Biweekly Notice; Applications and
Amendments to Facility Operating
Licenses and Combined Licenses
Involving No Significant Hazards
Considerations
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
AGENCY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:13 Jul 31, 2017
Jkt 241001
ACTION:
Biweekly notice.
Pursuant to Section 189a. (2)
of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) is
publishing this regular biweekly notice.
The Act requires the Commission to
publish notice of any amendments
issued, or proposed to be issued, and
grants the Commission the authority to
issue and make immediately effective
any amendment to an operating license
or combined license, as applicable,
upon a determination by the
Commission that such amendment
involves no significant hazards
consideration, notwithstanding the
pendency before the Commission of a
request for a hearing from any person.
This biweekly notice includes all
notices of amendments issued, or
proposed to be issued, from July 4, 2017
to July 17, 2017. The last biweekly
notice was published on July 18, 2017.
DATES: Comments must be filed by
August 31, 2017. A request for a hearing
must be filed by October 2, 2017.
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 Web site: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for Docket ID NRC–2017–0169. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol
Gallagher; telephone: 301–415–3463;
email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For
technical questions, contact the
individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
document.
• Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey,
Office of Administration, Mail Stop:
TWFN–8–D36M, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555–0001.
For additional direction on obtaining
information and submitting comments,
see ‘‘Obtaining Information and
Submitting Comments’’ in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Paula Blechman, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555–0001; telephone: 301–415–
2242, email: Paula.Blechman@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
I. Obtaining Information and
Submitting Comments
A. Obtaining Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2017–
0169, facility name, unit number(s),
plant docket number, application date,
PO 00000
Frm 00093
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
35835
and subject, when contacting the NRC
about the availability of information for
this action. You may obtain publiclyavailable information related to this
action by any of the following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for Docket ID NRC–2017–0169.
• NRC’s Agencywide Documents
Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may obtain publiclyavailable documents online in the
ADAMS Public Documents collection at
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/
adams.html. To begin the search, select
‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and then
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 pdr.resource@nrc.gov. 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–2017–
0169, 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 posts all comment
submissions at https://
www.regulations.gov as well as entering
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 submissions into
ADAMS.
E:\FR\FM\01AUN1.SGM
01AUN1
35836
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 146 / Tuesday, August 1, 2017 / Notices
II. Notice of Consideration of Issuance
of Amendments to Facility Operating
Licenses and Combined Licenses and
Proposed No Significant Hazards
Consideration Determination
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES
The Commission has made a
proposed determination that the
following amendment requests involve
no significant hazards consideration.
Under the Commission’s regulations in
§ 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 60day 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:13 Jul 31, 2017
Jkt 241001
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 Web site at
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/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
PO 00000
Frm 00094
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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 federallyrecognized 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
E:\FR\FM\01AUN1.SGM
01AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 146 / Tuesday, August 1, 2017 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES
its boundaries. Alternatively, a State,
local governmental body, Federallyrecognized 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 EFiling 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’s Web site 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
hearing.docket@nrc.gov, 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:13 Jul 31, 2017
Jkt 241001
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 Web site 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 Web site 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 EFiling 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 Web site at https://
www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html, by email to
MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a tollfree 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
PO 00000
Frm 00095
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
35837
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
E:\FR\FM\01AUN1.SGM
01AUN1
35838
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 146 / Tuesday, August 1, 2017 / Notices
information related to this document,
see the ‘‘Obtaining Information and
Submitting Comments’’ section of this
document.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC,
Docket Nos. 50–317 and 50–318, Calvert
Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1
and 2, Calvert County, Maryland
Exelon Generation Company, LLC,
Docket No. 72–8, Calvert Cliffs
Independent Spent Fuel Storage
Installation, Calvert County, Maryland
Exelon Generation Company, LLC,
Docket Nos. 50–220 and 50–410, Nine
Mile Point Nuclear Station, Units 1 and
2, Oswego County, New York
Exelon Generation Company, LLC,
Docket No. 50–244, R.E. Ginna Nuclear
Power Plant, Wayne County, New York
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES
Date of amendment request: May 31,
2017. A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Package Accession No.
ML17164A149.
Description of amendment request:
The amendments would revise the
emergency plans for each facility by
changing the emergency action level
(EAL) schemes. The proposed changes
are based on the Nuclear Energy
Institute’s (NEI’s) guidance in NEI 99–
01, Revision 6, ‘‘Development of
Emergency Action Levels for NonPassive Reactors,’’ which was endorsed
by the NRC by letter dated March 28,
2013 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML12346A463).
Basis for proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination:
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
licensee has provided its analysis of the
issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented
below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to Exelon’s EAL
schemes to adopt the NRC-endorsed
guidance in NEI 99–01, Revision 6, do not
reduce the capability to meet the emergency
planning requirements established in 10 CFR
50.47 and 10 CFR part 50, appendix E. The
proposed changes do not reduce the
functionality, performance, or capability of
Exelon’s ERO [emergency response
organization] to respond in mitigating the
consequences of any design basis accident.
The probability of a reactor accident
requiring implementation of Emergency Plan
EALs has no relevance in determining
whether the proposed changes to the EALs
reduce the effectiveness of the Emergency
Plans. As discussed in Section D, ‘‘Planning
Basis,’’ of NUREG–0654, Revision 1, ‘‘Criteria
for Preparation and Evaluation of
Radiological Emergency Response Plans and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:13 Jul 31, 2017
Jkt 241001
Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power
Plants’’;
. . . The overall objective of emergency
response plans is to provide dose savings
(and in some cases immediate life saving) for
a spectrum of accidents that could produce
offsite doses in excess of Protective Action
Guides (PAGs). No single specific accident
sequence should be isolated as the one for
which to plan because each accident could
have different consequences, both in nature
and degree. Further, the range of possible
selection for a planning basis is very large,
starting with a zero point of requiring no
planning at all because significant offsite
radiological accident consequences are
unlikely to occur, to planning for the worst
possible accident, regardless of its extremely
low likelihood. . . .
Therefore, Exelon did not consider the risk
insights regarding any specific accident
initiation or progression in evaluating the
proposed changes.
The proposed changes do not involve any
physical changes to plant equipment or
systems, nor do they alter the assumptions of
any accident analyses. The proposed changes
do not adversely affect accident initiators or
precursors nor do they alter the design
assumptions, conditions, and configuration
or the manner in which the plants are
operated and maintained. The proposed
changes do not adversely affect the ability of
Structures, Systems, or Components (SSCs)
to perform their intended safety functions in
mitigating the consequences of an initiating
event within the assumed acceptance limits.
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 changes to Exelon’s EAL
schemes to adopt the NRC-endorsed
guidance in NEI 99–01, Revision 6, do not
involve any physical changes to plant
systems or equipment. The proposed changes
do not involve the addition of any new plant
equipment. The proposed changes will not
alter the design configuration, or method of
operation of plant equipment beyond its
normal functional capabilities. All Exelon
ERO functions will continue to be performed
as required. The proposed changes do not
create any new credible failure mechanisms,
malfunctions, or accident initiators.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not
create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from those that have been
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to Exelon’s EAL
schemes to adopt the NRC-endorsed
guidance in NEI 99–01, Revision 6, do not
alter or exceed a design basis or safety limit.
There is no change being made to safety
analysis assumptions, safety limits, or
limiting safety system settings that would
adversely affect plant safety as a result of the
proposed changes.
PO 00000
Frm 00096
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
There are no changes to setpoints or
environmental conditions of any SSC or the
manner in which any SSC is operated.
Margins of safety are unaffected by the
proposed changes to adopt the NEI 99–01,
Revision 6 EAL scheme guidance. The
applicable requirements of 10 CFR 50.47 and
10 CFR part 50, appendix E will continue to
be met.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not
involve any 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
requested amendments involve no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer,
Associate General Counsel, Exelon
Generation Company, LLC, 4300
Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555.
NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC,
Docket Nos. 50–237 and 50–249,
Dresden Nuclear Power Station (DNPS),
Units 2 and 3, Grundy County, Illinois
Date of amendment request: May 3,
2017. A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No.
ML17123A104.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed amendment would revise
the DNPS, Units 2 and 3, technical
specifications by replacing the existing
specifications related to Regulatory
Guide 1.163, ‘‘Performance-Based
Containment Leak-Test Program,’’ with
a reference to Nuclear Energy Institute
(NEI) 94–01, ‘‘Industry Guideline for
Implementing Performance-Based
Option of 10 CFR part 50, appendix J,’’
Revision 3–A, and the conditions and
limitations specified in NEI 94–01,
Revision 2–A, as the documents used by
DNPS to implement the performancebased leakage testing program in
accordance with Option B of 10 CFR
part 50, appendix J.
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 activity involves revision of
the Dresden Nuclear Power Station (DNPS)
Technical Specification (TS) 5.5. 12.
