Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations
| Citation | 84 FR 11334 |
| Record Number | 2019-05266 |
| Published date | 26 March 2019 |
| Section | Notices |
| Court | Nuclear Regulatory Commission |
Federal Register, Volume 84 Issue 58 (Tuesday, March 26, 2019)
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 58 (Tuesday, March 26, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11334-11345]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-05266]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2019-0079]
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 February 26, 2019 to March 11, 2019. The
last biweekly notice was published on March 12, 2019.
DATES: Comments must be filed by April 25, 2019. A request for a
hearing must be filed by May 28, 2019. Comments received after this
date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission
is able to ensure consideration only for comments received before this
date.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods
(unless this document describes a different method for submitting
comments on a specific subject):
Federal Rulemaking website: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2019-0079. 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,
[[Page 11335]]
see ``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ikeda Betts, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-
0001; telephone: 301-415-1959, email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments
A. Obtaining Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2019-0079, facility name, unit
number(s), plant docket number, application date, and subject when
contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this
action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this
action by any of the following methods:
Federal Rulemaking website: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2019-0079.
NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the
ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select ``Begin Web-based ADAMS
Search.'' For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public
Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or
by email to [email protected]. The ADAMS accession number for each
document referenced (if it is available in ADAMS) is provided the first
time that it is mentioned in this document.
NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
B. Submitting Comments
Please include Docket ID NRC-2019-0079, facility name, unit
number(s), plant docket number, application date, and subject in your
comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact
information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your
comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into
ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove
identifying or contact information.
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons
for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to
include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be
publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should
state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to
remove such information before making the comment submissions available
to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
II. Background
Pursuant to Section 189a.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is
publishing this regular biweekly notice. The Act requires the
Commission to publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to
be issued, and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make
immediately effective any amendment to an operating license or combined
license, as applicable, upon a determination by the Commission that
such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration,
notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a
hearing from any person.
III. Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility
Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses and Proposed No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under
the Commission's regulations in Sec. 50.92 of title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (10 CFR), this means that operation of the facility
in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or
(3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis
for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown
below.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final
determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period if circumstances change during the 30-day comment
period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for
example in derating or shutdown of the facility. If the Commission
takes action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or
the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a notice of
issuance. If the Commission makes a final no significant hazards
consideration determination, any hearing will take place after
issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will
occur very infrequently.
A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing and Petition for Leave To Intervene
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any
persons (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by this action may
file a request for a hearing and petition for leave to intervene
(petition) with respect to the action. Petitions shall be filed in
accordance with the Commission's ``Agency Rules of Practice and
Procedure'' in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult a
current copy of 10 CFR 2.309. The NRC's regulations are accessible
electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's website at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. Alternatively, a copy of
the regulations is available at the NRC's Public Document Room, located
at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first
floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. If a petition is filed, the
Commission or a presiding officer will rule on the petition and, if
appropriate, a notice of a hearing will be issued.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309(d) the petition should specifically
explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with
particular reference to the following general requirements for
standing: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the
petitioner; (2) the nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to
be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the
petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding;
and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be
entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f), the petition must also set
forth the specific contentions which the petitioner seeks to have
litigated in the proceeding. Each contention must
[[Page 11336]]
consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be
raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner must provide a
brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise
statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the
contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the
contention at the hearing. The petitioner must also provide references
to the specific sources and documents on which the petitioner intends
to rely to support its position on the issue. The petition must include
sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the
applicant or licensee on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions
must be limited to matters within the scope of the proceeding. The
contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner
to relief. A petitioner who fails to satisfy the requirements at 10 CFR
2.309(f) with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted
to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding,
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene.
Parties have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the
hearing with respect to resolution of that party's admitted
contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence, consistent
with the NRC's regulations, policies, and procedures.
Petitions must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of
publication of this notice. Petitions and motions for leave to file new
or amended contentions that are filed after the deadline will not be
entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the
filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10
CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i) through (iii). The petition must be filed in
accordance with the filing instructions in the ``Electronic Submissions
(E-Filing)'' section of this document.
If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the
Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no
significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve
to establish when the hearing is held. If the final determination is
that the amendment request involves no significant hazards
consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it
immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any
hearing would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final
determination is that the amendment request involves a significant
hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before
the issuance of the amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent
danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will
issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.
A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian
Tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to
participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition should
state the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the
proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission no later
than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. The petition
must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the
``Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)'' section of this document, and
should meet the requirements for petitions set forth in this section,
except that under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(2) a State, local governmental body,
or Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof does not need
to address the standing requirements in 10 CFR 2.309(d) if the facility
is located within its boundaries. Alternatively, a State, local
governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof
may participate as a non-party under 10 CFR 2.315(c).
