Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations, 28339-28352 [2019-12573]
Download as PDF
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 117 / Tuesday, June 18, 2019 / Notices
of current semiconductor
technology are reached
4. Creating an enduring national HPC
ecosystem
5. Developing an enduring publicprivate partnership to ensure that
the benefits of the research and
development advances are, to the
greatest extent, shared between the
United States Government and
industrial and academic sectors
Since the launch of NSCI, there have
been significant near- and long-term
advances that support the efforts
towards exascale computing. There have
also been changes in the technology
landscape such as: The availability of
resources and usage models, the nature
and requirements of applications, and
the means and methods of
implementation. Examples include the
increasing role of network-centric and
edge computing; the need for improved
software interoperability and
sustainability; the availability of new
approaches for hardware-specific
compute; and concerns regarding the
long-term future of computing
architectures and underlying
technologies. As a result, it is
appropriate to reexamine, as a nation,
the objectives of SC.
The Administration chartered the
FTAC on SC under the NSTC to update
the goals and approaches to strategic
computing R&D and ensure continued
and sustained U.S. leadership in SC. In
consultation with the NSTC Artificial
Intelligence Select Committee, the
NITRD Subcommittee, the
Subcommittee on Quantum Information
Systems, and the Lab2Market
Subcommittee, FTAC members will
consider respondent’s input in
developing a SC R&D update report.
Responders are asked to answer one
or more of the following questions in
the responses to the RFI:
1. What are emerging and future
scientific and technical challenges and
opportunities that are central to
ensuring American leadership in SC,
and what are effective mechanisms for
addressing these challenges?
2. What are appropriate models for
partnerships between government,
academia and industry in SC, and how
can these partnerships be effectively
leveraged to advance the objectives of
SC?
3. How do we develop and nurture the
capable workforce with the necessary
skill and competencies to ensure
American leadership in SC? What are
effective nontraditional approaches to
lowering the barriers to knowledge
transfer?
4. How can technical advances in SC
and other large government and private
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:23 Jun 17, 2019
Jkt 247001
initiatives, including infrastructure
advances, provide new knowledge and
mechanisms for executing next
generation research?
5. What are the future national-level
use cases that will drive new computing
paradigms, and how will new
computing paradigms yield new use
cases?
6. What areas of research or topics of
the 2016 NSCI Strategic Plan should
continue to be a priority for federally
funded research and require continued
Federal R&D investments? What areas of
research or topics of the 2016 Strategic
Plan no longer need to be prioritized for
federally funded research?
7. What challenges or objectives not
included in the 2016 NSCI Strategic
Plan should be strategic priorities for
the federally funded SC R&D? Discuss
what new capabilities would be desired,
what objectives should guide such
research, and why those capabilities
and objective should be strategic
priorities.
Reference: 2016 NSCI Strategic Plan:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/
whitehouse.gov/files/images/NSCI%20
Strategic%20Plan_20160721.pdf.pdf.
Submitted by the National Science
Foundation in support of the
Networking and Information
Technology Research and Development
(NITRD) National Coordination Office
(NCO) on June 13, 2019.
(Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1861.)
Suzanne H. Plimpton,
Reports Clearance Officer, National Science
Foundation.
[FR Doc. 2019–12866 Filed 6–17–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[NRC–2019–0135]
Biweekly Notice; Applications and
Amendments to Facility Operating
Licenses and Combined Licenses
Involving No Significant Hazards
Considerations
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Biweekly notice.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the
Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) is publishing this
regular biweekly notice. The Act
requires the Commission to publish
notice of any amendments issued, or
proposed to be issued, and grants the
Commission the authority to issue and
make immediately effective any
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
28339
amendment to an operating license or
combined license, as applicable, upon a
determination by the Commission that
such amendment involves no significant
hazards consideration, notwithstanding
the pendency before the Commission of
a request for a hearing from any person.
This biweekly notice includes all
notices of amendments issued, or
proposed to be issued, from May 21,
2019 to June 3, 2019. The last biweekly
notice was published on June 4, 2019.
DATES: Comments must be filed by July
18, 2019. A request for a hearing must
be filed by August 19, 2019.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
by any of the following methods (unless
this document describes a different
method for submitting comments on a
specific subject):
• Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for Docket ID NRC–2019–0135. Address
questions about NRC dockets IDs in
Regulations.gov to Jennifer Borges;
telephone: 301–287–9127; email:
Jennifer.Borges@nrc.gov. For technical
questions, contact the individual(s)
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this document.
• Mail comments to: Office of
Administration, Mail Stop: TWFN–7–
A60M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555–
0001, ATTN: Program Management,
Announcements and Editing Staff.
For additional direction on obtaining
information and submitting comments,
see ‘‘Obtaining Information and
Submitting Comments’’ in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Beverly Clayton, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555–0001; telephone: 301–415–
3475, email: Beverly.Clayton@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Obtaining Information and
Submitting Comments
A. Obtaining Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2019–
0135 facility name, unit number(s),
plant docket number, application date,
and subject when contacting the NRC
about the availability of information for
this action. You may obtain publiclyavailable information related to this
action by any of the following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for Docket ID NRC–2019–0135.
• NRC’s Agencywide Documents
Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-
E:\FR\FM\18JNN1.SGM
18JNN1
28340
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 117 / Tuesday, June 18, 2019 / Notices
available documents online in the
ADAMS Public Documents collection at
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/
adams.html. To begin the search, select
‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.’’ For
problems with ADAMS, please contact
the NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR)
reference staff at 1–800–397–4209, 301–
415–4737, or by email to 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.
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES
B. Submitting Comments
Please include Docket ID NRC–2019–
0135 facility name, unit number(s),
plant docket number, application date,
and subject in your comment
submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include
identifying or contact information that
you do not want to be publicly
disclosed in your comment submission.
The NRC will post all comment
submissions at https://
www.regulations.gov as well as enter the
comment submissions into ADAMS.
The NRC does not routinely edit
comment submissions to remove
identifying or contact information.
If you are requesting or aggregating
comments from other persons for
submission to the NRC, then you should
inform those persons not to include
identifying or contact information that
they do not want to be publicly
disclosed in their comment submission.
Your request should state that the NRC
does not routinely edit comment
submissions to remove such information
before making the comment
submissions available to the public or
entering the comment into ADAMS.
II. Background
Pursuant to Section 189a.(2) of the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended
(the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) is publishing this
regular biweekly notice. The Act
requires the Commission to publish
notice of any amendments issued, or
proposed to be issued, and grants the
Commission the authority to issue and
make immediately effective any
amendment to an operating license or
combined license, as applicable, upon a
determination by the Commission that
such amendment involves no significant
hazards consideration, notwithstanding
the pendency before the Commission of
a request for a hearing from any person.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:23 Jun 17, 2019
Jkt 247001
III. Notice of Consideration of Issuance
of Amendments to Facility Operating
Licenses and Combined Licenses and
Proposed No Significant Hazards
Consideration Determination
The Commission has made a
proposed determination that the
following amendment requests involve
no significant hazards consideration.
Under the Commission’s regulations in
section 50.92 of title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (10 CFR), this
means that operation of the facility in
accordance with the proposed
amendment would not (1) involve a
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from
any accident previously evaluated; or
(3) involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety. The basis for this
proposed determination for each
amendment request is shown below.
The Commission is seeking public
comments on this proposed
determination. Any comments received
within 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice will be
considered in making any final
determination.
Normally, the Commission will not
issue the amendment until the
expiration of 60 days after the date of
publication of this notice. The
Commission may issue the license
amendment before expiration of the 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
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
action. Petitions shall be filed in
accordance with the Commission’s
‘‘Agency Rules of Practice and
Procedure’’ in 10 CFR part 2. Interested
persons should consult a current copy
of 10 CFR 2.309. The NRC’s regulations
are accessible electronically from the
NRC Library on the NRC’s website at
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/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
E:\FR\FM\18JNN1.SGM
18JNN1
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 117 / Tuesday, June 18, 2019 / Notices
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:23 Jun 17, 2019
Jkt 247001
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
website at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/
e-submittals.html. Participants may not
submit paper copies of their filings
unless they seek an exemption in
accordance with the procedures
described below.
To comply with the procedural
requirements of E-Filing, at least 10
days prior to the filing deadline, the
participant should contact the Office of
the Secretary by email at
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
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
28341
submitting a petition or other
adjudicatory document (even in
instances in which the participant, or its
counsel or representative, already holds
an NRC-issued digital ID certificate).
Based upon this information, the
Secretary will establish an electronic
docket for the hearing in this proceeding
if the Secretary has not already
established an electronic docket.
Information about applying for a
digital ID certificate is available on the
NRC’s public website at https://
www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/
getting-started.html. Once a participant
has obtained a digital ID certificate and
a docket has been created, the
participant can then submit
adjudicatory documents. Submissions
must be in Portable Document Format
(PDF). Additional guidance on PDF
submissions is available on the NRC’s
public website at https://www.nrc.gov/
site-help/electronic-sub-ref-mat.html. A
filing is considered complete at the time
the document is submitted through the
NRC’s E-Filing system. To be timely, an
electronic filing must be submitted to
the E-Filing system no later than 11:59
p.m. Eastern Time on the due date.
Upon receipt of a transmission, the 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 website 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
E:\FR\FM\18JNN1.SGM
18JNN1
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES
28342
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 117 / Tuesday, June 18, 2019 / Notices
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:23 Jun 17, 2019
Jkt 247001
information related to this document,
see the ‘‘Obtaining Information and
Submitting Comments’’ section of this
document.
Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50–397,
Columbia Generating Station
(Columbia), Benton County, Washington
Date of amendment request: March
27, 2019. A publicly available version is
in ADAMS under Accession No.
ML19086A315.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed amendment would
remove License Condition 2.C.(11),
‘‘Shield Wall Deferral (Section 12.3.2,
SSER #4, License Amendment #7)’’ and
its related Attachment 3, ‘‘List of Shield
Walls’’ from Columbia’s Renewed
Facility Operating License, as these
items are outdated and no longer
applicable to Columbia’s operation.
Basis for proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination:
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
licensee has provided its analysis of the
issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented
below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment involves the
removal of an outdated license condition.
The proposed amendment does not impact
any accident initiators, analyzed events, or
assumed mitigation of accident or transient
events. The proposed change does not
involve the addition or removal of any
equipment or any design changes to the
facility. The proposed change does not affect
any plant operations, design functions, or
analyses that verify the capability of
structures, systems, and components (SSCs)
to perform a design function. The proposed
change does not change any of the accidents
previously evaluated in the Final Safety
Analysis Report (FSAR). The proposed
change does not affect SSCs, operating
procedures, and administrative controls that
have the function of preventing or mitigating
any of these accidents.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
represent a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment only involves
the removal of an outdated license condition.
No actual plant equipment or accident
analyses will be affected by the proposed
change. The proposed change will not change
the design function or operation of any SSCs.
The proposed change will not result in any
new failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or
accident initiators not considered in the
design and licensing bases. The proposed
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
amendment does not impact any accident
initiators, analyzed events, or assumed
mitigation of accident or transient events.
Therefore, this proposed change does not
create the possibility of an accident of a new
or different kind than previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment only involves
the removal of an outdated license condition.
The proposed change does not involve any
physical changes to the plant or alter the
manner in which plant systems are operated,
maintained, modified, tested, or inspected.
The proposed change does not alter the
manner in which safety limits, limiting safety
system settings or limiting conditions for
operation are determined. The safety analysis
acceptance criteria are not affected by this
change. The proposed change will not result
in plant operation in a configuration outside
the design basis. The proposed change does
not adversely affect systems that respond to
safely shutdown the plant and to maintain
the plant in a safe shutdown condition.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee’s analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: William A.
Horin, Esq., Winston & Strawn, 1700 K
Street NW, Washington, DC 20006–
3817.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J.
Pascarelli.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.,
Docket Nos. 50–003, 50–247, and 50–
286, Indian Point Nuclear Generating
(Indian Point) Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3,
Westchester County, New York
Date of amendment request: April 15,
2019. A publicly available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No.
ML19105B278.
Description of amendment request:
The amendments would revise the
Indian Point Site Emergency Plan (SEP)
for the permanently shutdown and
defueled condition.
Basis for proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination:
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
licensee has provided its analysis of the
issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented
below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to the IPEC [Indian
Point Energy Center] SEP do not impact the
E:\FR\FM\18JNN1.SGM
18JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 117 / Tuesday, June 18, 2019 / Notices
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES
function of plant structures, systems, or
components (SSCs). The proposed changes
do not affect accident initiators or precursors,
nor does it alter design assumptions. The
proposed changes do not prevent the ability
of the on-shift staff and augmented ERO
[Emergency Response Organization] to
perform their intended functions to mitigate
the consequences of any accident or event
that will be credible in the permanently shut
down and defueled condition. The proposed
changes only remove positions that will no
longer be credited in the IPEC SEP.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does
not involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create
the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes reduce the number
of on-shift and augmented ERO positions
commensurate with the hazards associated
with a permanently shut down and defueled
facility. The proposed changes do not involve
installation of new equipment or
modification of existing equipment, so that
no new equipment failure modes are
introduced. Also, the proposed changes do
not result in a change to the way that the
equipment or facility is operated so that no
new accident initiators are created.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does
not create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
Margin of safety is associated with
confidence in the ability of the fission
product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, reactor
coolant system pressure boundary, and
containment structure) to limit the level of
radiation dose to the public. The proposed
changes are associated with the IPEC SEP
and do not impact operation of the plant or
its response to transients or accidents. The
change does not affect the Technical
Specifications. The proposed changes do not
involve a change in the method of plant
operation, and no accident analyses will be
affected by the proposed changes. Safety
analysis acceptance criteria are not affected
by the proposed changes. The revised IPEC
SEP will continue to provide the necessary
response staff with the proposed changes.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does
not involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee’s analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Jeanne Cho,
Assistant General Counsel, Entergy
Nuclear Operations, Inc., 440 Hamilton
Avenue, White Plains, NY 10601.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:23 Jun 17, 2019
Jkt 247001
NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.,
Docket Nos. 50–247 and 50–286, Indian
Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2
and 3 (Indian Point 2 and 3 or IP2 and
IP3), Westchester County, New York
Date of amendment request: April 15,
2019. A publicly available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No.
ML19105B236.
Description of amendment request:
The amendments propose changes to
the staffing and training requirements
for the Indian Point staff contained in
Section 5.0, ‘‘Administrative Controls,’’
of the Indian Point 2 and Indian Point
3 Technical Specifications (TSs).
Additional changes are also proposed to
Section 1.1, ‘‘Definitions’’; Section 4.0,
‘‘Design Features’’; and Section 5.0,
‘‘Administrative Controls,’’ that are no
longer applicable to a permanently
defueled facility once Indian Point 2,
and subsequently Indian Point 3, are
permanently defueled.
Basis for proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination:
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
licensee has provided its analysis of the
issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented
below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment would not take
effect until IP2 has permanently ceased
operation and entered a permanently
defueled condition and the Certified Fuel
Handler Training and Retraining Program is
approved by the NRC. The proposed
amendment would modify the IP2 TS by
deleting the portions of the TS that are no
longer applicable to a permanently defueled
facility, while modifying the other sections to
correspond to the permanently defueled
condition.
