83 FR 31180 - Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 128 (July 3, 2018)
Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 128 (July 3, 2018)
| Page Range | 31180-31190 | |
| FR Document | 2018-13758 |
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 128 (Tuesday, July 3, 2018)] [Notices] [Pages 31180-31190] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2018-13758] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [NRC-2018-0124] Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Biweekly notice. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 189a.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is publishing this regular biweekly notice. The Act requires the Commission to publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to be issued, and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license or combined license, as applicable, upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person. This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or proposed to be issued, from June 5, 2018, to June 18, 2018. The last biweekly notice was published on June 19, 2018. DATES: Comments must be filed by August 2, 2018. A request for a hearing must be filed by September 3, 2018. 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-2018-0124. Address questions about NRC dockets to Jennifer Borges; telephone: 301-287- 9127; email: Jennifer.Borges@nrc.gov. For technical questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document. Mail comments to: May Ma, Office of Administration, Mail Stop: TWFN-7-A60M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see ``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paula Blechman, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2242, email: Paula.Blechman@nrc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments A. Obtaining Information Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2018-0124, 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-2018-0124. 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 ``ADAMS Public Documents'' and then select ``Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.'' For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The ADAMS accession number for each document referenced (if it is available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that it is mentioned in this document. NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. B. Submitting Comments Please include Docket ID NRC-2018-0124, facility name, unit number(s), plant docket number, application date, and subject in your comment submission. [[Page 31181]] 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. 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 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 [[Page 31182]] 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 hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by telephone at 301-415-1677, to (1) request a digital identification (ID) certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or representative) to digitally sign submissions and access the E-Filing system for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a petition or other adjudicatory document (even in instances in which the participant, or its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC- issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the hearing in this proceeding if the Secretary has not already established an electronic docket. Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public 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 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 MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672- 7640. The NRC Electronic Filing Help Desk is available between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays. Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing adjudicatory documents in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists. Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at https://adams.nrc.gov/ehd, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the Commission or the presiding officer. If you do not have an NRC-issued digital ID certificate as described above, click cancel when the link requests certificates and you will be automatically directed to the NRC's electronic hearing dockets where you will be able to access any publicly available documents in a particular [[Page 31183]] 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. Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-325 and 50-324, Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Brunswick County, North Carolina Date of amendment request: April 25, 2018. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18121A366. Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise an existing Note for Technical Specification (TS) 3.8.3, ``Diesel Fuel Oil,'' to allow, on a one-time basis, the main fuel oil storage tank to be inoperable for up to 14 days for the purpose of performing required inspection, cleaning, and any necessary repair activities. 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 does not alter the assumption of the accident analyses or the Technical Specification Bases. The Diesel Fuel Oil system supplies each Emergency Diesel Generator (EDG) with fuel oil capacity sufficient to operate that EDG for a period of approximately seven days while the EDG is operating at rated load. The one-time allowance to permit internal inspection of the main fuel oil storage tank during plant operation does not impact the availability of the EDGs to perform their intended safety function. Furthermore, while the main fuel oil storage tank is out of service, the availability of onsite and offsite fuel oil sources ensures that an adequate supply of fuel oil remains available. In addition to supplying the four EDGs, the main fuel oil storage tank also supplies the Standby Diesel Fire Pump fuel oil tank. With the main fuel oil storage tank out of service, operator actions necessary to refill this tank are similar in nature to existing operator actions. As such, this change does not adversely impact fire protection capabilities. Therefore, the proposed amendments 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. Creation of the possibility of a new or different kind of accident requires creating one or more new accident precursors. New accident precursors may be created by modifications of plant configuration, including changes in allowable modes of operation. The proposed change does not involve a physical change to the design of the Diesel Fuel Oil system, nor does it alter the assumptions of the accident analyses. The one-time allowance to permit internal inspection of the main fuel oil storage tank during plant operation does not introduce any new failure modes. Therefore, the proposed amendments 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 proposed change alters the method of operation of the Diesel Fuel Oil system. However the availability of the EDGs to perform their intended safety function is not impacted and the assumptions of the accident analyses are not altered. Additionally, this change does not adversely impact fire protection capabilities. Therefore, the proposed amendments do 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: Kathryn B. Nolan, Deputy General Counsel, 550 South Tryon Street, M/C DEC45A, Charlotte, NC 28202. NRC Acting Branch Chief: Brian W. Tindell. Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-317 and 50-318, Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 (CCNPP), Calvert County, Maryland Date of amendment request: April 20, 2018. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18113A090. Description of amendment request: The amendments would change (TS) 5.2.2, ``Unit Staff,'' by deleting TS 5.2.2.g.3 related to specific requirements for shift technical advisor (STA) personnel education and training. This change is needed to remove a previously accepted means of filling the STA role that no longer applies to CCNPP. 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 any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed amendment removes one of three permissible means for filling the STA position. TS 5.2.2.g defines the education and experience requirements for personnel filling the STA position during operation of either Unit in Modes 1, 2, 3, or 4. It provides three permissible means to fill the STA position. One of those means (TS 5.2.2.g.3) is unique to CCNPP and is no longer needed. The remaining requirements (TS 5.2.2.g.1 and TS 5.2.2.g.2) for filling the STA position meet the guidance provided in Generic Letter 86-04, Policy Statement on Engineering Expertise on Shift. This is an administrative change. This change does not involve any change to the design basis of the plant or of any structure, system or component. As a result, there is no change to the probability or consequences of any previously evaluated accident. Therefore, the operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident form any previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed amendment removes one of three permissible means for filling the STA position. TS 5.2.2.g defines the education and experience requirements for personnel filling the STA position during operation of either Unit in Modes 1, 2, 3, or 4. It provides three permissible means to fill the STA position. One of those means (TS 5.2.2.g.3) is unique to CCNPP and is no longer needed. The remaining requirements (TS 5.2.2.g.1 and TS 5.2.2.g.2) for filling the STA position meet the guidance provided in Generic Letter 86-04, Policy Statement on Engineering [[Page 31184]] Expertise on Shift. This is an administrative change. This change does not involve any change to the design basis of the plant or of any structure, system or component. The proposed amendment does not impose any new or different requirements. The change does not alter assumptions made in the safety analyses. The proposed change is consistent with the safety analyses assumptions and current plant operating practice. Therefore, the operation of the facility in accordance with 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 amendment removes one of three permissible means for filling the STA position. TS 5.2.2.g defines the education and experience requirements for personnel filling the STA position during operation of either Unit in Modes 1, 2, 3, or 4. It provides three permissible means to fill the STA position. One of those means (TS 5.2.2.g.3) is unique to CCNPP and is no longer needed. The remaining requirements (TS 5.2.2.g.1 and TS 5.2.2.g.2) for filling the STA position meet the guidance provided in Generic Letter 86-04, Policy Statement on Engineering Expertise on Shift. This is an administrative change. This change does not involve any change to the design basis of the plant or of any structure, system or component. As a result, there is no decrease in any margin of safety due to this proposed change. Therefore, operation of the facility in accordance with 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: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555. NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna. Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-220, Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1 (NMP1), Oswego County, New York Date of amendment request: March 13, 2018. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18072A182. Description of amendment request: The amendment would modify NMP1, Technical Specifications Surveillance Requirement (SR) 4.2.7.d for reactor coolant system isolation valves and SR 4.2.7.1.a for reactor coolant system pressure isolation valve leakage to relocate the specific surveillance frequency to the NMP1 Inservice Testing Program. 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. Performance of lnservice Testing is not an initiator to any accident previously evaluated. As a result, the probability of occurrence of an accident is not significantly affected by the proposed change. The availability of the affected components, as well as their ability to mitigate the consequences of accidents previously evaluated, is not affected. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed change does not alter the design or configuration of the plant. The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant; no new or different kind of equipment will be installed. The proposed change does not alter the types of lnservice Testing performed. The frequency of lnservice Testing is unchanged. 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 eliminates [surveillance] requirements from the TS in lieu of requirements in the ASME [American Society of Mechanical Engineers] Code. Compliance with the ASME Code is required by 10 CFR 50.55a. Should the component be inoperable, the Technical Specifications provide actions to ensure that the margin of safety is protected. 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. Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-220, Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1, Oswego County, New York Date of amendment request: February 9, 2018. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18040A636. Description of amendment request: The amendment would remove the Boraflex credit from the two remaining Boraflex storage racks located in the spent fuel pool. The licensee plans to install permanent cell blockers in pre-determined spent fuel pool rack cells thus eliminating reliance on Boraflex for spent fuel pool reactivity control. 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 does not make any change to the systems, structures or components in the Nine Mile Point Unit 1 (NMP1) Spent Fuel Pool (SFP) except for the installation of cell blockers in pre- determined Boraflex rack cells. The change is necessary to ensure that, with continued Boraflex degradation over time, the effective neutron multiplication factor, k eff , is less than 0.95, if the SFP is fully flooded with unborated water. The proposed change does not change the manner in which spent fuel is handled, moved or stored in the storage rack cells. The installation of the cell blockers does not impact the fuel source terms, therefore, there is no adverse radiological impact. The installation of the cell blockers does not change the decay heat and the cell blockers meet the criterion to allow for continued water flow through the storage cell; thus, there is no adverse thermal-hydraulic impact. 