‘‘Primary Containment Leakage Rate Testing
Program,’’ to allow the extension of the
DNPS, Units 2 and 3. Type A containment
integrated leakage rate test (ILRT) interval to
E:\FR\FM\01AUN1.SGM
01AUN1
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 146 / Tuesday, August 1, 2017 / Notices
15 years, and the extension of the Type C
local leakage rate test interval to 75 months.
The current Type A test interval of 120
months (i.e., 10 years) would be extended on
a permanent basis to no longer than 15 years
from the last Type A test. The existing Type
C test interval of 60 months for selected
components would be extended on a
performance basis to no longer than 75
months. Extensions of up to nine months
(i.e., total maximum interval of 84 months for
Type C tests) are permissible only for nonroutine emergent conditions.
The proposed extension does not involve
either a physical change to the plant or a
change in the manner in which the plant is
operated or controlled. The containment is
designed to provide an essentially leak tight
barrier against the uncontrolled release of
radioactivity to the environment for
postulated accidents. As such,the
containment and the testing requirements
invoked to periodically demonstrate the
integrity of the containment exist to ensure
the plant’s ability to mitigate the
consequences of an accident, and do not
involve the prevention or identification of
any precursors of an accident.
The change in dose risk for changing the
Type A, ILRT interval from three-per-ten
years to once-per-fifteen-years, measured as
an increase to the total integrated dose risk
for all internal events accident sequences for
DNPS, is 4.26E–02 person-roentgen
equivalent man (rem)/year (0.27 percent (%))
using the Electric Power Research Institute
(EPR) guidance with the base case corrosion
included. The change in dose risk drops to
1.14E–02 person-rem/year (i.e., 0.07%) when
using the EPRI Expert Elicitation
methodology. The values calculated per the
EPRI guidance are all lower than the
acceptance criteria of less than or equal to 1.0
person-rem/year or less than 1.0% personrem/year defined in Section 1.3 of
Attachment 3 to this LAR (license
amendment request).
Therefore, this proposed extension does
not involve a significant increase in the
probability of an accident previously
evaluated.
As documented in NUREG–1493,
‘‘Performance-Based Containment Leak-Test
Program,’’ dated January 1995, Types B and
C tests have identified a very large percentage
of containment leakage paths, and the
percentage of containment leakage paths that
are detected only by Type A testing is very
small. The DNPS, Units 2 and 3 Type A test
history supports this conclusion.
The integrity of the containment is subject
to two types of failure mechanisms that can
be categorized as: (1) Activity based, and, (2)
time based. Activity based failure
mechanisms are defined as degradation due
to system and/or component modifications or
maintenance. Local leak rate test
requirements and administrative controls
such as configuration management and
procedural requirements for system
restoration ensure that containment integrity
is not degraded by plant modifications or
maintenance activities. The design and
construction requirements of the
containment combined with the containment
inspections performed in accordance with
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:13 Jul 31, 2017
Jkt 241001
American Society of Mechanical Engineers
(ASME) Section XI, and TS requirements
serve to provide a high degree of assurance
that the containment would not degrade in a
manner that is detectable only by a Type A
test. Based on the above, the proposed test
interval extensions do not significantly
increase the consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
The proposed amendment also deletes an
exception previously granted in License
Amendments Nos. 210 and 202 for DNPS,
Units 2 and 3, respectively, to allow one-time
extensions of the ILRT test frequency. This
exception was for an activity that has already
taken place; therefore, this deletion is solely
a non-technical, editorial change that does
not result in any alteration in how DNPS,
Units 2 and 3 are operated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
result in 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 amendment to TS 5.5.12
involves the extension of the DNPS, Units 2
and 3 Type A containment test interval to 15
years and the extension of the Type C test
interval to 75 months. The containment and
the testing requirements to periodically
demonstrate the integrity of the containment
exist to ensure the plant’s ability to mitigate
the consequences of an accident.
The proposed change does not involve a
physical modification to the plant (i.e., no
new or different type of equipment will be
installed), nor does it alter the design,
configuration, or change the manner in
which the plant is operated or controlled
beyond the standard functional capabilities
of the equipment.
The proposed amendment also deletes an
exception previously granted under TS
License Amendment Nos. 210 and 202 for
Units 2 and 3, respectively to allow one-time
extensions of the ILRT test frequency. This
exception was for an activity that has already
taken place; therefore, this deletion is solely
a non-technical, editorial change that does
not result in any alteration in how DNPS,
Units 2 and 3 are operated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any previously
evaluated for DNPS, Units 2 and 3.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment to TS 5.5.12
involves the extension of the DNPS, Units 2
and 3 Type A containment test interval to 15
years and the extension of the Type C test
interval to 75 months for selected
components. This amendment does not alter
the manner in which safety limits, limiting
safety system set points, or limiting
conditions for operation are determined. The
specific requirements and conditions of the
TS Containment Leak Rate Testing Program
exist to ensure that the degree of containment
structural integrity and leak-tightness that is
considered in the plant safety analysis is
maintained. The overall containment leak
rate limit specified by TS is maintained.
PO 00000
Frm 00097
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
35839
The proposed change involves the
extension of the interval between Type A
containment leak rate tests and Type C tests
for DNPS, Units 2 and 3. The proposed
surveillance interval extension is bounded by
the 15-year ILRT interval and the 75-month
Type C test interval currently authorized
within NEI 94–01, Revision 3–A. Industry
experience supports the conclusion that
Types B and C testing detects a large
percentage of containment leakage paths and
that the percentage of containment leakage
paths that are detected only by Type A
testing is small. The containment inspections
performed in accordance with ASME Code,
Section Xl and TS serve to provide a high
degree of assurance that the containment
would not degrade in a manner that is
detectable only by Type A testing. The
combination of these factors ensures that the
margin of safety in the plant safety analysis
is maintained. The design, operation, testing
methods and acceptance criteria for Types A,
B, and C containment leakage tests specified
in applicable codes and standards would
continue to be met, with the acceptance of
this proposed change, since these are not
affected by changes to the Type A and Type
C test intervals.
The proposed amendment also deletes an
exception previously granted under TS
License Amendments Nos. 210 and 202 for
Units 2 and 3, respectively to allow one-time
extensions of the ILRT test frequency for
DNPS, Units 2 and 3. This exception was for
an activity that has taken place; therefore, the
deletion is solely a non-technical, editorial
change that does not result in any alteration
in how DNPS, Units 2 and 3 are operated and
maintained. Thus, there is no reduction in
any margin of safety.
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: David J. Wrona.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC,
Docket No. 50–410, Nine Mile Point
Nuclear Station, Unit 2, Oswego County,
New York
Date of amendment request: May 31,
2017. A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No.
ML17151A214.
Description of amendment request:
The amendment would revise the Nine
Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 2,
Technical Specifications, to allow
operation of ventilation systems with
charcoal filters in accordance with
Technical Specifications Task Force
E:\FR\FM\01AUN1.SGM
01AUN1
35840
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 146 / Tuesday, August 1, 2017 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES
(TSTF) Improved Standard Technical
Specifications Change Traveler, TSTF–
522, Revision 0, ‘‘Revise Ventilation
System Surveillance Requirements to
Operate for 10 hours per Month’’
(ADAMS Accession No. ML100890316).
Basis for proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination:
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
licensee has provided its analysis of the
issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented
below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change replaces an existing
Surveillance Requirement to operate the SGT
[Standby Gas Treatment] System and CREF
[Control Room Envelope Filtration] Systems
equipped with electric heaters for a
continuous 10-hour period every 31 days
with a requirement to operate the systems for
15 continuous minutes with heaters
operating, if needed.
These systems are not accident initiators,
and therefore, these changes do not involve
a significant increase in the probability of an
accident. The proposed system and filter
testing changes are consistent with current
regulatory guidance for these systems and
will continue to assure that these systems
perform their design function which may
include mitigating accidents. Thus, the
change does not involve a significant
increase in the consequences of an accident.
Therefore, it is concluded that this change
does not involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change replaces an existing
Surveillance Requirement to operate the SGT
System and CREF Systems equipped with
electric heaters for a continuous 10-hour
period every 31 days with a requirement to
operate the systems for 15 continuous
minutes with heaters operating, if needed.
The change proposed for these ventilation
systems does not change any system
operations or maintenance activities. Testing
requirements will be revised and will
continue to demonstrate that the Limiting
Conditions for Operation are met and the
system components are capable of
performing their intended safety functions.
The change does not create new failure
modes or mechanisms and no new accident
precursors are generated.
Therefore, it is concluded that this change
does not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change replaces an existing
Surveillance Requirement to operate the SGT
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:13 Jul 31, 2017
Jkt 241001
System and CREF Systems equipped with
electric heaters for a continuous 10-hour
period every 31 days with a requirement to
operate the systems for 15 continuous
minutes with heaters operating, if needed.
The design basis for the ventilation
systems’ heaters is to heat the incoming air
which reduces the relative humidity. The
heater testing change proposed will continue
to demonstrate that the heaters are capable of
heating the air and will perform their design
function. The proposed change is consistent
with regulatory guidance.
Therefore, it is concluded that this change
does not involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee’s analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer,
Associate General Counsel, Exelon
Generation Company, LLC, 4300
Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555.
NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC,
Docket No. 50–289, Three Mile Island
Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Dauphin
County, Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: March
22, 2017. A publicly-available version is
in ADAMS under Accession No.
ML17081A425.
Description of amendment request:
The amendment would make
administrative changes to Three Mile
Island, Unit 1, Technical Specifications
(TSs). In particular, the proposed
amendment would (1) update TS 5.4.2
for the current number of fuel
assemblies and number of reactor cores
that are stored in Spent Fuel Pool A; (2)
revise TS 6.1.2 requirements for the
Chief Nuclear Officer to eliminate the
annual management directive to all unit
personnel responsible for the control
room command function; and (3) delete
the TS 6.2.2.2.d footnote that references
Control Room Supervisors who do not
possess a Senior Reactor Operator NRC
License.
Basis for proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination:
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
licensee has provided its analysis of the
issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented
below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not involve the
modification of any plant equipment or affect
PO 00000
Frm 00098
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
plant operation. The proposed changes will
have no impact on any safety related
structures, systems, or components. The
proposed changes are administrative in
nature and there are no changes to the
conduct of control room licensed operators
during evaluated accidents.
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 changes have no impact on
the design, function or operation of any plant
structure, system or component. The
proposed changes do not affect plant
equipment or accident analyses. The
proposed changes are administrative in
nature.
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 changes do not adversely
affect existing plant safety margins or the
reliability of the equipment assumed to
operate in the safety analyses. There is no
change being made to safety analysis
assumptions, safety limits or limiting safety
system settings that would adversely affect
plant safety as a result of the proposed
changes. Margins of safety associated with
fission product barriers are unaffected by
proposed administrative changes.
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.
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating
Company, et al., Docket No. 50–334,
Beaver Valley Power Station (BVPS)
Unit No. 1 (BVPS–1), Beaver County,
Pennsylvania
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating
Company, et al., Docket No. 50–346,
Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station
(DBNPS), Unit No. 1, Ottawa County,
Ohio
Date of amendment request: May 18,
2017. A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No.
ML17138A381.
E:\FR\FM\01AUN1.SGM
01AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 146 / Tuesday, August 1, 2017 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES
Description of amendment request: By
NRC’s Order dated April 15, 2016
(ADAMS Accession No. ML16078A092),
which approved the transfer of certain
sale-leaseback ownership of the Perry
Nuclear Power Plant to FirstEnergy
Nuclear Generation, LLC (FENGen or
FENGenCo), the NRC accepted the
change from FirstEnergy Corp. (FE) to
FirstEnergy Solutions Corp. (FES)
providing the $400 million support
agreement. The NRC reaffirmed FES as
the provider of the financial support
agreement in the recently approved
transfer of ownership for BVPS, Unit
No. 2, dated April 14, 2017 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML17081A433,
Nonproprietary Safety Evaluation). The
proposed amendment would conform
the BVPS–1 and DBNPS Renewed
Operating Licenses (ROLs) to reflect that
FES is providing the $400 million
support agreement instead of FE.
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:
has adequate financial qualifications. The
proposed changes do not affect the
requirements of the license conditions. The
proposed ROL changes do not alter the
design or operation of either BVPS–1 or
DBNPS. No new equipment has been
incorporated into the plant design or
operation.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes revise license
conditions in the BVPS–1 and DBNPS ROLs
by changing the company that provides a
financial support agreement for FENGen. The
proposed change also revises the DBNPS
renewed operating license condition to
indicate there is only one support agreement.
The NRC has stated that FENGen has
adequate financial qualifications. The
proposed changes do not affect the
requirements of the license conditions. The
proposed ROL changes do not alter the
design or operation of either BVPS–1 or
DBNPS. No new equipment has been
incorporated into the plant design or
operation.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant reduction in margin of
safety.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes revise license
conditions in the BVPS–1 and DBNPS ROLs
by changing the company that provides a
financial support agreement for FirstEnergy
Nuclear Generation, LLC (FENGen). The NRC
has stated that FENGen has adequate
financial qualifications for operating Beaver
Valley Power Station, Units No. 1 and 2;
Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit No.
1; and Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No.
1. The proposed change also revises the
DBNPS renewed operating license condition
to indicate that there is only one support
agreement. The proposed changes do not
affect the requirements of the license
conditions. The proposed ROL changes do
not alter the design or operation of either
BVPS–1 or DBNPS. As a result, accident
analyses at either facility has not been
affected.
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 changes revise license
conditions in the BVPS–1 and DBNPS ROLs
by changing the company that provides a
financial support agreement for FENGen. The
proposed change also revises the DBNPS
renewed operating license condition to
indicate that there is only one support
agreement. The NRC has stated that FENGen
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 W.
Jenkins, FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating
Company, FirstEnergy Corporation, 76
South Main Street, Mail Stop A–GO–15,
Akron, OH 44308.
NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:13 Jul 31, 2017
Jkt 241001
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating
Company, Docket No. 50–440, Perry
Nuclear Power Plant (PNPP), Unit No. 1,
Lake County, Ohio
Date of amendment request: June 8,
2017. A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No.
ML17159A720.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed amendment would revise
PNPP technical specifications (TSs) to
reflect previously approved license
basis changes as part of the alternative
source term initiative; align some TS
sections with NUREG–1434, Revision 4,
‘‘Standard Technical Specifications—
General Electric BWR [Boiling-Water
Reactor]/6 Plants’’; and delete two TS
sections.
Basis for proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination:
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
licensee has provided its analysis of the
PO 00000
Frm 00099
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
35841
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 involves
incorporating technical specification changes
that reflect previously approved license basis
changes as part of the alternative source term
(AST) initiative, aligns some TS sections
with NUREG–1434, Revision 4, and deletes
two TS sections. The proposed amendment
does not affect any accident mitigating
feature or increase the likelihood of
malfunction for plant structures, systems and
components.
Verification of operating the plant within
prescribed limits will continue to be
performed, as currently required by the
applicable TS surveillance requirements.
Compliance with and continued verification
of the prescribed limits support the
capability of the systems to perform their
required design functions during all plant
operating, accident, and station blackout
conditions, consistent with the plant safety
analyses.
The proposed amendment will not change
any of the analyses associated with the PNPP
Updated Safety Analysis Report Chapter 15
accidents because accident initiators and
accident mitigation functions remain
unchanged. The proposed amendment does
not alter any assumptions previously made
relative to evaluating the consequences of an
accident.
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 amendment does not involve
physical alterations to the plant. No new or
different type of equipment will be installed
and there are no physical modifications
required to existing installed equipment
associated with the proposed changes. The
proposed amendment does not create a
credible failure mechanism, malfunction, or
accident initiator not already considered in
the design and licensing basis.
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.
Safety margins are applied to design and
licensing basis functions and to the
controlling values of parameters to account
for various uncertainties and to avoid
exceeding regulatory or licensing limits. The
proposed amendment does not require a
physical change to the plant, or affect design
and licensing basis functions or controlling
values of parameters for plant systems,
structures, and components.
E:\FR\FM\01AUN1.SGM
01AUN1
35842
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 146 / Tuesday, August 1, 2017 / Notices
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: David W.
Jenkins, Attorney, FirstEnergy
Corporation, Mail Stop A–GO–15, 76
South Main Street, Akron, OH 44308.
NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES
III. Notice of Issuance of Amendments
to Facility Operating Licenses and
Combined Licenses
During the period since publication of
the last biweekly notice, the
Commission has issued the following
amendments. The Commission has
determined for each of these
amendments that the application
complies with the standards and
requirements of the Atomic Energy Act
of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the
Commission’s rules and regulations.
The Commission has made appropriate
findings as required by the Act and the
Commission’s rules and regulations in
10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in
the license amendment.
A notice of consideration of issuance
of amendment to facility operating
license or combined license, as
applicable, proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination,
and opportunity for a hearing in
connection with these actions, was
published in the Federal Register as
indicated.
Unless otherwise indicated, the
Commission has determined that these
amendments satisfy the criteria for
categorical exclusion in accordance
with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant
to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental
impact statement or environmental
assessment need be prepared for these
amendments. If the Commission has
prepared an environmental assessment
under the special circumstances
provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has
made a determination based on that
assessment, it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the
action see (1) the applications for
amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3)
the Commission’s related letter, Safety
Evaluation and/or Environmental
Assessment as indicated. All of these
items can be accessed as described in
the ‘‘Obtaining Information and
Submitting Comments’’ section of this
document.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:13 Jul 31, 2017
Jkt 241001
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: July 20,
2016.
