83 FR 36971 - 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 147 (July 31, 2018)

Page Range		36971-36980
FR Document		2018-15682

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 30, 2018 to July 16, 2018. The last biweekly notice was published on July 17, 2018.

Federal Register, Volume 83 Issue 147 (Tuesday, July 31, 2018)

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 147 (Tuesday, July 31, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36971-36980]
From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15682]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2018-0152]

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 30, 2018 to July 16, 2018. The last
biweekly notice was published on July 17, 2018.

DATES: Comments must be filed by August 30, 2018. A request for a
hearing must be filed by October 1, 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-2018-0152. 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: Shirley Rohrer, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-5411; email: Shirley.Rohrer@nrc.gov

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility
Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses and Proposed No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination

The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under
the Commission's regulations in section 50.92 of title 10 of the Code
of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), this means that operation of the
facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1)
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated, or (2) create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated;
or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis
for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown
below.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final
determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period if circumstances change during the 30-day comment
period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for
example in derating or shutdown of the facility. If the Commission
takes action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or
the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a notice of
issuance. If the Commission makes a final no significant hazards
consideration determination, any hearing will take place after
issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will
occur very infrequently.

[[Page 36972]]

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 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

[[Page 36973]]

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 hearing docket.
Participants are requested not to include personal privacy information,
such as social security numbers, home addresses, or personal phone
numbers in their filings, unless an NRC regulation or other law
requires submission of such information. For example, in some
instances, individuals provide home addresses in order to demonstrate
proximity to a facility or site. With respect to copyrighted works,
except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory
filings and would constitute a Fair Use application, participants are
requested not to include copyrighted materials in their submission.
For further details with respect to these license amendment
applications, see the application for amendment which is available for
public inspection in ADAMS and at the NRC's PDR. For additional
direction on accessing information related to this document, see the
``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' section of this
document.

Arizona Public Service Company (APS), et al., Docket Nos. STN 50-528,
STN 50-529, and STN 50-530, Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Unit
Nos. 1, 2, and 3, Maricopa County, Arizona

Date of amendment request: May 25, 2018. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18145A303.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the
technical specification (TS) requirement regarding response time
testing of pressure transmitters.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:

1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises the Technical Specification (TS)
Definition of Reactor Protective System (RPS) and Engineered Safety
Features (ESF) system instrumentation response time to permit
Arizona Public Service Company (APS) to evaluate using an NRC-
approved methodology and apply a bounding response time for pressure
transmitters in lieu of measurement. The requirement for the
instrumentation to actuate within the response time assumed in the
accident analysis is unaffected.
The response time associated with the RPS and ESF
instrumentation is not an initiator of any accident. Therefore, the
proposed change has no significant effect on the probability of any
accident previously evaluated.
The affected RPS and ESF instrumentation are assumed to actuate
their respective components within the required response time to
mitigate accidents previously evaluated. Revising the TS definition
for RPS and ESF instrumentation response times to allow an NRC-
approved methodology for verifying response time for pressure
transmitters does not alter the surveillance requirements that
verify the RPS and ESF instrumentation response times are within the
required limits. As such, the TS will continue to assure that the
RPS and ESF instrumentation actuate their associated

[[Page 36974]]

components within the specified response time to accomplish the
required safety functions assumed in the accident analyses.
Therefore, the assumptions used in any accidents previously
evaluated are unchanged and there is no significant increase in the
consequences.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises the TS Definition of RPS and ESF
instrumentation response time to permit APS to evaluate using an
NRC-approved methodology and apply a bounding response time for
pressure transmitters in lieu of measurement. The proposed change
does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or
different type of equipment will be installed). The proposed change
does not alter any assumptions made in the safety analyses. The
proposed change does not alter the limiting conditions for operation
for the RPS or ESF instrumentation, nor does it change the
Surveillance Requirement to verify the RPS and ESF instrumentation
response times are within the required limits. As such, the proposed
change does not alter the operability requirements for the RPS and
ESF instrumentation, and therefore, does not introduce any new
failure modes.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises the TS Definition of RPS and ESF
instrumentation response time to permit APS to evaluate using an
NRC-approved methodology and apply a bounding response time for
pressure transmitters in lieu of measurement. The proposed change
has no effect on the required RPS and ESF instrumentation response
times or setpoints assumed in the safety analyses and the TS
requirements to verify those response times and setpoints.
The proposed change does not alter any Safety Limits or
analytical limits in the safety analysis. The proposed change does
not alter the TS operability requirements for the RPS and ESF
instrumentation. The RPS and ESF instrumentation actuation of the
required systems and components at the required setpoints and within
the specified response times will continue to accomplish the design
basis safety functions of the associated systems and components in
the same manner as before. As such, the RPS and ESF instrumentation
will continue to perform the required safety functions as assumed in
the safety analyses for all previously evaluated accidents.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
reduction in the margin of safety.

The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
that review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
request for amendments involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Michael G. Green, Senior Regulatory Counsel,
Pinnacle West Capital Corporation, P.O. Box 52034, Mail Station 8695,
Phoenix, Arizona 85072-2034.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370, McGuire
Nuclear Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina

Date of amendment request: February 26, 2018. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18065A180.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would modify
Technical Specification (TS) 3.4.11, ``Pressurizer Power Operated
Relief Valves (PORVs),'' to resolve non-conservative Required Actions.
TS 3.8.11, Condition B for one or two PORVs inoperable and not capable
of being manually cycled is revised to split it into three separate
Conditions: (1) One Train B PORV inoperable and not capable of being
manually cycled, (2) one Train A PORV inoperable and not capable of
being manually cycled, and (3) two Train B PORVs inoperable and not
capable of being manually cycled. TS 3.8.11, Condition C for one block
valve inoperable is revised to split it into two separate Conditions:
(1) One Train B block valve inoperable and (2) one Train A block valve
inoperable. TS 3.8.11, Condition F for two block valves inoperable is
revised to be new Condition I for two Train B block valves inoperable.
A new Condition, Condition J, is added for one Train B PORV and the
other Train B block valve inoperable. Current Condition G for three
block valve inoperable is revised to be new Condition K. Current
Condition D is revised and renamed as Condition E, current Condition E
is revised and renamed as Condition F and current Condition H is
revised and renamed as new Condition L. Surveillance Requirement (SR)
3.4.11.1 Note is revised to include additional Conditions when
performing this SR is not required for inoperable block valves in these
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 change revises the TS for the purpose of correcting
non-conservative TS Required Actions when PORVs and associated block
valves are inoperable. By requiring inoperable PORVs and block
valves be returned to operable status within specified completion
times, the proposed change will increase the availability of
equipment for performing safety-related functions. The proposed
change ensures assumptions associated with accident analyses are
met. The probability of an accident previously evaluated is not
affected and there is no increase in the consequences of any
accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises the TS for the purpose of correcting
non-conservative TS Required Actions. The proposed change does not
introduce new equipment or new equipment operating modes. The
proposed change does not increase the likelihood of the malfunction
of any system, structure, or component, or negatively impact any
analyzed accident. The proposed change ensures assumptions made in
the safety analyses are met. Therefore, the proposed change does not
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from
any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in the margin of safety?
Response: No.
Overall plant safety would be enhanced as a result of the
additional restrictions placed on the PORVs and associated block
valves. The proposed change does not alter the manner in which
safety limits, limiting safety system settings, or limiting
conditions for operation are determined.
The safety analysis assumptions and acceptance criteria are not
affected by this change. Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a 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: Kate B. Nolan, Deputy General Counsel, Duke
Energy Carolinas, LLC, 550 South Tryon Street--DEC45A Charlotte, NC
28202-1802.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