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. Onsite storage of spent fuel assemblies in the NMP1 SFP is a normal activity for which NMP1 has been designed and licensed. As part of assuring that this normal activity can be performed without endangering public health and safety, the ability to safely accommodate different possible accidents in the SFP, such as dropping a fuel bundle or misleading a fuel bundle, have been analyzed. The proposed SFP storage configuration using cell blockers does not change the methods of fuel movement or spent fuel storage. The proposed change of [[Page 31185]] using cell blockers in pre-determined Boraflex rack cells allows for continued use of SFP storage rack cells with degraded Boraflex while assuring the effective neutron multiplication factor, keff , is less than 0.95. The proposed use of cell blockers in the pre-determined Boraflex rack cells does not create a possible new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. The displacement of the SFP water by the cell blockers is small and hence has an insignificant impact on the heat transfer from fuel assemblies to the SFP water, the time-to-boil and boil-off rate in the SFP. The stresses in the storage rack under the loaded weight of fuel assemblies and the cell blockers will remain within the allowable limits and will be bounded by the rack seismic analysis. The accident condition, where a fuel assembly is dropped onto the cell blocker, will not cause loss of the cell blocker function. 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 maintain, per Attachment 3, the keff to be less than 0.95 and thus preserve the required safety margin of 5%. The installation of the cell blockers does not impact the fuel source terms and decay heat and hence has no adverse radiological impact. In addition, the radiological consequences of a dropped fuel bundle are unchanged because the event involving a dropped fuel bundle onto a spent fuel storage rack cell containing a cell blocker is bounded by the radiological consequences of a dropped fuel bundle onto a spent fuel storage rack cell containing a stored fuel bundle. 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. Florida Power and Light Company, Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251, Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 3 and 4 (Turkey Point), Miami-Dade County, Florida Date of amendment request: May 14, 2018. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18134A264. Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the technical specifications to increase the minimum load required for the Emergency Diesel Generator (EDG) partial-load rejection surveillance requirement (SR). Additionally, the amendments would modify the EDG voltage and frequency limits for the SR and establish a recovery period for the EDG(s) to return to steady-state conditions. 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 modify an EDG surveillance test by aligning the voltage and frequency limits with the current licensing basis and the Westinghouse STS [Standard Technical Specification]. As such, the proposed changes cannot be an initiator of any previously evaluated accident, increase its likelihood or increase the likelihood of an EDG malfunction or supported equipment. The proposed changes to the voltage and frequency limits for the immediate aftermath of a partial-load rejection and the proposed recovery period will not affect the manner in which EDGs are designed or operated. The EDGs have no time-dependent failure modes as a result of the proposed changes and will continue to operate within the parameters assumed in applicable accident analyses. Hence no impact on the consequences of any previously evaluated accident will result from the proposed changes. Therefore, facility operation in accordance with the proposed changes would 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 modify an EDG surveillance test by aligning the voltage and frequency limits with the current licensing basis and the Westinghouse STS. The proposed changes do not modify the manner in which the EDGs are designed or operated and thereby cannot introduce new failure modes, impact existing plant equipment in a manner not previously evaluated or initiate a new type of malfunction or accident. The proposed changes serve to enhance EDG reliability and availability and as such, cannot adversely affect the EDGs' ability to perform as originally designed, including their capability to withstand a worst case single failure. 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 changes modify an EDG surveillance test by aligning the voltage and frequency limits with the current licensing basis and the Westinghouse STS. The proposed changes do not modify any setpoints for which protective actions associated with accident detection or mitigation are initiated. The proposed change neither affects the design of plant equipment nor the manner in which the plant is operated. The proposed changes increase the reliability and the availability of the EDGs and as such, cannot adversely impact any Turkey Point safety limits or limiting safety settings. Therefore, operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed change will 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: Debbie Hendell, Managing Attorney--Nuclear, Florida Power & Light Company, 700 Universe Blvd. MS LAW/JB, Juno Beach, Florida 33408-0420. NRC Acting Branch Chief: Booma Venkataraman. Florida Power and Light Company, Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251, Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 3 and 4, Miami-Dade County, Florida Date of amendment request: May 3, 2018. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18127B714. Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the Technical Specifications by revising Safety Limit 2.1.1.b, to reflect the peak fuel centerline temperature specified in WCAP-17642-P-A, Revision 1, ``Westinghouse Performance Analysis and Design Model (PAD5).'' A non-proprietary version (WCAP-17642-NP-A, Revision (1) can be found in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17338A396. 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 amendments involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. There are no design changes associated with the proposed amendments. All design, material, and construction standards that were applicable prior to this amendment request will continue to be applicable. The [[Page 31186]] proposed amendments will not affect accident initiators or precursors or alter the design, conditions, and configuration of the facility, or the manner in which the plant is operated and maintained, with respect to such initiators or precursors. Compliance with Safety Limit 2.1.1.b is required to confirm that fuel cladding failure does not occur as a result of fuel centerline melting. The fuel centerline melt temperature limit is established to preclude centerline melting. The proposed change to the fuel centerline melt temperature limit has been reviewed by the NRC and found to be appropriately conservative with respect to the fuel material properties in the Final Safety Evaluation for WCAP-17642-P- A, Revision 1 Accident analysis acceptance criteria will continue to be met with the proposed amendments. Hence, the proposed amendments will not affect the source term, containment isolation, or radiological release assumptions used in evaluating the radiological consequences of any accident previously evaluated. The proposed amendments will not alter any assumptions or change any mitigation actions in the radiological consequence evaluations in the Turkey Point Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). Consequently, the applicable radiological dose acceptance criteria will continue to be met. Therefore, the proposed amendments do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Do the proposed amendments create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. There are no proposed design changes nor are there any changes in the method by which any safety-related plant structures, systems, and components perform their specified safety functions. The proposed amendments will not affect the normal method of plant operation or change any operating parameters. No equipment performance requirements will be affected. The proposed amendments will not alter any assumptions made in the safety analyses. The proposed amendments revise Reactor Core Safety Limit 2.1.1.b; however, the change does not involve a physical modification of the plant. No new accident scenarios, transient precursors, failure mechanisms, or limiting single failures will result from this amendment. Hence, there will be no adverse effect or challenges imposed on any safety-related system as a result of these amendments. Therefore, the proposed amendments do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated. 3. Do the proposed amendments involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The revised Safety Limit 2.1.1.b has been calculated based on the NRC-approved methods which ensure that the plant operates in compliance with all regulatory criteria. There will be no effect on those plant systems necessary to effect the accomplishment of protection functions. No instrument setpoints or system response times are affected and none of the acceptance criteria for any accident analysis will be changed. Consequently, the proposed amendments will have no impact on the radiological consequences of a design basis accident. Therefore, the proposed amendments 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: Debbie Hendell, Managing Attorney--Nuclear, Florida Power & Light Company, 700 Universe Blvd. MS LAW/JB, Juno Beach, Florida 33408-0420. NRC Acting Branch Chief: Booma Venkataraman. NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC, Docket No. 50-443, Seabrook Station, Unit No. 1, Rockingham County, New Hampshire Date of amendment request: March 16, 2018. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18079A058. Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the frequencies for performing the relative pressure measurement and the assessment of the control room envelope boundary required by (TS) 6.7.6.l, Control Room Envelope Habitability Program, from 18 months to 36 months. 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 TS administrative controls associated with the proposed change to the TS are not initiators of any accidents previously evaluated, so the probability of accidents previously evaluated is unaffected by the proposed changes. The proposed change does not alter the design, function, or operation of any plant structure, system, or component (SSC). The capability of any operable TS- required SSC to perform its specified safety function is not impacted by the proposed change. As a result, the outcomes of accidents previously evaluated are unaffected. Therefore, the proposed changes do 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 previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed change does not challenge the integrity or performance of any safety-related systems. No plant equipment is installed or removed, and the changes do not alter the design, physical configuration, or method of operation of any plant SSC. No physical changes are made to the plant, so no new causal mechanisms are introduced. Therefore, the proposed changes to the TS 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 the margin of safety? Response: No. The ability of any operable SSC to perform its designated safety function is unaffected by the proposed changes. The proposed changes do not alter any safety analyses assumptions, safety limits, limiting safety system settings, or method of operating the plant. The changes do not adversely affect plant operating margins or the reliability of equipment credited in the safety analyses. With the proposed change, the control room envelope remains capable of performing its safety function. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Attorney for licensee: Debbie Hendell, Managing Attorney, Florida Power & Light Company, P.O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420. NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna. PSEG Nuclear LLC and Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-272 and 50-311, Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Salem County, New Jersey Date of amendment request: May 16, 2018. A publicly-available versions is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18136A866. Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise (TS) 3.8.2.1, ``A.C. [Alternating Current] Distribution--Operating,'' to increase the Vital Instrument Bus Inverters allowed outage time (AOT) from 24 hours for the A, B and C inverters to 7 days and from 72 hours for the D inverter to 7 days. The proposed extended AOT is based on application of the Salem Generating Station Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) in support of a risk-informed extension, and on additional considerations and compensatory actions. Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the [[Page 31187]] 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 TS amendment does not affect the design of the vital A.C. inverters, the operational characteristics or function of the inverters, the interfaces between the inverters and other plant systems, or the reliability of the inverters. An inoperable vital A.C. inverter is not considered an initiator of an analyzed event. In addition, TS Actions and the associated Allowed Outage Times are not initiators of previously evaluated accidents. Extending the Allowed Outage Time for an inoperable vital A.C. inverter would not have a significant impact on the frequency of occurrence of an accident previously evaluated. The proposed amendment will not result in modifications to plant activities associated with inverter maintenance, but rather, provides operational flexibility by allowing additional time to perform inverter troubleshooting, corrective maintenance, and post-maintenance testing on-line. The proposed extension of the Allowed Outage Time for an inoperable vital A.C. inverter will not significantly affect the capability of the inverters to perform their safety function, which is to ensure an uninterruptible supply of 115-volt A.C. electrical power to the associated power distribution subsystems. An evaluation, using PRA methods, confirmed that the increase in plant risk associated with implementation of the proposed Allowed Outage Time extension is consistent with the NRC's Safety Goal Policy Statement, as further described in RG [Regulatory Guide] 1.174 and RG 1.177. In addition, a deterministic evaluation concluded that plant defense-in-depth philosophy will be maintained with the proposed Allowed Outage Time extension. There will be no impact on the source term or pathways assumed in accidents previously evaluated. No analysis assumptions will be changed and there will be no adverse effects on onsite or offsite doses as the result of an accident. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed amendment does not involve physical alteration of the Salem Generating Station. No new equipment is being introduced, and installed equipment is not being operated in a new or different manner. There is no change being made to the parameters within which Salem is operated. There are no setpoints at which protective or mitigating actions are initiated that are affected by this proposed action. The use of the alternate Class 1E power source for the vital A.C. instrument bus is consistent with the Salem plant design. The change does not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis. This proposed action will not alter the manner in which equipment operation is initiated, nor will the functional demands on credited equipment be changed. No alteration is proposed to the procedures that ensure Salem remains within analyzed limits, and no change is being made to procedures relied upon to respond to an off-normal event. As such, no new failure modes are being introduced. 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. Margin of safety is related to the confidence in the ability of the fission product barriers to perform their design functions during and following an accident. These barriers include the fuel cladding, the reactor coolant system, and the containment system. The proposed change, which would increase the AOT from 24/72 hours to 7 days for one inoperable inverter, does not exceed or alter a setpoint, design basis or safety limit. 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: Jeffrie J. Keenan, PSEG Nuclear LLC--N21, P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038. NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna. Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation (WCNOC), Docket No. 50-482, Wolf Creek Generating Station (WCGS), Unit No. 1, Coffey County, Kansas Date of amendment request: May 9, 2018. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18135A172. Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the Emergency Plan for WCGS to (1) reduce the number of required Emergency Response Organization positions; (2) standardize Technical Support Center activation time to 75 minutes; (3) replace the current normal full-time work hours licensed medical practitioner position with First Aid Responders; and (4) remove reference to performing dose assessment using containment pressure indication. Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed change to the WCNOC Emergency Plan is administrative in nature. This proposed change does not alter accident analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the function of plant systems or the manner in which systems are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed change does not require any plant modifications which affect the performance capability of the structures, systems, and components (SSCs) relied upon to mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents, and has no impact on the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 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. The proposed change to the WCNOC Emergency Plan is administrative in nature. This proposed change does not alter accident analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the function of plant systems or the manner in which systems are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed change does not require any plant modifications which affect the performance capability of the SSCs relied upon to mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents, and does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. Plant safety margins are established through limiting conditions for operation, limiting safety systems settings, and safety limits specified in the technical specifications. The proposed change to the WCNOC Emergency Plan is administrative in nature. Since the proposed change is administrative in nature, there are no changes to these established safety margins. 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 31188]] amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Attorney for licensee: Jay E. Silberg, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, 2300 N Street NW, Washington, DC 20037. NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli. III. Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has determined for each of these amendments that the application complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment. A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility operating license or combined license, as applicable, proposed no significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the Federal Register as indicated. Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, it is so indicated. For further details with respect to the action see (1) the applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as indicated. All of these items can be accessed as described in the ``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' section of this document. Arizona Public Service Company, et al., Docket Nos. STN 50-528, STN 50- 529, and STN 50-530, Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (PVNGS), Maricopa County, Arizona Date of amendment request: June 22, 2017. Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the technical specifications to eliminate TS 5.5.8, ``Inservice Testing Program.'' A new defined term, ``INSERVICE TESTING PROGRAM,'' was added to the TS definitions section. This is consistent with Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-545, Revision 3, ``TS Inservice Testing Program Removal & Clarify SR [Surveillance Requirement] Usage Rule Application to Section 5.5 Testing.'' The amendments eliminated the PVNGS TS 5.5.8 to remove requirements duplicated in American Society of Mechanical Engineers Code for Operations and Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants, Code Case OMN-20, ``Inservice Test Frequency.'' Date of issuance: June 7, 2018. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 120 days from the date of issuance. Amendment Nos.: 206 (Unit 1), 206 (Unit 2), and 206 (Unit 3). A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18120A283; documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments. Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-41, NPF-51, and NPF-74: The amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 15, 2017 (82 FR 38716). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated June 7, 2018. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-255, Palisades Nuclear Plant, Van Buren County, Michigan Date of amendment request: July 27, 2017, as supplemented by letter dated December 19, 2017. Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised certain staffing and training requirements, reports, programs, and editorial changes in the Technical Specifications Table of Contents; Section 1.0, ``Use and Application''; and Section 5.0, ``Administrative Controls,'' that will no longer be applicable once Palisades Nuclear Plant is permanently defueled. Date of issuance: June 4, 2018. Effective date: Upon the licensee's submittal of the certifications required by 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1) and shall be implemented within 60 days from the amendment effective date. Amendment No.: 266. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18114A410; documents related to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment. Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-20: The amendment revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 12, 2017 (82 FR 42847). The supplemental letter dated December 19, 2017, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the NRC staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the Federal Register. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated June 4, 2018. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-410, Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit No. 2 (Nine Mile Point 2), Oswego County, New York Date of amendment request: August 22, 2017. Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Nine Mile Point 2 Technical Specifications by removing a note associated with Surveillance Requirement 3.5.1.2 that allowed low pressure coolant injection subsystems to be considered operable in MODE 3 under certain conditions. Date of issuance: June 8, 2018. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days of issuance. Amendment No.: 170. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18131A291; documents related to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment. Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-69: The amendment revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 19, 2017 (82 FR 60227). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated June 8, 2018. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Florida Power & Light Company, Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251, Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 3 and 4, Miami-Dade County, Florida Date of amendment request: June 28, 2017, as supplemented by letter dated February 28, 2018. [[Page 31189]] Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the technical specifications to relocate to licensee-controlled documents; select acceptance criteria specified in TS surveillance requirements credited for satisfying the Inservice Testing (IST) Program and Inservice Inspection Program requirements; to delete the SRs for the ASME Code Class 1, 2, and 3 components; to replace references to the Surveillance Frequency Control Program with reference to the Turkey Point IST Program where appropriate; to establish a Reactor Coolant Pump Flywheel Inspection Program; and to make related editorial changes. Additionally, the amendments deleted a redundant SR for Accumulator check valve testing and added a footnote to the SR for Pressure Isolation Valve testing. Date of issuance: June 12, 2018. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 120 days of issuance. Amendment Nos.: 281 and 275. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18130A466; documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments. Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-31 and DPR-41: The amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 29, 2017 (82 FR 41069). The supplemental letter dated February 28, 2018, expanded the scope of its request as originally noticed; therefore, the NRC published another notice in the Federal Register on April 10, 2018 (83 FR 15417), which replaced the original notice in its entirety. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated June 12, 2018. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. NextEra Energy Duane Arnold, LLC, Docket No. 50-331, Duane Arnold Energy Center (DAEC), Linn County, Iowa Date of amendment request: June 9, 2017, as supplemented by letters dated November 1, 2017, February 8, 2018, and March 28, 2018. Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised existing DAEC technical specification requirements related to ``operations with a potential for draining the reactor vessel'' with new requirements on reactor pressure vessel water inventory control to protect TS 2.1.1.3 Safety Limit. Date of issuance: June 18, 2018. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 90 days of the date of issuance. Amendment No.: 305. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18089A160; documents related to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment. Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-49: The amendment revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 16, 2018 (83 FR 2230). The supplemental letters dated February 8, 2018, and March 28, 2018, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and they did not change the NRC staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the Federal Register. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated June 18, 2018. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. NextEra Energy, Point Beach, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-266 and 50-301, Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Town of Two Creeks, Manitowoc County, Wisconsin Date of amendment request: June 23, 2017, as supplemented by letters dated August 21, 2017, and December 21, 2017. Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the current emergency action level (EAL) scheme to one based on the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) guidance in NEI 99-01, Revision 6, ``Development of Emergency Action Levels for Non-Passive Reactors,'' dated November 2012. Revision 6 to NEI 99-01 was endorsed by the NRC by letter dated March 28, 2013. Date of issuance: June 13, 2018. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 365 days of issuance to allow consideration of outage schedules and required training cycles. Amendment Nos.: 261 and 264. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18079A045; documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments. Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-24 and DPR-27: The amendments revised the Facility Operating License. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 21, 2017 (82 FR 55408). The supplemental letter dated December 21, 2017, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the NRC staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the Federal Register. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated June 13, 2018. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), Unit Nos. 3 and 4, Burke County, Georgia Date of amendment request: October 6, 2017, as supplemented by letter dated February 28, 2018. Description of amendments: The amendments consisted of changes to the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) in the form of departures from the incorporated plant-specific Design Control Document Tier 2 information. Further, the amendments revised a Combined License (COL) License Condition which references an UFSAR Section impacted by the proposed changes. Specifically, the amendments consisted of changes to revise the methodology and acceptance criteria for the in- containment refueling water storage tank heatup preoperational test described in UFSAR Subsection 14.2.9.1.3, item h and the passive residual heat removal heat exchanger preoperational test described in UFSAR Subsection 14.2.9.1.3, item g. These changes involves material which is specifically referenced in Section 2.D.(2) of the COLs for VEGP Units 3 and 4. The amendments also revised the reference to the In-containment Refueling Water Storage Tank Heatup Test in the COL license condition, consistent with the changes to the UFSAR. Date of issuance: April 11, 2018. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 30 days of issuance. Amendment Nos.: 120 (Unit 3) and 119 (Unit 4). A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18085A045; documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments. Facility Combined Licenses Nos. NPF-91 and NPF-92: The amendments revised the Facility Combined Licenses. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 2, 2018 (83 FR 8509). The supplemental letter dated February 28, 2018, provided additional information that clarified the [[Page 31190]] application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the Federal Register. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in the Safety Evaluation dated April 11, 2018. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), Unit Nos. 3 and 4, Burke County, Georgia Date of amendment request: February 2, 2018. Description of amendments: The amendments authorized the Southern Nuclear Operating Company to depart from the VEGP Units 3 and 4 plant- specific Appendix A, technical specifications as incorporated into the VEGP Unit Nos. 3 and 4 COLs, and changed to the approved AP1000 Design Control Document Tier 2 information as incorporated into the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). Specifically, the changes to the COLs Appendix A, included TS 5.6.3 for the core operating limits report documentation to remove certain reactor trip instrumentation from the list of core operating limits and include analytical methods mentioned elsewhere in the TS and UFSAR and to TS 5.7.2 to correct a typographical error in a description of a radiation monitoring device that may be used in a high radiation area. The changes to the UFSAR Tier 2 Table 1.6-1, ``Material Referenced,'' and Section 4.3.5, ``References,'' updated the list of references as described in the application. Date of issuance: May 31, 2018. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 30 days of issuance. Amendment Nos.: 124 (Unit 3) and 123 (Unit 4). A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18123A511; documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments. Facility Combined Licenses Nos. NPF-91 and NPF-92: The amendments revised the Facility Combined Licenses. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 13, 2018 (83 FR 10911). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in the Safety Evaluation dated May 31, 2018. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. STP Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 50-498 and 50-499, South Texas Project (STP), Units 1 and 2, Matagorda County, Texas Date of amendment request: September 18, 2017. Brief description of amendments: The amendments relocated the defined core plane regions where the radial peaking factor limits are not applicable, called radial peaking factor exclusion zones, from TS 4.2.2.2.f to the Core Operating Limits Reports (COLRs) for STP, Unit Nos. 1 and 2. The amendment also revised the COLR Administrative Controls TS to add exclusion zones to the list of limits found in the COLRs, and revised the description of the methodology used to determine the values for the radial peaking factor exclusion zones. In addition, the amendment corrected two administrative errors. Date of issuance: June 7, 2018. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 90 days from the date of issuance. Amendment Nos.: 213 (Unit 1) and 199 (Unit 2). A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18128A342; 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 Technical Specifications. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 5, 2017 (82 FR 57475). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated June 7, 2018. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. United States Maritime Administration (MARAD), Docket No. 50-238, Nuclear Ship SAVANNAH (NSS), Baltimore, Maryland Date of amendment request: March 30, 2018. Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical Specifications to establish controls for all accesses to the Containment Vessel in support of two structural modifications. Date of issuance: June 12, 2018. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days. Amendment No.: 16. A publically-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18109A578. Facility Operating License No. NS-1: The amendment revised the License. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 8, 2018 (83 FR 20863). The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated June 12, 2017. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 21st day of June 2018. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Tara Inverso, Acting Deputy Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. 2018-13758 Filed 7-2-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
![31180 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2018 / Notices
ARTICLE VIII ARTICLE X email: Jennifer.Borges@nrc.gov. For
A. The Commission, upon its own This Agreement shall become effective on technical questions, contact the
initiative after reasonable notice and [date], and shall remain in effect unless and individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
opportunity for hearing to the State or upon until such time as it is terminated pursuant INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
request of the Governor of the State, may to Article VIII. document.
terminate or suspend all or part of this Done at [location] this [date] day of • Mail comments to: May Ma, Office
agreement and reassert the licensing and [month], 2018. of Administration, Mail Stop: TWFN–7–
regulatory authority vested in it under the For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. A60M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Act if the Commission finds that (1) such Commission, Washington, DC 20555–
Kristine L. Svinicki, Chairman.
termination or suspension is required to
Done at [location] this [date] day of 0001.
protect public health and safety, or (2) the
State has not complied with one or more of [month], 2018. For additional direction on obtaining
the requirements of Section 274 of the Act. For the State of Wyoming. information and submitting comments,
1. This Agreement will terminate without Matthew H. Mead, Governor. see ‘‘Obtaining Information and
further NRC action if the State does not [FR Doc. 2018–14174 Filed 7–2–18; 8:45 am] Submitting Comments’’ in the
amend Wyoming Statute Section 35–11– BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
2004(c) to be compatible with Section this document.
83b.(1)(A) of the Act by the end of the 2019 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Wyoming legislative session. Upon passage NUCLEAR REGULATORY Paula Blechman, Office of Nuclear
of a revised Wyoming Statute Section 35–11– COMMISSION Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear
2004(c) that the NRC finds compatible with
Regulatory Commission, Washington,
Section 83b.(1)(A) of the Act, this paragraph [NRC–2018–0124]
expires and is no longer part of the
DC 20555–0001; telephone: 301–415–
Agreement. Biweekly Notice; Applications and 2242, email: Paula.Blechman@nrc.gov.
B. The Commission may also, pursuant to Amendments to Facility Operating SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Section 274j. of the Act, temporarily suspend Licenses and Combined Licenses I. Obtaining Information and
all or part of this agreement if, in the Involving No Significant Hazards
judgment of the Commission, an emergency Submitting Comments
Considerations
situation exists requiring immediate action to A. Obtaining Information
protect public health and safety and the State AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory
has failed to take necessary steps. The Commission. Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2018–
Commission shall periodically review actions 0124, facility name, unit number(s),
ACTION: Biweekly notice.
taken by the State under this Agreement to plant docket number, application date,
ensure compliance with Section 274 of the SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 189a.(2) and subject when contacting the NRC
Act, which requires a State program to be of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as about the availability of information for
adequate to protect public health and safety amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear this action. You may obtain publicly-
with respect to the materials covered by this available information related to this
Agreement and to be compatible with the
Regulatory Commission (NRC) is
publishing this regular biweekly notice. action by any of the following methods:
Commission’s program.
The Act requires the Commission to • Federal Rulemaking website: Go to
ARTICLE IX publish notice of any amendments http://www.regulations.gov and search
In the licensing and regulation of byproduct issued, or proposed to be issued, and for Docket ID NRC–2018–0124.
material as defined in Section 11e.(2) of the grants the Commission the authority to • NRC’s Agencywide Documents
Act, or of any activity that results in issue and make immediately effective Access and Management System
production of such material, the State shall any amendment to an operating license (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-
comply with the provisions of Section 274o. or combined license, as applicable, available documents online in the
of the Act, if in such licensing and upon a determination by the ADAMS Public Documents collection at
regulation, the State requires financial surety http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/
arrangements for reclamation or long-term
Commission that such amendment
involves no significant hazards adams.html. To begin the search, select
surveillance and maintenance of such ‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and then
material. consideration, notwithstanding the
pendency before the Commission of a select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS
A. The total amount of funds the State Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS,
collects for such purposes shall be request for a hearing from any person.
transferred to the United States if custody of This biweekly notice includes all please contact the NRC’s Public
such material and its disposal site is notices of amendments issued, or Document Room (PDR) reference staff at
transferred to the United States upon proposed to be issued, from June 5, 1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by
termination of the State license for such 2018, to June 18, 2018. The last email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The
material or any activity that results in the biweekly notice was published on June ADAMS accession number for each
production of such material. Such funds 19, 2018. document referenced (if it is available in
include, but are not limited to, sums ADAMS) is provided the first time that
collected for long-term surveillance or DATES: Comments must be filed by
it is mentioned in this document.
maintenance. August 2, 2018. A request for a hearing • NRC’s PDR: You may examine and
Such funds do not, however, include must be filed by September 3, 2018. purchase copies of public documents at
monies held as surety where no default has ADDRESSES: You may submit comments the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One
occurred and the reclamation or other by any of the following methods (unless White Flint North, 11555 Rockville
bonded activity has been performed; and, this document describes a different
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
B. Such surety or other financial method for submitting comments on a
requirements must be sufficient to ensure B. Submitting Comments
compliance with those standards established
specific subject):
by the Commission pertaining to bonds, • Federal Rulemaking website: Go to Please include Docket ID NRC–2018–
sureties, and financial arrangements to http://www.regulations.gov and search 0124, facility name, unit number(s),
ensure adequate reclamation and long-term for Docket ID NRC–2018–0124. Address plant docket number, application date,
management of such byproduct material and questions about NRC dockets to Jennifer and subject in your comment
its disposal site. Borges; telephone: 301–287–9127; submission.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:07 Jul 02, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\03JYN1.SGM 03JYN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_31308/page/1.svg)
![31184 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2018 / Notices
Expertise on Shift. This is an administrative frequency to the NMP1 Inservice Exelon Generation Company, LLC,
change. Testing Program. Docket No. 50–220, Nine Mile Point
This change does not involve any change Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1, Oswego
Basis for proposed no significant
to the design basis of the plant or of any
hazards consideration determination: County, New York
structure, system or component. The
proposed amendment does not impose any As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the Date of amendment request: February
new or different requirements. The change licensee has provided its analysis of the 9, 2018. A publicly-available version is
does not alter assumptions made in the safety issue of no significant hazards in ADAMS under Accession No.
analyses. The proposed change is consistent consideration, which is presented ML18040A636.
with the safety analyses assumptions and below: Description of amendment request:
current plant operating practice.