If a hearing is granted, any person who is not a party to the
proceeding and is not affiliated with or represented by a party may, at
the discretion of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited
appearance pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person
making a limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of
his or her position on the issues but may not otherwise participate in
the proceeding. A limited appearance may be made at any session of the
hearing or at any prehearing conference, subject to the limits and
conditions as may be imposed by the presiding officer. Details
regarding the opportunity to make a limited appearance will be provided
by the presiding officer if such sessions are scheduled.
B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a
request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition), any
motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the
submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and
documents filed by interested governmental entities that request to
participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the
NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007, as amended at 77 FR
46562; August 3, 2012). The E-Filing process requires participants to
submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in
some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Detailed
guidance on making electronic submissions may be found in the Guidance
for Electronic Submissions to the NRC and on the NRC website at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants may not submit
paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in
accordance with the procedures described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10
days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the
Office of the Secretary by email at [email protected], or by
telephone at 301-415-1677, to (1) request a digital identification (ID)
certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or
representative) to digitally sign submissions and access the E-Filing
system for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise
the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a petition or
other adjudicatory document (even in instances in which the
participant, or its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-
issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the
Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the hearing in this
proceeding if the Secretary has not already established an electronic
docket.
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is
available on the NRC's public website at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/getting-started.html. Once a participant has obtained a
digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant
can then submit adjudicatory documents. Submissions must be in Portable
Document Format (PDF). Additional guidance on PDF submissions is
available on the NRC's public website at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/electronic-sub-ref-mat.html. A filing is considered complete at the
time the document is submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be
timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system
no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of
a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends
the submitter an email notice confirming receipt of the document. The
E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access
to the document to the NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any
others who have advised the Office of the Secretary
[[Page 11337]]
that they wish to participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need
not serve the document on those participants separately. Therefore,
applicants and other participants (or their counsel or representative)
must apply for and receive a digital ID certificate before adjudicatory
documents are filed so that they can obtain access to the documents via
the E-Filing system.
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-
Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC's Electronic
Filing Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC's
public website at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by
email to [email protected], or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-
7640. The NRC Electronic Filing Help Desk is available between 9 a.m.
and 6 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government
holidays.
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not
submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in
accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing
stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and
requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper
format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention:
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or
expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and
Adjudications Staff. Participants filing adjudicatory documents in this
manner are responsible for serving the document on all other
participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of
the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or
expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the
provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an
exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or
party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines
that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no
longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
https://adams.nrc.gov/ehd, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the
Commission or the presiding officer. If you do not have an NRC-issued
digital ID certificate as described above, click cancel when the link
requests certificates and you will be automatically directed to the
NRC's electronic hearing dockets where you will be able to access any
publicly available documents in a particular hearing docket.
Participants are requested not to include personal privacy information,
such as social security numbers, home addresses, or personal phone
numbers in their filings, unless an NRC regulation or other law
requires submission of such information. For example, in some
instances, individuals provide home addresses in order to demonstrate
proximity to a facility or site. With respect to copyrighted works,
except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory
filings and would constitute a Fair Use application, participants are
requested not to include copyrighted materials in their submission.
For further details with respect to these license amendment
application(s), 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.
Dominion Energy Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Docket No. 50-336, Millstone
Power Station, Unit No. 2, New London County, Connecticut
Date of amendment request: January 17, 2019. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19023A427.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would modify the
Millstone Power Station, Unit No. 2, licensing basis by the addition of
a license condition to allow for the implementation of the provisions
of 10 CFR 50.69, ``Risk-Informed Categorization and Treatment of
Structures, Systems and Components for Nuclear Power Reactors.''
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 will permit the use of a risk-informed
categorization process to modify the scope of structures, systems
and components (SSCs) subject to special treatment requirements and
to implement alternative treatments per the regulations. The process
used to evaluate SSCs for changes to special treatment requirements
and the use of alternative requirements ensures the ability of the
SSCs to perform their design function. The potential change to
special treatment requirements does not change the design and
operation of the SSCs. As a result, the proposed change does not
significantly affect any initiators to accidents previously
evaluated or the ability to mitigate any accidents previously
evaluated. The consequences of the accidents previously evaluated
are not affected because the mitigation functions performed by the
SSCs assumed in the safety analysis are not being modified. The SSCs
required to safely shut down the reactor and maintain it in a safe
shutdown condition following an accident will continue to perform
their design functions.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change will permit the use of a risk-informed
categorization process to modify the scope of SSCs subject to
special treatment requirements and to implement alternative
treatments per the regulations. The proposed change does not change
the functional requirements, configuration, or method of operation
of any SSC. Under the proposed change, no additional plant equipment
will be installed.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change will permit the use of a risk-informed
categorization process to modify the scope of SSCs subject to
special treatment requirements and to implement alternative
treatments per the regulations. The proposed change does not affect
any Safety Limits or operating parameters used to establish the
safety margin. The safety margins included in analyses of accidents
are not affected by the proposed change. The regulation requires
that there be no significant effect on plant risk due to any change
to the special treatment requirements for SSCs and that the SSCs
continue to be capable of performing their design basis functions,
as well as to perform any beyond design basis functions consistent
with the categorization process and results.