The deletion and modification of
provisions of the administrative controls do
not directly affect the design of structures,
systems, and components (SSCs) necessary
for safe storage of irradiated fuel or the
methods used for handling and storage of
such fuel in the spent fuel pool. The changes
to the administrative controls are
administrative in nature and do not affect
any accidents applicable to the safe
management of irradiated fuel or the
permanently shutdown and defueled
condition of the reactor. Thus, the
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated are not increased.
In a permanently defueled condition, the
only credible accidents are the fuel handling
accident (FHA) and those involving
radioactive waste systems remaining in
service. The probability of occurrence of
previously evaluated accidents is not
increased, because extended operation in a
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
28343
defueled condition will be the only operation
allowed. This mode of operation is bounded
by the existing analyses. Additionally, the
occurrence of postulated accidents associated
with reactor operation is no longer credible
in a permanently defueled reactor. This
significantly reduces the scope of applicable
accidents.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does
not involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create
the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes have no impact on
facility SSCs affecting the safe storage of
irradiated fuel, or on the methods of
operation of such SSCs, or on the handling
and storage of irradiated fuel itself. The
administrative removal or modifications of
the TS that are related only to administration
of the facility cannot result in different or
more adverse failure modes or accidents than
previously evaluated because the reactor will
be permanently shutdown and defueled and
IP2 will no longer be authorized to operate
the reactor or retain or place fuel in the
reactor vessel.
The proposed changes to the IP2 TS do not
affect systems credited in the accident
analysis for the FHA or radioactive waste
system upsets at IP2. The proposed TS will
continue to require proper control and
monitoring of safety significant parameters
and activities.
The proposed amendment does not result
in any new mechanisms that could initiate
damage to the remaining relevant safety
barriers for defueled plants (fuel cladding
and spent fuel cooling). Extended operation
in a defueled condition will be the only
operation allowed, and it is bounded by the
existing analyses, such a condition does not
create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Since the 10 CFR part 50 license for IP2
will no longer authorize operation of the
reactor or emplacement or retention of fuel
into the reactor vessel once the certifications
required by 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1) are docketed,
as specified in 10 CFR 50.82(a)(2), the
occurrence of postulated accidents associated
with reactor operation is no longer credible.
The only remaining credible accidents are a
FHA and those involving radioactive waste
systems remaining in service. The proposed
amendment does not adversely affect the
inputs or assumptions of any of the design
basis analyses that impact these analyzed
conditions.
The proposed changes are limited to those
portions of the TS that are not related to the
safe storage of irradiated fuel. The
requirements that are proposed to be revised
or deleted from the IP2 TS are not credited
in the existing accident analysis for the
remaining applicable postulated accident;
E:\FR\FM\18JNN1.SGM
18JNN1
28344
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 117 / Tuesday, June 18, 2019 / Notices
and as such, do not contribute to the margin
of safety associated with the accident
analysis. Postulated design basis accidents
involving the reactor are no longer possible
because the reactor will be permanently
shutdown and defueled and IP2 will no
longer be authorized to operate the reactor or
retain or place fuel in the reactor vessel.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant reduction in the margin
of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee’s analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Jeanne Cho,
Assistant General Counsel, Entergy
Nuclear Operations, Inc., 440 Hamilton
Avenue, White Plains, NY 10601.
NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.,
Docket No. 50–247, Indian Point
Nuclear Generating Unit No. 2 (Indian
Point 2 or IP2), Westchester County,
New York
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES
Date of amendment request: April 15,
2019. A publicly available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No.
ML19105B241.
Description of amendment request:
The amendment would revise the
Indian Point 2 Operating License (OL)
and revise the Technical Specifications
(TSs) in Appendix A to Permanently
Defueled TSs, the Environmental TS
Requirements in Appendix B of the OL,
and the Inter-Unit Transfer TSs in
Appendix C. The proposed changes
would revise certain requirements
contained within the Indian Point 2 OL
and Appendices A through C TSs and
remove the requirements that would no
longer be applicable after Indian Point
2 is permanently shut down and
defueled.
Basis for proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination:
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
licensee has provided its analysis of the
issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented
below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment would not take
effect until IP2 has permanently ceased
operation, entered a permanently defueled
condition, met the decay requirements
established in the analysis of the Fuel
Handling Accident (FHA), implemented NRC
approved License Amendments regarding
fuel storage requirements and administrative
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:23 Jun 17, 2019
Jkt 247001
controls for the permanently defueled
condition, and received NRC approval of the
Certified Fuel Handler Training and
Retraining Program. The proposed
amendment would modify the IP2 OL and
TSs in Appendices A through C by deleting
the portions of the OL and TSs that are no
longer applicable to a permanently defueled
facility, while modifying other portions to
correspond to the permanently defueled
condition. These proposed changes are
consistent with the criteria set forth in 10
CFR 50.36 for the contents of TSs.
Section 14 of the IP2 Updated Final Safety
Analysis Report (UFSAR) describes the DBA
[design-basis accident] and transient
scenarios applicable to IP2 during power
operations. After the reactor is in a
permanently defueled condition, the spent
fuel pit (SFP) and its cooling systems will be
dedicated only to spent fuel storage. In this
condition, the spectrum of credible accidents
will be much smaller than for an operational
plant. After the certifications are docketed for
IP2 in accordance with 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1),
and the consequent removal of authorization
to operate the reactor or to place or retain
fuel in the reactor vessel in accordance with
10 CFR 50.82(a)(2), the majority of the
accident scenarios previously postulated in
the UFSAR will no longer be possible and
will be removed from the UFSAR under the
provisions of 10 CFR 50.59.
The deletion of TS definitions and rules of
usage and application requirements that will
not be applicable in a defueled condition has
no impact on facility structures, systems, and
components (SSCs) or the methods of
operation of such SSCs. The deletion of
design features and safety limits not
applicable to the permanently shut down and
defueled status of IP2 has no impact on the
remaining applicable DBAs.
The removal of LCOs [limiting conditions
for operation] or SRs [surveillance
requirements] that are related only to the
operation of the nuclear reactor or only to the
prevention, diagnosis, or mitigation of
reactor-related transients or accidents do not
affect the applicable DBAs previously
evaluated since these DBAs are no longer
applicable in the permanently defueled
condition. The safety functions involving
core reactivity control, reactor heat removal,
reactor coolant system (RCS) inventory
control, and containment integrity are no
longer applicable at IP2 as a permanently
shut down and defueled facility. The
analyzed accidents involving damage to the
RCS, main steam lines, reactor core, and the
subsequent release of radioactive material
will no longer be possible at IP2.
After IP2 permanently ceases operation,
the future generation of fission products will
cease and the remaining source term will
decay. The radioactive decay of the irradiated
fuel following shut down of the reactor will
have reduced the consequences of the FHA
below those previously analyzed.
The SFP water level, boron concentration,
and fuel storage TSs are retained to preserve
the current requirements for safe storage of
irradiated fuel. SFP cooling and make-up
related equipment and support equipment
(e.g., electrical power systems) are not
required to be continuously available since
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
there will be sufficient time to effect repairs,
establish alternate sources of make-up flow,
or establish alternate sources of cooling in
the event of a loss of cooling and make-up
flow to the SFP.
The deletion and modification of
provisions of the administrative controls of
the Appendix A TSs and the non-radiological
environmental protection requirements in
Appendix B do not directly affect the design
of SSCs necessary for safe storage of
irradiated fuel or the methods used for
handling and storage of such fuel in the SFP.
The changes do not affect any accidents
applicable to the safe management of
irradiated fuel or the permanently shut down
and defueled condition of the reactor.
The probability of occurrence of previously
evaluated accidents is not increased, since
extended operation in a defueled condition
will be the only operation allowed, and
therefore bounded by the existing analyses.
Additionally, the occurrence of postulated
accidents associated with reactor operation
will no longer be credible in a permanently
defueled reactor. This significantly reduces
the scope of applicable accidents.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does
not involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create
the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to the IP2 OL and
Appendices A through C TSs have no impact
on facility SSCs affecting the safe storage of
irradiated fuel, or on the methods of
operation of such SSCs, or on the handling
and storage of irradiated fuel itself. The
removal of TSs that are related only to the
operation of the nuclear reactor or only to the
prevention, diagnosis, or mitigation of
reactor-related transients or accidents, cannot
result in different or more adverse failure
modes or accidents than previously
evaluated because the reactor will be
permanently shut down and defueled and
IP2 will no longer be authorized to operate
the reactor.
The proposed deletion and modification of
requirements of the IP2 OL and Appendices
A through C TSs do not affect systems
credited in the accidents that remain
applicable at IP2 in the permanently defueled
condition. The proposed OL and TSs will
continue to require proper control and
monitoring of safety significant parameters
and activities.
The Appendix A TSs regarding SFP water
level, boron concentration, and fuel storage
are retained to preserve the current
requirements for safe storage of irradiated
fuel. The restriction on the SFP water level
is fulfilled by normal operating conditions
and preserves initial conditions assumed in
the analyses of the postulated DBA.
The proposed amendment does not result
in any new mechanisms that could initiate
damage to the remaining relevant safety
barriers for defueled plants (fuel cladding
and spent fuel cooling). Since extended
operation in a defueled condition will be the
only operation allowed, and therefore
E:\FR\FM\18JNN1.SGM
18JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 117 / Tuesday, June 18, 2019 / Notices
bounded by the existing analyses, such a
condition does not create the possibility of a
new or different kind of accident.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does
not create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
Because the 10 CFR part 50 license for IP2
will no longer authorize operation of the
reactor or emplacement or retention of fuel
in the reactor vessel after the certifications
required by 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1) are docketed
for IP2 as specified in 10 CFR 50.82(a)(2), the
occurrence of postulated accidents associated
with reactor operation are no longer credible.
The only remaining credible accidents are
the FHA and the accidental release of waste
liquids or waste gas. The proposed
amendment does not adversely affect the
inputs or assumptions of any of the design
basis analyses that impact the remaining
DBAs.
The proposed amendment would modify
the IP2 OL and TSs in Appendices A through
C by deleting the portions of the OL and TSs
that are no longer applicable to a
permanently defueled facility, while
modifying other portions to correspond to the
permanently defueled condition. The
requirements that are proposed to be deleted
from the IP2 OL and Appendix A TSs are not
credited in the existing accident analyses for
the remaining DBAs; and as such, do not
contribute to the margin of safety associated
with the accident analyses. Postulated DBAs
involving the reactors will no longer be
possible because the reactor will be
permanently shut down and defueled and
IP2 will no longer be authorized to operate
the reactor.
The Appendix A TSs regarding SFP water
level, boron concentration, and fuel storage
are retained to preserve the current
requirements for safe storage of irradiated
fuel.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does
not involve a significant reduction in the
margin of safety.
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES
The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee’s analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Jeanne Cho,
Assistant General Counsel, Entergy
Nuclear Operations, Inc., 440 Hamilton
Avenue, White Plains, NY 10601.
NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC and
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50–277
and 50–278, Peach Bottom Atomic
Power Station, Units 2 and 3, York and
Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: April 26,
2019. A publicly available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No.
ML19116A196.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:23 Jun 17, 2019
Jkt 247001
Description of amendment request:
The amendments would revise Peach
Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2
and 3, Technical Specification (TS)
3.8.1, ‘‘AC [Alternating Current]
Power—Operating,’’ Required Action
A.3, to provide a temporary one-time
extension of the completion time to
allow sufficient time to perform
physical modifications to replace 27
inaccessible electrical cables. These
electrical cables are reaching the end of
their dependable service life and are in
need of replacement.
Basis for proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination:
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
licensee has provided its analysis of the
issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented
below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed temporary one-time change
to extend the Completion Time for TS 3.8.1,
Required Action A.3, will not increase the
probability of an accident, since the proposed
Completion Time extension in the time
duration that one qualified offsite circuit is
out of service has no direct physical impact
on the plant. The proposed inoperable offsite
circuit limits the available redundancy of the
offsite electrical system to a period not to
exceed 21 days. Therefore, the proposed TS
change does not have a direct impact on the
plant that would make an accident more
likely to occur due to extended Completion
Time. Other sources of offsite and onsite
power remain available.
During transients or events which require
these systems/subsystems to be operating,
there is sufficient capacity in the operable
systems/subsystems to support plant
operation or shutdown. Therefore, failures
that are accident initiators will not occur
more frequently than previously postulated
as a result of the proposed temporary onetime TS change.
In addition, the consequences of an
accident previously evaluated in the Updated
Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) will
not be increased. With one offsite circuit
inoperable, the consequences of any
postulated accidents occurring on Unit 2 or
Unit 3 during the proposed one-time
Completion Time extension are bounded by
the previous analyses as described in the
UFSAR. The minimum equipment required
to mitigate the consequences of an accident
and/or safely shut down the plant will be
operable or available during the extended
Completion Time period of 21 days.
A risk evaluation has also been performed
for the temporary one-time 21-day
Completion Time extension. The evaluation
concluded that the probability of a Loss of
Offsite Power (LOOP) for the proposed
configuration is very low. Therefore, the
proposed change does not significantly
increase the probability of an accident
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
28345
previously evaluated because: (a) The
emergency buses continue to be fed from a
reliable offsite source and; (b) the effect of the
proposed configuration on the probability of
a LOOP is very low.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not
involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed temporary one-time change
to extend the Completion Time for TS 3.8.1,
Required Action A.3, will not create the
possibility of a new or different type of
accident since it will only extend the time
period that one of the offsite circuits can be
out of service; the extension of the time
duration for one offsite circuit being
inoperable has no direct physical impact on
the plant and does not create any new
accident initiators. Other sources of offsite
and onsite power remain available. The
systems involved are accident mitigation
systems. The possible impacts that the
inoperable equipment may have on
supported systems was previously analyzed
in the UFSAR. The impact of inoperable
support systems was also previously
assessed, and any accident initiators created
by the inoperable systems were evaluated.
Extending the duration of the Completion
Time does not create any additional accident
initiators for the plant.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not
create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The existing TS Completion Time limit of
seven (7) days for one offsite circuit
inoperable was established to ensure that
sufficient safety-related equipment is
available for response to all accident
conditions and that sufficient decay heat
removal capability is available for a Loss of
Coolant Accident (LOCA) coincident with a
LOOP on one unit and simultaneous safe
shutdown of the other unit. Although a very
slight reduction in the margin of safety might
be incurred during the proposed one-time
extended Completion Time period, this slight
reduction is judged to be minimal due to the
low probability of an event occurring during
the extended period. Other sources of offsite
and onsite power remain available and
operable during the 21-day extended period
along with maintaining the availability of
essential Emergency Core Cooling System
(ECCS)/decay heat removal capability. The
very slight reduction in the margin of safety
resulting from extending the Completion
Time from seven (7) days to 21 days when
an offsite circuit is inoperable is not
considered significant, since the remaining
operable offsite circuit, the emergency Diesel
Generators (DGs), the Station Blackout (SBO)
line, and the FLEX DGs are available and
provide an effective defense-in-depth plan to
support the station electrical plant
configurations during the extended 21-day
Completion Time period.