Therefore, the operation of the facility in 1. Does the proposed change involve a The amendment would remove the
accordance with the proposed change does significant increase in the probability or Boraflex credit from the two remaining
not create the possibility of a new or different consequences of an accident previously Boraflex storage racks located in the
kind of accident from any previously evaluated? spent fuel pool. The licensee plans to
evaluated. Response: No. install permanent cell blockers in pre-
3. Does the proposed amendment involve Performance of lnservice Testing is not an determined spent fuel pool rack cells
a significant reduction in a margin of safety? initiator to any accident previously
thus eliminating reliance on Boraflex for
Response: No. evaluated. As a result, the probability of
occurrence of an accident is not significantly spent fuel pool reactivity control.
The proposed amendment removes one of Basis for proposed no significant
three permissible means for filling the STA affected by the proposed change. The
position. TS 5.2.2.g defines the education availability of the affected components, as hazards consideration determination:
and experience requirements for personnel well as their ability to mitigate the As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
filling the STA position during operation of consequences of accidents previously licensee has provided its analysis of the
either Unit in Modes 1, 2, 3, or 4. It provides evaluated, is not affected. issue of no significant hazards
three permissible means to fill the STA Therefore, the proposed change does not consideration, which is presented
position. One of those means (TS 5.2.2.g.3) is involve a significant increase in the below:
unique to CCNPP and is no longer needed. probability or consequences of an accident
The remaining requirements (TS 5.2.2.g.1 previously evaluated. 1. Does the proposed change involve a
and TS 5.2.2.g.2) for filling the STA position 2. Does the proposed change create the significant increase in the probability or
meet the guidance provided in Generic Letter possibility of a new or different kind of consequences of an accident previously
86–04, Policy Statement on Engineering accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Expertise on Shift. This is an administrative evaluated? Response: No.
change. Response: No. The proposed change does not make any
This change does not involve any change The proposed change does not alter the change to the systems, structures or
to the design basis of the plant or of any design or configuration of the plant. The components in the Nine Mile Point Unit 1
structure, system or component. As a result, proposed change does not involve a physical (NMP1) Spent Fuel Pool (SFP) except for the
there is no decrease in any margin of safety alteration of the plant; no new or different installation of cell blockers in pre-
due to this proposed change. kind of equipment will be installed. The determined Boraflex rack cells. The change is
Therefore, operation of the facility in proposed change does not alter the types of necessary to ensure that, with continued
accordance with the proposed amendment lnservice Testing performed. The frequency Boraflex degradation over time, the effective
does not involve a significant reduction in a of lnservice Testing is unchanged. neutron multiplication factor, keff, is less than
margin of safety. Therefore, the proposed change does not 0.95, if the SFP is fully flooded with
unborated water. The proposed change does
create the possibility of a new or different
The NRC staff has reviewed the not change the manner in which spent fuel
kind of accident from any accident
licensee’s analysis and, based on this previously evaluated.
is handled, moved or stored in the storage
review, it appears that the three rack cells. The installation of the cell
3. Does the proposed change involve a
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are blockers does not impact the fuel source
significant reduction in a margin of safety?
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff terms, therefore, there is no adverse
Response: No.
radiological impact. The installation of the
proposes to determine that the The proposed change eliminates
cell blockers does not change the decay heat
amendment request involves no [surveillance] requirements from the TS in
and the cell blockers meet the criterion to
significant hazards consideration. lieu of requirements in the ASME [American
allow for continued water flow through the
Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer, Society of Mechanical Engineers] Code. storage cell; thus, there is no adverse
Associate General Counsel, Exelon Compliance with the ASME Code is required thermal-hydraulic impact. Therefore, the
by 10 CFR 50.55a. Should the component be
Generation Company, LLC, 4300 proposed change does not involve a
inoperable, the Technical Specifications significant increase in the probability or
Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555. provide actions to ensure that the margin of
NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna. consequences of an accident previously
safety is protected. evaluated.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Therefore, the proposed change does not 2. Does the proposed change create the
Docket No. 50–220, Nine Mile Point involve a significant reduction in a margin of possibility of a new or different kind of
safety. accident from any accident previously
Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1 (NMP1),
Oswego County, New York The NRC staff has reviewed the evaluated?
Response: No.
Date of amendment request: March licensee’s analysis and, based on this
Onsite storage of spent fuel assemblies in
13, 2018. A publicly-available version is review, it appears that the three the NMP1 SFP is a normal activity for which
in ADAMS under Accession No. standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are NMP1 has been designed and licensed. As
ML18072A182. satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff part of assuring that this normal activity can
Description of amendment request: proposes to determine that the be performed without endangering public
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
The amendment would modify NMP1, amendment request involves no health and safety, the ability to safely
Technical Specifications Surveillance significant hazards consideration. accommodate different possible accidents in
Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer, the SFP, such as dropping a fuel bundle or
Requirement (SR) 4.2.7.d for reactor misleading a fuel bundle, have been
coolant system isolation valves and SR Associate General Counsel, Exelon analyzed. The proposed SFP storage
4.2.7.1.a for reactor coolant system Generation Company, LLC, 4300 configuration using cell blockers does not
pressure isolation valve leakage to Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555. change the methods of fuel movement or
relocate the specific surveillance NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna. spent fuel storage. The proposed change of
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:07 Jul 02, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\03JYN1.SGM 03JYN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_31308/page/5.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2018 / Notices 31185
using cell blockers in pre-determined Emergency Diesel Generator (EDG) The proposed changes modify an EDG
Boraflex rack cells allows for continued use partial-load rejection surveillance surveillance test by aligning the voltage and
of SFP storage rack cells with degraded requirement (SR). Additionally, the frequency limits with the current licensing
Boraflex while assuring the effective neutron basis and the Westinghouse STS. The
amendments would modify the EDG
multiplication factor, keff, is less than 0.95. proposed changes do not modify any
The proposed use of cell blockers in the voltage and frequency limits for the SR setpoints for which protective actions
pre-determined Boraflex rack cells does not and establish a recovery period for the associated with accident detection or
create a possible new or different kind of EDG(s) to return to steady-state mitigation are initiated. The proposed change
accident from any accident previously conditions. neither affects the design of plant equipment
evaluated. The displacement of the SFP Basis for proposed no significant nor the manner in which the plant is
water by the cell blockers is small and hence hazards consideration determination: operated. The proposed changes increase the
has an insignificant impact on the heat As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the reliability and the availability of the EDGs
transfer from fuel assemblies to the SFP licensee has provided its analysis of the and as such, cannot adversely impact any
water, the time-to-boil and boil-off rate in the Turkey Point safety limits or limiting safety
issue of no significant hazards
SFP. The stresses in the storage rack under settings.
the loaded weight of fuel assemblies and the consideration, which is presented Therefore, operation of the facility in
cell blockers will remain within the below: accordance with the proposed change will
allowable limits and will be bounded by the 1. Does the proposed amendment involve not involve a significant reduction in a
rack seismic analysis. The accident a significant increase in the probability or margin of safety.
condition, where a fuel assembly is dropped consequences of an accident previously The NRC staff has reviewed the
onto the cell blocker, will not cause loss of evaluated?
the cell blocker function. Therefore, the licensee’s analysis and, based on this
Response: No.
proposed change does not create the The proposed changes modify an EDG review, it appears that the three
possibility of a new or different kind of surveillance test by aligning the voltage and standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
accident from any accident previously frequency limits with the current licensing satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
evaluated. basis and the Westinghouse STS [Standard proposes to determine that the
3. Does the proposed change involve a Technical Specification]. As such, the amendment request involves no
significant reduction in a margin of safety? proposed changes cannot be an initiator of significant hazards consideration.
Response: No. any previously evaluated accident, increase Attorney for licensee: Debbie Hendell,
The proposed change will maintain, per its likelihood or increase the likelihood of an Managing Attorney—Nuclear, Florida
Attachment 3, the keff to be less than 0.95 and EDG malfunction or supported equipment.