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
[[Page 11338]]
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion
Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar Street, RS-2, Richmond, VA
23219.
NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353, Limerick
Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: December 13, 2018, as supplemented by
letter dated February 14, 2019. Publicly-available versions are in
ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML18347B366 and ML19045A011, respectively.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would modify
Technical Specification (TS) requirements to permit the use of risk-
informed completion times in accordance with Technical Specifications
Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-505, Revision 2, ``Provide Risk-
Informed Extended Completion Times--RITSTF [Risk-Informed TSTF]
Initiative 4b'' (ADAMS Accession No. ML18183A493).
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. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes permit the extension of Completion Times
provided the associated risk is assessed and managed in accordance
with the NRC approved Risk-Informed Completion Time Program. The
proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the
probability of an accident previously evaluated because the changes
involve no change to the plant or its modes of operation. The
proposed changes do not increase the consequences of an accident
because the design-basis mitigation function of the affected systems
is not changed and the consequences of an accident during the
extended Completion Time are no different from those during the
existing Completion Time.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not change the design, configuration, or
method of operation of the plant. The proposed changes do not
involve a physical alteration of the plant (no new or different kind
of equipment will be installed).
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes permit the extension of Completion Times
provided that risk is assessed and managed in accordance with the
NRC approved Risk-Informed Completion Time Program. The proposed
changes implement a risk-informed configuration management program
to assure that adequate margins of safety are maintained.
Application of these new specifications and the configuration
management program considers cumulative effects of multiple systems
or components being out of service and does so more effectively than
the current TS.
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. 50-289, Three Mile Island
Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: December 14, 2018. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18351A006.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise
Technical Specification (TS) 6.8.5 ``Reactor Building Leakage Rate
Testing Program.'' The amendment would allow for a one-cycle extension
to the 10-year frequency of the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit
1, containment leakage rate test (i.e., Integrated Leakage Rate Test
(ILRT) or Type A test). The proposed change would permit the existing
ILRT to be extended from 10 years to 11.75 years. This extension would
move the performance of the next ILRT from the scheduled fall 2019
refueling outage to the fall 2021 refueling outage.
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 to the Technical Specifications (TS)
6.8.5 involves a one-time extension of the Three Mile Island Nuclear
Station, Unit 1 (TMI-1), Type A integrated leakage rate test (ILRT)
from 10 years to 11.75 years, in accordance with the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC)-accepted guidelines of Nuclear Energy
Institute (NEI) 94-01, ``Industry Guideline for Implementing
Performance-Based Option of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix J,'' Revision
3-A. This change will extend the requirement to perform the Type A
ILRT from the current requirement of ``prior to startup from the
T1R18 refueling outage,'' to ``November 2009 Type A test shall be
performed no later than prior to startup from the T1R24 refueling
outage in 2021.
The proposed extension does not involve either a physical change
to the plant or a change in the manner in which the plant is
operated or controlled. The containment is designed to provide an
essentially leak tight barrier against the uncontrolled release of
radioactivity to the environment for postulated accidents. Types B
and C testing ensures that individual containment isolation valves
(CIVs) are essentially leak tight. In addition, aggregate Types B
and C leakage rates support the leakage tightness of primary
containment by minimizing potential leakage paths. The proposed
amendment will not change the leakage rate acceptance requirements.
As such, the containment will continue to perform its design
function as a barrier to fission product releases. In addition, the
containment and the testing requirements invoked to periodically
demonstrate the integrity of the containment exist to ensure the
plant's ability to mitigate the consequences of an accident, and do
not involve the prevention or identification of any precursors of an
accident previously evaluated. Therefore, this proposed interval
extension does not involve a significant increase in the probability
or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
Therefore, the proposed change does not result in a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment to the TS involves a one-time extension
of the TMI-1 Type A ILRT from 10 years to 11.75 years. The
containment and the testing requirements to periodically demonstrate
the integrity of the containment exist to ensure the plant's ability
to mitigate the consequences of an accident do not involve any
accident precursors or initiators.
The proposed change does not involve a physical change to the
plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be
installed)
[[Page 11339]]
or a change to the manner in which the plant is operated or
controlled. This administrative change to extend the Type A ILRT for
TMI-1 will not affect the control parameters governing unit
operation or the response of plant equipment to transient or
accident conditions.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment to the TS involves the extension of the
TMI-1 Type A ILRT interval to 11.75 years. This amendment does not
alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system set
points, or limiting conditions for operation are determined. The
specific requirements and conditions of the TS 6.8.5, ``Reactor
Building Leakage Rate Testing Program,'' for containment leak rate
testing exist to ensure that the degree of containment structural
integrity and leak-tightness that is considered in the plant safety
analysis are maintained. The overall containment leak rate limit
specified by TS is maintained.