[[Page 36975]]

Entergy Louisiana, LLC, and Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-
458, River Bend Station, Unit No. 1 (RBS), West Feliciana Parish,
Louisiana

Date of amendment request: April 30, 2018. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18128A044.
Description of amendment request: The proposed change would revise
the Emergency Plan for RBS to adopt the revised Emergency Action Level
(EAL) scheme described in Revision 6 to Nuclear Energy Institute's
(NEI's), NEI 99-01, ``Development of Emergency Action Levels for Non-
Passive Reactors.'' Revision 6 to NEI 99-01 was endorsed by the NRC by
letter dated March 28, 2013 (ADAMS Accession No. ML12346A463).
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:

1. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to the RBS EALs do not involve any physical
changes to plant equipment or systems and do not alter the
assumptions of any accident analyses. The proposed changes do not
adversely affect accident initiators or precursors and do not alter
design assumptions, plant configuration, or the manner in which the
plant is operated and maintained. The proposed changes do not
adversely affect the ability of structures, systems or components
(SSCs) to perform intended safety functions in mitigating the
consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance
limits.
Therefore, the changes do not involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
No new accident scenarios, failure mechanisms, or limiting
single failures are introduced as a result of the proposed changes.
The changes do 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. Because EALs are not accident
initiators and no physical changes are made to the plant, no new
causal mechanisms are introduced.
Therefore, the changes do not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from an accident previously evaluated.
3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
Margin of safety is associated with the ability of the fission
product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, reactor coolant system
pressure boundary, and containment structure) to limit the level of
radiation dose to the public. The proposed changes do not impact
operation of the plant and no accident analyses are affected by the
proposed changes. The changes do not affect the Technical
Specifications or the method of operating the plant. Additionally,
the proposed changes will not relax any criteria used to establish
safety limits and will not relax any safety system settings. The
safety analysis acceptance criteria are not affected by these
changes. The proposed changes will not result in plant operation in
a configuration outside the design basis. The proposed changes do
not adversely affect systems that respond to safely shut down the
plant and to maintain the plant in a safe shutdown condition.
Therefore, the changes do not involve a significant reduction in
a margin of safety.

The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Anna Vinson Jones, Senior Counsel--Entergy
Services, Inc., 101 Constitution Avenue NW, Suite 200 East, Washington
DC 20001.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.

Entergy Operations, Inc. (Entergy), System Energy Resources, Inc.,
Cooperative Energy, A Mississippi Electric Cooperative, and Entergy
Mississippi, Inc., Docket No. 50-416, Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit
No. 1, Claiborne County, Mississippi

Date of amendment request: April 12, 2018, as supplemented by
letter dated June 7, 2018. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS
under Accession Nos. ML18102B445 and ML18158A514, respectively.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
modify the technical specifications (TSs) by relocating specific
surveillance frequencies to a licensee-controlled program with the
adoption of Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-
425, Revision 3, ``Relocate Surveillance Frequencies to Licensee
Control-RITSTF [Risk-Informed TSTF] Initiative 5b.'' Additionally, the
change would add a new program, the Surveillance Frequency Control
Program (SFCP), to TS Chapter 5.0, ``Administrative Controls.''
The NRC staff issued a ``Notice of Availability of Technical
Specification Improvement to Relocate Surveillance Frequencies to
Licensee Control-Risk-Informed Technical Specification Task Force
(RITSTF) Initiative 5b, Technical Specification Task Force-425,
Revision 3,'' in the Federal Register on July 6, 2009 (74 FR 31996).
The notice included a model safety evaluation, a model no significant
hazards consideration (NSHC) determination, and a model license
amendment request. In its application dated April 12, 2018, the
licensee affirmed the applicability of the model NSHC determination,
which is presented below.
Basis for proposed NSHC determination: As required by 10 CFR
50.91(a), an analysis of the issue of NSHC adopted by the licensee is
presented below:

1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change relocates the specified frequencies for
periodic surveillance requirements to licensee control under a new
Surveillance Frequency Control Program. Surveillance frequencies are
not an initiator to any accident previously evaluated. As a result,
the probability of any accident previously evaluated is not
significantly increased. The systems and components required by the
technical specifications for which the surveillance frequencies are
relocated are still required to be operable, meet the acceptance
criteria for the surveillance requirements, and be capable of
performing any mitigation function assumed in the accident analysis.
As a result, the consequences of any accident previously evaluated
are not significantly increased.
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 previously evaluated?
Response: No.
No new or different accidents result from utilizing the proposed
change. The changes do not involve a physical alteration of the
plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be
installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant
operation. In addition, the changes do not impose any new or
different requirements. The changes do not alter assumptions made in
the safety analysis. The proposed changes are consistent with the
safety analysis assumptions and current plant operating practice.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.

[[Page 36976]]

3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The design, operation, testing methods, and acceptance criteria
for systems, structures, and components (SSCs), specified in
applicable codes and standards (or alternatives approved for use by
the NRC) will continue to be met as described in the plant licensing
basis (including the final safety analysis report and bases to TS),
since these are not affected by changes to the surveillance
frequencies. Similarly, there is no impact to safety analysis
acceptance criteria as described in the plant licensing basis. To
evaluate a change in the relocated surveillance frequency, Entergy
will perform a probabilistic risk evaluation using the guidance
contained in NRC approved [Nuclear Energy Institute] NEI 04-10, Rev.
1 in accordance with the TS SFCP. NEI 04-10, Rev. 1, methodology
provides reasonable acceptance guidelines and methods for evaluating
the risk increase of proposed changes to surveillance frequencies
consistent with Regulatory Guide 1.177.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.

The NRC staff has reviewed the analysis adopted by the licensee
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 NSHC.
Attorney for licensee: Anna Vinson Jones, Senior Counsel/Legal
Department, Entergy Services, Inc., 101 Constitution Avenue NW,
Washington, DC 20001.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.

Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-382, Waterford Steam Electric
Station, Unit No. 3 (Waterford 3), St. Charles Parish, Louisiana

Date of amendment request: March 26, 2018, as supplemented by
letter dated May 17, 2018. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS
under Accession Nos. ML18085B196 and ML18137A494, respectively.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise Waterford 3 Technical Specifications (TS) Section 3/4.7.4,
``Ultimate Heat Sink.'' Specifically, the proposed amendment would
correct the wet cooling tower basin level discrepancy, revise
requirements for cooling fan operation described in TS 3.7.4 Action
Statements a, c, and d, and revise TS Table 3.7-3, ``Ultimate Heat Sink
Minimum Fan Requirements Per Train.''
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 modifies Technical Specification 3/4.7.4 to
be consistent with the revised design basis calculations. This
change is necessary to preserve the assumptions and limits of the
revised ultimate heat sink design basis calculation. The calculation
determines the maximum number of cooling tower fans allowed out-of-
service for a given dry bulb temperature and establishes appropriate
cooling tower fan operating requirements. The proposed change does
not directly affect any material condition of the plant that could
contribute to an accident or that could contribute to the
consequences of an accident. The proposed change ensures that the
mitigating effects of the ultimate heat sink will be consistent with
the design basis analysis. Therefore, the proposed change will not
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of
any accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change modifies Technical Specification 3/4.7.4 to
be consistent with the revised design basis calculations. [The
revised calculation modifies the dry and wet cooling tower fan
operability requirements to account for increased recirculation
impacts for different ambient conditions and heat loads.] The
proposed change to Technical Specification 3/4.7.4 does not alter
the operation of the plant or the manner in which the plant is
operated such that it created credible new failure mechanisms,
malfunctions, or accident initiators. 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 modifies Technical Specification 3/4.7.4 to
be consistent with the revised design basis calculations. The
modified dry and wet cooling tower fan operability requirements
result from placing lower limits on the dry bulb temperatures in the
Technical Specification and limits on the number of wet cooling
tower out-of-service fans per cell. The proposed change preserves
the margin of safety by ensuring that the minimum number of operable
fans for a given temperature are capable of removing the heat duty
for the ultimate heat sink. The proposed change does not exceed or
alter a design basis safety limit and maintains the ultimate heat
sink capability of performing its safety function. Therefore, this
change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.

