Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations
| Citation | 84 FR 63894 |
| Record Number | 2019-24748 |
| Published date | 19 November 2019 |
| Section | Notices |
| Court | Nuclear Regulatory Commission |
Federal Register, Volume 84 Issue 223 (Tuesday, November 19, 2019)
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 223 (Tuesday, November 19, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63894-63905]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-24748]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2019-0227]
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 October 22, 2019, to November 4, 2019. The
last biweekly notice was published on November 5, 2019.
DATES: Comments must be filed by December 19, 2019. A request for a
hearing must be filed by January 21, 2020.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2019-0227. Address
questions about NRC docket IDs in Regulations.gov to Jennifer Borges;
telephone: 301-287-9127; email: [email protected]. For technical
questions, contact the individual(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: Lynn Ronewicz, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1927, email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments
A. Obtaining Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2019-0227, 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-2019-0227.
NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-
[[Page 63895]]
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-2019-0227, 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 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 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 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 63896]]
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 63897]]
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.
Arizona Public Service Company, et al., Docket Nos. STN 50-528, STN 50-
529, STN 50-530, and STN 72-44, Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station,
Units 1, 2, and 3 (Palo Verde, PVNGS), and Palo Verde Independent Spent
Fuel Storage Installation, Maricopa County, Arizona
Date of amendment request: October 18, 2019. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19291F735.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise
certain Emergency Response Organization (ERO) positions in the Palo
Verde Emergency Plan. Specifically, the proposed changes would revise
certain ERO positions in accordance with guidance specified in the
``Alternative Guidance for Licensee Emergency Response Organizations,''
finalized in a letter from the NRC to the Nuclear Energy Institute,
dated June 12, 2018 (ADAMS Accession No. ML18022A352).
The proposed changes would also relocate the non-minimum staff ERO
personnel from the Palo Verde Emergency Plan to emergency preparedness
implementing procedures.
The proposed changes have been reviewed considering the
requirements of 10 CFR 50.47, ``Emergency Plans,'' paragraph (b); 10
CFR 50 Appendix E, ``Emergency Planning and Preparedness for Production
and Utilization Facilities''; and other applicable emergency
preparedness NRC guidance documents. These regulations establish
emergency planning standards that require (1) adequate staffing, (2)
satisfactory performance of key functional areas and critical tasks,
and (3) timely augmentation of the response capability.
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 PVNGS Emergency Plan do not increase
the probability or consequences of an accident. The proposed changes
do not impact the function of plant Structures, Systems, or
Components (SSCs). The proposed changes do not affect accident
initiators or accident precursors, nor do the changes alter design
assumptions. The proposed changes do not alter or prevent the
ability of the onsite ERO to perform their intended functions to
mitigate the consequences of an accident or event.
Therefore, the proposed changes to the PVNGS Emergency Plan do
not involve a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes have no impact on the design, function, or
operation of any plant SSCs. The proposed changes do not affect
plant equipment or accident analyses. The proposed changes do not
involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or
different type of equipment will be installed), a change in the
method of plant operation, or new operator actions. The proposed
changes do not introduce failure modes that could result in a new
accident, and the proposed changes do not alter assumptions made in
the safety analysis.
Therefore, the proposed changes to the PVNGS Emergency Plan do
not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident
from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
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 do not adversely affect existing plant
safety margins or the reliability of the equipment assumed to
operate in the safety analyses. There are no changes being made to
safety analysis assumptions, safety limits, or limiting safety
system settings that would adversely affect plant safety as a result
of the proposed changes. Margins of safety are unaffected by the
proposed changes to the ERO staffing.
The proposed changes are associated with the PVNGS Emergency
Plan staffing and do not impact operation of the plant or its
response to transients or accidents. The proposed changes do 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 these proposed changes. The
proposed changes to the Emergency Plan will continue to provide the
necessary on-site ERO response staff.
Therefore, the proposed changes to the PVNGS Emergency Plan do
not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
that 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
[[Page 63898]]
for amendments involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Michael G. Green, Associate General Counsel,
Nuclear and Environmental, Pinnacle West Capital Corporation, P.O. Box
52034, Mail Station 7602, Phoenix, AZ 85072-2034.
NRC Branch Chief: Jennifer L. Dixon-Herrity.
Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Docket No. 50-261, H.B. Robinson Steam
Electric Plant, Unit No. 2, Darlington County, South Carolina
Date of amendment request: June 4, 2019, as supplemented by letter
dated October 24, 2019. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS under
Accession Nos. ML19155A037, and ML19299A010, respectively.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise the H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit No. 2, Technical
Specifications (TSs) relating to alternating current (AC) surveillance
requirements (SRs).
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 revises TS 3.8.2, SR 3.8.2.1 to reflect that
HBRSEP [H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant] SR 3.8.1.18 is not
required to be met in the TS 3.8.2 Applicability (i.e., Modes 5 and
6 and during movement of irradiated fuel assemblies). The proposed
change modifies the SR 3.8.2.1 to be consistent with NUREG-1431. The
AC power systems are not an initiator of any accident previously
evaluated. As a result, the probability of an accident previously
evaluated is not increased. The consequences of an accident with the
proposed SR 3.8.2.1 listing HBRSEP SR 3.8.1.18 as an exception are
no different than the consequences of an accident in Modes 5 or 6 or
during the movement of irradiated fuel assemblies with the existing
SR 3.8.2.1 that requires SR 3.8.1.18 to be met.
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 revises TS 3.8.2, SR 3.8.2.1 to reflect that
HBRSEP SR 3.8.1.18 is not required to be met in the TS 3.8.2
Applicability (i.e., Modes 5 and 6 and during movement of irradiated
fuel assemblies). The proposed change modifies the SR 3.8.2.1 to be
consistent with NUREG-1431. Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO)
3.8.2 ensures that in the event of an accident during shutdown,
sufficient capability exists to support systems necessary to
mitigate the event and maintain the unit in the shutdown or
refueling condition for an extended period, assuming either a loss
of all offsite power or a loss of all onsite diesel generator power.
SR 3.8.2.1 helps ensure that LCO 3.8.2 is met but SR 3.8.2.1 does
not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident
from any accident previously evaluated. Thus, not requiring SR
3.8.1.18 to be met in the TS 3.8.2 Applicability does not alter that
fact. The proposed change also does not alter the design, physical
configuration or mode of operation of any plant structure, system or
component. No physical changes are being made to any portion of the
plant, so no new accident causal mechanisms are being introduced.
The proposed change also does not result in any new mechanisms that
could initiate damage to the reactor or its principal safety
barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, reactor coolant system or primary
containment).
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 revises TS 3.8.2, SR 3.8.2.1 to reflect that
HBRSEP SR 3.8.1.18 is not required to be met in the TS 3.8.2
Applicability (i.e., Modes 5 and 6 and during movement of irradiated
fuel assemblies). The proposed change modifies the SR 3.8.2.1 to be
consistent with NUREG-1431. Only one offsite circuit is required to
be Operable by LCO 3.8.2 and SR 3.8.2.1 will continue to ensure that
the LCO is met. With the proposed change, adequate AC power
continues to be provided to mitigate events postulated during
shutdown, such as a fuel handling accident. Furthermore, the
proposed change does not alter any design basis or safety limit
established in the UFSAR [Updated Final Safety Analysis Report] or
license.
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: Kathryn B. Nolan, Deputy General Counsel,
Duke Energy Corporation, 550 South Tryon Street, DEC45A, Charlotte NC
28202.
NRC Branch Chief: Undine Shoop.
Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50-397, Columbia Generating Station,
Benton County, Washington
Date of amendment request: September 12, 2019. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19255K007.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would adopt
Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-529, ``Clarify
Use and Application Rules,'' which would revise the Technical
Specification (TS) requirements in Section 1.3 and Section 3.0
regarding Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) and Surveillance
Requirement (SR) usage.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to [TS] Section 1.3 [``Completion Times'']
and LCO 3.0.4 have no effect on the requirement for systems to be
Operable and have no effect on the application of TS actions. The
proposed change to SR 3.0.3 states that the allowance may only be
used when there is a reasonable expectation the surveillance will be
met when performed. Since the proposed changes do not significantly
affect system Operability, they 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 the 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 change to the TS usage rules do 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 Section 1.3 and
LCO 3.0.4 and does not result in changes in plant operation. SR
3.0.3 is revised to allow application of SR 3.0.3 when an SR has not
been previously performed and there is reasonable expectation that
the SR will be met when performed. This expands the use of SR 3.0.3
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.
[[Page 63899]]
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: Jennifer L. Dixon-Herrity.
Exelon FitzPatrick, LLC and Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No.