Brief description of amendments: The
amendments revised Technical
Specifications 3.7.12, ‘‘Spent Fuel Pool
Boron Concentration,’’ 3.7.18, ‘‘Dry
Spent Fuel Storage Cask Loading and
Unloading,’’ and 4.4, ‘‘Dry Spent Fuel
Storage Cask Loading and Unloading,’’
to remove requirements that no longer
pertain to independent spent fuel
storage facility general licensed
activities.
Date of issuance: July 12, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 404, 406, and 405.
A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No.
ML17167A265; documents related to
these amendments are listed in the
Safety Evaluation enclosed with the
amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License
Nos. DPR–38, DPR–47 and DPR–55:
Amendments revised the Renewed
Facility Operating Licenses and
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: February 14, 2017 (82 FR
10593).
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated July 12, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Docket Nos.
50–325 and 50–324, Brunswick Steam
Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, Brunswick
County, North Carolina
Date of amendment request: August
29, 2016.
Brief description of amendments: The
amendments revised the technical
specifications (TSs) to eliminate Section
5.5.6, ‘‘Inservice Testing Program.’’ A
new defined term, ‘‘INSERVICE
TESTING PROGRAM,’’ is added to the
TSs. All existing references to the
‘‘Inservice Testing Program’’ in the TS
surveillance requirements (SRs) are
replaced with ‘‘INSERVICE TESTING
PROGRAM’’ so that the SRs refer to the
new definition in lieu of the deleted
program.
Date of issuance: July 12, 2017.
Effective date: As of date of issuance
and shall be implemented within 90
days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 278 (Unit 1) and
306 (Unit 2). A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession
PO 00000
Frm 00100
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
No. ML17130A780; documents related
to these amendments are listed in the
Safety Evaluation enclosed with the
amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License
Nos. DPR–71 and DPR–62: Amendments
revised the Renewed Facility Operating
Licenses and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: December 6, 2016 (81 FR
87967).
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendments is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated July 12, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.,
Docket No. 50–293, Pilgrim Nuclear
Power Station, Plymouth County,
Massachusetts
Date of amendment request: February
14, 2017, as supplemented by letter
dated May 25, 2017.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendment revised certain staffing and
training requirements, reports,
programs, and editorial changes
contained in the Technical Specification
(TS) Table of Contents; Section 1.0,
‘‘Definitions’’; Section 4.0, ‘‘Design
Features’’; and Section 5.0,
‘‘Administrative Controls’’ that will no
longer be applicable once Pilgrim
Nuclear Power Station is permanently
defueled.
Date of issuance: July 10, 2017.
Effective date: Upon the licensee’s
submittal of the certifications required
by 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1) and shall be
implemented within 60 days from the
amendment effective date.
Amendment No.: 246. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML17066A130;
documents related to this amendment
are listed in the Safety Evaluation
enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License
No. DPR–35: The amendment revised
the Renewed Facility Operating License
and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: March 28, 2017 (82 FR
15380). The supplemental letter dated
May 25, 2017, 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 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 July 10, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
E:\FR\FM\01AUN1.SGM
01AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 146 / Tuesday, August 1, 2017 / Notices
Exelon Generation Company, LLC,
Docket Nos. STN 50–456 and STN 50–
457, Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2,
Will County, Illinois and Docket Nos.
STN 50–454 and STN 50–455, Byron
Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Ogle County,
Illinois
Date of application for amendments:
February 23, 2017, as supplemented by
letter dated June 29, 2017.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendments revised the operating
licenses and technical specifications to
remove time, cycle, or modificationrelated items. Additionally, the
proposed amendments made editorial
and formatting changes. The time, cycle,
or modification-related items have been
implemented or superseded and are no
longer applicable.
Date of issuance: July 5, 2017, as
supplemented by letter dated June 29,
2017.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days from the date of
issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 193 for NPF–72,
193 for NPF–77, 198 for NPF–37, and
198 for NPF–66. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession
No. ML17088A703; documents related
to these amendments are listed in the
Safety Evaluation enclosed with the
amendments.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF–
72, NPF–77, NPF–37, and NPF–66: The
amendments revised the Technical
Specifications and License.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: April 11, 2017 (82 FR 17459).
The supplemental letter dated June 29,
2017, 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 July 5, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES
South Carolina Electric & Gas Company,
Docket Nos. 52–027 and 52–028, Virgil
C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS),
Units 2 and 3, Fairfield, South Carolina
Date of amendment request:
December 6, 2017, as supplemented by
letter dated May 25, 2017.
Description of amendment: The
amendments consisted of changes to the
VCSNS Units 2 and 3 Updated Final
Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) in the
form of departures from plant-specific
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:13 Jul 31, 2017
Jkt 241001
Design Control Document Tier 2
information, Combined License (COL)
Appendix A Technical Specifications
(TSs), and COL Appendix C
information. The departures consisted
of in-containment refueling water
storage tank (IRWST) minimum volume
changes in plant-specific UFSAR Table
14.3–2, COL Appendix A TSs 3.5.6,
3.5.7 and 3.5.8 and Surveillance
Requirements 3.5.6.2 and 3.5.8.2 and
COL Appendix C (and associated plantspecific Tier 1) Table 2.2.3–4. The
changes restored the desired
consistency of these sections with the
UFSAR IRWST minimum volume value
in other locations.
Date of issuance: June 16, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 75. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML17135A327;
documents related to this amendment
are listed in the Safety Evaluation
enclosed with the amendment.
Facility Combined Licenses Nos. NPF–
93 and NPF–94: Amendments revised
the Facility Combined Licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: January 24, 2017 (82 FR
8220). The supplemental letter dated
May 25, 2017, provided additional
information that clarified the
application, did not expand the scope of
the application request 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 the
Safety Evaluation dated June 16, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
STP Nuclear Operating Company,
Docket Nos. 50–498 and 50–499, South
Texas Project (STP), Units 1 and 2,
Matagorda County, Texas
Date of amendment request: June 19,
2013, as supplemented by letters dated
October 3, October 31, November 13,
November 21, and December 23, 2013
(two letters); January 9, February 13,
February 27, March 17, March 18, May
15 (two letters), May 22, June 25, and
July 15, 2014; March 10, March 25, and
August 20, 2015; April 13, May 11, June
9, June 16, July 18, July 21 (two letters),
July 28, September 12, October 20,
November 9, and December 7, 2016; and
January 19, 2017.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendments authorized revision of the
licensing basis for Facility Operating
License Nos. NPF–76 and NPF–80, for
STP, Units 1 and 2, as documented in
PO 00000
Frm 00101
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
35843
the Updated Final Safety Analysis
Report and revise the Technical
Specifications (TSs). The changes
authorized use of a deterministic
bounding calculation based on plantspecific testing, and a risk-informed
approach to address safety issues
discussed in Generic Safety Issue 191,
‘‘Assessment of Debris Accumulation on
PWR [Pressurized-Water Reactor] Sump
Performance,’’ and to resolve the
concerns in Generic Letter 2004–02,
‘‘Potential Impact of Debris Blockage on
Emergency Recirculation during Design
Basis Accidents at Pressurized-Water
Reactors,’’ dated September 13, 2004,
for STP, Units 1 and 2.
Date of issuance: July 11, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 1–212; Unit
2–198. A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No.
ML17019A001; documents related to
these amendments are listed in the
Safety Evaluation enclosed with the
amendments.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF–
76 and NPF–80: The amendments
revised the Facility Operating Licenses
and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: February 16, 2016 (81 FR
7843). The supplemental letters dated
April 13, May 11, June 9, June 16, July
18, July 21 (two letters), July 28,
September 12, October 20, November 9,
and December 7, 2016; and January 19,
2017, 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 July 11, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No.
50–391, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant (WBN),
Unit 2, Rhea County, Tennessee
Date of amendment request:
November 23, 2016, as supplemented by
letters dated February 16, 2017, and
June 9, 2017.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendment revised Technical
Specification Surveillance Requirement
(SR) 3.0.2 to extend, on a one-time basis,
SRs listed in Attachments 5, 6, 7, 9, 12,
13, 14, 15, 16, and 17 to Enclosure 1 of
the application that are normally
performed on an 18-month frequency in
conjunction with a refueling outage. The
E:\FR\FM\01AUN1.SGM
01AUN1
35844
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 146 / Tuesday, August 1, 2017 / Notices
change extends the due date for these
SRs to October 31, 2017, which allows
these SRs to be performed during the
first refueling outage for WBN, Unit 2.
Date of issuance: July 11, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 7 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 13. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML17180A024;
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: January 17, 2017 (82 FR
4932). The supplemental letters dated
February 16, 2017, and June 9, 2017,
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 July 11, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 21st day
of July 2017.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Anne T. Boland,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor
Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2017–15986 Filed 7–31–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
[Release No. 34–81223; File No. SBSDR–
2017–01]
Security-Based Swap Data
Repositories; ICE Trade Vault, LLC;
Notice of Filing of Amended
Application for Registration as a
Security-Based Swap Data Repository
July 27, 2017.
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES
I. Introduction
On May 1, 2017, ICE Trade Vault, LLC
(‘‘ICE Trade Vault’’) amended its Form
SDR (‘‘Initial Form SDR’’) 1 seeking
1 See Exchange Act Release No. 77699 (Apr. 22,
2016), 81 FR 25475 (Apr. 28, 2016) (‘‘ICE Trade
Vault Notice Release’’). As noted in the ICE Trade
Vault Notice Release, ICE Trade Vault’s Form SDR
was submitted to the Commission on March 29,
2016 and amended on April 18, 2016.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:13 Jul 31, 2017
Jkt 241001
registration with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (‘‘Commission’’
or ‘‘SEC’’) as a security-based swap data
repository (‘‘SDR’’) (‘‘Amended Form
SDR’’).2 In its Amended Form SDR, ICE
Trade Vault proposes to operate as a
registered SDR for security-based swap
(‘‘SBS’’) transactions in the credit
derivatives asset class.3 The
Commission previously published
notice of ICE Trade Vault’s Initial Form
SDR on April 22, 2016, to solicit
comments from interested persons. The
comment period closed on May 31,
2016. To date, the Commission has
received six comment letters on the ICE
Trade Vault application.4 After the close
of the comment period, ICE Trade Vault
submitted its Amended Form SDR with
revisions to several policies and
procedures.5 ICE Trade Vault’s
proposed revisions described herein
reflect substantive changes from what
was reflected in ICE Trade Vault’s Initial
Form SDR, including amendments to
the process to confirm data accuracy
and completeness with a non-reporting
side; fee schedule; policies and
procedures regarding access; policies
2 ICE Trade Vault filed its Amended Form SDR,
including the exhibits thereto, electronically with
the Commission. The descriptions set forth in this
notice regarding the structure and operations of ICE
Trade Vault have been derived, excerpted, and/or
summarized from information in ICE Trade Vault’s
Amended Form SDR application, and principally
from ICE Trade Vault’s Guidebook (Exhibit GG.2),
which outlines the applicant’s policies and
procedures designed to address its statutory and
regulatory obligations as an SDR registered with the
Commission. ICE Trade Vault’s Amended Form
SDR and non-confidential exhibits thereto are
available on https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/
data/1658496/000165849617000009/000165849617-000009-index.htm. In addition, the public may
access copies of these materials on the
Commission’s Web site at: https://www.sec.gov/
rules/other/2017/34-81223.pdf.
3 ICE Trade Vault’s Form SDR application also
constitutes an application for registration as a
securities information processor. See Exchange Act
Release No. 74246 (Feb. 11, 2015), 80 FR 14438,
14458 (Mar. 19, 2015) (‘‘SDR Adopting Release’’).
4 See letters from Tara Kruse, Director, Co-Head
of Data, Reporting and FpML, International Swaps
and Derivatives Association, Inc. (May 24, 2016);
Tara Kruse, Director, Co-Head of Data, Reporting
and FpML, International Swaps and Derivatives
Association, Inc. (May 31, 2016); Jennifer S. Choi,
Associate General Counsel, Investment Company
Institute (May 31, 2016); Timothy W. Cameron,
Asset Management Group—Head, and Laura
Martin, Asset Management Group—Managing
Director and Associate General Counsel, Securities
Industry and Financial Markets Association (May
31, 2016); Tod Skarecky, Vice President, Clarus
Financial Technology (May 31, 2016); Andrew
Rogers, Director and Global Head of Reference Data,
IHS Markit (Aug. 8, 2016). Additionally, on July 1,
2016, ICE Trade Vault submitted its own letter,
responding to comments received. See letter from
Kara Dutta, General Counsel, and Tara Manuel,
Director, ICE Trade Vault, LLC (July 1, 2016).
Copies of all comment letters are available at
https://www.sec.gov/comments/sbsdr-2016-01/
sbsdr201601.htm.
5 See supra note 2.
PO 00000
Frm 00102
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
and procedures on regulator access;
policies and procedures related to the
correction of errors; policies and
procedures related to satisfying the
requirements of Regulation SBSR; and
certain key terms and definitions. The
Commission seeks comment from
interested parties on these changes and
is publishing ICE Trade Vault’s
revisions in its Amended Form SDR
with a 21-day comment period.6
II. Background
A. SDR Registration, Duties and Core
Principles, and Regulation SBSR
Section 763(i) of the Dodd-Frank Wall
Street Reform and Consumer Protection
Act of 2010 added Section 13(n) to the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(‘‘Exchange Act’’), which makes it
‘‘unlawful for any person, unless
registered with the Commission,
directly or indirectly, to make use of the
mails or any means or instrumentality of
interstate commerce to perform the
function of a security-based SDR.’’ To be
registered and maintain registration,
each SDR must comply with certain
requirements and ‘‘core principles’’
described in Section 13(n) as well as
any requirements that the Commission
may impose by rule or regulation.7
Exchange Act Rules 13n–1 through
13n–12 (‘‘SDR rules’’) establish the
procedures and Form SDR by which an
SDR shall register with the Commission
and certain ‘‘duties and core principles’’
to which an SDR must adhere.8 Among
other requirements, the SDR rules
require an SDR to collect and maintain
accurate SBS data and make such data
available to the Commission and other
authorities so that relevant authorities
will be better able to monitor the
buildup and concentration of risk
exposure in the SBS market.9
Concurrent with the Commission’s
adoption of the SDR rules, the
Commission adopted,10 and later
amended,11 Exchange Act Rules 900 to
909 (‘‘Regulation SBSR’’),12 which,
among other things, provide for the
reporting of SBS trade data to registered
6 The Commission intends to address any
comments received for this notice, as well as those
comments previously submitted regarding the
Initial Form SDR, when the Commission makes a
determination of whether to register ICE Trade
Vault as an SDR pursuant to Rule 13n–1(c).
7 15 U.S.C. 78m(n).
8 See SDR Adopting Release, 80 FR 14438.
9 See id. at 14450.
10 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74244
(Feb. 11, 2015), 80 FR 14563 (Mar. 19, 2015).
11 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78321
(July 14, 2016), 81 FR 53546 (Aug. 12, 2016).
12 See 17 CFR 242.900 to 242.909; see also
Exchange Act Release No. 74244 (Feb. 11, 2015), 80
FR 14563 (Mar. 19, 2015) (‘‘Regulation SBSR
Adopting Release’’).
E:\FR\FM\01AUN1.SGM
01AUN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 146 (Tuesday, August 1, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35835-35844]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-15986]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2017-0169]
Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility
Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant
Hazards Considerations
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Biweekly notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 189a. (2) of the Atomic Energy Act of
1954, as amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC) is publishing this regular biweekly notice. The Act requires the
Commission to publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to
be issued, and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make
immediately effective any amendment to an operating license or combined
license, as applicable, upon a determination by the Commission that
such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration,
notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a
hearing from any person.
This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or
proposed to be issued, from July 4, 2017 to July 17, 2017. The last
biweekly notice was published on July 18, 2017.
DATES: Comments must be filed by August 31, 2017. A request for a
hearing must be filed by October 2, 2017.
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 Web site: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2017-0169. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-
3463; email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For technical questions, contact
the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this document.
Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Office of Administration,
Mail Stop: TWFN-8-D36M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555-0001.
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting
comments, see ``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paula Blechman, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2242, email: Paula.Blechman@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments
A. Obtaining Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0169, 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 Web site: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2017-0169.
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 ``ADAMS Public Documents'' and
then 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 pdr.resource@nrc.gov. 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-2017-0169, 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 posts all comment submissions at https://www.regulations.gov as well as entering 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 submissions into ADAMS.
[[Page 35836]]
II. Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility
Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses and Proposed No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under
the Commission's regulations in 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 Web site 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
[[Page 35837]]
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's Web site 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 hearing.docket@nrc.gov, 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 Web site 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 Web site 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 Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by
email to MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, 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 35838]]
information related to this document, see the ``Obtaining Information
and Submitting Comments'' section of this document.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-317 and 50-318, Calvert
Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Calvert County, Maryland
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 72-8, Calvert Cliffs
Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation, Calvert County, Maryland
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-220 and 50-410, Nine
Mile Point Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Oswego County, New York
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-244, R.E. Ginna Nuclear
Power Plant, Wayne County, New York
Date of amendment request: May 31, 2017. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Package Accession No. ML17164A149.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the
emergency plans for each facility by changing the emergency action
level (EAL) schemes. The proposed changes are based on the Nuclear
Energy Institute's (NEI's) guidance in NEI 99-01, Revision 6,
``Development of Emergency Action Levels for Non-Passive Reactors,''
which was endorsed by the NRC by letter dated March 28, 2013 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML12346A463).
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to Exelon's EAL schemes to adopt the NRC-
endorsed guidance in NEI 99-01, Revision 6, do not reduce the
capability to meet the emergency planning requirements established
in 10 CFR 50.47 and 10 CFR part 50, appendix E. The proposed changes
do not reduce the functionality, performance, or capability of
Exelon's ERO [emergency response organization] to respond in
mitigating the consequences of any design basis accident. The
probability of a reactor accident requiring implementation of
Emergency Plan EALs has no relevance in determining whether the
proposed changes to the EALs reduce the effectiveness of the
Emergency Plans. As discussed in Section D, ``Planning Basis,'' of
NUREG-0654, Revision 1, ``Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of
Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of
Nuclear Power Plants'';
. . . The overall objective of emergency response plans is to
provide dose savings (and in some cases immediate life saving) for a
spectrum of accidents that could produce offsite doses in excess of
Protective Action Guides (PAGs). No single specific accident
sequence should be isolated as the one for which to plan because
each accident could have different consequences, both in nature and
degree. Further, the range of possible selection for a planning
basis is very large, starting with a zero point of requiring no
planning at all because significant offsite radiological accident
consequences are unlikely to occur, to planning for the worst
possible accident, regardless of its extremely low likelihood. . . .
Therefore, Exelon did not consider the risk insights regarding
any specific accident initiation or progression in evaluating the
proposed changes.
The proposed changes do not involve any physical changes to
plant equipment or systems, nor do they alter the assumptions of any
accident analyses. The proposed changes do not adversely affect
accident initiators or precursors nor do they alter the design
assumptions, conditions, and configuration or the manner in which
the plants are operated and maintained. The proposed changes do not
adversely affect the ability of Structures, Systems, or Components
(SSCs) to perform their intended safety functions in mitigating the
consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance
limits.
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 changes to Exelon's EAL schemes to adopt the NRC-
endorsed guidance in NEI 99-01, Revision 6, do not involve any
physical changes to plant systems or equipment. The proposed changes
do not involve the addition of any new plant equipment. The proposed
changes will not alter the design configuration, or method of
operation of plant equipment beyond its normal functional
capabilities. All Exelon ERO functions will continue to be performed
as required. The proposed changes do not create any new credible
failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident initiators.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from those that have been
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to Exelon's EAL schemes to adopt the NRC-
endorsed guidance in NEI 99-01, Revision 6, do not alter or exceed a
design basis or safety limit. There is no change being made to
safety analysis assumptions, safety limits, or limiting safety
system settings that would adversely affect plant safety as a result
of the proposed changes.
There are no changes to setpoints or environmental conditions of
any SSC or the manner in which any SSC is operated. Margins of
safety are unaffected by the proposed changes to adopt the NEI 99-
01, Revision 6 EAL scheme guidance. The applicable requirements of
10 CFR 50.47 and 10 CFR part 50, appendix E will continue to be met.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve any 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
requested amendments involve no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel,
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL
60555.
NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-237 and 50-249, Dresden
Nuclear Power Station (DNPS), Units 2 and 3, Grundy County, Illinois
Date of amendment request: May 3, 2017. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17123A104.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise the DNPS, Units 2 and 3, technical specifications by replacing
the existing specifications related to Regulatory Guide 1.163,
``Performance-Based Containment Leak-Test Program,'' with a reference
to Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 94-01, ``Industry Guideline for
Implementing Performance-Based Option of 10 CFR part 50, appendix J,''
Revision 3-A, and the conditions and limitations specified in NEI 94-
01, Revision 2-A, as the documents used by DNPS to implement the
performance-based leakage testing program in accordance with Option B
of 10 CFR part 50, appendix J.
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 activity involves revision of the Dresden Nuclear
Power Station (DNPS) Technical Specification (TS) 5.5. 12. ``Primary
Containment Leakage Rate Testing Program,'' to allow the extension
of the DNPS, Units 2 and 3. Type A containment integrated leakage
rate test (ILRT) interval to
[[Page 35839]]
15 years, and the extension of the Type C local leakage rate test
interval to 75 months. The current Type A test interval of 120
months (i.e., 10 years) would be extended on a permanent basis to no
longer than 15 years from the last Type A test. The existing Type C
test interval of 60 months for selected components would be extended
on a performance basis to no longer than 75 months. Extensions of up
to nine months (i.e., total maximum interval of 84 months for Type C
tests) are permissible only for non-routine emergent conditions.
The proposed extension does not involve either a physical
change to the plant or a change in the manner in which the plant is
operated or controlled. The containment is designed to provide an
essentially leak tight barrier against the uncontrolled release of
radioactivity to the environment for postulated accidents. As
such,the containment and the testing requirements invoked to
periodically demonstrate the integrity of the containment exist to
ensure the plant's ability to mitigate the consequences of an
accident, and do not involve the prevention or identification of any
precursors of an accident.
The change in dose risk for changing the Type A, ILRT interval
from three-per-ten years to once-per-fifteen-years, measured as an
increase to the total integrated dose risk for all internal events
accident sequences for DNPS, is 4.26E-02 person-roentgen equivalent
man (rem)/year (0.27 percent (%)) using the Electric Power Research
Institute (EPR) guidance with the base case corrosion included. The
change in dose risk drops to 1.14E-02 person-rem/year (i.e., 0.07%)
when using the EPRI Expert Elicitation methodology. The values
calculated per the EPRI guidance are all lower than the acceptance
criteria of less than or equal to 1.0 person-rem/year or less than
1.0% person-rem/year defined in Section 1.3 of Attachment 3 to this
LAR (license amendment request).
Therefore, this proposed extension does not involve a
significant increase in the probability of an accident previously
evaluated.
As documented in NUREG-1493, ``Performance-Based Containment
Leak-Test Program,'' dated January 1995, Types B and C tests have
identified a very large percentage of containment leakage paths, and
the percentage of containment leakage paths that are detected only
by Type A testing is very small. The DNPS, Units 2 and 3 Type A test
history supports this conclusion.
The integrity of the containment is subject to two types of
failure mechanisms that can be categorized as: (1) Activity based,
and, (2) time based. Activity based failure mechanisms are defined
as degradation due to system and/or component modifications or
maintenance. Local leak rate test requirements and administrative
controls such as configuration management and procedural
requirements for system restoration ensure that containment
integrity is not degraded by plant modifications or maintenance
activities. The design and construction requirements of the
containment combined with the containment inspections performed in
accordance with American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)
Section XI, and TS requirements serve to provide a high degree of
assurance that the containment would not degrade in a manner that is
detectable only by a Type A test. Based on the above, the proposed
test interval extensions do not significantly increase the
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed amendment also deletes an exception previously
granted in License Amendments Nos. 210 and 202 for DNPS, Units 2 and
3, respectively, to allow one-time extensions of the ILRT test
frequency. This exception was for an activity that has already taken
place; therefore, this deletion is solely a non-technical, editorial
change that does not result in any alteration in how DNPS, Units 2
and 3 are operated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not result in 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 amendment to TS 5.5.12 involves the extension of
the DNPS, Units 2 and 3 Type A containment test interval to 15 years
and the extension of the Type C test interval to 75 months. The
containment and the testing requirements to periodically demonstrate
the integrity of the containment exist to ensure the plant's ability
to mitigate the consequences of an accident.
The proposed change does not involve a physical modification to
the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be
installed), nor does it alter the design, configuration, or change
the manner in which the plant is operated or controlled beyond the
standard functional capabilities of the equipment.
The proposed amendment also deletes an exception previously
granted under TS License Amendment Nos. 210 and 202 for Units 2 and
3, respectively to allow one-time extensions of the ILRT test
frequency. This exception was for an activity that has already taken
place; therefore, this deletion is solely a non-technical, editorial
change that does not result in any alteration in how DNPS, Units 2
and 3 are operated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated
for DNPS, Units 2 and 3.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment to TS 5.5.12 involves the extension of
the DNPS, Units 2 and 3 Type A containment test interval to 15 years
and the extension of the Type C test interval to 75 months for
selected components. This amendment does not alter the manner in
which safety limits, limiting safety system set points, or limiting
conditions for operation are determined. The specific requirements
and conditions of the TS Containment Leak Rate Testing Program exist
to ensure that the degree of containment structural integrity and
leak-tightness that is considered in the plant safety analysis is
maintained. The overall containment leak rate limit specified by TS
is maintained.
The proposed change involves the extension of the interval
between Type A containment leak rate tests and Type C tests for
DNPS, Units 2 and 3. The proposed surveillance interval extension is
bounded by the 15-year ILRT interval and the 75-month Type C test
interval currently authorized within NEI 94-01, Revision 3-A.
Industry experience supports the conclusion that Types B and C
testing detects a large percentage of containment leakage paths and
that the percentage of containment leakage paths that are detected
only by Type A testing is small. The containment inspections
performed in accordance with ASME Code, Section Xl and TS serve to
provide a high degree of assurance that the containment would not
degrade in a manner that is detectable only by Type A testing. The
combination of these factors ensures that the margin of safety in
the plant safety analysis is maintained. The design, operation,
testing methods and acceptance criteria for Types A, B, and C
containment leakage tests specified in applicable codes and
standards would continue to be met, with the acceptance of this
proposed change, since these are not affected by changes to the Type
A and Type C test intervals.
The proposed amendment also deletes an exception previously
granted under TS License Amendments Nos. 210 and 202 for Units 2 and
3, respectively to allow one-time extensions of the ILRT test
frequency for DNPS, Units 2 and 3. This exception was for an
activity that has taken place; therefore, the deletion is solely a
non-technical, editorial change that does not result in any
alteration in how DNPS, Units 2 and 3 are operated and maintained.
Thus, there is no reduction in any margin of safety.
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: David J. Wrona.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-410, Nine Mile Point
Nuclear Station, Unit 2, Oswego County, New York
Date of amendment request: May 31, 2017. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17151A214.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the
Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 2, Technical Specifications, to
allow operation of ventilation systems with charcoal filters in
accordance with Technical Specifications Task Force
[[Page 35840]]
(TSTF) Improved Standard Technical Specifications Change Traveler,
TSTF-522, Revision 0, ``Revise Ventilation System Surveillance
Requirements to Operate for 10 hours per Month'' (ADAMS Accession No.
ML100890316).
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change replaces an existing Surveillance
Requirement to operate the SGT [Standby Gas Treatment] System and
CREF [Control Room Envelope Filtration] Systems equipped with
electric heaters for a continuous 10-hour period every 31 days with
a requirement to operate the systems for 15 continuous minutes with
heaters operating, if needed.
These systems are not accident initiators, and therefore, these
changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability of
an accident. The proposed system and filter testing changes are
consistent with current regulatory guidance for these systems and
will continue to assure that these systems perform their design
function which may include mitigating accidents. Thus, the change
does not involve a significant increase in the consequences of an
accident.
Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change replaces an existing Surveillance
Requirement to operate the SGT System and CREF Systems equipped with
electric heaters for a continuous 10-hour period every 31 days with
a requirement to operate the systems for 15 continuous minutes with
heaters operating, if needed.
The change proposed for these ventilation systems does not
change any system operations or maintenance activities. Testing
requirements will be revised and will continue to demonstrate that
the Limiting Conditions for Operation are met and the system
components are capable of performing their intended safety
functions. The change does not create new failure modes or
mechanisms and no new accident precursors are generated.
Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change replaces an existing Surveillance
Requirement to operate the SGT System and CREF Systems equipped with
electric heaters for a continuous 10-hour period every 31 days with
a requirement to operate the systems for 15 continuous minutes with
heaters operating, if needed.
The design basis for the ventilation systems' heaters is to heat
the incoming air which reduces the relative humidity. The heater
testing change proposed will continue to demonstrate that the
heaters are capable of heating the air and will perform their design
function. The proposed change is consistent with regulatory
guidance.
Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel,
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL
60555.
NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-289, Three Mile Island
Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: March 22, 2017. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17081A425.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would make
administrative changes to Three Mile Island, Unit 1, Technical
Specifications (TSs). In particular, the proposed amendment would (1)
update TS 5.4.2 for the current number of fuel assemblies and number of
reactor cores that are stored in Spent Fuel Pool A; (2) revise TS 6.1.2
requirements for the Chief Nuclear Officer to eliminate the annual
management directive to all unit personnel responsible for the control
room command function; and (3) delete the TS 6.2.2.2.d footnote that
references Control Room Supervisors who do not possess a Senior Reactor
Operator NRC License.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not involve the modification of any
plant equipment or affect plant operation. The proposed changes will
have no impact on any safety related structures, systems, or
components. The proposed changes are administrative in nature and
there are no changes to the conduct of control room licensed
operators during evaluated accidents.
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 changes have no impact on the design, function or
operation of any plant structure, system or component. The proposed
changes do not affect plant equipment or accident analyses. The
proposed changes are administrative in nature.
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 changes do not adversely affect existing plant
safety margins or the reliability of the equipment assumed to
operate in the safety analyses. There is no change being made to
safety analysis assumptions, safety limits or limiting safety system
settings that would adversely affect plant safety as a result of the
proposed changes. Margins of safety associated with fission product
barriers are unaffected by proposed administrative changes.
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.
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket No. 50-334,
Beaver Valley Power Station (BVPS) Unit No. 1 (BVPS-1), Beaver County,
Pennsylvania
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket No. 50-346,
Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station (DBNPS), Unit No. 1, Ottawa County,
Ohio
Date of amendment request: May 18, 2017. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17138A381.
[[Page 35841]]
Description of amendment request: By NRC's Order dated April 15,
2016 (ADAMS Accession No. ML16078A092), which approved the transfer of
certain sale-leaseback ownership of the Perry Nuclear Power Plant to
FirstEnergy Nuclear Generation, LLC (FENGen or FENGenCo), the NRC
accepted the change from FirstEnergy Corp. (FE) to FirstEnergy
Solutions Corp. (FES) providing the $400 million support agreement. The
NRC reaffirmed FES as the provider of the financial support agreement
in the recently approved transfer of ownership for BVPS, Unit No. 2,
dated April 14, 2017 (ADAMS Accession No. ML17081A433, Nonproprietary
Safety Evaluation). The proposed amendment would conform the BVPS-1 and
DBNPS Renewed Operating Licenses (ROLs) to reflect that FES is
providing the $400 million support agreement instead of FE.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes revise license conditions in the BVPS-1 and
DBNPS ROLs by changing the company that provides a financial support
agreement for FirstEnergy Nuclear Generation, LLC (FENGen). The NRC
has stated that FENGen has adequate financial qualifications for
operating Beaver Valley Power Station, Units No. 1 and 2; Davis-
Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 1; and Perry Nuclear Power
Plant, Unit No. 1. The proposed change also revises the DBNPS
renewed operating license condition to indicate that there is only
one support agreement. The proposed changes do not affect the
requirements of the license conditions. The proposed ROL changes do
not alter the design or operation of either BVPS-1 or DBNPS. As a
result, accident analyses at either facility has not been affected.
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 changes revise license conditions in the BVPS-1 and
DBNPS ROLs by changing the company that provides a financial support
agreement for FENGen. The proposed change also revises the DBNPS
renewed operating license condition to indicate that there is only
one support agreement. The NRC has stated that FENGen has adequate
financial qualifications. The proposed changes do not affect the
requirements of the license conditions. The proposed ROL changes do
not alter the design or operation of either BVPS-1 or DBNPS. No new
equipment has been incorporated into the plant design or operation.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes revise license conditions in the BVPS-1 and
DBNPS ROLs by changing the company that provides a financial support
agreement for FENGen. The proposed change also revises the DBNPS
renewed operating license condition to indicate there is only one
support agreement. The NRC has stated that FENGen has adequate
financial qualifications. The proposed changes do not affect the
requirements of the license conditions. The proposed ROL changes do
not alter the design or operation of either BVPS-1 or DBNPS. No new
equipment has been incorporated into the plant design or operation.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in 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 W. Jenkins, FirstEnergy Nuclear
Operating Company, FirstEnergy Corporation, 76 South Main Street, Mail
Stop A-GO-15, Akron, OH 44308.
NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, Docket No. 50-440, Perry Nuclear
Power Plant (PNPP), Unit No. 1, Lake County, Ohio
Date of amendment request: June 8, 2017. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17159A720.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise PNPP technical specifications (TSs) to reflect previously
approved license basis changes as part of the alternative source term
initiative; align some TS sections with NUREG-1434, Revision 4,
``Standard Technical Specifications--General Electric BWR [Boiling-
Water Reactor]/6 Plants''; and delete two TS sections.
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 involves incorporating technical
specification changes that reflect previously approved license basis
changes as part of the alternative source term (AST) initiative,
aligns some TS sections with NUREG-1434, Revision 4, and deletes two
TS sections. The proposed amendment does not affect any accident
mitigating feature or increase the likelihood of malfunction for
plant structures, systems and components.
Verification of operating the plant within prescribed limits
will continue to be performed, as currently required by the
applicable TS surveillance requirements. Compliance with and
continued verification of the prescribed limits support the
capability of the systems to perform their required design functions
during all plant operating, accident, and station blackout
conditions, consistent with the plant safety analyses.
The proposed amendment will not change any of the analyses
associated with the PNPP Updated Safety Analysis Report Chapter 15
accidents because accident initiators and accident mitigation
functions remain unchanged. The proposed amendment does not alter
any assumptions previously made relative to evaluating the
consequences of an accident.
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 amendment does not involve physical alterations to
the plant. No new or different type of equipment will be installed
and there are no physical modifications required to existing
installed equipment associated with the proposed changes. The
proposed amendment does not create a credible failure mechanism,
malfunction, or accident initiator not already considered in the
design and licensing basis.
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.
Safety margins are applied to design and licensing basis
functions and to the controlling values of parameters to account for
various uncertainties and to avoid exceeding regulatory or licensing
limits. The proposed amendment does not require a physical change to
the plant, or affect design and licensing basis functions or
controlling values of parameters for plant systems, structures, and
components.
[[Page 35842]]
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: David W. Jenkins, Attorney, FirstEnergy
Corporation, Mail Stop A-GO-15, 76 South Main Street, Akron, OH 44308.
NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.
III. Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses
and Combined Licenses
During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice,
the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has
determined for each of these amendments that the application complies
with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,
as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The
Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the
Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set
forth in the license amendment.
A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility
operating license or combined license, as applicable, proposed no
significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a
hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the Federal
Register as indicated.
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that
these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in
accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b),
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be
prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an
environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in
10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment,
it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the action see (1) the
applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's
related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as
indicated. All of these items can be accessed as described in the
``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' section of this
document.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287,
Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, Oconee County, South
Carolina
Date of amendment request: July 20, 2016.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical
Specifications 3.7.12, ``Spent Fuel Pool Boron Concentration,'' 3.7.18,
``Dry Spent Fuel Storage Cask Loading and Unloading,'' and 4.4, ``Dry
Spent Fuel Storage Cask Loading and Unloading,'' to remove requirements
that no longer pertain to independent spent fuel storage facility
general licensed activities.
Date of issuance: July 12, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 404, 406, and 405. A publicly-available version is
in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17167A265; documents related to these
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the
amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-38, DPR-47 and DPR-55:
Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 14, 2017 (82
FR 10593).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 12, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-325 and 50-324, Brunswick
Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, Brunswick County, North Carolina
Date of amendment request: August 29, 2016.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the
technical specifications (TSs) to eliminate Section 5.5.6, ``Inservice
Testing Program.'' A new defined term, ``INSERVICE TESTING PROGRAM,''
is added to the TSs. All existing references to the ``Inservice Testing
Program'' in the TS surveillance requirements (SRs) are replaced with
``INSERVICE TESTING PROGRAM'' so that the SRs refer to the new
definition in lieu of the deleted program.
Date of issuance: July 12, 2017.
Effective date: As of date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 278 (Unit 1) and 306 (Unit 2). A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17130A780; documents related
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with
the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-71 and DPR-62:
Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 6, 2016 (81 FR
87967).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 12, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-293, Pilgrim Nuclear
Power Station, Plymouth County, Massachusetts
Date of amendment request: February 14, 2017, as supplemented by
letter dated May 25, 2017.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised certain
staffing and training requirements, reports, programs, and editorial
changes contained in the Technical Specification (TS) Table of
Contents; Section 1.0, ``Definitions''; Section 4.0, ``Design
Features''; and Section 5.0, ``Administrative Controls'' that will no
longer be applicable once Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station is permanently
defueled.
Date of issuance: July 10, 2017.
Effective date: Upon the licensee's submittal of the certifications
required by 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1) and shall be implemented within 60 days
from the amendment effective date.
Amendment No.: 246. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML17066A130; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-35: The amendment
revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 28, 2017 (82 FR
15380). The supplemental letter dated May 25, 2017, 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
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 July 10, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
[[Page 35843]]
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. STN 50-456 and STN 50-457,
Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, Will County, Illinois and Docket Nos.
STN 50-454 and STN 50-455, Byron Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Ogle
County, Illinois
Date of application for amendments: February 23, 2017, as
supplemented by letter dated June 29, 2017.
Brief description of amendment: The amendments revised the
operating licenses and technical specifications to remove time, cycle,
or modification-related items. Additionally, the proposed amendments
made editorial and formatting changes. The time, cycle, or
modification-related items have been implemented or superseded and are
no longer applicable.
Date of issuance: July 5, 2017, as supplemented by letter dated
June 29, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 193 for NPF-72, 193 for NPF-77, 198 for NPF-37, and
198 for NPF-66. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML17088A703; documents related to these amendments are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-72, NPF-77, NPF-37, and NPF-66:
The amendments revised the Technical Specifications and License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 11, 2017 (82 FR
17459). The supplemental letter dated June 29, 2017, 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 July 5, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, Docket Nos. 52-027 and 52-028,
Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS), Units 2 and 3, Fairfield,
South Carolina
Date of amendment request: December 6, 2017, as supplemented by
letter dated May 25, 2017.
Description of amendment: The amendments consisted of changes to
the VCSNS Units 2 and 3 Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) in
the form of departures from plant-specific Design Control Document Tier
2 information, Combined License (COL) Appendix A Technical
Specifications (TSs), and COL Appendix C information. The departures
consisted of in-containment refueling water storage tank (IRWST)
minimum volume changes in plant-specific UFSAR Table 14.3-2, COL
Appendix A TSs 3.5.6, 3.5.7 and 3.5.8 and Surveillance Requirements
3.5.6.2 and 3.5.8.2 and COL Appendix C (and associated plant-specific
Tier 1) Table 2.2.3-4. The changes restored the desired consistency of
these sections with the UFSAR IRWST minimum volume value in other
locations.
Date of issuance: June 16, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 75. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML17135A327; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Facility Combined Licenses Nos. NPF-93 and NPF-94: Amendments
revised the Facility Combined Licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 24, 2017 (82 FR
8220). The supplemental letter dated May 25, 2017, provided additional
information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of
the application request 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 the Safety Evaluation dated June 16, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
STP Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 50-498 and 50-499, South
Texas Project (STP), Units 1 and 2, Matagorda County, Texas
Date of amendment request: June 19, 2013, as supplemented by
letters dated October 3, October 31, November 13, November 21, and
December 23, 2013 (two letters); January 9, February 13, February 27,
March 17, March 18, May 15 (two letters), May 22, June 25, and July 15,
2014; March 10, March 25, and August 20, 2015; April 13, May 11, June
9, June 16, July 18, July 21 (two letters), July 28, September 12,
October 20, November 9, and December 7, 2016; and January 19, 2017.
Brief description of amendment: The amendments authorized revision
of the licensing basis for Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-76 and
NPF-80, for STP, Units 1 and 2, as documented in the Updated Final
Safety Analysis Report and revise the Technical Specifications (TSs).
The changes authorized use of a deterministic bounding calculation
based on plant-specific testing, and a risk-informed approach to
address safety issues discussed in Generic Safety Issue 191,
``Assessment of Debris Accumulation on PWR [Pressurized-Water Reactor]
Sump Performance,'' and to resolve the concerns in Generic Letter 2004-
02, ``Potential Impact of Debris Blockage on Emergency Recirculation
during Design Basis Accidents at Pressurized-Water Reactors,'' dated
September 13, 2004, for STP, Units 1 and 2.
Date of issuance: July 11, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 1-212; Unit 2-198. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17019A001; documents related
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with
the amendments.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-76 and NPF-80: The amendments
revised the Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 16, 2016 (81
FR 7843). The supplemental letters dated April 13, May 11, June 9, June
16, July 18, July 21 (two letters), July 28, September 12, October 20,
November 9, and December 7, 2016; and January 19, 2017, 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 July 11, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 50-391, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant
(WBN), Unit 2, Rhea County, Tennessee
Date of amendment request: November 23, 2016, as supplemented by
letters dated February 16, 2017, and June 9, 2017.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical
Specification Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.0.2 to extend, on a one-
time basis, SRs listed in Attachments 5, 6, 7, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16,
and 17 to Enclosure 1 of the application that are normally performed on
an 18-month frequency in conjunction with a refueling outage. The
[[Page 35844]]
change extends the due date for these SRs to October 31, 2017, which
allows these SRs to be performed during the first refueling outage for
WBN, Unit 2.
Date of issuance: July 11, 2017.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 7 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 13. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML17180A024; 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: January 17, 2017 (82 FR
4932). The supplemental letters dated February 16, 2017, and June 9,
2017, 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 July 11, 2017.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 21st day of July 2017.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Anne T. Boland,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2017-15986 Filed 7-31-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P