The proposed changes to the voltage and
Power & Light Company, 700 Universe
thus preserve the required safety margin of
5%. The installation of the cell blockers does frequency limits for the immediate aftermath Blvd. MS LAW/JB, Juno Beach, Florida
not impact the fuel source terms and decay of a partial-load rejection and the proposed 33408–0420.
heat and hence has no adverse radiological recovery period will not affect the manner in NRC Acting Branch Chief: Booma
impact. In addition, the radiological which EDGs are designed or operated. The Venkataraman.
consequences of a dropped fuel bundle are EDGs have no time-dependent failure modes
as a result of the proposed changes and will Florida Power and Light Company,
unchanged because the event involving a
dropped fuel bundle onto a spent fuel storage continue to operate within the parameters Docket Nos. 50–250 and 50–251, Turkey
rack cell containing a cell blocker is bounded assumed in applicable accident analyses. Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 3
by the radiological consequences of a Hence no impact on the consequences of any and 4, Miami-Dade County, Florida
dropped fuel bundle onto a spent fuel storage previously evaluated accident will result Date of amendment request: May 3,
rack cell containing a stored fuel bundle. from the proposed changes.
Therefore, facility operation in accordance
2018. A publicly-available version is in
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of with the proposed changes would not ADAMS under Accession No.
safety. involve a significant increase in the ML18127B714.
probability or consequences of an accident Description of amendment request:
The NRC staff has reviewed the previously evaluated. The amendments would revise the
licensee’s analysis and, based on this 2. Does the proposed amendment create Technical Specifications by revising
review, it appears that the three the possibility of a new or different kind of Safety Limit 2.1.1.b, to reflect the peak
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are accident from any accident previously fuel centerline temperature specified in
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff evaluated? WCAP–17642–P–A, Revision 1,
proposes to determine that the Response: No. ‘‘Westinghouse Performance Analysis
amendment request involves no The proposed changes modify an EDG
surveillance test by aligning the voltage and
and Design Model (PAD5).’’ A non-
significant hazards consideration. proprietary version (WCAP–17642–NP–
Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer, frequency limits with the current licensing
basis and the Westinghouse STS. The A, Revision (1) can be found in ADAMS
Associate General Counsel, Exelon under Accession No. ML17338A396.
proposed changes do not modify the manner
Generation Company, LLC, 4300 in which the EDGs are designed or operated Basis for proposed no significant
Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555. and thereby cannot introduce new failure hazards consideration determination:
NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna. modes, impact existing plant equipment in a As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
Florida Power and Light Company, manner not previously evaluated or initiate licensee has provided its analysis of the
a new type of malfunction or accident. The issue of no significant hazards
Docket Nos. 50–250 and 50–251, Turkey proposed changes serve to enhance EDG
Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 3 consideration, which is presented
reliability and availability and as such,
and 4 (Turkey Point), Miami-Dade cannot adversely affect the EDGs’ ability to below:
County, Florida perform as originally designed, including 1. Do the proposed amendments involve a
their capability to withstand a worst case significant increase in the probability or
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Date of amendment request: May 14,
2018. A publicly-available version is in single failure. consequences of an accident previously
Therefore, the proposed change does not evaluated?
ADAMS under Accession No. create the possibility of a new or different Response: No.
ML18134A264. kind of accident from any previously There are no design changes associated
Description of amendment request: evaluated. with the proposed amendments. All design,
The amendments would revise the 3. Does the proposed amendment involve material, and construction standards that
technical specifications to increase the a significant reduction in a margin of safety? were applicable prior to this amendment
minimum load required for the Response: No. request will continue to be applicable. The
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:07 Jul 02, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\03JYN1.SGM 03JYN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_31308/page/6.svg)
![31186 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2018 / Notices
proposed amendments will not affect times are affected and none of the acceptance Response: No.
accident initiators or precursors or alter the criteria for any accident analysis will be The proposed change does not challenge
design, conditions, and configuration of the changed. Consequently, the proposed the integrity or performance of any safety-
facility, or the manner in which the plant is amendments will have no impact on the related systems. No plant equipment is
operated and maintained, with respect to radiological consequences of a design basis installed or removed, and the changes do not
such initiators or precursors. Compliance accident. alter the design, physical configuration, or
with Safety Limit 2.1.1.b is required to Therefore, the proposed amendments do method of operation of any plant SSC. No
confirm that fuel cladding failure does not not involve a significant reduction in a physical changes are made to the plant, so no
occur as a result of fuel centerline melting. margin of safety. new causal mechanisms are introduced.
The fuel centerline melt temperature limit is The NRC staff has reviewed the Therefore, the proposed changes to the TS do
established to preclude centerline melting. not create the possibility of a new or different
The proposed change to the fuel centerline
licensee’s analysis and, based on this
kind of accident from any accident
melt temperature limit has been reviewed by review, it appears that the three previously evaluated.
the NRC and found to be appropriately standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 3. Does the proposed change involve a
conservative with respect to the fuel material satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff significant reduction in the margin of safety?
properties in the Final Safety Evaluation for proposes to determine that the Response: No.
WCAP–17642–P–A, Revision 1 Accident amendment request involves no The ability of any operable SSC to perform
analysis acceptance criteria will continue to significant hazards consideration. its designated safety function is unaffected by
be met with the proposed amendments. Attorney for licensee: Debbie Hendell, the proposed changes. The proposed changes
Hence, the proposed amendments will not Managing Attorney—Nuclear, Florida do not alter any safety analyses assumptions,
affect the source term, containment isolation, safety limits, limiting safety system settings,
or radiological release assumptions used in
Power & Light Company, 700 Universe
Blvd. MS LAW/JB, Juno Beach, Florida or method of operating the plant. The
evaluating the radiological consequences of changes do not adversely affect plant
any accident previously evaluated. The 33408–0420. operating margins or the reliability of
proposed amendments will not alter any NRC Acting Branch Chief: Booma equipment credited in the safety analyses.
assumptions or change any mitigation actions Venkataraman. With the proposed change, the control room
in the radiological consequence evaluations envelope remains capable of performing its
in the Turkey Point Updated Final Safety
NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC, Docket
No. 50–443, Seabrook Station, Unit No. safety function. Therefore, the proposed
Analysis Report (UFSAR). Consequently, the changes do not involve a significant
applicable radiological dose acceptance 1, Rockingham County, New Hampshire reduction in the margin of safety.
criteria will continue to be met. Date of amendment request: March
Therefore, the proposed amendments do The NRC staff has reviewed the
16, 2018. A publicly-available version is
not involve a significant increase in the licensee’s analysis and, based on this
in ADAMS under Accession No.
probability or consequences of an accident review, it appears that the three
previously evaluated. ML18079A058.
Description of amendment request: standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
2. Do the proposed amendments create the satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
possibility of a new or different kind of The amendment would revise the
frequencies for performing the relative proposes to determine that the
accident from any accident previously amendment request involves no
evaluated? pressure measurement and the
Response: No. assessment of the control room envelope significant hazards consideration.
There are no proposed design changes nor Attorney for licensee: Debbie Hendell,
boundary required by (TS) 6.7.6.l,
are there any changes in the method by Managing Attorney, Florida Power &
Control Room Envelope Habitability
which any safety-related plant structures, Light Company, P.O. Box 14000, Juno
Program, from 18 months to 36 months.
systems, and components perform their Basis for proposed no significant Beach, FL 33408–0420.
specified safety functions. The proposed
hazards consideration determination: NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna.
amendments will not affect the normal
method of plant operation or change any As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the PSEG Nuclear LLC and Exelon
operating parameters. No equipment licensee has provided its analysis of the Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos.
performance requirements will be affected. issue of no significant hazards 50–272 and 50–311, Salem Nuclear
The proposed amendments will not alter any consideration, which is presented Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2,
assumptions made in the safety analyses. The below: Salem County, New Jersey
proposed amendments revise Reactor Core
1. Does the proposed change involve a Date of amendment request: May 16,
Safety Limit 2.1.1.b; however, the change
significant increase in the probability or 2018. A publicly-available versions is in
does not involve a physical modification of consequences of an accident previously
the plant. No new accident scenarios, evaluated?
ADAMS under Accession No.
transient precursors, failure mechanisms, or Response: No. ML18136A866.
limiting single failures will result from this The TS administrative controls associated Description of amendment request:
amendment. Hence, there will be no adverse with the proposed change to the TS are not The amendments would revise (TS)
effect or challenges imposed on any safety- initiators of any accidents previously 3.8.2.1, ‘‘A.C. [Alternating Current]
related system as a result of these evaluated, so the probability of accidents Distribution—Operating,’’ to increase
amendments. previously evaluated is unaffected by the
Therefore, the proposed amendments do the Vital Instrument Bus Inverters
proposed changes. The proposed change does allowed outage time (AOT) from 24
not create the possibility of a new or different not alter the design, function, or operation of
kind of accident from any previously any plant structure, system, or component hours for the A, B and C inverters to 7
evaluated. (SSC). The capability of any operable TS- days and from 72 hours for the D
3. Do the proposed amendments involve a required SSC to perform its specified safety inverter to 7 days. The proposed
significant reduction in a margin of safety? function is not impacted by the proposed extended AOT is based on application
Response: No. change. As a result, the outcomes of of the Salem Generating Station
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
The revised Safety Limit 2.1.1.b has been accidents previously evaluated are Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) in
calculated based on the NRC-approved unaffected. Therefore, the proposed changes support of a risk-informed extension,
methods which ensure that the plant operates do not result in a significant increase in the
in compliance with all regulatory criteria. probability or consequences of an accident
and on additional considerations and
There will be no effect on those plant previously evaluated. compensatory actions.
systems necessary to effect the 2. Does the proposed change create the Basis for proposed no significant
accomplishment of protection functions. No possibility of a new or different kind of hazards consideration determination:
instrument setpoints or system response accident from any previously evaluated? As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:07 Jul 02, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\03JYN1.SGM 03JYN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_31308/page/7.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2018 / Notices 31187
licensee has provided its analysis of the the alternate Class 1E power source for the As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
issue of no significant hazards vital A.C. instrument bus is consistent with licensee has provided its analysis of the
consideration, which is presented the Salem plant design. The change does not issue of no significant hazards
alter assumptions made in the safety
below: consideration, which is presented
analysis. This proposed action will not alter
1. Does the proposed amendment involve the manner in which equipment operation is below:
a significant increase in the probability or initiated, nor will the functional demands on 1. Does the proposed change involve a
consequences of an accident previously credited equipment be changed. No alteration significant increase in the probability or
evaluated? is proposed to the procedures that ensure consequences of an accident previously
Response: No. Salem remains within analyzed limits, and evaluated?