50-333, James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant (JAFNPP), Oswego
County, New York
Date of amendment request: August 8, 2019. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19220A043.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would approve the
adoption of the alternative source term (AST), in accordance with 10
CFR 50.67, for use in calculating the loss-of-coolant accident dose
consequences at James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant.
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 implementation of AST assumptions has been evaluated in
revisions to the analysis of the loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA).
Based upon the results of these analysis, it has been
demonstrated that, with the requested changes, the dose consequences
of this limiting event are within the regulatory requirements and
guidance provided by the NRC for use with the AST. The regulatory
requirements and guidance is presented in 10 CFR 50.67, ``Accident
source term,'' and associated NRC Regulatory Guide 1.183 and
Standard Review Plan Section 15.0.1. The AST is an input to
calculations used to evaluate the consequences of an accident, and
does not, by itself, affect the plant response, or the actual
pathway of the radiation released from the fuel. It does, however,
better represent the physical characteristics of the release, so
that appropriate mitigation techniques may be applied.
The proposed changes are also consistent with the guidance of
Technical Specifications Task Force Traveler (TSTF) 551, ``Revise
Secondary Containment Surveillance Requirements,'' Revision 3, which
was approved by the NRC on September 21, 2017.
The equipment affected by the proposed change is mitigative in
nature and relied upon after an accident has been initiated.
Application of the AST does not involve any physical changes to the
plant design and is not an initiator of an accident. Removal of the
MSLC [Main Steam Leakage Collection] system is not required by the
four criteria specified in 10 CFR 50.36. As a result, the proposed
changes do not affect any of the parameters or conditions that could
contribute to the initiation of any accidents. As such, removal of
operability requirements during the specified conditions will not
significantly increase the probability of occurrence for an accident
previously analyzed. Since design basis accident initiators are not
being altered by adoption of the AST analyses, the probability of an
accident previously evaluated is not affected. Also, the
consequences of previously evaluated accidents remain within the
regulatory limits.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of
the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be
installed and there are no physical modifications to existing
equipment associated with the proposed change). The proposed
changes, effectively increasing the allowable main steam isolation
valve (MSIV) leakage and crediting the Standby Liquid Control (SLC)
system for LOCA mitigation do not create initiators or precursors of
a new or different kind of accident. Similarly, it does not
physically change any structures, systems, or components involved in
the mitigation of any accidents. Thus, no new initiators or
precursors of a new or different kind of accident are created.
Therefore, the proposed changes do 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.
Safety margins and analytical conservatisms have been evaluated
and have been found acceptable. The analyzed event has been
carefully selected and margin has been retained to ensure that the
analysis adequately bounds postulated event scenarios. The dose
consequences due to design basis accidents comply with the
requirements of 10 CFR 50.67 and the guidance of Regulatory Guide
1.183.
The proposed change is associated with the implementation of a
new licensing basis for JAFNPP design basis accidents. Approval of
the change from the original source term to a new source term taken
from Regulatory Guide 1.183 is being requested. The results of the
accident analysis, revised in support of the proposed license
amendment, are subject to revised acceptance criteria. The analysis
has been performed using conservative methodologies, as specified in
Regulatory Guide 1.183. Safety margins have been evaluated and
analytical conservatism has been utilized to ensure that the
analysis adequately bounds the postulated limiting event scenario.
The dose consequences of this design basis accident remain within
the acceptance criteria presented in 10 CFR 50.67 and Regulatory
Guide 1.183.
The proposed change continues to ensure that the doses at the
exclusion area boundary and low population zone boundary, as well as
the Control Room, are within corresponding regulatory limits.
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: Donald P. Ferraro, Assistant General
Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 200 Exelon Way, Suite 305,
Kennett Square, PA 19348.
NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna.
Exelon FitzPatrick, LLC and Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No.
50-333, James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant, Oswego County, New
York
Date of amendment request: September 26, 2019. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19269C622.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise
Technical Specification requirements for inoperable dynamic restraints
(snubbers) consistent with NRC-approved Revision 4 to Technical
Specification Task Force (TSTF) Standard Technical Specification Change
Traveler, TSTF-372, ``Addition of LCO 3.0.8, Inoperability of
Snubbers.''
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 allows a delay time before declaring
supported Technical Specification (TS) systems inoperable when the
associated snubber(s) cannot perform its required safety function.