The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Anna Vinson Jones, Senior Counsel, Entergy
Services, Inc., 101 Constitution Avenue NW, Suite 200 East, Washington,
DC 20001.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-244, R. E. Ginna Nuclear
Power Plant, Wayne County, New York

Date of amendment request June 25, 2018. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18176A327.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise the requirements on control and shutdown rods, and rod and bank
position indication in Technical Specification (TS) 3.1.4, ``Rod Group
Alignment Limits,'' TS 3.1.5, ``Shutdown Bank Insertion Limit,'' TS
3.1.6, ``Control Bank Insertion Limits,'' and TS 3.1.7, ``Rod Position
Indication'' consistent with NRC-approved Technical Specification Task
Force Traveler (TSTF)-547, Revision 1, ``Clarification of Rod Position
Requirements'' dated March 4, 2016 (ADAMS Accession Package No.
ML16012A126).
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.
Control and shutdown rods are assumed to insert into the core to
shut down the reactor in evaluated accidents. Rod insertion limits
ensure that adequate negative reactivity is available to provide the
assumed shutdown margin (SDM). Rod alignment and overlap limits
maintain an appropriate power distribution and reactivity insertion
profile.
Control and shutdown rods are initiators to several accidents
previously evaluated, such as rod ejection. The proposed change does
not change the limiting conditions for operation for the rods or
make any technical changes to the Technical Specifications (TS)
Surveillance Requirements (SRs) governing the rods. Therefore, the
proposed change has no effect on the probability of any accident
previously evaluated.
Revising the TS Required Actions to provide a limited time to
repair rod movement control has no effect on the SDM assumed in the
accident analysis as the

[[Page 36977]]

proposed Required Actions require verification that SDM is
maintained. The effects on power distribution will not cause a
significant increase in the consequences of any accident previously
evaluated as all TS requirements on power distribution continue to
be applicable.
Revising the TS Required Actions to provide an alternative to
frequent use of the moveable incore detector system to verify the
position of rods with an inoperable rod position indicator does not
change the requirements for the rods to be aligned and within the
insertion limits.
Therefore, the assumptions used in any accidents previously
evaluated are unchanged and there is no significant increase in the
consequences.
The proposed change to resolve the differences in the TS ensure
that the intended Actions are followed when equipment is inoperable.
Actions taken with inoperable equipment are not assumptions in the
accidents previously evaluated and have no significant effect on the
consequences.
The proposed change to eliminate an unnecessary action has no
effect on the consequences of accidents previously evaluated as the
analysis of those accidents did not consider the use of the actions.
The proposed change to increase consistency within the TS has no
effect on the consequences of accidents previously evaluated as the
proposed change clarifies the application of the existing
requirements and does not change the intent.
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 accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of
the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be
installed). The change does not alter assumptions made in the safety
analyses. The proposed change does not alter the limiting conditions
for operation for the rods or make any technical changes to the
Surveillance Requirements governing the rods. The proposed change
[to actions] maintains or improves safety when equipment is
inoperable and does not introduce new failure modes.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different 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 to allow time for rod position indication
to stabilize after rod movement and to allow an alternative method
of verifying rod position has no effect on the safety margin as
actual rod position is not affected.] The proposed change to provide
time to repair rods that are operable but immovable does not result
in a significant reduction in the margin of safety because all rods
must be verified to be operable, and all other banks must be within
the insertion limits. The remaining proposed changes to make the
requirements internally consistent and to eliminate unnecessary
actions do not affect the margin of safety as the changes do not
affect the ability of the rods to perform their specified safety
function.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.

Based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR
50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore the NRC staff proposes to determine
that the amendment request involves no significant hazards
consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel,
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL
60555.
NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-
364, Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Houston County,
Alabama

Date of amendment request: December 21, 2017, as supplemented by
letter dated June 7, 2018. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS
under Accession Nos. ML17355A516, and ML18158A579, respectively.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise TS 3.3.2, ``Engineered Safety Feature Actuation System (ESFAS)
Instrumentation,'' by adding TS Actions that allow time to restore one
high steam flow channel per steam line to Operable status before
requiring a unit shutdown in the event two channels in one or more
steam lines are discovered inoperable due to the trip setting not
within Allowable Value.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:

1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment does not affect accident initiators or
precursors nor adversely alter the design assumptions, conditions,
and configuration of the facility. The proposed amendment does not
alter any plant equipment or operating practices with respect to
such initiators or precursors in a manner that the probability of an
accident is increased.
The proposed amendment does not involve a physical change to the
ESFAS, nor does it change the safety function of the ESFAS
instrumentation or the equipment supported by the ESFAS
instrumentation. The ESFAS high steam flow channels are not assumed
in the mitigation of any previously evaluated accident or transient.
Automatic steam line isolation on high steam flow, containment high
pressure, or low steam pressure is assumed in the mitigation of a
major secondary system pipe rupture accident which bounds minor
secondary system pipe breaks and the accidental opening of a
secondary system steam dump, relief, or safety valve. Manual steam
line isolation capability is also provided [assumed] in the
mitigation of spectra of smaller secondary system pipe ruptures.
During the time proposed to normalize the high steam flow channels,
automatic ESFAS steam line isolation continues to be provided from
either a containment high pressure signal or a low steam pressure
signal, which are not impacted by the proposed license change.
Additionally, manual steam line isolation continues to be provided
by the ESFAS manual channels, which are not impacted by the proposed
license change. As a result, the proposed amendment does not
significantly alter assumptions relative to the mitigation of an
accident or transient event and 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.
With respect to a new or different kind of accident, there are
no proposed design changes to the ESFAS; nor are there any changes
in the method by which safety related plant structures, systems, and
components perform their specified safety functions. The proposed
amendment will not affect the normal method of plant operation or
revise any operating parameters. No new accident scenarios,
transient precursor, failure mechanisms, or limiting single failures
will be introduced as a result of this proposed change and the
failure modes and effects analyses of SSCs important to safety are
not altered as a result of this proposed change.
The proposed amendment does not alter the design or performance
of the ESFAS, rather, it adds actions that allow time to normalize
the high steam flow channels associated with the ESFAS steam line
isolation before requiring a unit shutdown in the event multiple
channels are discovered inoperable due to the trip settings not
within the required accuracy. The process to normalize the high
steam flow channels uses current procedures, methods, and processes
already established and currently in use and, therefore, does not
constitute a new type of test.
No changes are being proposed to the procedures that operate the
plant equipment and the change does not have a detrimental impact on
the manner in which plant equipment operates or responds to an
actuation signal.
Therefore, the proposed change will not create the possibility
of a new or different accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.

[[Page 36978]]

The margin of safety is related to 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. The performance of
these fission product barriers will not be affected by the proposed
change.
Instrumentation safety margin is established by ensuring the
limiting safety system settings (LSSSs) automatically actuate the
applicable design function to correct an abnormal situation before a
safety limit is exceeded. Safety analysis limits are established for
reactor trip system and ESFAS instrumentation functions related to
those variables having significant safety functions. Containment
pressure and steam line pressure provide the limiting parameter
values assumed in the safety and transient analyses for mitigation
of previously evaluated accidents and transients, including steam
line break accidents. The high steam flow in two steam lines
instrument function is not used in the safety analysis and a safety
analysis limit is not specified for this trip function. Therefore,
the high steam flow in two steam lines instrument function does not
represent an LSSS because this instrumentation does not monitor a
plant variable on which a safety limit has been placed.
The controlling parameters established to isolate the steam
lines during an accident or transient are not affected by the
proposed amendment and no design basis or safety limit is altered as
a result of the proposed change. 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: Jennifer M. Buettner, Associate General
Counsel, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., 40 Inverness Center
Parkway, Birmingham, AL 35242.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

STP Nuclear Operating Company (STPNOC), Docket Nos. 50-498 and 50-499,
South Texas Project, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Matagorda County, Texas

Date of amendment request: March 27, 2018. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18086B761.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise certain minimum voltage and frequency acceptance criteria for
steady-state standby diesel generator (SBDG) surveillance requirement
testing. Specifically, the licensee would revise several subsections of
Technical Specification 3.8.1.1, ``A.C. [Alternating Current] Sources,
Operating,'' to correct non-conservative acceptance criteria.
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 SBDGs are not initiators for any accidents evaluated in the
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). The proposed change
provides a more conservative range of acceptable SBDG voltage and
frequency values. Thus, Technical Specification Surveillance
Requirements will continue to demonstrate sufficient margin such
that mitigation of accidents evaluated in the UFSAR is not impacted.
The proposed change does not alter the design function of the SBDGs
nor does it affect how the SBDGs are operated or physically tested.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve an 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 involve any physical alterations
and no new or different types of equipment are being installed.
Requiring a more conservative range of acceptable SBDG voltage and
frequency values does not affect SBDG operation and does not affect
the ability of the SBDGs to perform their design function. There are
no new credible failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident
initiators introduced as a result of the proposed change. 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.
Since the proposed change provides a more conservative range of
acceptable SBDG voltage and frequency values, the margin of safety
is maintained. Where required, Technical Specification Surveillance
Requirement acceptance criteria have been procedurally adjusted to
ensure equipment performance meets accident analysis assumptions
considering uncertainties in steady-state SBDG voltage and
frequency. STPNOC has evaluated the effects of SBDG voltage and
frequency variations on affected equipment and confirmed that the
design basis analyses are not adversely affected. 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 standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
request for amendments involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Kym Harshaw, Vice President and General
Counsel, STP Nuclear Operating Company, P.O. Box 289, Wadsworth, TX
77483.
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.

II. Previously Published Notices of Consideration of Issuance of
Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses,
Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and
Opportunity for a Hearing

The following notices were previously published as separate
individual notices. The notice content was the same as above. They were
published as individual notices either because time did not allow the
Commission to wait for this biweekly notice or because the action
involved exigent circumstances. They are repeated here because the
biweekly notice lists all amendments issued or proposed to be issued
involving no significant hazards consideration.
For details, see the individual notice in the Federal Register on
the day and page cited. This notice does not extend the notice period
of the original notice.

Nebraska Public Power District, Docket No. 50-298, Cooper Nuclear
Station (CNS), Nemaha County, Nebraska

Date of amendment request: May 10, 2018. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18137A199.
Brief description of amendment request: The proposed amendment
would modify the CNS technical specifications by revising the two
recirculation loop and single recirculation loop Safety Limit Minimum
Critical Power Ratio values to reflect the results of a cycle specific
calculation.
Date of publication of individual notice in Federal Register: July
2, 2018 (83 FR 30984).
Expiration date of individual notice: August 1, 2018 (public
comments); August 31, 2018 (hearing requests).

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

[[Page 36979]]

complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act
of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and
regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required
by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR chapter
I, which are set forth in the license amendment.
A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility
operating license or combined license, as applicable, proposed no
significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a
hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the Federal
Register as indicated.
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that
these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in
accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b),
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be
prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an
environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in
10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment,
it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the action see (1) the
applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's
related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as
indicated. All of these items can be accessed as described in the
``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' section of this
document.

Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-325 and 50-324, Brunswick
Steam Electric Plant (BSEP), Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Brunswick County, North
Carolina

Date of amendment request: November 15, 2017, as supplemented by
letter dated May 23, 2018.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised fire
protection license condition 2.B.(6) to allow, as a performance-based
method, certain currently-installed thermal insulation materials to be
retained and allow future use of these insulation materials in limited
applications subject to appropriate engineering reviews and controls,
as a deviation from the National Fire Protection Association Standard
805, Chapter 3, Section 3.3, Prevention.
Date of issuance: July 6, 2018.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 120 days.
Amendment Nos.: 284 (Unit 1) and 312 (Unit 2). A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18106B169; documents related
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with
the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-71 and DPR-62:
Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 13, 2018 (83
FR 6221). The supplemental letter dated May 23, 2018, provided
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change
the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 6, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Florida Power & Light Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389,
St. Lucie Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, St. Lucie County, Florida

Date of amendment request: September 14, 2017, as supplemented by
letter dated February 14, 2018.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the St.
Lucie Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Technical Specifications related to
inoperable Auxiliary Feedwater pump steam supply.
Date of issuance: July 9, 2018.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 245 (Unit 1) and 196 (Unit 2). A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18129A149; documents related
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with
the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-67 and NPF-16: The
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 7, 2017 (82 FR
51652). The supplement dated February 14, 2018, provided additional
information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of
the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's
original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as
published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 9, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Indiana Michigan Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-315 and 50-316, Donald
C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Berrien County, Michigan

Date of amendment request: November 7, 2017, as supplemented by
letter dated May 4, 2018.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments allow for deviation
from National Fire Protection Association 805 requirements to allow for
currently installed non-plenum listed cables routed above suspended
ceilings and to allow for the use of thin wall electrical metallic
tubing and embedded/buried plastic conduit.
Date of issuance: July 6, 2018.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 340 (Unit 1) and 322 (Unit 2). A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18131A253; documents related
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with
the amendments.
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-58 and DPR-74: The amendments
revised the Facility Operating Licenses.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 2, 2018 (83 FR
169). The supplemental letter dated May 4, 2018, provided additional
information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of
the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's
original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as
published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 6, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration comments received. No.

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 50-259, Browns Ferry Nuclear
Plant, Unit No. 1, Limestone County, Alabama

Date of amendment request: March 16, 2018, as supplemented by
letter dated April 19, 2018.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised License
Condition 2.C(18)(a)3 for Unit No. 1 to alter the time for submittal of
a revised replacement steam dryer analysis from at least 90 days prior
to the start of the Unit No. 1 extended power uprate outage to 60 days
prior to exceeding 3458 megawatt thermal after the outage.
Date of issuance: July 10, 2018.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
immediately.