E:\FR\FM\18JNN1.SGM
18JNN1
28346
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 117 / Tuesday, June 18, 2019 / Notices
The proposed TS change to extend the
Completion Time does not affect the
acceptance criteria for any analyzed event,
nor is there a change to any safety limit. The
proposed TS change does not affect any
Structures, Systems or Components (SSC) or
their capability to perform their intended
functions. The proposed change does not
alter the manner in which safety limits,
limiting safety system settings, or limiting
conditions for operation are determined.
Neither the safety analyses nor the safety
analysis acceptance criteria are affected by
this change. The proposed change will not
result in plant operation in a configuration
outside the current design basis. The margin
of safety is maintained by maintaining the
capability to supply emergency buses with a
redundant, separate, reliable offsite power
source, and maintaining the onsite power
sources in their design basis configuration.
Operations personnel are fully qualified
and trained to respond to, and mitigate, a
Design Basis Accident (DBA), including
actions needed to ensure decay heat removal
systems are available while PBAPS [Peach
Bottom Atomic Power Station], Units 2 and
3, are in the operational electrical
configurations described within this
submittal. Accordingly, existing procedures
are in place that address safe plant shutdown
and decay heat removal for situations
applicable during the extended one-time
Completion Time period.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES
The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee’s analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer,
Associate General Counsel, Exelon
Generation Company, LLC, 4300
Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555.
NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC,
Docket No. 50–220, Nine Mile Point
Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Oswego County,
New York
Date of amendment request: June 26,
2018, as supplemented by letters dated
February 25, 2019, and May 17, 2019
(ADAMS Accession Nos.
ML18177A044, ML19056A387, and
ML19137A070, respectively).
Description of amendment request:
The license amendment request was
originally noticed in the Federal
Register on December 18, 2018 (83 FR
64894). This notice is being reissued in
its entirety to include a revised
description of the amendment request.
The amendment would modify
Technical Specification 3.3.1, ‘‘Oxygen
Concentration,’’ to require inerting the
primary containment to less than 4
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:23 Jun 17, 2019
Jkt 247001
percent by volume oxygen
concentration within 72 hours of
entering power operating condition.
Also, the amendment would add a new
requirement to identify required actions
if the primary containment oxygen
concentration increases to greater than
or equal to four volume percent while
in the power operating condition.
Basis for proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination:
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
licensee has provided its analysis of the
issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented
below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change modifies the
Technical Specifications (TS) by adopting
containment inerting and de-inerting
requirements that are consistent with the
guidance of NUREG–1433, ‘‘Standard
Technical Specifications—General Electric
BWR/4 Plants, Volume 1, Revision 4.0,’’
published April 2012. The proposed change
will allow inerting of the primary
containment within 24 hours of exceeding 15
percent (%) Rated Thermal Power (RTP), and
de-inerting 24 hours prior to reducing reactor
power to less than or equal to 15% RTP.
Also, a new TS condition will be added to
identify required actions if the primary
containment oxygen concentration increases
to greater than or equal to 4% by volume
while in the power operating condition. The
proposed change does not alter the physical
configuration of the plant, nor does it affect
any previously analyzed accident initiators.
The accident analysis assumes that a Loss of
Coolant Accident (LOCA) occurs at 100%
RTP. The consequences of a LOCA at less
than or equal to 15% RTP would be much
less severe, and produce less hydrogen than
a LOCA at 100% RTP.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create
the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change adopts the STS
[Standard Technical Specifications] guidance
regarding containment inerting/de-inerting
requirements. The proposed change
introduces no new mode of plant operation
and does not involve any physical
modification to the plant. The proposed
change is consistent with the current safety
analysis assumptions. No setpoints are being
changed which would alter the dynamic
response of plant equipment. Accordingly,
no new failure modes are introduced.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Response: No.
The proposed change revises the
Applicability presentation of the Oxygen
Concentration TS. No safety limits are
affected. The Oxygen Concentration TS
requirements assure sufficient safety margins
are maintained, and that the design,
operation, surveillance methods, and
acceptance criteria specified in applicable
codes and standards (or alternatives
approved for use by the NRC) will continue
to be met as described in the plants’ licensing
basis. The proposed change does not
adversely affect existing plant safety margins
or the reliability of the equipment assumed
to operate in the safety analysis. As such,
there are no changes being made to safety
analysis assumptions, safety limits, or
limiting safety system settings that would
adversely affect plant safety.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
result in a significant reduction in a margin
of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee’s analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer,
Associate General Counsel, Exelon
Generation Company, LLC, 4300
Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555.
NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company,
Docket Nos. 52–025 and 52–026, Vogtle
Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), Units
3 and 4, Burke County, Georgia
Date of amendment request: April 26,
2019. A publicly available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No.
ML19119A249.
Description of amendment request:
The amendment request proposes
changes to the Combined License (COL)
Numbers NPF–91 and NPF–92 for
VEGP, Units 3 and 4, and Updated Final
Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) in the
form of departures from the
incorporated plant-specific Design
Control Document Tier 2 * and Tier 2
information related to the designspecific pre-operational Automatic
Depressurization System (ADS)
Blowdown Test. The requested
amendment involves changes to credit
the previously completed ADS
Blowdown first three plant tests as
described in the licensing basis
documents, including COL Condition
2.D.(2)(a). Specifically, the proposed
change would revise the COL, License
Condition 2.D.(2)(a)2, by removing the
requirement to perform the ADS
Slowdown first three plant test during
preoperational testing.
Basis for proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination:
E:\FR\FM\18JNN1.SGM
18JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 117 / Tuesday, June 18, 2019 / Notices
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
licensee has provided its analysis of the
issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below
with changes made by the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission shown in
square brackets:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not affect the
operation of any systems or equipment that
initiates an analyzed accident or alter any
structures, systems, or components (SSC)
accident initiator or initiating sequence of
events. The proposed changes remove the
requirement to perform the ADS Blowdown
first three plant test based on the successful
completion of the tests at the lead AP1000
units. The change does not adversely affect
any methodology which would increase the
probability or consequences of a previously
evaluated accident.
The change does not impact the support,
design, or operation of mechanical or fluid
systems. There is no change to plant systems
or the response of systems to postulated
accident conditions. There is no change to
predicted radioactive releases due to normal
operation or postulated accident conditions.
The plant response to previously evaluated
accidents or external events is not adversely
affected, nor does the proposed change create
any new accident precursors.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does
not involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of a previously
evaluated accident.
2. Does the proposed amendment create
the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not affect the
operation of any systems or equipment that
may initiate a new or different kind of
accident, or alter any SSC such that a new
accident initiator or initiating sequence of
events is created.
The proposed change credits previously
completed ADS Blowdown first three plant
testing based on the successful completion of
the tests at the lead AP1000 units. The
proposed changes do not adversely affect any
design function of any SSC design functions
or methods of operation in a manner that
results in a new failure mode, malfunction,
or sequence of events that affect safetyrelated or non-safety-related equipment. This
activity does not allow for a new fission
product release path, result in a new fission
product barrier failure mode, or create a new
sequence of events that result in significant
fuel cladding failures.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does
not create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change maintains existing
safety margin and provides adequate
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:23 Jun 17, 2019
Jkt 247001
protection through continued application of
the existing requirement in the UFSAR. The
proposed change satisfies the same design
functions in accordance with the same codes
and standards as stated in the UFSAR. This
change does not adversely affect any design
code, function, design analysis, safety
analysis input or result, or design/safety
margin. No safety analysis or design basis
acceptance limit/criterion is challenged or
exceeded by the proposed change.
Since no safety analysis or design basis
acceptance limit/criterion is challenged or
exceeded by this change, no significant
margin of safety is reduced.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee’s analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: M. Stanford
Blanton, Balch & Bingham LLP, 1710
Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL
35203–2015.
NRC Branch Chief: Jennifer DixonHerrity.
STP Nuclear Operating Company,
Docket Nos. 50–498 and 50–499, South
Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, Matagorda
County, Texas
Date of amendment request: May 1,
2019. A publicly available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No.
ML19126A309.
Description of amendment request:
The amendments would revise the
South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2,
Technical Specifications in Section 3.0
and Section 4.0 regarding limiting
condition for operation (LCO) and
surveillance requirement (SR) usage.
The proposed changes are consistent
with the NRC-approved Technical
Specifications Task Force (TSTF)
Traveler TSTF–529, ‘‘Clarify Use and
Application Rules,’’ using the
consolidated line item improvement
process (ADAMS Accession No.
ML16062A271). The model safety
evaluation was approved by the NRC in
a letter dated April 21, 2016 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML16060A441).
Basis for proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination:
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
licensee has provided its analysis of the
issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented
below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
28347
Response: No.
The proposed change to Technical
Specification LCO 3.0.4 has no effect on the
requirement for systems to be Operable and
has no effect on the application of Technical
Specification actions. The proposed change
to Technical Specification SR 4.0.3 states that
the allowance may only be used when there
is a reasonable expectation the surveillance
will be met when performed. Since the
proposed change does not significantly affect
system Operability, the proposed change will
have no significant effect on the initiating
events for accidents previously evaluated and
will have no significant effect on the ability
of the systems to mitigate accidents
previously evaluated.
Therefore, it is concluded that this change
does not involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change to the Technical
Specifications usage rules does not affect the
design or function of any plant systems. The
proposed change does not change the
Operability requirements for plant systems or
the actions taken when plant systems are not
Operable.
Therefore, it is concluded that this change
does not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change clarifies the
application of Technical Specification LCO
3.0.4 and does not result in changes in plant
operation. Technical Specification SR 4.0.3 is
revised to allow application of Technical
Specification SR 4.0.3 when a Surveillance
Requirement has not been previously
performed if there is reasonable expectation
that the Surveillance Requirement will be
met when performed. This expands the use
of Technical Specification SR 4.0.3 while
ensuring the affected system is capable of
performing its safety function. As a result,
plant safety is either improved or unaffected.
Therefore, it is concluded that this change
does not involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee’s analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the request
for amendments involves no significant
hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Kym Harshaw,
Vice President and General Counsel,
STP Nuclear Operating Company, P.O.
Box 289, Wadsworth, TX 77483.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J.
Pascarelli.
E:\FR\FM\18JNN1.SGM
18JNN1
28348
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 117 / Tuesday, June 18, 2019 / Notices
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA),
Docket Nos. 50–390 and 50–391, Watts
Bar Nuclear Plant (WBN), Units 1 and
2, Rhea County, Tennessee
Date of amendment request:
November 26, 2018, as supplemented by
letter dated May 13, 2019. Publiclyavailable versions are in ADAMS under
Accession Nos. ML18331A134 and
ML19134A233, respectively.
Description of amendment request:
The amendments would revise technical
specifications (TSs) to support
performance of 6.9 kiloVolt and
associated 480 Volt shutdown board
(SDBD) maintenance. The proposed
changes provide operational flexibility
for two-unit operation by providing
sufficient time to perform preventive
maintenance on SDBDs associated with
a defueled unit while the opposite unit
is operating in Modes 1, 2, 3, or 4.
Basis for proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination:
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
licensee has provided its analysis of the
issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented
below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change modifies the required
actions for the opposite unit’s onsite and
offsite AC power sources and electrical
distribution system. The opposite unit’s AC
power sources and electrical distribution
system are required to be operable to support
the associated unit’s required features. In
addition, a change is proposed to remove the
details regarding the required input power to
the vital inverters. This change will not affect
the probability of an accident, since the AC
power sources, vital inverters, and electrical
distribution system are not initiators of any
accident sequence analyzed in the WBN
dual-unit Updated Final Safety Analysis
Report (UFSAR). Rather, the AC power
sources, vital inverters, and electrical
distribution system support equipment used
to mitigate accidents. The consequences of an
analyzed accident will not be significantly
increased since the minimum requirements
for AC power sources, vital inverters, and
electrical distribution system will be
maintained to ensure the availability of the
required power to mitigate accidents
assumed in the UFSAR. Operation in
accordance with the proposed TS will ensure
that sufficient AC power sources, vital
inverters, and electrical distribution
subsystems are operable, as required to
support the unit’s required features.
Therefore, the mitigating functions supported
by the AC power sources, vital inverters, and
electrical distribution system will continue to
provide the protection assumed by the
accident analysis. The integrity of fission
product barriers, plant configuration, and
operating procedures as described in the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:23 Jun 17, 2019
Jkt 247001
UFSAR will not be affected by the proposed
changes. Thus, the consequences of
previously analyzed accidents will not
increase by implementing these changes.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not
involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any previously evaluated?
Response: No
The proposed changes involve
restructuring the TS for the AC electrical
power system to provide more flexibility in
performing maintenance on electrical system
components. The AC electrical power system
is not an initiator to any accident sequence
analyzed in the UFSAR. Rather, the AC
electrical power system supports equipment
used to mitigate accidents. The proposed
changes to modify the required actions
associated with inoperable opposite unit AC
power sources and shutdown boards and
proposed changes to the details of the
required power supplies to the vital inverters
will maintain the same level of equipment
performance required for mitigating
accidents assumed in the UFSAR. Therefore,
operation of the facility in accordance with
this proposed change will not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a
significant reduction in the margin of safety?
Response: No.
The margin of safety is established through
equipment design, operating parameters, and
the setpoints at which automatic actions are
initiated. The equipment margins will be
maintained in accordance with the plantspecific design bases as a result of the
proposed changes. The proposed changes
will not adversely affect operation of plant
equipment. These changes will not result in
a change to the setpoints at which protective
actions are initiated. Sufficient AC capability
to support operation of mitigation equipment
is ensured. The equipment fed by the AC
electrical sources will continue to provide
adequate power to safety-related loads in
accordance with analysis assumptions. The
proposed TS changes maintain the same level
of equipment performance stated in the
UFSAR and the current TSs. Therefore, the
proposed changes do not involve a
significant reduction of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee’s analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: General
Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority,
400 West Summit Hill Drive, 6A West
Tower, Knoxville, TN 37902.
NRC Branch Chief: Undine Shoop.
PO 00000
Frm 00083
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket
Nos. 50–390 and 50–391, Watts Bar
Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Rhea
County, Tennessee
Date of amendment request:
November 29, 2018. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML18334A389.
Description of amendment request:
The amendments would modify the
Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2,
Technical Specification requirements
related to direct current (DC) electrical
systems to be consistent with Technical
Specifications Task Force (TSTF)
Traveler TSTF–500, Revision 2, ‘‘DC
Electrical Rewrite—Update to TSTF–
360’’ (ADAMS Accession No.
ML092670242).
Basis for proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination:
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
licensee has provided its analysis of the
issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented
below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes restructure the
Technical Specifications (TS) for the direct
current (DC) electrical power system and are
consistent with TSTF–500, Revision 2. The
proposed changes modify TS Actions relating
to battery and battery charger inoperability.
The DC electrical power system, including
associated battery chargers, is not an initiator
of any accident sequence analyzed in the
Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR). Rather,
the DC electrical power system supports
equipment used to mitigate accidents. The
proposed changes to restructure TS and
change surveillances for batteries and
chargers to incorporate the updates included
in TSTF–500, Revision 2, will maintain the
same level of equipment performance
required for mitigating accidents assumed in
the FSAR. Operation in accordance with the
proposed TS would ensure that the DC
electrical power system is capable of
performing its specified safety function as
described in the FSAR. Therefore, the
mitigating functions supported by the DC
electrical power system will continue to
provide the protection assumed by the
analysis. The relocation of preventive
maintenance surveillances, and certain
operating limits and actions, to a licenseecontrolled Battery Monitoring and
Maintenance Program will not challenge the
ability of the DC electrical power system to
perform its design function. Appropriate
monitoring and maintenance that are
consistent with industry standards will
continue to be performed. In addition, the DC
electrical power system is within the scope
of 10 CFR 50.65, ‘‘Requirements for
monitoring the effectiveness of maintenance
at nuclear power plants,’’ which will ensure
the control of maintenance activities
E:\FR\FM\18JNN1.SGM
18JNN1
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 117 / Tuesday, June 18, 2019 / Notices
associated with the DC electrical power
system.
The integrity of fission product barriers,
plant configuration, and operating
procedures as described in the FSAR will not
be affected by the proposed changes.
Therefore, the consequences of previously
analyzed accidents will not increase by
implementing these changes. Therefore, the
proposed changes do not involve a
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes involve
restructuring the TS for the DC electrical
power system. The DC electrical power
system, including associated battery chargers,
is not an initiator to any accident sequence
analyzed in the FSAR. Rather, the DC
electrical power system supports equipment
used to mitigate accidents. The proposed
changes to restructure the TS and change
surveillances for batteries and chargers to
incorporate the updates included in TSTF–
500, Revision 2, will maintain the same level
of equipment performance required for
mitigating accidents assumed in the FSAR.
Administrative and mechanical controls are
in place to ensure the design and operation
of the DC systems continues to meet the plant
design basis described in the FSAR.
Therefore, operation of the facility in
accordance with this proposed change will
not create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a
significant reduction in the margin of safety?
Response: No.
The margin of safety is established through
equipment design, operating parameters, and
the setpoints at which automatic actions are
initiated. The equipment margins will be
maintained in accordance with the plantspecific design bases because of the proposed
changes. The proposed changes will not
adversely affect operation of plant
equipment. These changes will not result in
a change to the setpoints at which protective
actions are initiated. Sufficient DC capacity
to support operation of mitigation equipment
is ensured. The changes associated with the
new battery Maintenance and Monitoring
Program will ensure that the station batteries
are maintained in a highly reliable manner.
The equipment fed by the DC electrical
sources will continue to provide adequate
power to safety-related loads in accordance
with analysis assumptions. TS changes made
in accordance with TSTF–500, Revision 2,
maintain the same level of equipment
performance stated in the FSAR and the
current TSs. Therefore, the proposed changes
do not involve a significant reduction [in the
margin] of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee’s analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:23 Jun 17, 2019
Jkt 247001
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: General
Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority,
400 West Summit Hill Drive, 6A West
Tower, Knoxville, TN 37902.
NRC Branch Chief: Undine Shoop.
Virginia Electric and Power Company,
Docket Nos. 50–338 and 50–339, North
Anna Power Station, Units No. 1 and
No. 2, Louisa County, Virginia
Date of amendment request: March
18, 2019. A publicly available version is
in ADAMS under Accession No.
ML19086A113.
Description of amendment request:
The amendments would revise Renewed
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF–4
and NPF–7 for the North Anna Power
Station, Units 1 and 2, respectively, by
revising the Technical Specification
(TS) requirements regarding the
Emergency Diesel Generators.
Specifically, TS 3.8.1, ‘‘AC Sources—
Operating,’’ would be revised to reduce
the maximum voltage specified in the
associated surveillance requirements.
Basis for proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination:
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
licensee has provided its analysis of the
issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented
below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
Modifying the maximum steady-state
voltage requirement does not increase the
probability of an accident. Verifying proper
operation of the EDGs to maintain adequate
voltage ensures proper electrical and
mechanical system function and does not
increase the consequences of an accident.
2. Does the proposed change create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change would provide more
restrictive acceptance criteria to be applied to
existing technical specification surveillance
tests that demonstrate the capability of the
facility EDGs to perform their design
function. The proposed acceptance criteria
changes would not create any new failure
mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident
initiators not considered in the design and
licensing bases. Therefore, the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any
previously evaluated has not been created.
3. Does the proposed change involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change involves decreasing
maximum voltage test acceptance criterion
for EDG Surveillance Tests. The conduct of
surveillance tests on safety-related plant
equipment is a means of assuring that the
PO 00000
Frm 00084
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
28349
equipment is capable of maintaining the
margin of safety established in the safety
analyses for the facility. The proposed
amendment does not affect EDG performance
as described in the design basis analyses,
including the capability of the EDG to
maintain required voltage for proper
operation of plant safety loads. The proposed
amendment does not introduce changes to
limits established in the accident analyses.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee’s analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Mr. W.S. Blair,
Senior Counsel, Dominion Energy
Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar Street, RS–
2, Richmond, VA 23219.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T.
Markley.
IV. Notice of Issuance of Amendments
to Facility Operating Licenses and
Combined Licenses
During the period since publication of
the last biweekly notice, the
Commission has issued the following
amendments. The Commission has
determined for each of these
amendments that the application
complies with the standards and
requirements of the Atomic Energy Act
of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the
Commission’s rules and regulations.
The Commission has made appropriate
findings as required by the Act and the
Commission’s rules and regulations in
10 CFR chapter I, which are set forth in
the license amendment.
A notice of consideration of issuance
of amendment to facility operating
license or combined license, as
applicable, proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination,
and opportunity for a hearing in
connection with these actions, was
published in the Federal Register as
indicated.
Unless otherwise indicated, the
Commission has determined that these
amendments satisfy the criteria for
categorical exclusion in accordance
with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant
to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental
impact statement or environmental
assessment need be prepared for these
amendments. If the Commission has
prepared an environmental assessment
under the special circumstances
provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has
made a determination based on that
assessment, it is so indicated.
E:\FR\FM\18JNN1.SGM
18JNN1
28350
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 117 / Tuesday, June 18, 2019 / Notices
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES
For further details with respect to the
action see (1) the applications for
amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3)
the Commission’s related letter, Safety
Evaluation and/or Environmental
Assessment as indicated. All of these
items can be accessed as described in
the ‘‘Obtaining Information and
Submitting Comments’’ section of this
document.
Arizona Public Service Company, et al.,
Docket Nos. STN 50–528, STN 50–529,
and STN 50–530, Palo Verde Nuclear
Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and
3, Maricopa County, Arizona
Date of application for amendments:
July 31, 2015, as supplemented by
letters dated April 11, 2016; November
3, 2017; and May 18, June 1, September
21, and October 5, 2018.
Brief description of amendments: The
amendments revised certain technical
specification (TS) requirements related
to Completion Times for Required
Actions to provide the option to
calculate a longer, risk-informed
completion time. The allowance is
described in a new program, ‘‘Risk
Informed Completion Time Program,’’
that was added to TS Section 5.0,
‘‘Administrative Controls.’’ The
methodology for using the RiskInformed Completion Time Program is
described in Nuclear Energy Institute
(NEI) Report NEI 06–09, ‘‘Risk-Informed
Technical Specifications Initiative 4b:
Risk-Managed Technical Specifications
(RMTS) Guidelines,’’ Revision 0–A.
Date of issuance: May 29, 2019.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 270 days from the date of
issuance.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 1—209; Unit
2—209; Unit 3—209. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML19085A525.
Documents related to these amendments
are listed in the Safety Evaluation
enclosed with the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License
Nos. NPF–41, NPF–51, and NPF–74: The
amendments revised the Renewed
Facility Operating Licenses and
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: December 8, 2015 (80 FR
76317). By letter dated November 3,
2017, the licensee supplemented its
application. By supplemental letters
dated May 18 and June 1, 2018, the
licensee provided additional
information that expanded the scope of
the amendment request as originally
noticed in the Federal Register.
Accordingly, the NRC published a
second proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination in the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:23 Jun 17, 2019
Jkt 247001
Federal Register on August 14, 2018 (83
FR 40345), which superseded the
original notice in its entirely. The
supplemental letters dated September
21, and October 5, 2018, provided
additional information that clarified the
application, did not expand the scope of
the application as noticed, and did not
change the staff’s second proposed no
significant hazards consideration
determination as published in the
Federal Register.
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendments is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated May 29, 2019.
Dairyland Power Cooperative, Docket
No.: 50–409, La Crosse Boiling Water
Reactor, La Crosse County, Wisconsin
Date of application for amendment:
June 27, 2016, supplemented by letter
dated December 1, 2016, May 31, 2018,
and November 15, 2018.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendment revises the La Crosse
Boiling Water Reactor (LACBWR)
license to approve the License
Termination Plan (LTP). The LACBWR
LTP provides the details of the plan for
characterizing, identifying, and
remediating the remaining residual
radioactivity at the LACBWR site to a
level that will allow the site to be
released for unrestricted use. The
LACBWR LTP also describes how the
licensee will confirm the extent and
success of remediation through
radiological surveys, provide financial
assurance to complete
decommissioning, and ensure the
environmental impacts of the
decommissioning activities are within
the scope originally envisioned in the
associated environmental documents.
Decommissioning activities at the
LACBWR site are scheduled to be
complete in 2019, with license
termination occurring before the end of
2020.
Date of issuance: May 21, 2019.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment No.: 75.
Possession Only License No. DPR–45:
The amendment revised the Possession
Only License.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: August 30, 2016 (81 FR
59663). The supplements dated
December 1, 2016, May 31, 2018, and
November 15, 2018, provided additional
information that clarified the
application, did not expand the scope of
the application as originally noticed,
and did not affect the applicability of
the NRC’s generic no significant hazards
consideration determination.
PO 00000
Frm 00085
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendment is contained in a
safety evaluation dated May 21, 2019,
which is available in the Agencywide
Documents Access and Management
System (ADAMS) at Accession No.
ML19008A079).
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: Not applicable.
Dominion Energy Nuclear Connecticut,
Inc., Docket No. 50–423, Millstone
Power Station, Unit No. 3, New London
County, Connecticut
Date of amendment request: May 3,
2018, as supplemented by letters dated
November 29, 2018; March 27, 2019;
and May 7, 2019.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendment revised the Technical
Specifications to reflect the results and
constraints of a new criticality safety
analysis for fuel assembly storage in the
Millstone Power Station, Unit No. 3,
fuel storage racks. Specifically, the
amendment implemented the following
items associated with fuel assembly
storage: (1) Increased the Technical
Specification minimum spent fuel pool
soluble boron concentration, (2) revised
allowed storage patterns and initial
enrichment/burnup/decay time for fuel
assemblies in the spent fuel pool to
meet keff requirements under normal
and accident conditions, (3) permitted
the storage of any fuel assembly with
certain enrichment that contains a rod
cluster control assembly in Region 2
without restriction, and (4)
implemented a revised criticality
analysis for the new fuel storage racks
using the updated methods for the spent
fuel pool criticality analysis for
consistency.
Date of issuance: May 28, 2019.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 273. A publicly
available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML19126A000;
documents related to this amendment
are listed in the Safety Evaluation
enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License
No. NPF–49: The amendment revised
the Renewed Facility Operating License
and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: August 7, 2018 (83 FR 38735).
The supplemental letters dated
November 29, 2018; March 27, 2019;
and May 7, 2019, provided additional
information that clarified the
application, did not expand the scope of
the application as originally noticed,
and did not change the NRC staff’s
original proposed no significant hazards
E:\FR\FM\18JNN1.SGM
18JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 117 / Tuesday, June 18, 2019 / Notices
consideration determination as
published in the Federal Register.
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated May 28, 2019.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES
Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50–
313, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1
(ANO–1), Pope County, Arkansas
Date of amendment request: March
12, 2018, as supplemented by letters
dated April 26, October 17, and
December 11, 2018.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendment revised the ANO–1
Technical Specifications and operating
license by relocating certain
surveillance frequencies to a licenseecontrolled program, consistent with the
NRC-approved Technical Specifications
Task Force (TSTF) Improved Standard
Technical Specifications Change
Traveler TSTF–425, Revision 3,
‘‘Relocate Surveillance Frequencies to
Licensee Control—RITSTF [RiskInformed TSTF] Initiative 5b.’’
Date of issuance: May 22, 2019.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance.
Amendment No.: 264. A publicly
available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML19098A955;
documents related to this amendment
are listed in the Safety Evaluation
enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License
No. DPR–51: Amendment revised the
Renewed Facility Operating License and
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: June 5, 2018 (83 FR 26102).
The supplemental letters dated October
17 and December 11, 2018, provided
additional information that clarified the
application, did not expand the scope of
the application as originally noticed,
and did not change the NRC staff’s
original proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination as
published in the Federal Register.
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated May 22, 2019.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Entergy Operations, Inc., System Energy
Resources, Inc., Cooperative Energy, A
Mississippi Electric Cooperative, and
Entergy Mississippi, LLC, Docket No.
50–416, Grand Gulf Nuclear Station,
Unit 1, Claiborne County, Mississippi
Date of amendment request: April 10,
2018, as supplemented by letters dated
October 23, 2018, and March 13, 2019.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendment revised the Technical
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:23 Jun 17, 2019
Jkt 247001
Specifications (TSs) to adopt Technical
Specifications Task Force (TSTF)
Traveler TSTF–542, Revision 2,
‘‘Reactor Pressure Vessel Water
Inventory Control.’’ The change
replaced existing TS requirements
related to ‘‘operations with a potential
for draining the reactor vessel’’ with
new requirements on reactor pressure
vessel water inventory control to protect
Safety Limit 2.1.1.3. Safety Limit 2.1.1.3
requires reactor vessel water level to be
greater than the top of active irradiated
fuel.
Date of issuance: May 23, 2019.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 120 days from the date of
issuance.
Amendment No: 218. A publicly
available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML19084A218;
documents related to this amendment
are listed in the Safety Evaluation
enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License
No. NPF–29: The amendment revised
the Renewed Facility Operating License
and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: June 5, 2018 (83 FR 26103).
The supplemental letters dated October
23, 2018, and March 13, 2019, provided
additional information that clarified the
application, did not expand the scope of
the application as originally noticed,
and did not change the NRC staff’s
original proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination as
published in the Federal Register.
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated May 23, 2019.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC,
Docket Nos. 50–352 and 50–353,
Limerick Generating Station, Units 1
and 2, Montgomery County,
Pennsylvania
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50–171,
50–277, and 50–278, Peach Bottom
Atomic Power Station, Units 1, 2, and 3,
York and Lancaster Counties,
Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: May 10,
2018, as supplemented by letters dated
November 1 and November 29, 2018.
Brief description of amendments: The
amendments revised the emergency
response organization positions
identified in the emergency plan for
each site.
Date of issuance: May 24, 2019.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented on
or before December 31, 2019.
PO 00000
Frm 00086
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
28351
Amendment Nos.: Limerick—235/198
and Peach Bottom—14/325/328. A
publicly-available version is in ADAMS
under Accession No. ML19078A018.
Documents related to these amendments
are listed in the Safety Evaluation
enclosed with the amendments.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF–
39, NPF–85, DPR–12, DPR–44, and
DPR–56: Amendments revised the
emergency plans.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: July 17, 2018 (83 FR 33268).
The supplemental letters dated
November 1 and November 29, 2018,
provided additional information that
clarified the application, did not expand
the scope of the application as originally
noticed, and did not change the NRC
staff’s original proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination as
published in the Federal Register.
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendments is contained in a
safety evaluation dated May 24, 2019.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
PSEG Nuclear LLC and Exelon
Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos.
50–272 and 50–311, Salem Nuclear
Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2,
Salem County, New Jersey
Date of amendment request: June 29,
2018, as supplemented by letter dated
October 27, 2018.
Brief description of amendments: The
amendments revised Technical
Specification (TS) 3/4.3.1, ‘‘Reactor Trip
System Instrumentation’’; TS 3/4.3.2,
‘‘Engineered Safety Feature Actuation
System Instrumentation’’; TS 3/4.7.1.5,
‘‘Main Steam Isolation Valves’’; and
added a new TS for feedwater isolation
to better align the TSs with the designbasis analyses and the design of the
instrumentation.
Date of issuance: May 31, 2019.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days from the date of
issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 329 (Unit No. 1)
and 310 (Unit No. 2). A publicly
available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML19105B171;
documents related to these amendments
are listed in the Safety Evaluation
enclosed with the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License
Nos. DPR–70 and DPR–75: The
amendments revised the Renewed
Facility Operating Licenses and
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: August 28, 2018 (83 FR
43907). The supplemental letter dated
October 27, 2018, provided additional
information that clarified the
E:\FR\FM\18JNN1.SGM
18JNN1
28352
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 117 / Tuesday, June 18, 2019 / Notices
application, did not expand the scope of
the application as originally noticed,
and did not change the NRC staff’s
original proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination as
published in the Federal Register.
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendments is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated May 31, 2019.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket
Nos. 50–390 and 50–391, Watts Bar
Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Rhea
County, Tennessee
Date of amendment request:
December 20, 2017, as supplemented by
letters dated February 15, April 9, and
October 4, 2018.
Brief description of amendments: The
amendments revised Technical
Specification (TS) 4.2.1, ‘‘Fuel
Assemblies,’’ for Unit 2 to allow up to
1,792 tritium producing burnable
absorber rods in the reactor; and revised
the Units 1 and 2 TSs related to fuel
storage.
Date of issuance: May 22, 2019.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
prior to startup from the outage where
any number of tritium producing
burnable absorber rods is inserted in the
Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 2, reactor
core not to exceed December 31, 2022.
Amendment Nos.: 125 (Unit 1) and 27
(Unit 2). A publicly available version is
in ADAMS under Accession No.
ML18347B330; documents related to
these amendments are listed in the
Safety Evaluation enclosed with the
amendments.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF–
90 and NPF–96: The amendments
revised the Facility Operating Licenses
and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: June 8, 2018 (83 FR 26709).
The supplement dated October 4, 2018,
provided additional information that
clarified the application, and did not
expand the scope of the application as
originally noticed in the Federal
Register.
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated May 22, 2019.
Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating
Corporation, Docket No. 50–482, Wolf
Creek Generating Station, Unit 1 (Wolf
Creek), Coffey County, Kansas
Date of amendment request: January
17, 2017, as supplemented by letters
dated March 22, May 4, July 13, October
18, and November 14, 2017; January 15,
January 29, April 19, June 19, August 9,
November 15 (two letters), and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:23 Jun 17, 2019
Jkt 247001
December 6, 2018; and March 5, May 2,
and May 15, 2019.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendment revised the Wolf Creek
Technical Specifications to replace the
existing methodology for performing
core design, non-loss-of-coolantaccident and loss-of-coolant accident
safety analyses with standard
Westinghouse Electric Corporation
developed and NRC-approved analysis
methodologies. In addition, the
amendment revised the Wolf Creek
licensing basis by adopting the
alternative source term (AST)
radiological analysis methodology in
accordance with 10 CFR 50.67,
‘‘Accident source term.’’ This
amendment represented a full scope
implementation of the AST as described
in Regulatory Guide 1.183, ‘‘Alternative
Radiological Source Terms for
Evaluating Design Basis Accidents at
Nuclear Power Reactors.’’
Date of issuance: May 31, 2019.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
during startup (prior to entry into Mode
2) from Refueling Outage 23.
Amendment No.: 221. A publicly
available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML19100A122;
documents related to this amendment
are listed in the Safety Evaluation
enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License
No. NPF–42. The amendment revised
the Renewed Facility Operating License
and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: On July 5, 2017, the NRC staff
published a proposed no significant
hazards consideration (NSHC)
determination in the Federal Register
(82 FR 31084) for the proposed
amendment. Subsequently by letters
dated July 13, October 18, and
November 14, 2017; January 15, January
29, April 19, June 19, and August 9,
2018, the licensee provided additional
information that expanded the scope of
the amendment request as originally
noticed in the Federal Register.
Accordingly, the NRC published a
second proposed NSHC determination
in the Federal Register on October 2,
2018 (83 FR 49590), which superseded
the original notice in its entirety. The
supplemental letters dated November 15
(two letters) and December 6, 2018; and
March 5, May 2, and May 15, 2019,
provided additional information that
clarified the application, did not expand
the scope of the application as noticed
on October 2, 2018, and did not change
the NRC staff’s proposed NSHC
determination published in the Federal
Register dated October 2, 2018.
PO 00000
Frm 00087
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated May 31, 2019.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 10th day
of June 2019.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Craig G. Erlanger,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor
Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2019–12573 Filed 6–17–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50–219; NRC–2019–0096]
Exelon Generation Company LLC;
Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating
Station
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Exemption; issuance.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) has reissued
exemptions originally approved on
October 16, 2018, exempting Exelon
Generation Company, LLC (Exelon or
the licensee) from certain emergency
planning (EP) requirements. The NRC is
reissuing these exemptions to change
the effective date of the exemptions
from date would change from 365 days
to 285 days after the permanent
cessation of power operations. The
reissued exemptions eliminated the
requirements to maintain an offsite
radiological emergency preparedness
plan and reduce the scope of onsite EP
activities at the Oyster Creek Nuclear
Generating Station (Oyster Creek), based
on the reduced risks of accidents that
could result in an offsite radiological
release at a decommissioning nuclear
power reactor.
DATES: The exemptions were reissued
on June 11, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID
NRC–2019–0096 when contacting the
NRC about the availability of
information regarding this document.
You may obtain publicly-available
information related to this document
using any of the following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for Docket ID NRC–2019–0096. Address
questions about NRC docket IDs in
Regulations.gov to Jennifer Borges;
telephone: 301–287–9127; email:
Jennifer.Borges@nrc.gov. For technical
questions, contact the individual listed
E:\FR\FM\18JNN1.SGM
18JNN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 117 (Tuesday, June 18, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28339-28352]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-12573]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2019-0135]
Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility
Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant
Hazards Considerations
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Biweekly notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the
Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is publishing this
regular biweekly notice. The Act requires the Commission to publish
notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to be issued, and grants
the Commission the authority to issue and make immediately effective
any amendment to an operating license or combined license, as
applicable, upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment
involves no significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the
pendency before the Commission of a request for a hearing from any
person.
This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or
proposed to be issued, from May 21, 2019 to June 3, 2019. The last
biweekly notice was published on June 4, 2019.
DATES: Comments must be filed by July 18, 2019. A request for a hearing
must be filed by August 19, 2019.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods
(unless this document describes a different method for submitting
comments on a specific subject):
Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2019-0135. Address
questions about NRC dockets IDs in Regulations.gov to Jennifer Borges;
telephone: 301-287-9127; email: [email protected]. For technical
questions, contact the individual(s) listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.
Mail comments to: Office of Administration, Mail Stop:
TWFN-7-A60M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-
0001, ATTN: Program Management, Announcements and Editing Staff.
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting
comments, see ``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beverly Clayton, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-3475, email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments
A. Obtaining Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2019-0135 facility name, unit
number(s), plant docket number, application date, and subject when
contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this
action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this
action by any of the following methods:
Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2019-0135.
NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-
[[Page 28340]]
available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select
``Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.'' For problems with ADAMS, please
contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-
397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected] The ADAMS
accession number for each document referenced (if it is available in
ADAMS) is provided the first time that it is mentioned in this
document.
NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
B. Submitting Comments
Please include Docket ID NRC-2019-0135 facility name, unit
number(s), plant docket number, application date, and subject in your
comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact
information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your
comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at https://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into
ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove
identifying or contact information.
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons
for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to
include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be
publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should
state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to
remove such information before making the comment submissions available
to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
II. Background
Pursuant to Section 189a.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is
publishing this regular biweekly notice. The Act requires the
Commission to publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to
be issued, and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make
immediately effective any amendment to an operating license or combined
license, as applicable, upon a determination by the Commission that
such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration,
notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a
hearing from any person.
III. Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility
Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses and Proposed No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under
the Commission's regulations in section 50.92 of title 10 of the Code
of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), this means that operation of the
facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1)
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated;
or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis
for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown
below.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final
determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period if circumstances change during the 30-day comment
period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for
example in derating or shutdown of the facility. If the Commission
takes action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or
the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a notice of
issuance. If the Commission makes a final no significant hazards
consideration determination, any hearing will take place after
issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will
occur very infrequently.
A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing and Petition for Leave To Intervene
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any
persons (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by this action may
file a request for a hearing and petition for leave to intervene
(petition) with respect to the action. Petitions shall be filed in
accordance with the Commission's ``Agency Rules of Practice and
Procedure'' in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult a
current copy of 10 CFR 2.309. The NRC's regulations are accessible
electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's website at 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
[[Page 28341]]
to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing with respect to
resolution of that party's admitted contentions, including the
opportunity to present evidence, consistent with the NRC's regulations,
policies, and procedures.
Petitions must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of
publication of this notice. Petitions and motions for leave to file new
or amended contentions that are filed after the deadline will not be
entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the
filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10
CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i) through (iii). The petition must be filed in
accordance with the filing instructions in the ``Electronic Submissions
(E-Filing)'' section of this document.
If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the
Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no
significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve
to establish when the hearing is held. If the final determination is
that the amendment request involves no significant hazards
consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it
immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any
hearing would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final
determination is that the amendment request involves a significant
hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before
the issuance of the amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent
danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will
issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.
A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian
Tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to
participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition should
state the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the
proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission no later
than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. The petition
must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the
``Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)'' section of this document, and
should meet the requirements for petitions set forth in this section,
except that under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(2) a State, local governmental body,
or Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof does not need
to address the standing requirements in 10 CFR 2.309(d) if the facility
is located within its boundaries. Alternatively, a State, local
governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof
may participate as a non-party under 10 CFR 2.315(c).
If a hearing is granted, any person who is not a party to the
proceeding and is not affiliated with or represented by a party may, at
the discretion of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited
appearance pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person
making a limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of
his or her position on the issues but may not otherwise participate in
the proceeding. A limited appearance may be made at any session of the
hearing or at any prehearing conference, subject to the limits and
conditions as may be imposed by the presiding officer. Details
regarding the opportunity to make a limited appearance will be provided
by the presiding officer if such sessions are scheduled.
B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a
request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition), any
motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the
submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and
documents filed by interested governmental entities that request to
participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the
NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007, as amended at 77 FR
46562; August 3, 2012). The E-Filing process requires participants to
submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in
some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Detailed
guidance on making electronic submissions may be found in the Guidance
for Electronic Submissions to the NRC and on the NRC website at 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 [email protected], or by
telephone at 301-415-1677, to (1) request a digital identification (ID)
certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or
representative) to digitally sign submissions and access the E-Filing
system for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise
the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a petition or
other adjudicatory document (even in instances in which the
participant, or its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-
issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the
Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the hearing in this
proceeding if the Secretary has not already established an electronic
docket.
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is
available on the NRC's public website at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/getting-started.html. Once a participant has obtained a
digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant
can then submit adjudicatory documents. Submissions must be in Portable
Document Format (PDF). Additional guidance on PDF submissions is
available on the NRC's public website at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/electronic-sub-ref-mat.html. A filing is considered complete at the
time the document is submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be
timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system
no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of
a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends
the submitter an email notice confirming receipt of the document. The
E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access
to the document to the NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any
others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to
participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the
document on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and
other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for
and receive a digital ID certificate before adjudicatory documents are
filed so that they can obtain access to the documents via the E-Filing
system.
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-
Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC's Electronic
Filing Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC's
public website at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by
email to [email protected], or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-
7640. The NRC Electronic Filing Help Desk is available between 9 a.m.
and 6 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government
holidays.
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not
submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in
accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper
[[Page 28342]]
filing stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically
and requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper
format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention:
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or
expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and
Adjudications Staff. Participants filing adjudicatory documents in this
manner are responsible for serving the document on all other
participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of
the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or
expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the
provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an
exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or
party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines
that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no
longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
https://adams.nrc.gov/ehd, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the
Commission or the presiding officer. If you do not have an NRC-issued
digital ID certificate as described above, click ``cancel'' when the
link requests certificates and you will be automatically directed to
the NRC's electronic hearing dockets where you will be able to access
any publicly available documents in a particular hearing docket.
Participants are requested not to include personal privacy information,
such as social security numbers, home addresses, or personal phone
numbers in their filings, unless an NRC regulation or other law
requires submission of such information. For example, in some
instances, individuals provide home addresses in order to demonstrate
proximity to a facility or site. With respect to copyrighted works,
except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory
filings and would constitute a Fair Use application, participants are
requested not to include copyrighted materials in their submission.
For further details with respect to these license amendment
applications, see the application for amendment which is available for
public inspection in ADAMS and at the NRC's PDR. For additional
direction on accessing information related to this document, see the
``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' section of this
document.
Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50-397, Columbia Generating Station
(Columbia), Benton County, Washington
Date of amendment request: March 27, 2019. A publicly available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19086A315.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
remove License Condition 2.C.(11), ``Shield Wall Deferral (Section
12.3.2, SSER #4, License Amendment #7)'' and its related Attachment 3,
``List of Shield Walls'' from Columbia's Renewed Facility Operating
License, as these items are outdated and no longer applicable to
Columbia's operation.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment involves the removal of an outdated
license condition. The proposed amendment does not impact any
accident initiators, analyzed events, or assumed mitigation of
accident or transient events. The proposed change does not involve
the addition or removal of any equipment or any design changes to
the facility. The proposed change does not affect any plant
operations, design functions, or analyses that verify the capability
of structures, systems, and components (SSCs) to perform a design
function. The proposed change does not change any of the accidents
previously evaluated in the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR). The
proposed change does not affect SSCs, operating procedures, and
administrative controls that have the function of preventing or
mitigating any of these accidents.
Therefore, the proposed change does not represent a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment only involves the removal of an outdated
license condition. No actual plant equipment or accident analyses
will be affected by the proposed change. The proposed change will
not change the design function or operation of any SSCs. The
proposed change will not result in any new failure mechanisms,
malfunctions, or accident initiators not considered in the design
and licensing bases. The proposed amendment does not impact any
accident initiators, analyzed events, or assumed mitigation of
accident or transient events.
Therefore, this proposed change does not create the possibility
of an accident of a new or different kind than previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment only involves the removal of an outdated
license condition. The proposed change does not involve any physical
changes to the plant or alter the manner in which plant systems are
operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed
change does not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting
safety system settings or limiting conditions for operation are
determined. The safety analysis acceptance criteria are not affected
by this change. The proposed change will not result in plant
operation in a configuration outside the design basis. The proposed
change does not adversely affect systems that respond to safely
shutdown the plant and to maintain the plant in a safe shutdown
condition.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: William A. Horin, Esq., Winston & Strawn,
1700 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20006-3817.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-003, 50-247, and 50-
286, Indian Point Nuclear Generating (Indian Point) Unit Nos. 1, 2, and
3, Westchester County, New York
Date of amendment request: April 15, 2019. A publicly available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19105B278.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the
Indian Point Site Emergency Plan (SEP) for the permanently shutdown and
defueled condition.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to the IPEC [Indian Point Energy Center]
SEP do not impact the
[[Page 28343]]
function of plant structures, systems, or components (SSCs). The
proposed changes do not affect accident initiators or precursors,
nor does it alter design assumptions. The proposed changes do not
prevent the ability of the on-shift staff and augmented ERO
[Emergency Response Organization] to perform their intended
functions to mitigate the consequences of any accident or event that
will be credible in the permanently shut down and defueled
condition. The proposed changes only remove positions that will no
longer be credited in the IPEC SEP.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes reduce the number of on-shift and augmented
ERO positions commensurate with the hazards associated with a
permanently shut down and defueled facility. The proposed changes do
not involve installation of new equipment or modification of
existing equipment, so that no new equipment failure modes are
introduced. Also, the proposed changes do not result in a change to
the way that the equipment or facility is operated so that no new
accident initiators are created.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
Margin of safety is associated with confidence in the ability of
the fission product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, reactor coolant
system pressure boundary, and containment structure) to limit the
level of radiation dose to the public. The proposed changes are
associated with the IPEC SEP and do not impact operation of the
plant or its response to transients or accidents. The change does
not affect the Technical Specifications. The proposed changes do not
involve a change in the method of plant operation, and no accident
analyses will be affected by the proposed changes. Safety analysis
acceptance criteria are not affected by the proposed changes. The
revised IPEC SEP will continue to provide the necessary response
staff with the proposed changes.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Jeanne Cho, Assistant General Counsel,
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 440 Hamilton Avenue, White Plains, NY
10601.
NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-247 and 50-286, Indian
Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 (Indian Point 2 and 3 or IP2
and IP3), Westchester County, New York
Date of amendment request: April 15, 2019. A publicly available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19105B236.
Description of amendment request: The amendments propose changes to
the staffing and training requirements for the Indian Point staff
contained in Section 5.0, ``Administrative Controls,'' of the Indian
Point 2 and Indian Point 3 Technical Specifications (TSs). Additional
changes are also proposed to Section 1.1, ``Definitions''; Section 4.0,
``Design Features''; and Section 5.0, ``Administrative Controls,'' that
are no longer applicable to a permanently defueled facility once Indian
Point 2, and subsequently Indian Point 3, are permanently defueled.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment would not take effect until IP2 has
permanently ceased operation and entered a permanently defueled
condition and the Certified Fuel Handler Training and Retraining
Program is approved by the NRC. The proposed amendment would modify
the IP2 TS by deleting the portions of the TS that are no longer
applicable to a permanently defueled facility, while modifying the
other sections to correspond to the permanently defueled condition.
The deletion and modification of provisions of the
administrative controls do not directly affect the design of
structures, systems, and components (SSCs) necessary for safe
storage of irradiated fuel or the methods used for handling and
storage of such fuel in the spent fuel pool. The changes to the
administrative controls are administrative in nature and do not
affect any accidents applicable to the safe management of irradiated
fuel or the permanently shutdown and defueled condition of the
reactor. Thus, the consequences of an accident previously evaluated
are not increased.
In a permanently defueled condition, the only credible accidents
are the fuel handling accident (FHA) and those involving radioactive
waste systems remaining in service. The probability of occurrence of
previously evaluated accidents is not increased, because extended
operation in a defueled condition will be the only operation
allowed. This mode of operation is bounded by the existing analyses.
Additionally, the occurrence of postulated accidents associated with
reactor operation is no longer credible in a permanently defueled
reactor. This significantly reduces the scope of applicable
accidents.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes have no impact on facility SSCs affecting
the safe storage of irradiated fuel, or on the methods of operation
of such SSCs, or on the handling and storage of irradiated fuel
itself. The administrative removal or modifications of the TS that
are related only to administration of the facility cannot result in
different or more adverse failure modes or accidents than previously
evaluated because the reactor will be permanently shutdown and
defueled and IP2 will no longer be authorized to operate the reactor
or retain or place fuel in the reactor vessel.
The proposed changes to the IP2 TS do not affect systems
credited in the accident analysis for the FHA or radioactive waste
system upsets at IP2. The proposed TS will continue to require
proper control and monitoring of safety significant parameters and
activities.
The proposed amendment does not result in any new mechanisms
that could initiate damage to the remaining relevant safety barriers
for defueled plants (fuel cladding and spent fuel cooling). Extended
operation in a defueled condition will be the only operation
allowed, and it is bounded by the existing analyses, such a
condition does not create the possibility of a new or different kind
of accident.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Since the 10 CFR part 50 license for IP2 will no longer
authorize operation of the reactor or emplacement or retention of
fuel into the reactor vessel once the certifications required by 10
CFR 50.82(a)(1) are docketed, as specified in 10 CFR 50.82(a)(2),
the occurrence of postulated accidents associated with reactor
operation is no longer credible. The only remaining credible
accidents are a FHA and those involving radioactive waste systems
remaining in service. The proposed amendment does not adversely
affect the inputs or assumptions of any of the design basis analyses
that impact these analyzed conditions.
The proposed changes are limited to those portions of the TS
that are not related to the safe storage of irradiated fuel. The
requirements that are proposed to be revised or deleted from the IP2
TS are not credited in the existing accident analysis for the
remaining applicable postulated accident;
[[Page 28344]]
and as such, do not contribute to the margin of safety associated
with the accident analysis. Postulated design basis accidents
involving the reactor are no longer possible because the reactor
will be permanently shutdown and defueled and IP2 will no longer be
authorized to operate the reactor or retain or place fuel in the
reactor vessel.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in the margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Jeanne Cho, Assistant General Counsel,
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 440 Hamilton Avenue, White Plains, NY
10601.
NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-247, Indian Point
Nuclear Generating Unit No. 2 (Indian Point 2 or IP2), Westchester
County, New York
Date of amendment request: April 15, 2019. A publicly available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19105B241.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the
Indian Point 2 Operating License (OL) and revise the Technical
Specifications (TSs) in Appendix A to Permanently Defueled TSs, the
Environmental TS Requirements in Appendix B of the OL, and the Inter-
Unit Transfer TSs in Appendix C. The proposed changes would revise
certain requirements contained within the Indian Point 2 OL and
Appendices A through C TSs and remove the requirements that would no
longer be applicable after Indian Point 2 is permanently shut down and
defueled.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment would not take effect until IP2 has
permanently ceased operation, entered a permanently defueled
condition, met the decay requirements established in the analysis of
the Fuel Handling Accident (FHA), implemented NRC approved License
Amendments regarding fuel storage requirements and administrative
controls for the permanently defueled condition, and received NRC
approval of the Certified Fuel Handler Training and Retraining
Program. The proposed amendment would modify the IP2 OL and TSs in
Appendices A through C by deleting the portions of the OL and TSs
that are no longer applicable to a permanently defueled facility,
while modifying other portions to correspond to the permanently
defueled condition. These proposed changes are consistent with the
criteria set forth in 10 CFR 50.36 for the contents of TSs.
Section 14 of the IP2 Updated Final Safety Analysis Report
(UFSAR) describes the DBA [design-basis accident] and transient
scenarios applicable to IP2 during power operations. After the
reactor is in a permanently defueled condition, the spent fuel pit
(SFP) and its cooling systems will be dedicated only to spent fuel
storage. In this condition, the spectrum of credible accidents will
be much smaller than for an operational plant. After the
certifications are docketed for IP2 in accordance with 10 CFR
50.82(a)(1), and the consequent removal of authorization to operate
the reactor or to place or retain fuel in the reactor vessel in
accordance with 10 CFR 50.82(a)(2), the majority of the accident
scenarios previously postulated in the UFSAR will no longer be
possible and will be removed from the UFSAR under the provisions of
10 CFR 50.59.
The deletion of TS definitions and rules of usage and
application requirements that will not be applicable in a defueled
condition has no impact on facility structures, systems, and
components (SSCs) or the methods of operation of such SSCs. The
deletion of design features and safety limits not applicable to the
permanently shut down and defueled status of IP2 has no impact on
the remaining applicable DBAs.
The removal of LCOs [limiting conditions for operation] or SRs
[surveillance requirements] that are related only to the operation
of the nuclear reactor or only to the prevention, diagnosis, or
mitigation of reactor-related transients or accidents do not affect
the applicable DBAs previously evaluated since these DBAs are no
longer applicable in the permanently defueled condition. The safety
functions involving core reactivity control, reactor heat removal,
reactor coolant system (RCS) inventory control, and containment
integrity are no longer applicable at IP2 as a permanently shut down
and defueled facility. The analyzed accidents involving damage to
the RCS, main steam lines, reactor core, and the subsequent release
of radioactive material will no longer be possible at IP2.
After IP2 permanently ceases operation, the future generation of
fission products will cease and the remaining source term will
decay. The radioactive decay of the irradiated fuel following shut
down of the reactor will have reduced the consequences of the FHA
below those previously analyzed.
The SFP water level, boron concentration, and fuel storage TSs
are retained to preserve the current requirements for safe storage
of irradiated fuel. SFP cooling and make-up related equipment and
support equipment (e.g., electrical power systems) are not required
to be continuously available since there will be sufficient time to
effect repairs, establish alternate sources of make-up flow, or
establish alternate sources of cooling in the event of a loss of
cooling and make-up flow to the SFP.
The deletion and modification of provisions of the
administrative controls of the Appendix A TSs and the non-
radiological environmental protection requirements in Appendix B do
not directly affect the design of SSCs necessary for safe storage of
irradiated fuel or the methods used for handling and storage of such
fuel in the SFP. The changes do not affect any accidents applicable
to the safe management of irradiated fuel or the permanently shut
down and defueled condition of the reactor.
The probability of occurrence of previously evaluated accidents
is not increased, since extended operation in a defueled condition
will be the only operation allowed, and therefore bounded by the
existing analyses. Additionally, the occurrence of postulated
accidents associated with reactor operation will no longer be
credible in a permanently defueled reactor. This significantly
reduces the scope of applicable accidents.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to the IP2 OL and Appendices A through C
TSs have no impact on facility SSCs affecting the safe storage of
irradiated fuel, or on the methods of operation of such SSCs, or on
the handling and storage of irradiated fuel itself. The removal of
TSs that are related only to the operation of the nuclear reactor or
only to the prevention, diagnosis, or mitigation of reactor-related
transients or accidents, cannot result in different or more adverse
failure modes or accidents than previously evaluated because the
reactor will be permanently shut down and defueled and IP2 will no
longer be authorized to operate the reactor.
The proposed deletion and modification of requirements of the
IP2 OL and Appendices A through C TSs do not affect systems credited
in the accidents that remain applicable at IP2 in the permanently
defueled condition. The proposed OL and TSs will continue to require
proper control and monitoring of safety significant parameters and
activities.
The Appendix A TSs regarding SFP water level, boron
concentration, and fuel storage are retained to preserve the current
requirements for safe storage of irradiated fuel. The restriction on
the SFP water level is fulfilled by normal operating conditions and
preserves initial conditions assumed in the analyses of the
postulated DBA.
The proposed amendment does not result in any new mechanisms
that could initiate damage to the remaining relevant safety barriers
for defueled plants (fuel cladding and spent fuel cooling). Since
extended operation in a defueled condition will be the only
operation allowed, and therefore
[[Page 28345]]
bounded by the existing analyses, such a condition does not create
the possibility of a new or different kind of accident.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
Because the 10 CFR part 50 license for IP2 will no longer
authorize operation of the reactor or emplacement or retention of
fuel in the reactor vessel after the certifications required by 10
CFR 50.82(a)(1) are docketed for IP2 as specified in 10 CFR
50.82(a)(2), the occurrence of postulated accidents associated with
reactor operation are no longer credible. The only remaining
credible accidents are the FHA and the accidental release of waste
liquids or waste gas. The proposed amendment does not adversely
affect the inputs or assumptions of any of the design basis analyses
that impact the remaining DBAs.
The proposed amendment would modify the IP2 OL and TSs in
Appendices A through C by deleting the portions of the OL and TSs
that are no longer applicable to a permanently defueled facility,
while modifying other portions to correspond to the permanently
defueled condition. The requirements that are proposed to be deleted
from the IP2 OL and Appendix A TSs are not credited in the existing
accident analyses for the remaining DBAs; and as such, do not
contribute to the margin of safety associated with the accident
analyses. Postulated DBAs involving the reactors will no longer be
possible because the reactor will be permanently shut down and
defueled and IP2 will no longer be authorized to operate the
reactor.
The Appendix A TSs regarding SFP water level, boron
concentration, and fuel storage are retained to preserve the current
requirements for safe storage of irradiated fuel.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
reduction in the margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Jeanne Cho, Assistant General Counsel,
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 440 Hamilton Avenue, White Plains, NY
10601.
NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC and PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-277
and 50-278, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3, York and
Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: April 26, 2019. A publicly available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19116A196.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise Peach
Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3, Technical Specification
(TS) 3.8.1, ``AC [Alternating Current] Power--Operating,'' Required
Action A.3, to provide a temporary one-time extension of the completion
time to allow sufficient time to perform physical modifications to
replace 27 inaccessible electrical cables. These electrical cables are
reaching the end of their dependable service life and are in need of
replacement.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed temporary one-time change to extend the Completion
Time for TS 3.8.1, Required Action A.3, will not increase the
probability of an accident, since the proposed Completion Time
extension in the time duration that one qualified offsite circuit is
out of service has no direct physical impact on the plant. The
proposed inoperable offsite circuit limits the available redundancy
of the offsite electrical system to a period not to exceed 21 days.
Therefore, the proposed TS change does not have a direct impact on
the plant that would make an accident more likely to occur due to
extended Completion Time. Other sources of offsite and onsite power
remain available.
During transients or events which require these systems/
subsystems to be operating, there is sufficient capacity in the
operable systems/subsystems to support plant operation or shutdown.
Therefore, failures that are accident initiators will not occur more
frequently than previously postulated as a result of the proposed
temporary one-time TS change.
In addition, the consequences of an accident previously
evaluated in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) will
not be increased. With one offsite circuit inoperable, the
consequences of any postulated accidents occurring on Unit 2 or Unit
3 during the proposed one-time Completion Time extension are bounded
by the previous analyses as described in the UFSAR. The minimum
equipment required to mitigate the consequences of an accident and/
or safely shut down the plant will be operable or available during
the extended Completion Time period of 21 days.