Entrance into Actions or delaying entrance into Actions is
[[Page 63900]]
not an initiator of any accident previously evaluated. Consequently,
the probability of an accident previously evaluated is not
significantly increased. The consequences of an accident while
relying on the delay time allowed before declaring a TS supported
system inoperable and taking its Actions are no different than the
consequences of an accident under the same plant conditions while
relying on the existing TS supported system Actions. Therefore, the
consequences of an accident previously evaluated are not
significantly increased by this change. 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 allows a delay time before declaring
supported TS systems inoperable when the associated snubber(s)
cannot perform its required safety function. The proposed change
does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (no new or
different type of equipment will be installed) or a change in the
methods governing normal plant operation. Therefore, the proposed
change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change allows a delay time before declaring
supported TS Systems inoperable when the associated snubber(s)
cannot perform its required safety function. The proposed change
restores an allowance in the pre-Improved Standard Technical
Specifications (ISTS) conversion TS that was unintentionally
eliminated by the conversion. The pre-ISTS TS were considered to
provide an adequate margin of safety for plant operation, as does
post-ISTS conversion TS. 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: Donald P. Ferraro, Assistant General
Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 200 Exelon Way, Suite 305,
Kennett Square, PA 19348.
NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Docket No. 52-026, Vogtle Electric
Generating Plant (Vogtle or VEGP), Unit 4, Burke County, Georgia
Date of amendment request: August 22, 2019, as revised by letter
dated October 25, 2019. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession Nos. ML19234A327 and ML19298D420, respectively.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the
provided area of horizontal and vertical steel reinforcement for Vogtle
Unit 4 Wall L from elevation 117'-6'' to 135'-3'', and would revise the
provided area of horizontal steel reinforcement for VEGP Unit 4 Wall
7.3 from elevation 117'-6'' to 135'-3''. The proposed changes would
impact Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) Tier 2* information
in UFSAR Tables 3H.5-5 and 3H.5-7, and Figures 3H.5-4 and 3H.5-12. The
licensee's request dated August 22, 2019, was originally noticed in the
Federal Register on September 24, 2019 (84 FR 50082). The licensee's
supplement dated October 25, 2019, provided information regarding an
additional non-conformance identified for Wall L that would require
changes to Tier 2* information in the UFSAR to revise the provided area
of vertical reinforcement. This expanded the scope of the request
described in the original notice. Therefore, the notice is being
reissued in its entirety to include the revised scope, description of
the amendment request, and proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination.
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.
As described in UFSAR Subsections 3H.5.1.2 and 3H.5.1.3,
interior Wall 7.3 and Wall L are located in the auxiliary building.
UFSAR, Section 3H.5 classifies Interior Wall on Column Line 7.3,
from elevation (EL) 66'-6'' to 160'-6'' as a ``Critical Section.''
UFSAR, Section 3H.5 classifies Interior Wall on Column Line L, from
EL 117'-6'' to 153'-0'' as a ``Critical Section.'' Deviations were
identified in the constructed walls from the design requirements.
The proposed changes modify the provided area of steel reinforcement
for VEGP Unit 4 Wall L and Wall 7.3 from elevation 117'-6'' to 135'-
3''. These changes maintain conformance to American Concrete
Institute (ACI) 349-01 and have no adverse impact on the seismic
response of Wall L and Wall 7.3 Wall L and Wall 7.3 continue to
withstand the design basis loads without loss of structural
integrity or the safety-related functions. The proposed changes do
not affect the operation of any system or equipment that initiates
an analyzed accident or alter any structures, systems, and
components (SSC) accident initiator or initiating sequence of
events.
This change does not adversely affect the design function of
VEGP Unit 4 Wall L and Wall 7.3, or the SSCs contained within the
auxiliary building. This change does not involve any accident
initiating components or events, thus leaving the probabilities of
an accident unaltered.