The proposed change involves the extension of the interval for
only the Type A containment leakage rate test at TMI-1. The proposed
surveillance interval extension is bounded by the 15-year Type A
test interval currently authorized within NEI 94-01, Revision 3-A.
The design, operation, testing methods, and acceptance criteria for
Types A, B, and C containment leakage tests specified in applicable
codes and standards would continue to be met with the acceptance of
this proposed change, since these are not affected by the proposed
change to the Type A test interval.
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: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel,
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL
60555.
NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna.
Indiana Michigan Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-315 and 50-316, Donald
C. Cook Nuclear Plant (CNP), Units 1 and 2, Berrien County, Michigan
Date of amendment request: December 11, 2018. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18348A579.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would
modify the Operating Licenses, Appendix B, Environmental Technical
Specifications, Part II, ``Non-Radiological Environmental Protection
Plan,'' for CNP, Units 1 and 2. The amendment request would update the
Environmental Protection Plan to reflect a Michigan State requirement
to obtain and maintain a Renewable Operating Permit for the possession
and operation of specified stationary sources of air pollutants and
other editorial changes.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability of occurrence or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The Environmental Protection Plan (EPP) is concerned with
monitoring the effect that plant operations have on the environment
for the purpose of protecting the environment and has no effect on
any accident postulated in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report
(UFSAR). Accident probabilities or consequences are not affected in
any way by obtaining an environmental monitoring permit and
reporting required by the EPP. The revision of portions of Appendix
B of the Operating Licenses will not impact the design or operation
of any plant system or component. No environmental protection
requirements established by other federal, state, or local agencies
are being reduced by this license amendment request.
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 accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
Obtaining an environmental monitoring permit and reporting have
no effect on accident initiation. The revision to portions of
Appendix B of the Operating Licenses will not impact the design or
operation of any plant system or component. There will be no impact
upon the type or amount of any effluents released from CNP.
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 change to add permit and reporting requirements and other
administrative revisions has no impact on margin of safety.
Environmental evaluations will continue to be performed, when
necessary, on changes to plant design or operations to assess the
effect on environmental protection.
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 involve no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Robert B. Haemer, Senior Nuclear Counsel,
One Cook Place, Bridgman, MI 49106.
NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.
PSEG Nuclear LLC, and Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-
272 and 50-311, Salem Nuclear Generating Station (Salem), Unit Nos. 1
and 2, Salem County, New Jersey
Date of amendment request: February 4, 2019. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19035A620.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the
Salem Technical Specification (TS) requirements on control and shutdown
rods and rod and bank position indication, consistent with NRC-approved
Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-547, Revision
1, ``Clarification of Rod Position Requirements,'' dated March 4, 2016.
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.
Control and shutdown rods are assumed to insert into the core to
shut down the reactor in evaluated accidents. Rod insertion limits
ensure that adequate negative reactivity is available to provide the
assumed shutdown margin (SDM). Rod alignment and overlap limits
maintain an appropriate power distribution and reactivity insertion
profile.
Control and shutdown rods are initiators to several accidents
previously evaluated, such as rod ejection. The proposed change does
not change the limiting conditions for operation for the rods or
make any technical changes to the Surveillance Requirements (SRs)
governing the rods. Therefore, the proposed change has no
significant effect on the probability of any accident previously
evaluated.
Revising the TS Actions to provide a limited time to repair rod
movement control has no effect on the SDM assumed in the accident
analysis as the proposed Actions require verification that SDM is
maintained. The effects on power distribution will not cause a
significant increase in the consequences of any accident previously
evaluated as all TS requirements on power distribution continue to
be applicable.
[[Page 11340]]
Revising the TS Actions to provide an alternative to frequent
use of the moveable incore detector system to verify the position of
rods with inoperable rod position indicators does not change the
requirement for the rods to be aligned and within the insertion
limits.
Therefore, the assumptions used in any accidents previously
evaluated are unchanged and there is no significant increase in the
consequences.
The consequences of an accident that might occur during the 1
hour period provided for the analog rod position indication to
stabilize after rod movement are no different than the consequences
of the accident under the existing actions with the rod declared
inoperable.
The proposed change to resolve the conflicts in the TS ensure
that the intended Actions are followed when equipment is inoperable.
Actions taken with inoperable equipment are not assumptions in the
accidents previously evaluated and have no significant effect on the
consequences.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of
the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be
installed). The change does not alter assumptions made in the safety
analyses. The proposed change does not alter the limiting conditions
for operation for the rods or make any technical changes to the SRs
governing the rods. The proposed change to actions maintains or
improves safety when equipment is inoperable and does not introduce
new failure modes.
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 to allow time for rod position indication to
stabilize after rod movement and to allow an alternative method of
verifying rod position has no effect on the safety margin as actual
rod position is not affected. The proposed change to provide time to
repair rods that are operable but immovable does not result in a
significant reduction in the margin of safety because all rods must
be verified to be Operable, and all other banks must be within the
insertion limits. The remaining proposed changes to make the
requirements internally consistent do not affect the margin of
safety as the changes do not affect the ability of the rods to
perform their specified safety function.