A risk evaluation has also been performed for the temporary one-
time 21-day Completion Time extension. The evaluation concluded that
the probability of a Loss of Offsite Power (LOOP) for the proposed
configuration is very low. Therefore, the proposed change does not
significantly increase the probability of an accident previously
evaluated because: (a) The emergency buses continue to be fed from a
reliable offsite source and; (b) the effect of the proposed
configuration on the probability of a LOOP is very low.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed temporary one-time change to extend the Completion
Time for TS 3.8.1, Required Action A.3, will not create the
possibility of a new or different type of accident since it will
only extend the time period that one of the offsite circuits can be
out of service; the extension of the time duration for one offsite
circuit being inoperable has no direct physical impact on the plant
and does not create any new accident initiators. Other sources of
offsite and onsite power remain available. The systems involved are
accident mitigation systems. The possible impacts that the
inoperable equipment may have on supported systems was previously
analyzed in the UFSAR. The impact of inoperable support systems was
also previously assessed, and any accident initiators created by the
inoperable systems were evaluated. Extending the duration of the
Completion Time does not create any additional accident initiators
for the plant.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The existing TS Completion Time limit of seven (7) days for one
offsite circuit inoperable was established to ensure that sufficient
safety-related equipment is available for response to all accident
conditions and that sufficient decay heat removal capability is
available for a Loss of Coolant Accident (LOCA) coincident with a
LOOP on one unit and simultaneous safe shutdown of the other unit.
Although a very slight reduction in the margin of safety might be
incurred during the proposed one-time extended Completion Time
period, this slight reduction is judged to be minimal due to the low
probability of an event occurring during the extended period. Other
sources of offsite and onsite power remain available and operable
during the 21-day extended period along with maintaining the
availability of essential Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS)/decay
heat removal capability. The very slight reduction in the margin of
safety resulting from extending the Completion Time from seven (7)
days to 21 days when an offsite circuit is inoperable is not
considered significant, since the remaining operable offsite
circuit, the emergency Diesel Generators (DGs), the Station Blackout
(SBO) line, and the FLEX DGs are available and provide an effective
defense-in-depth plan to support the station electrical plant
configurations during the extended 21-day Completion Time period.
[[Page 28346]]
The proposed TS change to extend the Completion Time does not
affect the acceptance criteria for any analyzed event, nor is there
a change to any safety limit. The proposed TS change does not affect
any Structures, Systems or Components (SSC) or their capability to
perform their intended functions. The proposed change does not alter
the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system settings,
or limiting conditions for operation are determined. Neither the
safety analyses nor the safety analysis acceptance criteria are
affected by this change. The proposed change will not result in
plant operation in a configuration outside the current design basis.
The margin of safety is maintained by maintaining the capability to
supply emergency buses with a redundant, separate, reliable offsite
power source, and maintaining the onsite power sources in their
design basis configuration.
Operations personnel are fully qualified and trained to respond
to, and mitigate, a Design Basis Accident (DBA), including actions
needed to ensure decay heat removal systems are available while
PBAPS [Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station], Units 2 and 3, are in the
operational electrical configurations described within this
submittal. Accordingly, existing procedures are in place that
address safe plant shutdown and decay heat removal for situations
applicable during the extended one-time Completion Time period.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel,
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL
60555.
NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-220, Nine Mile Point
Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Oswego County, New York
Date of amendment request: June 26, 2018, as supplemented by
letters dated February 25, 2019, and May 17, 2019 (ADAMS Accession Nos.
ML18177A044, ML19056A387, and ML19137A070, respectively).
Description of amendment request: The license amendment request was
originally noticed in the Federal Register on December 18, 2018 (83 FR
64894). This notice is being reissued in its entirety to include a
revised description of the amendment request. The amendment would
modify Technical Specification 3.3.1, ``Oxygen Concentration,'' to
require inerting the primary containment to less than 4 percent by
volume oxygen concentration within 72 hours of entering power operating
condition. Also, the amendment would add a new requirement to identify
required actions if the primary containment oxygen concentration
increases to greater than or equal to four volume percent while in the
power operating condition.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change modifies the Technical Specifications (TS)
by adopting containment inerting and de-inerting requirements that
are consistent with the guidance of NUREG-1433, ``Standard Technical
Specifications--General Electric BWR/4 Plants, Volume 1, Revision
4.0,'' published April 2012. The proposed change will allow inerting
of the primary containment within 24 hours of exceeding 15 percent
(%) Rated Thermal Power (RTP), and de-inerting 24 hours prior to
reducing reactor power to less than or equal to 15% RTP. Also, a new
TS condition will be added to identify required actions if the
primary containment oxygen concentration increases to greater than
or equal to 4% by volume while in the power operating condition. The
proposed change does not alter the physical configuration of the
plant, nor does it affect any previously analyzed accident
initiators. The accident analysis assumes that a Loss of Coolant
Accident (LOCA) occurs at 100% RTP. The consequences of a LOCA at
less than or equal to 15% RTP would be much less severe, and produce
less hydrogen than a LOCA at 100% RTP.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change adopts the STS [Standard Technical
Specifications] guidance regarding containment inerting/de-inerting
requirements. The proposed change introduces no new mode of plant
operation and does not involve any physical modification to the
plant. The proposed change is consistent with the current safety
analysis assumptions. No setpoints are being changed which would
alter the dynamic response of plant equipment. Accordingly, no new
failure modes are introduced.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises the Applicability presentation of
the Oxygen Concentration TS. No safety limits are affected. The
Oxygen Concentration TS requirements assure sufficient safety
margins are maintained, and that the design, operation, surveillance
methods, and acceptance criteria specified in applicable codes and
standards (or alternatives approved for use by the NRC) will
continue to be met as described in the plants' licensing basis. The
proposed change does not adversely affect existing plant safety
margins or the reliability of the equipment assumed to operate in
the safety analysis. As such, there are no changes being made to
safety analysis assumptions, safety limits, or limiting safety
system settings that would adversely affect plant safety.
Therefore, the proposed change does not result in a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel,
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL
60555.
NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026,
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), Units 3 and 4, Burke County,
Georgia
Date of amendment request: April 26, 2019. A publicly available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19119A249.
Description of amendment request: The amendment request proposes
changes to the Combined License (COL) Numbers NPF-91 and NPF-92 for
VEGP, Units 3 and 4, and Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR)
in the form of departures from the incorporated plant-specific Design
Control Document Tier 2 * and Tier 2 information related to the design-
specific pre-operational Automatic Depressurization System (ADS)
Blowdown Test. The requested amendment involves changes to credit the
previously completed ADS Blowdown first three plant tests as described
in the licensing basis documents, including COL Condition 2.D.(2)(a).
Specifically, the proposed change would revise the COL, License
Condition 2.D.(2)(a)2, by removing the requirement to perform the ADS
Slowdown first three plant test during preoperational testing.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination:
[[Page 28347]]
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis
of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is
presented below with changes made by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
shown in square brackets:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not affect the operation of any systems
or equipment that initiates an analyzed accident or alter any
structures, systems, or components (SSC) accident initiator or
initiating sequence of events. The proposed changes remove the
requirement to perform the ADS Blowdown first three plant test based
on the successful completion of the tests at the lead AP1000 units.
The change does not adversely affect any methodology which would
increase the probability or consequences of a previously evaluated
accident.
The change does not impact the support, design, or operation of
mechanical or fluid systems. There is no change to plant systems or
the response of systems to postulated accident conditions. There is
no change to predicted radioactive releases due to normal operation
or postulated accident conditions. The plant response to previously
evaluated accidents or external events is not adversely affected,
nor does the proposed change create any new accident precursors.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of a previously
evaluated accident.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not affect the operation of any systems
or equipment that may initiate a new or different kind of accident,
or alter any SSC such that a new accident initiator or initiating
sequence of events is created.
The proposed change credits previously completed ADS Blowdown
first three plant testing based on the successful completion of the
tests at the lead AP1000 units. The proposed changes do not
adversely affect any design function of any SSC design functions or
methods of operation in a manner that results in a new failure mode,
malfunction, or sequence of events that affect safety-related or
non-safety-related equipment. This activity does not allow for a new
fission product release path, result in a new fission product
barrier failure mode, or create a new sequence of events that result
in significant fuel cladding failures.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change maintains existing safety margin and
provides adequate protection through continued application of the
existing requirement in the UFSAR. The proposed change satisfies the
same design functions in accordance with the same codes and
standards as stated in the UFSAR. This change does not adversely
affect any design code, function, design analysis, safety analysis
input or result, or design/safety margin. No safety analysis or
design basis acceptance limit/criterion is challenged or exceeded by
the proposed change.
Since no safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/
criterion is challenged or exceeded by this change, no significant
margin of safety is reduced.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: M. Stanford Blanton, Balch & Bingham LLP,
1710 Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 35203-2015.
NRC Branch Chief: Jennifer Dixon-Herrity.
STP Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 50-498 and 50-499, South
Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, Matagorda County, Texas
Date of amendment request: May 1, 2019. A publicly available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19126A309.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the
South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, Technical Specifications in Section
3.0 and Section 4.0 regarding limiting condition for operation (LCO)
and surveillance requirement (SR) usage. The proposed changes are
consistent with the NRC-approved Technical Specifications Task Force
(TSTF) Traveler TSTF-529, ``Clarify Use and Application Rules,'' using
the consolidated line item improvement process (ADAMS Accession No.
ML16062A271). The model safety evaluation was approved by the NRC in a
letter dated April 21, 2016 (ADAMS Accession No. ML16060A441).
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change to Technical Specification LCO 3.0.4 has no
effect on the requirement for systems to be Operable and has no
effect on the application of Technical Specification actions. The
proposed change to Technical Specification SR 4.0.3 states that the
allowance may only be used when there is a reasonable expectation
the surveillance will be met when performed. Since the proposed
change does not significantly affect system Operability, the
proposed change will have no significant effect on the initiating
events for accidents previously evaluated and will have no
significant effect on the ability of the systems to mitigate
accidents previously evaluated.
Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change to the Technical Specifications usage rules
does not affect the design or function of any plant systems. The
proposed change does not change the Operability requirements for
plant systems or the actions taken when plant systems are not
Operable.
Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change clarifies the application of Technical
Specification LCO 3.0.4 and does not result in changes in plant
operation. Technical Specification SR 4.0.3 is revised to allow
application of Technical Specification SR 4.0.3 when a Surveillance
Requirement has not been previously performed if there is reasonable
expectation that the Surveillance Requirement will be met when
performed. This expands the use of Technical Specification SR 4.0.3
while ensuring the affected system is capable of performing its
safety function. As a result, plant safety is either improved or
unaffected.
Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
request for amendments involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Kym Harshaw, Vice President and General
Counsel, STP Nuclear Operating Company, P.O. Box 289, Wadsworth, TX
77483.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
[[Page 28348]]
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), Docket Nos. 50-390 and 50-391, Watts
Bar Nuclear Plant (WBN), Units 1 and 2, Rhea County, Tennessee
Date of amendment request: November 26, 2018, as supplemented by
letter dated May 13, 2019. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS
under Accession Nos. ML18331A134 and ML19134A233, respectively.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise
technical specifications (TSs) to support performance of 6.9 kiloVolt
and associated 480 Volt shutdown board (SDBD) maintenance. The proposed
changes provide operational flexibility for two-unit operation by
providing sufficient time to perform preventive maintenance on SDBDs
associated with a defueled unit while the opposite unit is operating in
Modes 1, 2, 3, or 4.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change modifies the required actions for the
opposite unit's onsite and offsite AC power sources and electrical
distribution system. The opposite unit's AC power sources and
electrical distribution system are required to be operable to
support the associated unit's required features. In addition, a
change is proposed to remove the details regarding the required
input power to the vital inverters. This change will not affect the
probability of an accident, since the AC power sources, vital
inverters, and electrical distribution system are not initiators of
any accident sequence analyzed in the WBN dual-unit Updated Final
Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). Rather, the AC power sources, vital
inverters, and electrical distribution system support equipment used
to mitigate accidents. The consequences of an analyzed accident will
not be significantly increased since the minimum requirements for AC
power sources, vital inverters, and electrical distribution system
will be maintained to ensure the availability of the required power
to mitigate accidents assumed in the UFSAR. Operation in accordance
with the proposed TS will ensure that sufficient AC power sources,
vital inverters, and electrical distribution subsystems are
operable, as required to support the unit's required features.
Therefore, the mitigating functions supported by the AC power
sources, vital inverters, and electrical distribution system will
continue to provide the protection assumed by the accident analysis.
The integrity of fission product barriers, plant configuration, and
operating procedures as described in the UFSAR will not be affected
by the proposed changes. Thus, the consequences of previously
analyzed accidents will not increase by implementing these changes.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
Response: No
The proposed changes involve restructuring the TS for the AC
electrical power system to provide more flexibility in performing
maintenance on electrical system components. The AC electrical power
system is not an initiator to any accident sequence analyzed in the
UFSAR. Rather, the AC electrical power system supports equipment
used to mitigate accidents. The proposed changes to modify the
required actions associated with inoperable opposite unit AC power
sources and shutdown boards and proposed changes to the details of
the required power supplies to the vital inverters will maintain the
same level of equipment performance required for mitigating
accidents assumed in the UFSAR. Therefore, operation of the facility
in accordance with this proposed change will not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in
the margin of safety?
Response: No.
The margin of safety is established through equipment design,
operating parameters, and the setpoints at which automatic actions
are initiated. The equipment margins will be maintained in
accordance with the plant-specific design bases as a result of the
proposed changes. The proposed changes will not adversely affect
operation of plant equipment. These changes will not result in a
change to the setpoints at which protective actions are initiated.
Sufficient AC capability to support operation of mitigation
equipment is ensured. The equipment fed by the AC electrical sources
will continue to provide adequate power to safety-related loads in
accordance with analysis assumptions. The proposed TS changes
maintain the same level of equipment performance stated in the UFSAR
and the current TSs. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve
a significant reduction of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority,
400 West Summit Hill Drive, 6A West Tower, Knoxville, TN 37902.
NRC Branch Chief: Undine Shoop.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-390 and 50-391, Watts Bar
Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Rhea County, Tennessee
Date of amendment request: November 29, 2018. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18334A389.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would modify the
Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Technical Specification
requirements related to direct current (DC) electrical systems to be
consistent with Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler
TSTF-500, Revision 2, ``DC Electrical Rewrite--Update to TSTF-360''
(ADAMS Accession No. ML092670242).
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes restructure the Technical Specifications
(TS) for the direct current (DC) electrical power system and are
consistent with TSTF-500, Revision 2. The proposed changes modify TS
Actions relating to battery and battery charger inoperability. The
DC electrical power system, including associated battery chargers,
is not an initiator of any accident sequence analyzed in the Final
Safety Analysis Report (FSAR). Rather, the DC electrical power
system supports equipment used to mitigate accidents. The proposed
changes to restructure TS and change surveillances for batteries and
chargers to incorporate the updates included in TSTF-500, Revision
2, will maintain the same level of equipment performance required
for mitigating accidents assumed in the FSAR. Operation in
accordance with the proposed TS would ensure that the DC electrical
power system is capable of performing its specified safety function
as described in the FSAR. Therefore, the mitigating functions
supported by the DC electrical power system will continue to provide
the protection assumed by the analysis. The relocation of preventive
maintenance surveillances, and certain operating limits and actions,
to a licensee-controlled Battery Monitoring and Maintenance Program
will not challenge the ability of the DC electrical power system to
perform its design function. Appropriate monitoring and maintenance
that are consistent with industry standards will continue to be
performed. In addition, the DC electrical power system is within the
scope of 10 CFR 50.65, ``Requirements for monitoring the
effectiveness of maintenance at nuclear power plants,'' which will
ensure the control of maintenance activities
[[Page 28349]]
associated with the DC electrical power system.
The integrity of fission product barriers, plant configuration,
and operating procedures as described in the FSAR will not be
affected by the proposed changes. Therefore, the consequences of
previously analyzed accidents will not increase by implementing
these changes. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes involve restructuring the TS for the DC
electrical power system. The DC electrical power system, including
associated battery chargers, is not an initiator to any accident
sequence analyzed in the FSAR. Rather, the DC electrical power
system supports equipment used to mitigate accidents. The proposed
changes to restructure the TS and change surveillances for batteries
and chargers to incorporate the updates included in TSTF-500,
Revision 2, will maintain the same level of equipment performance
required for mitigating accidents assumed in the FSAR.
Administrative and mechanical controls are in place to ensure the
design and operation of the DC systems continues to meet the plant
design basis described in the FSAR. Therefore, operation of the
facility in accordance with this proposed change will not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in
the margin of safety?
Response: No.
The margin of safety is established through equipment design,
operating parameters, and the setpoints at which automatic actions
are initiated. The equipment margins will be maintained in
accordance with the plant-specific design bases because of the
proposed changes. The proposed changes will not adversely affect
operation of plant equipment. These changes will not result in a
change to the setpoints at which protective actions are initiated.
Sufficient DC capacity to support operation of mitigation equipment
is ensured. The changes associated with the new battery Maintenance
and Monitoring Program will ensure that the station batteries are
maintained in a highly reliable manner. The equipment fed by the DC
electrical sources will continue to provide adequate power to
safety-related loads in accordance with analysis assumptions. TS
changes made in accordance with TSTF-500, Revision 2, maintain the
same level of equipment performance stated in the FSAR and the
current TSs. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a
significant reduction [in the margin] of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority,
400 West Summit Hill Drive, 6A West Tower, Knoxville, TN 37902.
NRC Branch Chief: Undine Shoop.
Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-338 and 50-339,
North Anna Power Station, Units No. 1 and No. 2, Louisa County,
Virginia
Date of amendment request: March 18, 2019. A publicly available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19086A113.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-4 and NPF-7 for the North
Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2, respectively, by revising the
Technical Specification (TS) requirements regarding the Emergency
Diesel Generators. Specifically, TS 3.8.1, ``AC Sources--Operating,''
would be revised to reduce the maximum voltage specified in the
associated surveillance requirements.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
Modifying the maximum steady-state voltage requirement does not
increase the probability of an accident. Verifying proper operation
of the EDGs to maintain adequate voltage ensures proper electrical
and mechanical system function and does not increase the
consequences of an accident.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change would provide more restrictive acceptance
criteria to be applied to existing technical specification
surveillance tests that demonstrate the capability of the facility
EDGs to perform their design function. The proposed acceptance
criteria changes would not create any new failure mechanisms,
malfunctions, or accident initiators not considered in the design
and licensing bases. Therefore, the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any previously evaluated has not
been created.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change involves decreasing maximum voltage test
acceptance criterion for EDG Surveillance Tests. The conduct of
surveillance tests on safety-related plant equipment is a means of
assuring that the equipment is capable of maintaining the margin of
safety established in the safety analyses for the facility. The
proposed amendment does not affect EDG performance as described in
the design basis analyses, including the capability of the EDG to
maintain required voltage for proper operation of plant safety
loads. The proposed amendment does not introduce changes to limits
established in the accident analyses. Therefore, the proposed
amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Mr. W.S. Blair, Senior Counsel, Dominion
Energy Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar Street, RS-2, Richmond, VA 23219.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
IV. Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and
Combined Licenses
During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice,
the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has
determined for each of these amendments that the application complies
with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,
as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The
Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the
Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR chapter I, which are set
forth in the license amendment.
A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility
operating license or combined license, as applicable, proposed no
significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a
hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the Federal
Register as indicated.
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that
these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in
accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b),
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be
prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an
environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in
10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment,
it is so indicated.
[[Page 28350]]
For further details with respect to the action see (1) the
applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's
related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as
indicated. All of these items can be accessed as described in the
``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' section of this
document.
Arizona Public Service Company, et al., Docket Nos. STN 50-528, STN 50-
529, and STN 50-530, Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos.
1, 2, and 3, Maricopa County, Arizona
Date of application for amendments: July 31, 2015, as supplemented
by letters dated April 11, 2016; November 3, 2017; and May 18, June 1,
September 21, and October 5, 2018.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised certain
technical specification (TS) requirements related to Completion Times
for Required Actions to provide the option to calculate a longer, risk-
informed completion time. The allowance is described in a new program,
``Risk Informed Completion Time Program,'' that was added to TS Section
5.0, ``Administrative Controls.'' The methodology for using the Risk-
Informed Completion Time Program is described in Nuclear Energy
Institute (NEI) Report NEI 06-09, ``Risk-Informed Technical
Specifications Initiative 4b: Risk-Managed Technical Specifications
(RMTS) Guidelines,'' Revision 0-A.
Date of issuance: May 29, 2019.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 270 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 1--209; Unit 2--209; Unit 3--209. A publicly-
available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19085A525.
Documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety
Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-41, NPF-51, and NPF-74:
The amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 8, 2015 (80 FR
76317). By letter dated November 3, 2017, the licensee supplemented its
application. By supplemental letters dated May 18 and June 1, 2018, the
licensee provided additional information that expanded the scope of the
amendment request as originally noticed in the Federal Register.
Accordingly, the NRC published a second proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination in the Federal Register on August 14, 2018
(83 FR 40345), which superseded the original notice in its entirely.
The supplemental letters dated September 21, and October 5, 2018,
provided additional information that clarified the application, did not
expand the scope of the application as noticed, and did not change the
staff's second proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated May 29, 2019.
Dairyland Power Cooperative, Docket No.: 50-409, La Crosse Boiling
Water Reactor, La Crosse County, Wisconsin
Date of application for amendment: June 27, 2016, supplemented by
letter dated December 1, 2016, May 31, 2018, and November 15, 2018.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises the La Crosse
Boiling Water Reactor (LACBWR) license to approve the License
Termination Plan (LTP). The LACBWR LTP provides the details of the plan
for characterizing, identifying, and remediating the remaining residual
radioactivity at the LACBWR site to a level that will allow the site to
be released for unrestricted use. The LACBWR LTP also describes how the
licensee will confirm the extent and success of remediation through
radiological surveys, provide financial assurance to complete
decommissioning, and ensure the environmental impacts of the
decommissioning activities are within the scope originally envisioned
in the associated environmental documents. Decommissioning activities
at the LACBWR site are scheduled to be complete in 2019, with license
termination occurring before the end of 2020.
Date of issuance: May 21, 2019.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment No.: 75.
Possession Only License No. DPR-45: The amendment revised the
Possession Only License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 30, 2016 (81 FR
59663). The supplements dated December 1, 2016, May 31, 2018, and
November 15, 2018, provided additional information that clarified the
application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally
noticed, and did not affect the applicability of the NRC's generic no
significant hazards consideration determination.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a safety evaluation dated May 21, 2019, which is available in the
Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) at Accession
No. ML19008A079).
No significant hazards consideration comments received: Not
applicable.
Dominion Energy Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Docket No. 50-423, Millstone
Power Station, Unit No. 3, New London County, Connecticut
Date of amendment request: May 3, 2018, as supplemented by letters
dated November 29, 2018; March 27, 2019; and May 7, 2019.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical
Specifications to reflect the results and constraints of a new
criticality safety analysis for fuel assembly storage in the Millstone
Power Station, Unit No. 3, fuel storage racks. Specifically, the
amendment implemented the following items associated with fuel assembly
storage: (1) Increased the Technical Specification minimum spent fuel
pool soluble boron concentration, (2) revised allowed storage patterns
and initial enrichment/burnup/decay time for fuel assemblies in the
spent fuel pool to meet keff requirements under normal and
accident conditions, (3) permitted the storage of any fuel assembly
with certain enrichment that contains a rod cluster control assembly in
Region 2 without restriction, and (4) implemented a revised criticality
analysis for the new fuel storage racks using the updated methods for
the spent fuel pool criticality analysis for consistency.
Date of issuance: May 28, 2019.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 273. A publicly available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML19126A000; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-49: The amendment
revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical
Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 7, 2018 (83 FR
38735). The supplemental letters dated November 29, 2018; March 27,
2019; and May 7, 2019, provided additional information that clarified
the application, did not expand the scope of the application as
originally noticed, and did not change the NRC staff's original
proposed no significant hazards
[[Page 28351]]
consideration determination as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated May 28, 2019.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-313, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit
1 (ANO-1), Pope County, Arkansas
Date of amendment request: March 12, 2018, as supplemented by
letters dated April 26, October 17, and December 11, 2018.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the ANO-1
Technical Specifications and operating license by relocating certain
surveillance frequencies to a licensee-controlled program, consistent
with the NRC-approved Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF)
Improved Standard Technical Specifications Change Traveler TSTF-425,
Revision 3, ``Relocate Surveillance Frequencies to Licensee Control--
RITSTF [Risk-Informed TSTF] Initiative 5b.''
Date of issuance: May 22, 2019.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 264. A publicly available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML19098A955; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-51: Amendment revised
the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 5, 2018 (83 FR
26102). The supplemental letters dated October 17 and December 11,
2018, provided additional information that clarified the application,
did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and
did not change the NRC staff's original proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated May 22, 2019.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Operations, Inc., System Energy Resources, Inc., Cooperative
Energy, A Mississippi Electric Cooperative, and Entergy Mississippi,
LLC, Docket No. 50-416, Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Claiborne
County, Mississippi
Date of amendment request: April 10, 2018, as supplemented by
letters dated October 23, 2018, and March 13, 2019.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical
Specifications (TSs) to adopt Technical Specifications Task Force
(TSTF) Traveler TSTF-542, Revision 2, ``Reactor Pressure Vessel Water
Inventory Control.'' The change replaced existing TS requirements
related to ``operations with a potential for draining the reactor
vessel'' with new requirements on reactor pressure vessel water
inventory control to protect Safety Limit 2.1.1.3. Safety Limit 2.1.1.3
requires reactor vessel water level to be greater than the top of
active irradiated fuel.
Date of issuance: May 23, 2019.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 120 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No: 218. A publicly available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML19084A218; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-29: The amendment
revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical
Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 5, 2018 (83 FR
26103). The supplemental letters dated October 23, 2018, and March 13,
2019, provided additional information that clarified the application,
did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and
did not change the NRC staff's original proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated May 23, 2019.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353, Limerick
Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-
171, 50-277, and 50-278, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 1, 2,
and 3, York and Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: May 10, 2018, as supplemented by letters
dated November 1 and November 29, 2018.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the
emergency response organization positions identified in the emergency
plan for each site.
Date of issuance: May 24, 2019.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
on or before December 31, 2019.
Amendment Nos.: Limerick--235/198 and Peach Bottom--14/325/328. A
publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19078A018.
Documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety
Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-39, NPF-85, DPR-12, DPR-44, and
DPR-56: Amendments revised the emergency plans.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 17, 2018 (83 FR
33268). The supplemental letters dated November 1 and November 29,
2018, provided additional information that clarified the application,
did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and
did not change the NRC staff's original proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a safety evaluation dated May 24, 2019.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
PSEG Nuclear LLC and Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-272
and 50-311, Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Salem
County, New Jersey
Date of amendment request: June 29, 2018, as supplemented by letter
dated October 27, 2018.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical
Specification (TS) 3/4.3.1, ``Reactor Trip System Instrumentation''; TS
3/4.3.2, ``Engineered Safety Feature Actuation System
Instrumentation''; TS 3/4.7.1.5, ``Main Steam Isolation Valves''; and
added a new TS for feedwater isolation to better align the TSs with the
design-basis analyses and the design of the instrumentation.
Date of issuance: May 31, 2019.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 329 (Unit No. 1) and 310 (Unit No. 2). A publicly
available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19105B171;
documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety
Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-70 and DPR-75: The
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 28, 2018 (83 FR
43907). The supplemental letter dated October 27, 2018, provided
additional information that clarified the
[[Page 28352]]
application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally
noticed, and did not change the NRC staff's original proposed no
significant hazards consideration determination as published in the
Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated May 31, 2019.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-390 and 50-391, Watts Bar
Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Rhea County, Tennessee
Date of amendment request: December 20, 2017, as supplemented by
letters dated February 15, April 9, and October 4, 2018.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical
Specification (TS) 4.2.1, ``Fuel Assemblies,'' for Unit 2 to allow up
to 1,792 tritium producing burnable absorber rods in the reactor; and
revised the Units 1 and 2 TSs related to fuel storage.
Date of issuance: May 22, 2019.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
prior to startup from the outage where any number of tritium producing
burnable absorber rods is inserted in the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit
2, reactor core not to exceed December 31, 2022.
Amendment Nos.: 125 (Unit 1) and 27 (Unit 2). A publicly available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18347B330; documents related
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with
the amendments.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-90 and NPF-96: The amendments
revised the Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 8, 2018 (83 FR
26709). The supplement dated October 4, 2018, provided additional
information that clarified the application, and did not expand the
scope of the application as originally noticed in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated May 22, 2019.
Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation, Docket No. 50-482, Wolf Creek
Generating Station, Unit 1 (Wolf Creek), Coffey County, Kansas
Date of amendment request: January 17, 2017, as supplemented by
letters dated March 22, May 4, July 13, October 18, and November 14,
2017; January 15, January 29, April 19, June 19, August 9, November 15
(two letters), and December 6, 2018; and March 5, May 2, and May 15,
2019.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Wolf
Creek Technical Specifications to replace the existing methodology for
performing core design, non-loss-of-coolant-accident and loss-of-
coolant accident safety analyses with standard Westinghouse Electric
Corporation developed and NRC-approved analysis methodologies. In
addition, the amendment revised the Wolf Creek licensing basis by
adopting the alternative source term (AST) radiological analysis
methodology in accordance with 10 CFR 50.67, ``Accident source term.''
This amendment represented a full scope implementation of the AST as
described in Regulatory Guide 1.183, ``Alternative Radiological Source
Terms for Evaluating Design Basis Accidents at Nuclear Power
Reactors.''
Date of issuance: May 31, 2019.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
during startup (prior to entry into Mode 2) from Refueling Outage 23.
Amendment No.: 221. A publicly available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML19100A122; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-42. The amendment
revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical
Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: On July 5, 2017, the
NRC staff published a proposed no significant hazards consideration
(NSHC) determination in the Federal Register (82 FR 31084) for the
proposed amendment. Subsequently by letters dated July 13, October 18,
and November 14, 2017; January 15, January 29, April 19, June 19, and
August 9, 2018, the licensee provided additional information that
expanded the scope of the amendment request as originally noticed in
the Federal Register. Accordingly, the NRC published a second proposed
NSHC determination in the Federal Register on October 2, 2018 (83 FR
49590), which superseded the original notice in its entirety. The
supplemental letters dated November 15 (two letters) and December 6,
2018; and March 5, May 2, and May 15, 2019, provided additional
information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of
the application as noticed on October 2, 2018, and did not change the
NRC staff's proposed NSHC determination published in the Federal
Register dated October 2, 2018.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated May 31, 2019.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 10th day of June 2019.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Craig G. Erlanger,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2019-12573 Filed 6-17-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P