[[Page 36980]]

Amendment No.: 304. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML18171A337; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-33: Amendment revised
the Unit 1 operating license.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: The license amendment
request was originally noticed in the Federal Register on April 10,
2018 (83 FR 15418). The supplement dated April 19, 2018, was noticed on
May 8, 2018 (83 FR 20862), which superseded the original notice in its
entirety.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in the Safety Evaluation dated July 10, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 18th day of July 2018.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Tara Inverso,
Acting Deputy Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office
of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2018-15682 Filed 7-30-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

36972 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 147 / Tuesday, July 31, 2018 / Notices

A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing petitioner to relief. A petitioner who section of this document, and should
and Petition for Leave To Intervene fails to satisfy the requirements at 10 meet the requirements for petitions set
Within 60 days after the date of CFR 2.309(f) with respect to at least one forth in this section, except that under
publication of this notice, any persons contention will not be permitted to 10 CFR 2.309(h)(2) a State, local
(petitioner) whose interest may be participate as a party. governmental body, or Federally-
Those permitted to intervene become recognized Indian Tribe, or agency
affected by this action may file a request
parties to the proceeding, subject to any thereof does not need to address the
for a hearing and petition for leave to
limitations in the order granting leave to standing requirements in 10 CFR
intervene (petition) with respect to the
intervene. Parties have the opportunity 2.309(d) if the facility is located within
action. Petitions shall be filed in
to participate fully in the conduct of the its boundaries. Alternatively, a State,
accordance with the Commission’s
hearing with respect to resolution of local governmental body, Federally-
‘‘Agency Rules of Practice and
that party’s admitted contentions, recognized Indian Tribe, or agency
Procedure’’ in 10 CFR part 2. Interested
including the opportunity to present thereof may participate as a non-party
persons should consult a current copy
evidence, consistent with the NRC’s under 10 CFR 2.315(c).
of 10 CFR 2.309. The NRC’s regulations
regulations, policies, and procedures. If a hearing is granted, any person
are accessible electronically from the Petitions must be filed no later than who is not a party to the proceeding and
NRC Library on the NRC’s website at 60 days from the date of publication of is not affiliated with or represented by
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc- this notice. Petitions and motions for a party may, at the discretion of the
collections/cfr/. Alternatively, a copy of leave to file new or amended presiding officer, be permitted to make
the regulations is available at the NRC’s contentions that are filed after the a limited appearance pursuant to the
Public Document Room, located at One deadline will not be entertained absent provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person
White Flint North, Room O1–F21, 11555 a determination by the presiding officer making a limited appearance may make
Rockville Pike (First Floor), Rockville, that the filing demonstrates good cause an oral or written statement of his or her
Maryland 20852. If a petition is filed, by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR position on the issues but may not
the Commission or a presiding officer 2.309(c)(1)(i) through (iii). The petition otherwise participate in the proceeding.
will rule on the petition and, if must be filed in accordance with the A limited appearance may be made at
appropriate, a notice of a hearing will be filing instructions in the ‘‘Electronic any session of the hearing or at any
issued. Submissions (E-Filing)’’ section of this prehearing conference, subject to the
As required by 10 CFR 2.309(d) the document. limits and conditions as may be
petition should specifically explain the If a hearing is requested, and the imposed by the presiding officer. Details
reasons why intervention should be Commission has not made a final regarding the opportunity to make a
permitted with particular reference to determination on the issue of no limited appearance will be provided by
the following general requirements for significant hazards consideration, the the presiding officer if such sessions are
standing: (1) The name, address, and Commission will make a final scheduled.
telephone number of the petitioner; (2) determination on the issue of no
the nature of the petitioner’s right under significant hazards consideration. The B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)
the Act to be made a party to the final determination will serve to All documents filed in NRC
proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of establish when the hearing is held. If the adjudicatory proceedings, including a
the petitioner’s property, financial, or final determination is that the request for hearing and petition for
other interest in the proceeding; and (4) amendment request involves no leave to intervene (petition), any motion
the possible effect of any decision or significant hazards consideration, the or other document filed in the
order which may be entered in the Commission may issue the amendment proceeding prior to the submission of a
proceeding on the petitioner’s interest. and make it immediately effective, request for hearing or petition to
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f), notwithstanding the request for a intervene, and documents filed by
the petition must also set forth the hearing. Any hearing would take place interested governmental entities that
specific contentions which the after issuance of the amendment. If the request to participate under 10 CFR
petitioner seeks to have litigated in the final determination is that the 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance
proceeding. Each contention must amendment request involves a with the NRC’s E-Filing rule (72 FR
consist of a specific statement of the significant hazards consideration, then 49139; August 28, 2007, as amended at
issue of law or fact to be raised or any hearing held would take place 77 FR 46562; August 3, 2012). The E-
controverted. In addition, the petitioner before the issuance of the amendment Filing process requires participants to
must provide a brief explanation of the unless the Commission finds an submit and serve all adjudicatory
bases for the contention and a concise imminent danger to the health or safety documents over the internet, or in some
statement of the alleged facts or expert of the public, in which case it will issue cases to mail copies on electronic
opinion which support the contention an appropriate order or rule under 10 storage media. Detailed guidance on
and on which the petitioner intends to CFR part 2. making electronic submissions may be
rely in proving the contention at the A State, local governmental body, found in the Guidance for Electronic
hearing. The petitioner must also Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or Submissions to the NRC and on the NRC
provide references to the specific agency thereof, may submit a petition to website at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/
sources and documents on which the the Commission to participate as a party e-submittals.html. Participants may not
petitioner intends to rely to support its under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition submit paper copies of their filings
position on the issue. The petition must should state the nature and extent of the unless they seek an exemption in
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES

include sufficient information to show petitioner’s interest in the proceeding. accordance with the procedures
that a genuine dispute exists with the The petition should be submitted to the described below.
applicant or licensee on a material issue Commission no later than 60 days from To comply with the procedural
of law or fact. Contentions must be the date of publication of this notice. requirements of E-Filing, at least 10
limited to matters within the scope of The petition must be filed in accordance days prior to the filing deadline, the
the proceeding. The contention must be with the filing instructions in the participant should contact the Office of
one which, if proven, would entitle the ‘‘Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)’’ the Secretary by email at

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:30 Jul 30, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00101 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\31JYN1.SGM 31JYN1

36974 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 147 / Tuesday, July 31, 2018 / Notices