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: Steven Fleischer, PSEG Services Corporation,
80 Park Plaza, T-5, Newark, NJ 07102.
NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Georgia Power Company,
Oglethorpe Power Corporation, Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia,
City of Dalton, Georgia, Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366, Edwin I. Hatch
Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Appling County, Georgia
Date of amendment request: April 4, 2018. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Package Accession No. ML18096A936.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-5 and DPR-57 for the Hatch
Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, respectively. The amendments would
approve the adoption of a new fire protection licensing basis which
complies with the requirements in 10 CFR 50.48(a), 10 CFR 50.48(c), and
the guidance in Regulatory Guide 1.205, Revision 1.
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 transition to NFPA 805 [proposed amendment] involve
a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
Operation of Hatch Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2 in accordance
with the proposed amendment does not increase the probability or
consequences of accidents previously evaluated. Engineering
analyses, which may include engineering evaluations, probabilistic
safety assessments, and fire modeling calculations, have been
performed to demonstrate that the performance-based requirements of
NFPA 805 have been satisfied. The Updated Final Safety Analysis
Report documents the analyses of design basis accidents at Hatch
Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2. The proposed amendment does not affect
accident initiators, nor does it alter design assumptions,
conditions, or configurations of the facility that would increase
the probability of accidents previously evaluated. Further, the
changes to be made for fire hazard protection and mitigation do not
adversely affect the ability of structures, systems, or components
to perform their design functions for accident mitigation, nor do
they affect the postulated initiators or assumed failure modes for
accidents described and evaluated in the Updated Final Safety
Analysis Report. Structures, systems, or components required to
safely shutdown the reactor and to maintain it in a safe shutdown
condition will remain capable of performing their design functions.
The purpose of the proposed amendment is to permit Hatch Nuclear
Plant Units 1 and 2 to adopt a new fire protection licensing basis
which complies with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.48(a) and (c) and the
guidance in Regulatory Guide 1.205. The NRC considers that NFPA 805
provides an acceptable methodology and performance criteria for
licensees to identify fire protection requirements that are an
acceptable alternative to the 10 CFR 50 Appendix R required fire
protection features (69 FR 33536, June 16, 2004). Engineering analyses,
which may include engineering evaluations, probabilistic safety
assessments, and fire modeling calculations, have been performed to
demonstrate that the performance-based requirements of NFPA 805 have
been met.
NFPA [805] taken as a whole, provides an acceptable alternative for
satisfying General Design Criterion 3 (GDC 3) of Appendix A to 10 CFR
50, meets the underlying intent of the NRC's existing fire protection
regulations and guidance, and provides for defense-in-depth. The goals,
performance objectives, and performance criteria specified in Chapter 1
of the standard ensure that, if there are any increases in core damage
frequency or risk, the increase will be small and consistent with the
intent of the Commission's Safety Goal Policy.
Based on this, the implementation of the proposed amendment does
not increase the probability of any accident previously evaluated.
Equipment required to mitigate an accident remains capable of
performing the assumed function(s). The proposed amendment will not
affect the source term, containment isolation, or radiological release
assumptions used in evaluating the radiological consequences of any
accident previously evaluated. The applicable radiological dose
criteria will continue to be met. Therefore, the consequences of any
accident previously evaluated are not increased with the implementation
of the proposed amendment.
2. Does the transition to NFPA 805 [proposed amendment] create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated?
Response: No.
Operation of Hatch Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2 in accordance with
the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or
different kind
[[Page 11341]]
of accident from any accident previously evaluated. The proposed change
does not alter the requirements or functions for systems required
during accident conditions. Implementation of the new fire protection
licensing basis which complies with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.48(a)
and (c) and the guidance [in] Regulatory Guide 1.205 will not result in
new or different accidents.
The proposed amendment does not introduce new or different accident
initiators, nor does it alter design assumptions, conditions, or
configurations of the facility. The proposed amendment does not
adversely affect the ability of structures, systems, or components to
perform their design function. Structures, systems, or components
required to safely shutdown the reactor and maintain it in a safe
shutdown condition remain capable of performing their design functions.
The purpose of the proposed amendment is to permit Hatch Nuclear
Plant Units 1 and 2 to adopt a new fire protection licensing basis
which complies with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.48(a) and (c) and the
guidance in Regulatory Guide 1.205. The NRC considers that NFPA 805
provides an acceptable methodology and appropriate performance criteria
for licensees to identify fire protection systems and features that are
an acceptable alternative to the 10 CFR 50, Appendix R required fire
protection features (69 FR 33536, June 16, 2004).
The requirements of NFPA 805 address only fire protection and the
impacts of fire on the plant that have previously been evaluated, with
the exception of including requirements for radiological release
performance criteria and non-Power Operation fire safety criteria, and
alignment with plant down powers below hot shutdown. Based on this,
implementation of the proposed amendment would not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any kind of
accident previously evaluated. No new accident scenarios, transient
precursors, failure mechanisms, or limiting single failures will be
introduced as a result of this amendment. There will be no adverse
effect or challenges imposed on any safety-related system as a result
of this amendment. Therefore, the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any kind of accident previously evaluated is not
created with the implementation of the proposed amendment.
3. Does the transition to NFPA 805 [proposed amendment] involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
Operation of Hatch Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2 in accordance with
the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in the
margin of safety. The proposed amendment 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 amendment does
not adversely affect existing plant safety margins or the reliability
of equipment assumed to mitigate accidents in the Updated Final Safety
Analysis Report. The proposed amendment does not adversely affect the
ability of structures, systems, or components to perform their design
function. Structures, systems, or components required to safely shut
down the reactor and to maintain it in a safe shutdown condition,
remain capable of performing their design functions.
The purpose of the proposed amendment is to permit Hatch Nuclear
Plant Units 1 and 2 to adopt a new fire protection licensing basis
which complies with the requirements in 10 CFR 50.48(a) and (c) and the
guidance in Regulatory Guide 1.205. The NRC considers that NFPA 805
provides an acceptable methodology and performance criteria for
licensees to identify fire protection systems and features that are an
acceptable alternative to the 10 CFR 50 Appendix R required fire
protection features (69 FR 33536, June 16, 2004). Engineering analyses,
which may include engineering evaluations, probabilistic safety
assessments, and fire modeling calculations, have been performed to
demonstrate that the performance based requirements of NFPA 805 do not
result in a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
The proposed changes are evaluated to ensure that risk and safety
margins are kept within acceptable limits. The risk informed fire
protection scenarios and resolutions ensure fire risk analyses are
performed and are only successful if adequate safety margin and
defense-in-depth is maintained. Therefore, the transition to NFPA 805
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: Millicent Ronnlund, Vice President and
General Counsel, Southern Nuclear Operating Co., Inc., P.O. Box 1295,
Birmingham, AL 35201-1295.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Georgia Power Company,
Oglethorpe Power Corporation, Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia,
City of Dalton, Georgia, Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366, Edwin I. Hatch
Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Appling County, Georgia
Date of amendment request: June 7, 2018. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18158A583.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-57 and NPF-5 for the Hatch
Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, respectively, to add a condition to each
license allowing for the implementation of the provisions of 10 CFR
50.69, ``Risk-informed categorization and treatment of structures,
systems and components [(SSCs)] for nuclear power reactors.''
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 will permit the use of a risk-informed
categorization process to modify the scope of SSCs subject to NRC
special treatment requirements and to implement alternative
treatments per the regulations. The process used to evaluate SSCs
for changes to NRC special treatment requirements and the use of
alternative requirements ensures the ability of the SSCs to perform
their design function. The potential change to special treatment
requirements does not change the design and operation of the SSCs.
As a result, the proposed change does not significantly affect any
initiators to accidents previously evaluated or the ability to
mitigate any accidents previously evaluated. The consequences of the
accidents previously evaluated are not affected because the
mitigation functions performed by the SSCs assumed in the safety
analysis are not being modified. The SSCs required to safely shut
down the reactor and maintain it in a safe shutdown condition
following an accident will continue to perform their design
functions.
[[Page 11342]]
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change will permit the use of a risk-informed
categorization process to modify the scope of SSCs subject to NRC
special treatment requirements and to implement alternative
treatments per the regulations. The proposed change does not change
the functional requirements, configuration, or method of operation
of any SSC. Under the proposed change, no additional plant equipment
will be installed.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change will permit the use of a risk-informed
categorization process to modify the scope of SSCs subject to NRC
special treatment requirements and to implement alternative
treatments per the regulations. The proposed change does not affect
any Safety Limits or operating parameters used to establish the
safety margin. The safety margins included in analyses of accidents
are not affected by the proposed change. The regulation requires
that there be no significant effect on plant risk due to any change
to the special treatment requirements for SSCs and that the SSCs
continue to be capable of performing their design basis functions,
as well as to perform any beyond design basis functions consistent
with the categorization process and results.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Millicent Ronnlund, Vice President and
General Counsel, Southern Nuclear Operating Co., Inc., P. O. Box 1295,
Birmingham, AL 35201-1295.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC), Georgia Power Company,
Oglethorpe Power Corporation, Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia,
City of Dalton, Georgia, Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366, Edwin I. Hatch
Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Appling County, Georgia
Date of amendment request: October 17, 2018. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18290A940.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would modify the
required actions associated with the Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and
2, Technical Specification (TS) 3.6.4.1, ``Secondary Containment,'' to
allow up to 7 days to determine and correct the cause of secondary
containment degradation when at least one combination of standby gas
treatment (SGT) subsystems can maintain adequate secondary containment
vacuum.