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 modifies the provided area of steel
reinforcement for VEGP Unit 4 Wall L and Wall 7.3 from elevation
117'-6'' to 135'-3''. As demonstrated by the continued conformance
to the applicable codes and standards governing the design of the
structures, the walls withstand the same effects as previously
evaluated. The proposed change does not affect the operation of any
systems or equipment that may initiate a new of different kind of
accident or alter any SSC such that a new accident initiator or
initiating sequence of events is created. The proposed change does
not adversely affect the design function of auxiliary building Wall
L and Wall 7.3, or any other SSC design functions or methods of
operation in a manner that results in a new failure mode,
malfunction, or sequence of events that affect safety-related or
non-safety-related equipment. This change 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 modifies the provided area of steel
reinforcement for VEGP Unit 4 Wall L and Wall 7.3 from elevation
117'-6'' to 135'-3''. This change maintains conformance to ACI 349-
01. The changes to Wall L and Wall 7.3 reinforcement from elevation
117'-6'' to 135'-3'' do not change the performance of the affected
portion of the auxiliary building for postulated loads. The criteria
and requirements of ACI 349-01 provide a margin of safety to
structural failure. The design of the auxiliary building structure
conforms to criteria and requirements in ACI 349-01 and therefore,
maintains the margin of safety. The change does not alter any design
function, design analysis, or safety analysis input or result, and
sufficient margin exists to justify departure from the Tier 2*
requirements for the walls. As such, because the system continues to
respond to design basis accidents in the same manner as before
without any changes to the expected response of the structure, no
safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is
challenged or exceeded by the proposed changes. Accordingly, no
significant safety margin is reduced by the change.
[[Page 63901]]
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: M. Stanford Blanton, Balch & Bingham LLP,
1710 Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 35203-2015.
NRC Branch Chief: Victor E. Hall.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-259, 50-260, and 50-296,
Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2 and 3, Limestone County, Alabama
Date of amendment request: September 18, 2019. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19262F378.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would
revise the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3, Emergency
Plan to extend staff augmentation times for Emergency Response
Organization functions.
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 increase in staff augmentation times has no effect
on normal plant operation or on any accident initiator or precursors
and does not impact the function of plant structures, systems, or
components (SSCs). The proposed change does not alter or prevent the
ability of the Emergency Response Organization to perform their
intended functions to mitigate the consequences of an accident or
event. The ability of the emergency response organization to respond
adequately to radiological emergencies has been demonstrated as
acceptable through a staffing analysis as required by 10 CFR 50
Appendix E.IV.A.9.
Therefore, the proposed Emergency Plan 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.
The proposed change does not impact the accident analysis. The
change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no
new or different type of equipment will be installed), a change in
the method of plant operation, or new operator actions. The proposed
change does not introduce failure modes that could result in a new
accident, and the change does not alter assumptions made in the
safety analysis. This proposed change increases the staff
augmentation response times in the Emergency Plan, which are
demonstrated as acceptable through a staffing analysis as required
by 10 CFR 50 Appendix E.IV.A.9. The proposed change does not alter
or prevent the ability of the Emergency Response Organization to
perform their intended functions to mitigate the consequences of an
accident or event.
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.
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 change is
associated with the Emergency Plan staffing and does not impact
operation of the plant or its response to transients or accidents.
The change does not affect the Technical Specifications. The
proposed change does not involve a change in the method of plant
operation, and no accident analyses will be affected by the proposed
change. Safety analysis acceptance criteria are not affected by this
proposed change. The revised Emergency Plan will continue to provide
the necessary response staff with the proposed change. A staffing
analysis and a functional analysis were performed for the proposed
change on the timeliness of performing major tasks for the
functional areas of Emergency Plan. The analysis concluded that an
extension in staff augmentation times would not significantly affect
the ability to perform the required Emergency Plan tasks. Therefore,
the proposed change is determined to not adversely affect the
ability to meet 10 CFR 50.54(q)(2), the requirements of 10 CFR 50
Appendix E, and the emergency planning standards as described in 10
CFR 50.47(b).
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority,
400 West Summit Hill Drive, 6A West Tower, Knoxville, TN 37902.
NRC Branch Chief: Undine Shoop.
Virginia Electric and Power Company (Dominion Energy Virginia)--
Virginia, Docket Nos. 50-280 and 50-281, Surry Power Station, Unit Nos.
1 and 2, Surry County, Virginia
Date of amendment request: September 19, 2019. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19269B775.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise
Technical Specifications (TSs) for the Surry Power Station (Surry),
Units 1 and 2. The proposed change would revise TS Figure 3.1-1,
``Surry Units 1 and 2 Reactor Coolant System Heatup Limitations,'' and
Figure 3.1-2, ``Surry Units 1 and 2 Reactor Coolant System Cooldown
Limitations,'' to update the cumulative core burnup applicability limit
and to revise and relocate the limiting material property basis from
the TS figures to the TS Bases. The proposed changes would be
implemented as a result of evaluations performed for the Surry
subsequent license renewal application.