components within the specified response review, it appears that the three 1. Does the proposed amendment involve
time to accomplish the required safety standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are a significant increase in the probability or
functions assumed in the accident analyses. satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff consequences of an accident previously
Therefore, the assumptions used in any evaluated?
proposes to determine that the request
accidents previously evaluated are Response: No.
unchanged and there is no significant for amendments involves no significant
hazards consideration. The proposed change revises the TS for the
increase in the consequences.
Attorney for licensee: Michael G. purpose of correcting non-conservative TS
Therefore, the proposed amendment does
not involve a significant increase in the Green, Senior Regulatory Counsel, Required Actions when PORVs and
probability or consequences of an accident Pinnacle West Capital Corporation, P.O. associated block valves are inoperable. By
previously evaluated. Box 52034, Mail Station 8695, Phoenix, requiring inoperable PORVs and block valves
2. Does the proposed amendment create Arizona 85072–2034. be returned to operable status within
the possibility of a new or different kind of NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. specified completion times, the proposed
accident from any accident previously Pascarelli. change will increase the availability of
evaluated? equipment for performing safety-related
Response: No. Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket functions. The proposed change ensures
The proposed change revises the TS Nos. 50–369 and 50–370, McGuire assumptions associated with accident
Definition of RPS and ESF instrumentation Nuclear Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, analyses are met. The probability of an
response time to permit APS to evaluate Mecklenburg County, North Carolina accident previously evaluated is not affected
using an NRC-approved methodology and
Date of amendment request: February and there is no increase in the consequences
apply a bounding response time for pressure
transmitters in lieu of measurement. The 26, 2018. A publicly-available version is of any accident previously evaluated.
proposed change does not involve a physical in ADAMS under Accession No. 2. Does the proposed amendment create
alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or ML18065A180. the possibility of a new or different kind of
different type of equipment will be installed). Description of amendment request: accident from any accident previously
The proposed change does not alter any The amendments would modify evaluated?
assumptions made in the safety analyses. The Technical Specification (TS) 3.4.11, Response: No.
proposed change does not alter the limiting The proposed change revises the TS for the
conditions for operation for the RPS or ESF
‘‘Pressurizer Power Operated Relief
purpose of correcting non-conservative TS
instrumentation, nor does it change the Valves (PORVs),’’ to resolve non-
Required Actions. The proposed change does
Surveillance Requirement to verify the RPS conservative Required Actions. TS
not introduce new equipment or new
and ESF instrumentation response times are 3.8.11, Condition B for one or two
equipment operating modes. The proposed
within the required limits. As such, the PORVs inoperable and not capable of change does not increase the likelihood of
proposed change does not alter the being manually cycled is revised to split the malfunction of any system, structure, or
operability requirements for the RPS and ESF it into three separate Conditions: (1)
instrumentation, and therefore, does not component, or negatively impact any
One Train B PORV inoperable and not analyzed accident. The proposed change
introduce any new failure modes. capable of being manually cycled, (2)
Therefore, the proposed amendment does ensures assumptions made in the safety
not create the possibility of a new or different
one Train A PORV inoperable and not analyses are met. Therefore, the proposed
kind of accident from any accident capable of being manually cycled, and change does not create the possibility of a
previously evaluated. (3) two Train B PORVs inoperable and new or different kind of accident from any
3. Does the proposed amendment involve not capable of being manually cycled. accident previously evaluated.
a significant reduction in a margin of safety? TS 3.8.11, Condition C for one block 3. Does the proposed amendment involve
Response: No. valve inoperable is revised to split it a significant reduction in the margin of
The proposed change revises the TS into two separate Conditions: (1) One safety?
Definition of RPS and ESF instrumentation Train B block valve inoperable and (2) Response: No.
response time to permit APS to evaluate
using an NRC-approved methodology and
one Train A block valve inoperable. TS Overall plant safety would be enhanced as
3.8.11, Condition F for two block valves a result of the additional restrictions placed
apply a bounding response time for pressure
transmitters in lieu of measurement. The inoperable is revised to be new on the PORVs and associated block valves.
proposed change has no effect on the Condition I for two Train B block valves The proposed change does not alter the
required RPS and ESF instrumentation inoperable. A new Condition, Condition manner in which safety limits, limiting safety
response times or setpoints assumed in the J, is added for one Train B PORV and system settings, or limiting conditions for
safety analyses and the TS requirements to the other Train B block valve operation are determined.
verify those response times and setpoints. inoperable. Current Condition G for The safety analysis assumptions and
The proposed change does not alter any acceptance criteria are not affected by this
Safety Limits or analytical limits in the safety
three block valve inoperable is revised
to be new Condition K. Current change. Therefore, the proposed change does
analysis. The proposed change does not alter not involve a reduction in a margin of safety.
the TS operability requirements for the RPS Condition D is revised and renamed as
and ESF instrumentation. The RPS and ESF Condition E, current Condition E is The NRC staff has reviewed the
instrumentation actuation of the required revised and renamed as Condition F and licensee’s analysis and, based on this
systems and components at the required current Condition H is revised and review, it appears that the three
setpoints and within the specified response renamed as new Condition L.
times will continue to accomplish the design standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.4.11.1 satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
basis safety functions of the associated
systems and components in the same manner
Note is revised to include additional proposes to determine that the
as before. As such, the RPS and ESF Conditions when performing this SR is amendment request involves no
instrumentation will continue to perform the not required for inoperable block valves significant hazards consideration.
required safety functions as assumed in the in these Conditions.
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES

safety analyses for all previously evaluated Basis for proposed no significant Attorney for licensee: Kate B. Nolan,
accidents. hazards consideration determination: Deputy General Counsel, Duke Energy
Therefore, the proposed amendment does As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the Carolinas, LLC, 550 South Tryon
not involve a significant reduction in the licensee has provided its analysis of the Street—DEC45A Charlotte, NC 28202–
margin of safety. issue of no significant hazards 1802.
The NRC staff has reviewed the consideration, which is presented NRC Branch Chief: Michael T.
licensee’s analysis and, based on that below: Markley.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:30 Jul 30, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00103 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\31JYN1.SGM 31JYN1

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 147 / Tuesday, July 31, 2018 / Notices 36975

Entergy Louisiana, LLC, and Entergy 3. Do the proposed changes involve a TS Chapter 5.0, ‘‘Administrative
Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50–458, significant reduction in a margin of safety? Controls.’’
River Bend Station, Unit No. 1 (RBS), Response: No. The NRC staff issued a ‘‘Notice of
West Feliciana Parish, Louisiana Margin of safety is associated with the Availability of Technical Specification
ability of the fission product barriers (i.e., Improvement to Relocate Surveillance
Date of amendment request: April 30, fuel cladding, reactor coolant system
Frequencies to Licensee Control-Risk-
2018. A publicly-available version is in pressure boundary, and containment
structure) to limit the level of radiation dose Informed Technical Specification Task
ADAMS under Accession No.
to the public. The proposed changes do not Force (RITSTF) Initiative 5b, Technical
ML18128A044.
impact operation of the plant and no accident Specification Task Force-425, Revision
Description of amendment request:
analyses are affected by the proposed 3,’’ in the Federal Register on July 6,
The proposed change would revise the
changes. The changes do not affect the 2009 (74 FR 31996). The notice
Emergency Plan for RBS to adopt the Technical Specifications or the method of included a model safety evaluation, a
revised Emergency Action Level (EAL) operating the plant. Additionally, the model no significant hazards
scheme described in Revision 6 to proposed changes will not relax any criteria consideration (NSHC) determination,
Nuclear Energy Institute’s (NEI’s), NEI used to establish safety limits and will not and a model license amendment
99–01, ‘‘Development of Emergency relax any safety system settings. The safety
request. In its application dated April
Action Levels for Non-Passive analysis acceptance criteria are not affected
by these changes. The proposed changes will 12, 2018, the licensee affirmed the
Reactors.’’ Revision 6 to NEI 99–01 was applicability of the model NSHC
endorsed by the NRC by letter dated not result in plant operation in a
configuration outside the design basis. The determination, which is presented
March 28, 2013 (ADAMS Accession No. below.
proposed changes do not adversely affect
ML12346A463). systems that respond to safely shut down the Basis for proposed NSHC
Basis for proposed no significant plant and to maintain the plant in a safe determination: As required by 10 CFR
hazards consideration determination: shutdown condition. 50.91(a), an analysis of the issue of
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the Therefore, the changes do not involve a NSHC adopted by the licensee is
licensee has provided its analysis of the significant reduction in a margin of safety. presented below:
issue of no significant hazards
The NRC staff has reviewed the 1. Does the proposed change involve a
consideration, which is presented
licensee’s analysis and, based on this significant increase in the probability or
below: consequences of any accident previously
review, it appears that the three
1. Do the proposed changes involve a standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are evaluated?
significant increase in the probability or satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff Response: No.
consequences of an accident previously The proposed change relocates the
proposes to determine that the specified frequencies for periodic
evaluated?
Response: No. amendment request involves no surveillance requirements to licensee control
The proposed changes to the RBS EALs do significant hazards consideration. under a new Surveillance Frequency Control
not involve any physical changes to plant Attorney for licensee: Anna Vinson Program. Surveillance frequencies are not an
equipment or systems and do not alter the Jones, Senior Counsel—Entergy initiator to any accident previously
assumptions of any accident analyses. The Services, Inc., 101 Constitution Avenue evaluated. As a result, the probability of any
proposed changes do not adversely affect accident previously evaluated is not
NW, Suite 200 East, Washington DC
accident initiators or precursors and do not significantly increased. The systems and
20001. components required by the technical
alter design assumptions, plant
configuration, or the manner in which the NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. specifications for which the surveillance
plant is operated and maintained. The Pascarelli. frequencies are relocated are still required to
proposed changes do not adversely affect the be operable, meet the acceptance criteria for
Entergy Operations, Inc. (Entergy), the surveillance requirements, and be
ability of structures, systems or components
(SSCs) to perform intended safety functions
System Energy Resources, Inc., capable of performing any mitigation
in mitigating the consequences of an Cooperative Energy, A Mississippi function assumed in the accident analysis.
initiating event within the assumed Electric Cooperative, and Entergy As a result, the consequences of any accident
acceptance limits. Mississippi, Inc., Docket No. 50–416, previously evaluated are not significantly
Therefore, the changes do not involve a Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1, increased.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
significant increase in the probability or Claiborne County, Mississippi involve a significant increase in the
consequences of an accident previously
Date of amendment request: April 12, probability or consequences of an accident
evaluated.
2018, as supplemented by letter dated previously evaluated.
2. Do the proposed changes create the
2. Does the proposed change create the
possibility of a new or different kind of June 7, 2018. Publicly-available versions possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously are in ADAMS under Accession Nos. accident from any previously evaluated?
evaluated? ML18102B445 and ML18158A514, Response: No.
Response: No. respectively. No new or different accidents result from
No new accident scenarios, failure utilizing the proposed change. The changes
mechanisms, or limiting single failures are
Description of amendment request:
The proposed amendment would do not involve a physical alteration of the
introduced as a result of the proposed plant (i.e., no new or different type of
changes. The changes do not challenge the modify the technical specifications equipment will be installed) or a change in
integrity or performance of any safety-related (TSs) by relocating specific surveillance the methods governing normal plant
systems. No plant equipment is installed or frequencies to a licensee-controlled operation. In addition, the changes do not
removed, and the changes do not alter the program with the adoption of Technical impose any new or different requirements.
design, physical configuration, or method of Specification Task Force (TSTF) The changes do not alter assumptions made
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES

operation of any plant SSC. Because EALs are Traveler TSTF–425, Revision 3, in the safety analysis. The proposed changes
not accident initiators and no physical ‘‘Relocate Surveillance Frequencies to are consistent with the safety analysis
changes are made to the plant, no new causal assumptions and current plant operating
mechanisms are introduced.
Licensee Control-RITSTF [Risk-
practice.
Therefore, the changes do not create the Informed TSTF] Initiative 5b.’’ Therefore, the proposed changes do not
possibility of a new or different kind of Additionally, the change would add a create the possibility of a new or different
accident from an accident previously new program, the Surveillance kind of accident from any accident
evaluated. Frequency Control Program (SFCP), to previously evaluated.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:30 Jul 30, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00104 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\31JYN1.SGM 31JYN1

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 147 / Tuesday, July 31, 2018 / Notices 36977

proposed Required Actions require changes to make the requirements internally accident or transient. Automatic steam line
verification that SDM is maintained. The consistent and to eliminate unnecessary isolation on high steam flow, containment
effects on power distribution will not cause actions do not affect the margin of safety as high pressure, or low steam pressure is
a significant increase in the consequences of the changes do not affect the ability of the assumed in the mitigation of a major
any accident previously evaluated as all TS rods to perform their specified safety secondary system pipe rupture accident
requirements on power distribution continue function. which bounds minor secondary system pipe
to be applicable. Therefore, the proposed change does not breaks and the accidental opening of a
Revising the TS Required Actions to involve a significant reduction in a margin of secondary system steam dump, relief, or
provide an alternative to frequent use of the safety. safety valve. Manual steam line isolation
moveable incore detector system to verify the capability is also provided [assumed] in the
position of rods with an inoperable rod Based on this review, it appears that mitigation of spectra of smaller secondary
position indicator does not change the the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) system pipe ruptures. During the time
requirements for the rods to be aligned and are satisfied. Therefore the NRC staff proposed to normalize the high steam flow
within the insertion limits. proposes to determine that the channels, automatic ESFAS steam line
Therefore, the assumptions used in any amendment request involves no isolation continues to be provided from
accidents previously evaluated are significant hazards consideration. either a containment high pressure signal or
unchanged and there is no significant Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer, a low steam pressure signal, which are not
increase in the consequences. Associate General Counsel, Exelon impacted by the proposed license change.
The proposed change to resolve the Additionally, manual steam line isolation
Generation Company, LLC, 4300
differences in the TS ensure that the continues to be provided by the ESFAS
intended Actions are followed when Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555. manual channels, which are not impacted by
equipment is inoperable. Actions taken with NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna. the proposed license change. As a result, the
inoperable equipment are not assumptions in Southern Nuclear Operating Company, proposed amendment does not significantly
the accidents previously evaluated and have Inc., Docket Nos. 50–348 and 50–364, alter assumptions relative to the mitigation of
no significant effect on the consequences. an accident or transient event and the
Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Unit
The proposed change to eliminate an proposed change does not involve a
unnecessary action has no effect on the Nos. 1 and 2, Houston County, Alabama significant increase in the probability or
consequences of accidents previously Date of amendment request: consequences of an accident previously
evaluated as the analysis of those accidents December 21, 2017, as supplemented by evaluated.
did not consider the use of the actions. letter dated June 7, 2018. Publicly- 2. Does the proposed change create the
The proposed change to increase available versions are in ADAMS under possibility of a new or different kind of
consistency within the TS has no effect on accident from any accident previously
the consequences of accidents previously
Accession Nos. ML17355A516, and evaluated?
evaluated as the proposed change clarifies ML18158A579, respectively. Response: No.
the application of the existing requirements Description of amendment request: With respect to a new or different kind of
and does not change the intent. The proposed amendment would revise accident, there are no proposed design
Therefore, the proposed change does not TS 3.3.2, ‘‘Engineered Safety Feature changes to the ESFAS; nor are there any
involve a significant increase in the Actuation System (ESFAS) changes in the method by which safety
probability or consequences of an accident Instrumentation,’’ by adding TS Actions related plant structures, systems, and
previously evaluated. that allow time to restore one high components perform their specified safety
2. Does the proposed change create the steam flow channel per steam line to functions. The proposed amendment will not
possibility of a new or different accident Operable status before requiring a unit affect the normal method of plant operation
from any accident previously evaluated? or revise any operating parameters. No new
Response: No.
shutdown in the event two channels in accident scenarios, transient precursor,
The proposed change does not involve a one or more steam lines are discovered failure mechanisms, or limiting single
physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new inoperable due to the trip setting not failures will be introduced as a result of this
or different type of equipment will be within Allowable Value. proposed change and the failure modes and
installed). The change does not alter Basis for proposed no significant effects analyses of SSCs important to safety
assumptions made in the safety analyses. The hazards consideration determination: are not altered as a result of this proposed
proposed change does not alter the limiting As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the change.
conditions for operation for the rods or make licensee has provided its analysis of the The proposed amendment does not alter
any technical changes to the Surveillance issue of no significant hazards the design or performance of the ESFAS,
Requirements governing the rods. The rather, it adds actions that allow time to
consideration, which is presented
proposed change [to actions] maintains or normalize the high steam flow channels
improves safety when equipment is below: associated with the ESFAS steam line
inoperable and does not introduce new 1. Does the proposed amendment involve isolation before requiring a unit shutdown in
failure modes. a significant increase in the probability or the event multiple channels are discovered
Therefore, the proposed change does not consequences of an accident previously inoperable due to the trip settings not within
create the possibility of a new or different evaluated? the required accuracy. The process to
accident from any accident previously Response: No. normalize the high steam flow channels uses
evaluated. The proposed amendment does not affect current procedures, methods, and processes
3. Does the proposed change involve a accident initiators or precursors nor already established and currently in use and,
significant reduction in a margin of safety? adversely alter the design assumptions, therefore, does not constitute a new type of
Response: No. conditions, and configuration of the facility. test.
[The proposed change to allow time for rod The proposed amendment does not alter any No changes are being proposed to the
position indication to stabilize after rod plant equipment or operating practices with procedures that operate the plant equipment
movement and to allow an alternative respect to such initiators or precursors in a and the change does not have a detrimental
method of verifying rod position has no effect manner that the probability of an accident is impact on the manner in which plant
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES

on the safety margin as actual rod position increased. equipment operates or responds to an
is not affected.] The proposed change to The proposed amendment does not involve actuation signal.
provide time to repair rods that are operable a physical change to the ESFAS, nor does it Therefore, the proposed change will not
but immovable does not result in a change the safety function of the ESFAS create the possibility of a new or different
significant reduction in the margin of safety instrumentation or the equipment supported accident previously evaluated.
because all rods must be verified to be by the ESFAS instrumentation. The ESFAS 3. Does the proposed change involve a
operable, and all other banks must be within high steam flow channels are not assumed in significant reduction in a margin of safety?
the insertion limits. The remaining proposed the mitigation of any previously evaluated Response: No.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:30 Jul 30, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00106 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\31JYN1.SGM 31JYN1

36978 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 147 / Tuesday, July 31, 2018 / Notices

The margin of safety is related to the ability Specification 3.8.1.1, ‘‘A.C. [Alternating review, it appears that the standards of
of the fission product barriers to perform Current] Sources, Operating,’’ to correct 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore,
their design functions during and following non-conservative acceptance criteria. the NRC staff proposes to determine that
an accident. These barriers include the fuel Basis for proposed no significant the request for amendments involves no
cladding, the reactor coolant system, and the
hazards consideration determination: significant hazards consideration.
containment. The performance of these
fission product barriers will not be affected As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the Attorney for licensee: Kym Harshaw,
by the proposed change. licensee has provided its analysis of the Vice President and General Counsel,
Instrumentation safety margin is issue of no significant hazards STP Nuclear Operating Company, P.O.
established by ensuring the limiting safety consideration, which is presented Box 289, Wadsworth, TX 77483.
system settings (LSSSs) automatically actuate below: NRC Branch Chief: Robert J.
the applicable design function to correct an Pascarelli.
1. Does the proposed change involve a
abnormal situation before a safety limit is significant increase in the probability or
exceeded. Safety analysis limits are II. Previously Published Notices of
consequences of an accident previously Consideration of Issuance of
established for reactor trip system and evaluated?
ESFAS instrumentation functions related to Response: No. Amendments to Facility Operating
those variables having significant safety The SBDGs are not initiators for any Licenses and Combined Licenses,
functions. Containment pressure and steam accidents evaluated in the Updated Final Proposed No Significant Hazards
line pressure provide the limiting parameter Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). The Consideration Determination, and
values assumed in the safety and transient proposed change provides a more Opportunity for a Hearing
analyses for mitigation of previously conservative range of acceptable SBDG
evaluated accidents and transients, including voltage and frequency values. Thus, The following notices were previously
steam line break accidents. The high steam Technical Specification Surveillance published as separate individual
flow in two steam lines instrument function Requirements will continue to demonstrate notices. The notice content was the
is not used in the safety analysis and a safety sufficient margin such that mitigation of same as above. They were published as
analysis limit is not specified for this trip accidents evaluated in the UFSAR is not individual notices either because time
function. Therefore, the high steam flow in impacted. The proposed change does not did not allow the Commission to wait
two steam lines instrument function does not alter the design function of the SBDGs nor
represent an LSSS because this for this biweekly notice or because the
does it affect how the SBDGs are operated or action involved exigent circumstances.
instrumentation does not monitor a plant physically tested. Therefore, the proposed
variable on which a safety limit has been change does not involve an increase in the They are repeated here because the
placed. probability or consequences of an accident biweekly notice lists all amendments
The controlling parameters established to previously evaluated. issued or proposed to be issued
isolate the steam lines during an accident or 2. Does the proposed change create the involving no significant hazards
transient are not affected by the proposed possibility of a new or different kind of consideration.
amendment and no design basis or safety accident from any accident previously For details, see the individual notice
limit is altered as a result of the proposed evaluated? in the Federal Register on the day and
change. Therefore, the proposed change does Response: No.
not involve a significant reduction in a
page cited. This notice does not extend
The proposed change does not involve any the notice period of the original notice.
margin of safety. physical alterations and no new or different
The NRC staff has reviewed the types of equipment are being installed. Nebraska Public Power District, Docket
Requiring a more conservative range of No. 50–298, Cooper Nuclear Station
licensee’s analysis and, based on this
acceptable SBDG voltage and frequency (CNS), Nemaha County, Nebraska
review, it appears that the three values does not affect SBDG operation and
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are does not affect the ability of the SBDGs to Date of amendment request: May 10,
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff perform their design function. There are no 2018. A publicly-available version is in
proposes to determine that the new credible failure mechanisms, ADAMS under Accession No.
amendment request involves no malfunctions, or accident initiators ML18137A199.
significant hazards consideration. introduced as a result of the proposed Brief description of amendment
Attorney for licensee: Jennifer M. change. Therefore, the proposed change does request: The proposed amendment
Buettner, Associate General Counsel, not create the possibility of a new or different would modify the CNS technical
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
specifications by revising the two
Inc., 40 Inverness Center Parkway, 3. Does the proposed change involve a recirculation loop and single
Birmingham, AL 35242. significant reduction in a margin of safety? recirculation loop Safety Limit
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Response: No. Minimum Critical Power Ratio values to
Markley. Since the proposed change provides a more reflect the results of a cycle specific
conservative range of acceptable SBDG calculation.
STP Nuclear Operating Company voltage and frequency values, the margin of
(STPNOC), Docket Nos. 50–498 and 50– Date of publication of individual
safety is maintained. Where required, notice in Federal Register: July 2,
499, South Texas Project, Unit Nos. 1 Technical Specification Surveillance
and 2, Matagorda County, Texas 2018 (83 FR 30984).
Requirement acceptance criteria have been Expiration date of individual notice:
Date of amendment request: March procedurally adjusted to ensure equipment
performance meets accident analysis
August 1, 2018 (public comments);
27, 2018. A publicly-available version is August 31, 2018 (hearing requests).
assumptions considering uncertainties in
in ADAMS under Accession No. steady-state SBDG voltage and frequency.
ML18086B761. III. Notice of Issuance of Amendments
STPNOC has evaluated the effects of SBDG to Facility Operating Licenses and
Description of amendment request: voltage and frequency variations on affected
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES

The proposed amendment would revise equipment and confirmed that the design
Combined Licenses
certain minimum voltage and frequency basis analyses are not adversely affected. During the period since publication of
acceptance criteria for steady-state Therefore, the proposed change does not the last biweekly notice, the
standby diesel generator (SBDG) involve a significant reduction in a margin of Commission has issued the following
surveillance requirement testing. safety. amendments. The Commission has
Specifically, the licensee would revise The NRC staff has reviewed the determined for each of these
several subsections of Technical licensee’s analysis and, based on this amendments that the application

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:30 Jul 30, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00107 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\31JYN1.SGM 31JYN1

Document Created: 2018-11-06 10:29:18
Document Modified: 2018-11-06 10:29:18

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 30, 2018. A request for a hearing must be filed by October 1, 2018.
Contact		Shirley Rohrer, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-5411; email: [email protected]
FR Citation		83 FR 36971