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 secondary containment is not an initiator of any accident
previously evaluated but is assumed to mitigate some accidents
previously evaluated. However, the proposed change does not alter
the design or safety function of the secondary containment or
associated support systems. Therefore, the probability of an
accident previously evaluated is not increased.
The consequences of accidents previously evaluated that assume
the secondary containment function in accident mitigation are not
altered by the proposed change. The change includes proposed
requirements to verify at least one or more Operable SGT subsystems
can establish and maintain vacuum within the required time assumed
in the safety analysis, thereby conserving the safety analysis
assumptions. Therefore, the consequences of any accident that
assumes the secondary containment function are not affected by this
change.
Consequently, 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 does not change the design function or
operation of the secondary containment function. No plant
modifications or changes to the plant configuration or method of
operation are involved. The change includes proposed requirements to
verify at least one or more Operable SGT subsystems can establish
and maintain vacuum within the required time assumed in the safety
analysis.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not affect any of the controlling
values or parameters used to avoid exceeding regulatory or licensing
limits. The proposed change does not exceed or alter the design
basis or safety limits, or any limiting safety system settings. The
requirement for the secondary containment to perform its designated
safety function is unaffected. The proposed change provides
additional action requirements similar to action requirements
currently provided in the SGT system TS for a similar condition. The
risk of providing additional time to restore the leak-tightness of
the secondary containment to support any combination of SGT
subsystems is offset by the proposed requirements to verify at least
one or more Operable SGT subsystems can establish and maintain
vacuum within the required time periods. Because the secondary
containments for both Units 1 and 2 are interconnected during plant
operation, the proposed change also reduces the need for a dual unit
shutdown and the associated risk during this condition by allowing
more time to identify the degraded components and restore the
secondary containments to Operable status. SNC has determined that
the acceptability of the allowable outage time for a single SGT
subsystem, which was previously evaluated, is also acceptable for
the allowable outage time for the secondary containment in the
proposed conditions.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Millicent Ronnlund, Vice President and
General Counsel, Southern Nuclear Operating Co., Inc., P. O. Box 1295,
Birmingham, AL 35201-1295.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
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: November 19, 2018. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18334A106.
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 approving the
installation of two non-safety-related water headers (fire protection
and domestic water) within the safety-related flood protection dike,
along with corresponding changes to the Updated Final Safety Analysis
Report (UFSAR).
[[Page 11343]]
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 change revises the UFSAR to reflect the addition of non
safety-related, underground, fire protection and domestic water
system piping within the safety-related flood protection dike west
of the Unit 2 Turbine Building. Failure of non safety-related piping
within the flood protection dike or failure of the flood protection
dike is not an initiator of any accident previously evaluated. The
modification does not significantly increase the probability of a
failure to the flood protection dike. The technical evaluation for
the change shows that slope stability for the flood protection dike
is maintained in the event of a non safety-related piping failure.
In addition, existing inspections and surveillances are adequate to
identify piping leaks or breaks prior to failure of the flood
protection dike. In the event a piping break causes a failure of the
flood protection dike, a risk review indicates that the probability
of this occurring with consequences to be low (not significant).
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The change revises the UFSAR to reflect the addition of non
safety-related, underground, fire protection and domestic water
system piping within the safety-related flood protection dike. The
flood protection dike is located west of the Unit 2 Turbine and
Service Buildings, and provides flood protection to those buildings
if Lake Anna reached the PMF [probable maximum flood] level.
The addition of the non safety-related piping within the flood
protection dike does not change the design function or operation of
the flood protection dike. A failure of the flood protection dike is
not an accident initiator. Failure of the non safety-related piping
could potentially degrade the safety-related flood protection dike;
however, it does not introduce a new or different kind of accident
from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The change has no significant impact on margins of safety. The
installation of the non safety-related piping does not result in a
reduction of a peak flood protection dike height. An analysis
demonstrated that slope stability is maintained and factors of
safety are well within acceptable limits during installation and
following installation, including in the event of a pipe break.
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: 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.
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.
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: August 27, 2018.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised
compensatory measures in the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2
and 3, Technical Requirements Manual to permit operation of the Leading
Edge Flow Meter (LEFM) system at three separate intermediate power
levels for an indefinite period when the mass flow input to the core
thermal power calculation is from one, two, or three feedwater lines in
Check mode with none in Fail mode, and to permit operation of the LEFM
system at a fourth intermediate power level when not more than one LEFM
is in Fail mode and flow measurement is being provided by the
associated feedwater flow nozzle. The changes allow operation at power
levels commensurate with the uncertainties in the measurement of core
thermal power and reduce the magnitude of the required reactivity
maneuver and plant power level change for degradation of the LEFM
system.