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 revises the Surry Units 1 and 2 TS RCS
[Reactor Coolant System] Heatup and Cooldown Limitations figures to
reflect an increase in the cumulative core burnup applicability
limit to 68 EFPY [Effective Full Power Years]. The existing Surry TS
RCS P-T Limits, LTOPS [Low Temperature Overpressure Protection
System] Setpoint, and T-enable value remain valid and conservative
for cumulative core burnup up to 68 EFPY, thus increasing the
cumulative core burnup applicability limit for RCS P-T Limits, LTOPS
Setpoints and LTOPS T-enable to 68 EFPY has no bearing on the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
These evaluations address the LTOPS design basis mass addition
accident (inadvertent charging pump start), heat addition accident
(Reactor Coolant Pump (RCP) start with a secondary-to-primary
temperature difference of 50 [deg]F) and Pressurized Thermal Shock
(PTS) events, the analysis of which is covered by 10 CFR 50.61.
The increased cumulative core burnup applicability is
accomplished through application of improved analytical margins
using the Klc reference stress intensity factor, instead
of the older, more conservative Kla reference stress
intensity factor. Dominion Energy Virginia assessed the effect of
use of the analytical margins and determined that the existing TS
limits (RCS P-T Limits,
[[Page 63902]]
LTOPS Setpoints and LTOPS T-enable) governing reactor vessel
integrity remain valid and conservative for cumulative core burnup
to 68 EFPY. No changes to plant systems, structures or components
are proposed, and no new operating modes are established.
Therefore, there is no increase in the probability or
consequences of any 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.
No changes to plant operating conditions, operating limits or
setpoints are being proposed and no changes to plant systems,
structures or components are being implemented. The existing Surry
TS RCS P-T Limits, LTOPS Setpoints, and LTOPS T-enable value remain
valid and conservative for cumulative core burnups up to 68 EFPY.
Analysis supporting the increased cumulative core burnup
applicability limit was performed in accordance with applicable
regulatory guidance and confirms that design functions (i.e.,
ensuring that combined pressure and thermal stresses under normal
operating heatup and cooldown conditions and under design basis
accident conditions at low temperature) are maintained.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of any accident or malfunction of a different type previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The increased cumulative core burnup applicability limit is
accomplished through application of improved analytical margins
provided by using the Klc reference stress intensity
factor, instead of the older, more conservative Kla
reference stress intensity factor. Dominion Energy Virginia assessed
the effect of the use of the analytical margins and determined that
the existing TS P-T Limits, LTOPS Setpoint, and LTOPS T-enable value
governing reactor vessel integrity remain valid and conservative for
cumulative core burnups up to 68 EFPY. No Changes to plant systems,
structures or components are proposed, and no new operating modes
are established. Furthermore, plant operating limits and setpoints
are not being changed. Consequently, the TS P-T Limits, LTOPS
Setpoint, and LTOPS T-enable value provide acceptable margin to
vessel fracture under both normal operation and LTOPS design basis
(mass addition and heat addition) accident conditions for cumulative
core burnups up to 68 EFPY.
Therefore, the proposed change does not result in 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: W.S. Blair, Senior Counsel, Dominion Energy
Services Inc., 120 Tredegar St., 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.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287,
Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, Oconee County, South
Carolina
Date of amendment request: September 14, 2018, as supplemented by
letters dated January 24, 2019, and July 31, 2019.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the Updated
Final Safety Analysis Report regarding tornado licensing basis to allow
credit for the Standby Shutdown Facility to mitigate a tornado with the
assumed initial conditions of loss of all alternating current power to
all units with significant tornado damage to one unit, approval for the
use of tornado missile probabilistic methodology, and approval for
elimination of the spent fuel pool to high pressure injection flow path
for reactor coolant makeup.
Date of issuance: October 31, 2019.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
by the completion of the following refueling outages: 1EC33 (Fall 2024)
for Unit 1, 2EC32 (Fall 2025) for Unit 2, and 3EC33 (Spring 2026) for
Unit 3.
Amendment Nos.: 415 (Unit 1), 417 (Unit 2), and 416 (Unit 3). A
publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19260E084;
documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety
Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-38, DPR-47, and DPR-55: The
amendments revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Updated Final
Safety Analysis Report.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 2, 2019 (84 FR
12641). The supplemental letter dated July 31, 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 October 31, 2019.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-325 and 50-324, Brunswick
Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, Brunswick County, North Carolina
Date of amendment request: August 30, 2018.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments added new required
actions and completion times for three inoperable control room air
conditioning subsystems to Technical Specification 3.7.4, ``Control
Room Air Conditioning (AC) System.''
Date of issuance: October 25, 2019.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 120 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 294 (Unit 1) and 322 (Unit 2). A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession
[[Page 63903]]
No. ML19254E076; documents related to these amendments are listed in
the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-71 and DPR-62: The
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 6, 2018 (83 FR
55571).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated October 25, 2019.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-325 and 50-324, Brunswick
Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, Brunswick County, North Carolina
Date of amendment request: October 18, 2018, as supplemented by
letter dated April 3, 2019.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the
allowable value associated with Function 1.b (i.e., 4.16 kV Emergency
Bus Undervoltage (Loss of Voltage)--Time Delay) in Table 3.3.8.1-1,
``Loss of Power Instrumentation,'' of Technical Specification 3.3.8.1.
Date of issuance: October 31, 2019.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
prior to the end of the 2023 Unit 2 refueling outage.
Amendment Nos.: 295 (Unit 1) and 323 (Unit 2). A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19268A054; documents related
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with
the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-71 and DPR-62: The
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 31, 2019 (84 FR
811). The letter dated April 3, 2019, provided additional information
that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the
application as originally noticed, and did not change the NRC staff's
original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as
published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated October 31, 2019.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-313 and 50-368, Arkansas
Nuclear One, Units 1 and 2, Pope County, Arkansas
Date of amendment request: September 5, 2019.
Brief description of amendment: The amendments extended the
implementation dates for Amendment Nos. 263 and 314, ``Revision to the
Emergency Action Level Scheme,'' which were issued on January 17, 2019,
for Arkansas Nuclear One, Units 1 and 2, respectively. Amendment Nos.
263 and 314 were effective on the date of issuance (i.e., January 17,
2019) and were required to be implemented on or before October 30,
2019. Amendment Nos. 267 and 317 for Arkansas Nuclear One, Units 1 and
2, respectively, extend the implementation dates from October 30, 2019,
to January 14, 2020.
Date of issuance: October 22, 2019.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
by January 14, 2020.
Amendment Nos.: 267 (Unit 1) and 317 (Unit 2). A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19269B672; documents related
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with
the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-51 and NPF-6: The
amendments revised the Emergency Plan.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 19, 2019 (84
FR 49349).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments and final
determination of no significant hazards consideration is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated October 22, 2019.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-382, Waterford Steam Electric
Station, Unit 3, St. Charles Parish, Louisiana
Date of amendment request: April 12, 2018, as supplemented by
letters dated June 13, 2018; January 19, 2019; and July 11, 2019.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment approved the use of
the TRANFLOW code for determining pressure drops across the steam
generator secondary side internal components.
Date of issuance: October 24, 2019.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
30 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 256. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML19275D438; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-38: The amendment
revised the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 4, 2018 (83
FR 44919). The supplements dated January 19, 2019, and July 11, 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 October 24, 2019.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-
277 and 50-278, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station (Peach Bottom), Units
2 and 3, York and Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: April 26, 2019, as supplemented by
letters dated May 23, 2019, and July 24, 2019.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the Peach
Bottom, Units 2 and 3, Technical Specifications (TSs) to support a
temporary one-time extension of the completion time for TS 3.8.1, ``AC
Power--Operating,'' Required Action A.3, from 7 days to 21 days. This
temporary one-time TS change was needed to allow sufficient time to
perform physical modification work to replace 27 electrical cables from
the transformer to the junction box serving the feed switchgear.
Date of issuance: October 29, 2019.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance.
Amendments Nos.: 328 (Unit 2) and 331 (Unit 3). A publicly-
available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19266A622;
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 TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 18, 2019 (84 FR
28345). The supplemental letters dated May 23, 2019, and July 24, 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
[[Page 63904]]
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 October 29, 2019.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-244, R. E. Ginna Nuclear
Power Plant, Wayne County, New York
Date of amendment request: January 15, 2019.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the R. E.
Ginna Nuclear Power Plant emergency response organization (ERO)
positions identified in the emergency plan, including the on-shift,
minimum, and full-augmentation ERO staffing requirements. The proposed
revisions include eliminating ERO positions; adding ERO positions;
changing position descriptions, duties, and duty locations; and
relocating certain position descriptions to other parts of the
emergency plan or to implementing procedures.
Date of issuance: October 29, 2019.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
on or before December 31, 2019.