The proposed TS amendment does not no change is being made to procedures relied Response: No.
affect the design of the vital A.C. inverters, upon to respond to an off-normal event. As The proposed change to the WCNOC
the operational characteristics or function of such, no new failure modes are being Emergency Plan is administrative in nature.
the inverters, the interfaces between the introduced. This proposed change does not alter accident
inverters and other plant systems, or the Therefore, the proposed changes do not analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or
reliability of the inverters. An inoperable create the possibility of a new or different affect the function of plant systems or the
vital A.C. inverter is not considered an kind of accident from any previously manner in which systems are operated,
initiator of an analyzed event. In addition, TS evaluated. maintained, modified, tested, or inspected.
Actions and the associated Allowed Outage 3. Does the proposed amendment involve The proposed change does not require any
Times are not initiators of previously a significant reduction in a margin of safety? plant modifications which affect the
evaluated accidents. Extending the Allowed Response: No. performance capability of the structures,
Outage Time for an inoperable vital A.C. Margin of safety is related to the systems, and components (SSCs) relied upon
inverter would not have a significant impact confidence in the ability of the fission to mitigate the consequences of postulated
on the frequency of occurrence of an accident product barriers to perform their design accidents, and has no impact on the
previously evaluated. The proposed functions during and following an accident. probability or consequences of an accident
amendment will not result in modifications These barriers include the fuel cladding, the previously evaluated.
to plant activities associated with inverter reactor coolant system, and the containment Therefore, the proposed changes do not
maintenance, but rather, provides operational system. The proposed change, which would involve a significant increase in the
flexibility by allowing additional time to increase the AOT from 24/72 hours to 7 days probability or consequences of an accident
perform inverter troubleshooting, corrective for one inoperable inverter, does not exceed previously evaluated.
maintenance, and post-maintenance testing or alter a setpoint, design basis or safety 2. Does the proposed change create the
on-line. limit. possibility of a new or different kind of
The proposed extension of the Allowed Therefore, the proposed amendment does accident from any accident previously
Outage Time for an inoperable vital A.C. not involve a significant reduction in a evaluated?
inverter will not significantly affect the margin of safety. Response: No.
capability of the inverters to perform their The proposed change to the WCNOC
safety function, which is to ensure an The NRC staff has reviewed the Emergency Plan is administrative in nature.
uninterruptible supply of 115-volt A.C. licensee’s analysis and, based on this This proposed change does not alter accident
electrical power to the associated power review, it appears that the three analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or
distribution subsystems. An evaluation, standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are affect the function of plant systems or the
using PRA methods, confirmed that the satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff manner in which systems are operated,
increase in plant risk associated with proposes to determine that the maintained, modified, tested, or inspected.
implementation of the proposed Allowed amendment request involves no The proposed change does not require any
Outage Time extension is consistent with the significant hazards consideration. plant modifications which affect the
NRC’s Safety Goal Policy Statement, as Attorney for licensee: Jeffrie J. Keenan, performance capability of the SSCs relied
further described in RG [Regulatory Guide] upon to mitigate the consequences of
PSEG Nuclear LLC—N21, P.O. Box 236,
1.174 and RG 1.177. In addition, a postulated accidents, and does not create the
deterministic evaluation concluded that Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038. possibility of a new or different kind of
plant defense-in-depth philosophy will be NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna. accident from any accident previously
maintained with the proposed Allowed Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating evaluated.
Outage Time extension. Corporation (WCNOC), Docket No. 50– Therefore, the proposed change does not
There will be no impact on the source term create the possibility of a new or different
482, Wolf Creek Generating Station kind of accident from any previously
or pathways assumed in accidents previously
evaluated. No analysis assumptions will be (WCGS), Unit No. 1, Coffey County, evaluated.
changed and there will be no adverse effects Kansas 3. Does the proposed change involve a
on onsite or offsite doses as the result of an Date of amendment request: May 9, significant reduction in a margin of safety?
accident. 2018. A publicly-available version is in Response: No.
Therefore, the proposed change does not ADAMS under Accession No. Plant safety margins are established
involve a significant increase in the through limiting conditions for operation,
probability or consequences of an accident
ML18135A172. limiting safety systems settings, and safety
previously evaluated.
Description of amendment request: limits specified in the technical
2. Does the proposed amendment create The amendment would revise the specifications. The proposed change to the
the possibility of a new or different kind of Emergency Plan for WCGS to (1) reduce WCNOC Emergency Plan is administrative in
accident from any accident previously the number of required Emergency nature. Since the proposed change is
evaluated? Response Organization positions; (2) administrative in nature, there are no
Response: No. standardize Technical Support Center changes to these established safety margins.
The proposed amendment does not involve activation time to 75 minutes; (3) Therefore the proposed change does not
physical alteration of the Salem Generating involve a significant reduction in a margin of
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
replace the current normal full-time
Station. No new equipment is being safety.
work hours licensed medical
introduced, and installed equipment is not
practitioner position with First Aid The NRC staff has reviewed the
being operated in a new or different manner.
There is no change being made to the Responders; and (4) remove reference to licensee’s analysis and, based on this
parameters within which Salem is operated. performing dose assessment using review, it appears that the three
There are no setpoints at which protective or containment pressure indication. standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
mitigating actions are initiated that are Basis for proposed no significant satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
affected by this proposed action. The use of hazards consideration determination: proposes to determine that the
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:07 Jul 02, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\03JYN1.SGM 03JYN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_31308/page/8.svg)
![31188 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2018 / Notices
amendment request involves no Brief description of amendments: The Accession No. ML18114A410;
significant hazards consideration. amendments revised the technical documents related to this amendment
Attorney for licensee: Jay E. Silberg, specifications to eliminate TS 5.5.8, are listed in the Safety Evaluation
Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman ‘‘Inservice Testing Program.’’ A new enclosed with the amendment.
LLP, 2300 N Street NW, Washington, DC defined term, ‘‘INSERVICE TESTING Renewed Facility Operating License
20037. PROGRAM,’’ was added to the TS No. DPR–20: The amendment revised
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. definitions section. This is consistent the Renewed Facility Operating License
Pascarelli. with Technical Specifications Task and Technical Specifications.
Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF–545, Date of initial notice in Federal
III. Notice of Issuance of Amendments Revision 3, ‘‘TS Inservice Testing Register: September 12, 2017 (82 FR
to Facility Operating Licenses and Program Removal & Clarify SR 42847). The supplemental letter dated
Combined Licenses [Surveillance Requirement] Usage Rule December 19, 2017, provided additional
During the period since publication of Application to Section 5.5 Testing.’’ The information that clarified the
the last biweekly notice, the amendments eliminated the PVNGS TS application, did not expand the scope of
Commission has issued the following 5.5.8 to remove requirements duplicated the application as originally noticed,
amendments. The Commission has in American Society of Mechanical and did not change the NRC staff’s
determined for each of these Engineers Code for Operations and original proposed no significant hazards
amendments that the application Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants, consideration determination as
complies with the standards and Code Case OMN–20, ‘‘Inservice Test published in the Federal Register.
requirements of the Atomic Energy Act Frequency.’’ The Commission’s related evaluation
of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Date of issuance: June 7, 2018. of the amendment is contained in a
Commission’s rules and regulations. Effective date: As of the date of Safety Evaluation dated June 4, 2018.
The Commission has made appropriate issuance and shall be implemented No significant hazards consideration
findings as required by the Act and the within 120 days from the date of comments received: No.
Commission’s rules and regulations in issuance. Exelon Generation Company, LLC,
10 CFR chapter I, which are set forth in Amendment Nos.: 206 (Unit 1), 206
Docket No. 50–410, Nine Mile Point
the license amendment. (Unit 2), and 206 (Unit 3). A publicly-
Nuclear Station, Unit No. 2 (Nine Mile
A notice of consideration of issuance available version is in ADAMS under
Point 2), Oswego County, New York
of amendment to facility operating Accession No. ML18120A283;
documents related to these amendments Date of amendment request: August
license or combined license, as
are listed in the Safety Evaluation 22, 2017.
applicable, proposed no significant
enclosed with the amendments. Brief description of amendment: The
hazards consideration determination,
Renewed Facility Operating License amendment revised the Nine Mile Point
and opportunity for a hearing in
Nos. NPF–41, NPF–51, and NPF–74: The 2 Technical Specifications by removing
connection with these actions, was
amendments revised the Renewed a note associated with Surveillance
published in the Federal Register as
Facility Operating Licenses and TSs. Requirement 3.5.1.2 that allowed low
indicated.