Date of issuance: February 26, 2019.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
immediately upon issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 324 (Unit 2) and 327 (Unit 3). A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19039A223; documents related
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with
the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-44 and DPR-56: The
amendments revised Section 3.20 of the Technical Requirements Manual.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 6, 2018 (83 FR
55566).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 26, 2019.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-277 and 50-278, Peach
Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3, York County, Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: May 30, 2018, as supplemented by letter
dated December 6, 2018.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the Peach
Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3,
[[Page 11344]]
Technical Specifications to allow continued operation with two safety
relief valves/safety valves out of service and to increase the reactor
coolant system pressure safety limit. Specifically, the amendments
revised Technical Specification Safety Limit 2.1.2 and Limiting
Condition for Operation 3.4.3 for both Units 2 and 3.
Date of issuance: February 26, 2019.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 323 (Unit 2) and 326 (Unit 3). A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19011A325; documents related
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with
the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-44 and DPR-56: The
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 6, 2018 (83 FR
55564). The supplemental letter dated December 6, 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
determined as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 26, 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
Date of amendment request: August 23, 2018.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments modified the
Technical Specification requirements for inoperable dynamic restraints
(snubbers) by adding a new Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO)
3.0.8. The changes are based on Technical Specifications Task Force
(TSTF) Traveler TSTF 372, Revision 4, ``Addition of LCO 3.0.8,
Inoperability of Snubbers.''
Date of issuance: February 28, 2019.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
no later than May 31, 2019.
Amendment Nos.: 234 and 197. A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No. ML19036A913; documents related to these
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the
amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-39 and NPF-85: The
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical
Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 23, 2018 (83 FR
53513).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 28, 2019.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, Docket No. 50-412, Beaver Valley
Power Station, Unit 2, Beaver County, Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: March 28, 2018, as supplemented by
letter dated October 28, 2018.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised various
Technical Specification (TS) sections associated with steam generators
to allow the use of Westinghouse leak-limiting Alloy 800 sleeves for an
additional three fuel cycles of operation, bringing the total usage
time from five to eight fuel cycles of operation. The Technical
Specification changes also clarified wording in two sections related to
use of the leak-limiting Alloy 800 sleeves.
Date of issuance: February 25, 2019.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment No.: 193. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML18348B206; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-73: The amendment
revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical
Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 5, 2018 (83 FR
26105). The supplemental letter dated October 28, 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 February 25, 2019.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-354, 50-272, and 50-311, Hope Creek
Generating Station (Hope Creek) and Salem Nuclear Generating Station
(Salem), Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Salem County, New Jersey
Date of amendment request: June 29, 2018.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical
Specification requirements in Section 3/4.0, ``Applicability,''
regarding limiting condition for operation and surveillance requirement
usage. These changes are consistent with NRC-approved Technical
Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-529, ``Clarify Use and
Application Rules.''
Date of issuance: March 6, 2019.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 214 (Hope Creek), 327 (Salem, Unit No. 1), and 308
(Salem, Unit No. 2). A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML19044A627; documents related to these amendments are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-57, DPR-70, and DPR-75:
The amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 14, 2018 (83 FR
40351).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 6, 2019.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, South Carolina Public Service
Authority, Docket No. 50-395, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit
No. 1, Fairfield County, South Carolina
Date of amendment request: October 8, 2018, as supplemented by
letter dated February 22, 2019.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the
surveillance frequency of Technical Specification 3/4.4.6 Reactor
Coolant System Leakage, Surveillance Requirement 4.4.6.2.2 a, to allow
the reactor coolant system pressure isolation valve leakage test to be
extended to a performance-based frequency not to exceed 3 refueling
outages (to a maximum of 60 months) following two consecutive
satisfactory tests.
Date of issuance: March 7, 2019.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
[[Page 11345]]
Amendment No.: 213. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML19023A420, documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-12: The amendment
revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and the Technical
Specification.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 20, 2018 (83
FR 58615). The supplemental letter dated February 22, 2019, provided
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change
the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 7, 2019.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-338 and 50-339,
North Anna Power Station (North Anna), Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Louisa
County, Virginia, and Docket Nos. 50-280 and 50-281, Surry Power
Station (Surry), Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Surry County, Virginia
Date of amendment request: January 16, 2018, as supplemented by
letters dated June 13, and September 18, 2018.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments authorized changes
to the North Anna and Surry emergency plans and allowed the
consolidation of both sites' previous emergency operations facilities
into a central emergency operations facility.
Date of issuance: February 27, 2019.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 180 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 281 (Unit No. 1) and 264 (Unit No. 2) for North
Anna, and 294 (Unit No. 1) and 294 (Unit No. 2) for Surry. A publicly-
available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19031B227;
documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety
Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-4, NPF-7, DPR-32, and
DPR-37: The amendments revised the North Anna and Surry emergency
plans.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 11, 2018 (83
FR 45981). The supplemental letters dated June 13, and September 18,
2018, provided additional information that clarified the application,
did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and
did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of these amendments is
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated February 27, 2019.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 15th day of March 2019.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Craig G. Erlanger,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2019-05266 Filed 3-25-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