Amendment No.: 134. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML19252A246; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-18: The amendment
revised the Renewed Facility Operating License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 23, 2019 (84 FR
16894). The supplemental letter dated May 23, 2019, provided additional
information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of
the application as originally noticed, and did not change the 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 October 29, 2019.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Holtec Pilgrim, LLC and Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC,
Docket No. 50-293, Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, Plymouth County,
Massachusetts
Date of amendment request: September 13, 2018, as supplemented by
letters dated January 10, February 8, March 14, and July 16, 2019.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Pilgrim
Nuclear Power Station Renewed Facility Operating License and the
associated Technical Specifications to Permanently Defueled Technical
Specifications, consistent with the permanent cessation of operations
and permanent removal of fuel from the reactor vessel.
Date of issuance: October 28, 2019.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days.
Amendment No.: 250. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML19275E425; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-35: The amendment
revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical
Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 6, 2018 (83 FR
55572). The supplemental letters dated January 10, February 8, March
14, and July 16, 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 October 28, 2019.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Nebraska Public Power District, Docket No. 50-298, Cooper Nuclear
Station, Nemaha County, Nebraska
Date of amendment request: February 28, 2019.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Cooper
Nuclear Station Technical Specifications to define a new time limit for
restoring inoperable reactor coolant system (RCS) leakage detection
instrumentation to operable status and establish alternate methods of
monitoring RCS leakage when one or more required monitors are
inoperable. These changes are consistent with NRC-approved Technical
Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Standard Technical Specifications
Change Traveler TSTF-514, Revision 3, ``Revise BWR [Boiling Water
Reactor] Operability Requirements and Actions for RCS Leakage
Instrumentation,'' as part of the consolidated line item improvement
process.
Date of issuance: October 30, 2019.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 263. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML19238A007; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-46: Amendment revised
the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 4, 2019 (84 FR
25838).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated October 30, 2019.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026,
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (Vogtle), Units 3 and 4, Burke County,
Georgia
Date of amendment request: April 26, 2019.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the
Combined License (COL) Nos. NPF-91 and NPF-92 for Vogtle, Units 3 and
4, and the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report 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
amendments authorized 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
changes revised the COL, License Condition 2.D.(2)(a)2, by removing the
requirement to perform the ADS Blowdown first three plant tests during
pre-operational testing.
Date of issuance: October 22, 2019.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 165 (Unit 3) and 163 (Unit 4). A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Package Accession No. ML19262F850; documents
related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation
enclosed with the amendments.
Facility Combined License Nos. NPF-91 and NPF-92: The amendments
revised the Facility Combined Licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 18, 2019 (84 FR
28346).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a
[[Page 63905]]
Safety Evaluation dated October 22, 2019.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
STP Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 50-498 and 50-499, South
Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, Matagorda County, Texas
Date of amendment request: April 24, 2019.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical
Specification (TS) Tables 2.2-1, 3.3-1, and 4.3-1 to change the
description of the P-13 permissive interlock for the Reactor Trip
System instrumentation. The current phrases, ``Turbine Impulse Chamber
Pressure'' and ``Turbine Impulse Pressure,'' are replaced with the
phrase, ``Turbine Inlet Pressure,'' throughout the TSs, resulting in a
more generic P-13 description that does not specify a particular
turbine design.
Date of issuance: October 24, 2019.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 217 (Unit 1) and 203 (Unit 2). A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19217A060; documents related
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with
the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-76 and NPF-80: The
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 4, 2019 (84 FR
25840).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated October 24, 2019.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Vistra Operations Company LLC, Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446, Comanche
Peak Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Somervell County, Texas
Date of amendment request: October 31, 2018, as supplemented by
letters dated March 28, 2019, and June 3, 2019.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the
Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Emergency Plan by
changing the Emergency Response Organization (ERO) staff augmentation
times and reducing the required number of ERO positions.
Date of issuance: November 4, 2019.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 180 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 172 (Unit 1) and 172 (Unit 2). A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19267A018; documents related
to the amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the
amendments.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-87 and NPF-89: The amendments
revised the Emergency Plan.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 2, 2019 (84 FR
26). The supplemental letters dated March 28, 2019, and June 3, 2019,
provided additional information that clarified the application, did not
expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not
change the NRC staff's original proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated November 4, 2019.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 8th day of November, 2019.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Jamie M. Heisserer,
Acting Deputy Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office
of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2019-24748 Filed 11-18-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