Date of initial notice in Federal pressure coolant injection subsystems to
Unless otherwise indicated, the be considered operable in MODE 3
Register: August 15, 2017 (82 FR
Commission has determined that these under certain conditions.
38716).
amendments satisfy the criteria for The Commission’s related evaluation Date of issuance: June 8, 2018.
categorical exclusion in accordance of the amendments is contained in a Effective date: As of the date of
with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant Safety Evaluation dated June 7, 2018. issuance and shall be implemented
to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental No significant hazards consideration within 60 days of issuance.
impact statement or environmental comments received: No. Amendment No.: 170. A publicly-
assessment need be prepared for these available version is in ADAMS under
amendments. If the Commission has Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Accession No. ML18131A291;
prepared an environmental assessment Docket No. 50–255, Palisades Nuclear documents related to this amendment
under the special circumstances Plant, Van Buren County, Michigan are listed in the Safety Evaluation
provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has Date of amendment request: July 27, enclosed with the amendment.
made a determination based on that 2017, as supplemented by letter dated Renewed Facility Operating License
assessment, it is so indicated. December 19, 2017. No. NPF–69: The amendment revised
For further details with respect to the Brief description of amendment: The the Renewed Facility Operating License
action see (1) the applications for amendment revised certain staffing and and Technical Specifications.
amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) training requirements, reports, Date of initial notice in Federal
the Commission’s related letter, Safety programs, and editorial changes in the Register: December 19, 2017 (82 FR
Evaluation and/or Environmental Technical Specifications Table of 60227).
Assessment as indicated. All of these Contents; Section 1.0, ‘‘Use and The Commission’s related evaluation
items can be accessed as described in Application’’; and Section 5.0, of the amendment is contained in a
the ‘‘Obtaining Information and ‘‘Administrative Controls,’’ that will no Safety Evaluation dated June 8, 2018.
Submitting Comments’’ section of this longer be applicable once Palisades No significant hazards consideration
document. Nuclear Plant is permanently defueled. comments received: No.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Date of issuance: June 4, 2018.
Arizona Public Service Company, et al., Florida Power & Light Company, Docket
Effective date: Upon the licensee’s
Docket Nos. STN 50–528, STN 50–529, Nos. 50–250 and 50–251, Turkey Point
submittal of the certifications required
and STN 50–530, Palo Verde Nuclear Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 3 and 4,
by 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1) and shall be
Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and Miami-Dade County, Florida
implemented within 60 days from the
3 (PVNGS), Maricopa County, Arizona Date of amendment request: June 28,
amendment effective date.
Date of amendment request: June 22, Amendment No.: 266. A publicly- 2017, as supplemented by letter dated
2017. available version is in ADAMS under February 28, 2018.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:07 Jul 02, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\03JYN1.SGM 03JYN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_31308/page/9.svg)
![31190 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2018 / Notices
application, did not expand the scope of STP Nuclear Operating Company, Facility Operating License No. NS–1:
the application as originally noticed, Docket Nos. 50–498 and 50–499, South The amendment revised the License.
and did not change the staff’s original Texas Project (STP), Units 1 and 2, Date of initial notice in Federal
proposed no significant hazards Matagorda County, Texas Register: May 8, 2018 (83 FR 20863).
consideration determination as The Commission’s related evaluation
Date of amendment request:
published in the Federal Register. of the amendment is contained in a
September 18, 2017.
The Commission’s related evaluation Safety Evaluation dated June 12, 2017.
Brief description of amendments: The
of the amendments is contained in the No significant hazards consideration
amendments relocated the defined core
Safety Evaluation dated April 11, 2018. comments received: No.
plane regions where the radial peaking
No significant hazards consideration factor limits are not applicable, called Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 21st day
comments received: No. radial peaking factor exclusion zones, of June 2018.
from TS 4.2.2.2.f to the Core Operating For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company,
Limits Reports (COLRs) for STP, Unit Tara Inverso,
Docket Nos. 52–025 and 52–026, Vogtle
Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), Unit Nos. 1 and 2. The amendment also Acting Deputy Director, Division of Operating
revised the COLR Administrative Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Nos. 3 and 4, Burke County, Georgia Regulation.
Controls TS to add exclusion zones to
Date of amendment request: February the list of limits found in the COLRs, [FR Doc. 2018–13758 Filed 7–2–18; 8:45 am]
2, 2018. and revised the description of the BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
Description of amendments: The methodology used to determine the
amendments authorized the Southern values for the radial peaking factor
Nuclear Operating Company to depart exclusion zones. In addition, the NUCLEAR REGULATORY
from the VEGP Units 3 and 4 plant- amendment corrected two COMMISSION
specific Appendix A, technical administrative errors. [NRC–2018–0116]
specifications as incorporated into the Date of issuance: June 7, 2018.
VEGP Unit Nos. 3 and 4 COLs, and Effective date: As of the date of Applications and Amendments to
changed to the approved AP1000 Design issuance and shall be implemented Facility Operating Licenses and
Control Document Tier 2 information as within 90 days from the date of Combined Licenses Involving
incorporated into the Updated Final issuance. Proposed No Significant Hazards
Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). Amendment Nos.: 213 (Unit 1) and Considerations and Containing
Specifically, the changes to the COLs 199 (Unit 2). A publicly-available Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards
Appendix A, included TS 5.6.3 for the version is in ADAMS under Accession Information and Order Imposing
core operating limits report No. ML18128A342; documents related Procedures for Access to Sensitive
documentation to remove certain reactor to these amendments are listed in the Unclassified Non-Safeguards
trip instrumentation from the list of core Safety Evaluation enclosed with the Information
operating limits and include analytical amendments.
methods mentioned elsewhere in the TS Renewed Facility Operating License AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory
and UFSAR and to TS 5.7.2 to correct Nos. NPF–76 and NPF–80: The Commission.
a typographical error in a description of amendments revised the Renewed ACTION: License amendment request;
a radiation monitoring device that may Facility Operating Licenses and notice of opportunity to comment,
be used in a high radiation area. The Technical Specifications. request a hearing, and petition for leave
changes to the UFSAR Tier 2 Table 1.6– Date of initial notice in Federal to intervene; order imposing
1, ‘‘Material Referenced,’’ and Section Register: December 5, 2017 (82 FR procedures.
4.3.5, ‘‘References,’’ updated the list of 57475).
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
references as described in the The Commission’s related evaluation
Commission (NRC) received and is
application. of the amendments is contained in a
considering approval of three
Date of issuance: May 31, 2018. Safety Evaluation dated June 7, 2018.
amendment requests. The amendment
Effective date: As of the date of No significant hazards consideration
requests are for Oconee Nuclear Station,
issuance and shall be implemented comments received: No.
Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3; Duane Arnold
within 30 days of issuance. United States Maritime Administration Energy Center; and Callaway Plant, Unit
Amendment Nos.: 124 (Unit 3) and (MARAD), Docket No. 50–238, Nuclear No. 1. For each amendment request, the
123 (Unit 4). A publicly-available Ship SAVANNAH (NSS), Baltimore, NRC proposes to determine that they
version is in ADAMS under Accession Maryland involve no significant hazards
No. ML18123A511; documents related consideration. Because each amendment
Date of amendment request: March
to these amendments are listed in the request contains sensitive unclassified
30, 2018.
Safety Evaluation enclosed with the non-safeguards information (SUNSI), an
Brief description of amendment: The
amendments. order imposes procedures to obtain
amendment revised the Technical
Facility Combined Licenses Nos. NPF– Specifications to establish controls for access to SUNSI for contention
91 and NPF–92: The amendments all accesses to the Containment Vessel preparation.
revised the Facility Combined Licenses. in support of two structural DATES: Comments must be filed by
Date of initial notice in Federal modifications. August 2, 2018. A request for a hearing
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Register: March 13, 2018 (83 FR Date of issuance: June 12, 2018. must be filed by September 3, 2018. Any
10911). Effective date: As of the date of potential party as defined in § 2.4 of title
The Commission’s related evaluation issuance and shall be implemented 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations
of the amendments is contained in the within 60 days. (10 CFR) who believes access to SUNSI
Safety Evaluation dated May 31, 2018. Amendment No.: 16. A publically- is necessary to respond to this notice
No significant hazards consideration available version is in ADAMS under must request document access by July
comments received: No. Accession No. ML18109A578. 13, 2018.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:07 Jul 02, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\03JYN1.SGM 03JYN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_31308/page/11.svg)
Document Created: 2018-07-02 23:56:10
Document Modified: 2018-07-02 23:56:10
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Notices | |
| Action | Biweekly notice. | |
| Dates | Comments must be filed by August 2, 2018. A request for a hearing must be filed by September 3, 2018. | |
| Contact | Paula Blechman, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2242, email: [email protected] | |
| FR Citation | 83 FR 31180 |
2024 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR