83 FR 4289 - 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 20 (January 30, 2018)

Page Range		4289-4296
FR Document		2018-01469
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 December 30, 2017, to January 12, 2018. The last biweekly notice was published on January 16, 2018.
Federal Register, Volume 83 Issue 20 (Tuesday, January 30, 2018)
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 20 (Tuesday, January 30, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4289-4296]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2018-01469]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2018-0012]


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 December 30, 2017, to January 12, 2018. The 
last biweekly notice was published on January 16, 2018.

DATES: Comments must be filed by March 1, 2018. A request for a hearing 
must be filed by April 2, 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-2018-0012. Address 
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-
3463; email: [email protected]. 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: OWFN-2-A13, 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: Lynn Ronewicz, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1927, email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments

A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2018-0012, facility name, unit 
number(s), plant docket number, application date, and subject when 
contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this 
action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this 
action by any of the following methods:
     Federal Rulemaking website: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2018-0012.
     NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the 
ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select ``ADAMS Public Documents'' and 
then select ``Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.'' For problems with ADAMS, 
please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 
1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected]. The 
ADAMS accession number for each document referenced (if it is available 
in ADAMS) is provided the first time that it is mentioned in this 
document.
     NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public 
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

B. Submitting Comments

    Please include Docket ID NRC-2018-0012, facility name, unit 
number(s), plant docket number, application date, and subject in your 
comment submission.
    The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact 
information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your 
comment submission. The NRC posts all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as entering the comment submissions into 
ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove 
identifying or contact information.
    If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons 
for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to 
include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be 
publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should 
state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to 
remove such information before making the comment submissions available 
to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.

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

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

[[Page 4290]]

the Federal Register a notice of issuance. If the Commission makes a 
final no significant hazards consideration determination, any hearing 
will take place after issuance. The Commission expects that the need to 
take this action will occur very infrequently.

A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing and Petition for Leave To Intervene

    Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any 
persons (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by this action may 
file a request for a hearing and petition for leave to intervene 
(petition) with respect to the action. Petitions shall be filed in 
accordance with the Commission's ``Agency Rules of Practice and 
Procedure'' in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult a 
current copy of 10 CFR 2.309. The NRC's regulations are accessible 
electronically from the NRC's 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

[[Page 4291]]

unless they seek an exemption in accordance with the procedures 
described below.
    To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 
days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the 
Office of the Secretary by email at [email protected], or by 
telephone at 301-415-1677, to (1) request a digital identification (ID) 
certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or 
representative) to digitally sign submissions and access the E-Filing 
system for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise 
the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a petition or 
other adjudicatory document (even in instances in which the 
participant, or its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-
issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the 
Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the hearing in this 
proceeding if the Secretary has not already established an electronic 
docket.
    Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is 
available on the NRC's public website at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/getting-started.html. Once a participant has obtained a 
digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant 
can then submit adjudicatory documents. Submissions must be in Portable 
Document Format (PDF). Additional guidance on PDF submissions is 
available on the NRC's public website at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/electronic-sub-ref-mat.html. A filing is considered complete at the 
time the document is submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be 
timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system 
no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of 
a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends 
the submitter an email notice confirming receipt of the document. The 
E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access 
to the document to the NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any 
others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to 
participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the 
document on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and 
other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for 
and receive a digital ID certificate before adjudicatory documents are 
filed so that they can obtain access to the documents via the E-Filing 
system.
    A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-
Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC's Electronic 
Filing Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC's 
public website at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by 
email to [email protected], or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-
7640. The NRC Electronic Filing Help Desk is available between 9 a.m. 
and 6 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government 
holidays.
    Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not 
submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in 
accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing 
stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and 
requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper 
format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail 
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: 
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or 
expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and 
Adjudications Staff. Participants filing adjudicatory documents in this 
manner are responsible for serving the document on all other 
participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of 
the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or 
expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the 
provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an 
exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or 
party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines 
that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no 
longer exists.
    Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the 
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at 
https://adams.nrc.gov/ehd, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the 
Commission or the presiding officer. If you do not have an NRC-issued 
digital ID certificate as described above, click cancel when the link 
requests certificates and you will be automatically directed to the 
NRC's electronic hearing dockets where you will be able to access any 
publicly available documents in a particular hearing docket. 
Participants are requested not to include personal privacy information, 
such as social security numbers, home addresses, or personal phone 
numbers in their filings, unless an NRC regulation or other law 
requires submission of such information. For example, in some 
instances, individuals provide home addresses in order to demonstrate 
proximity to a facility or site. With respect to copyrighted works, 
except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory 
filings and would constitute a Fair Use application, participants are 
requested not to include copyrighted materials in their submission.
    For further details with respect to these license amendment 
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.

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

    Date of amendment request: September 8, 2017. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17255A463.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the 
RBS Technical Specifications (TSs) by adding a new specification 
related to ``Control Building Air Conditioning (AC) System,'' TS 
Limiting Condition for Operation 3.7.7. This new TS specifically would 
address the AC function for switchgear and other electrical equipment 
located in the RBS control building. A TS Surveillance Requirement 
3.7.7.1 would be added to verify that the control building AC (CBAC) 
system has the capability to remove the assumed heat load. The proposed 
amendment also requests a correction to the RBS license antitrust 
conditions, Appendix C, due to an administrative error.
    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 addition of Technical Specification (TS) 3.7.7 
creates a Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) for the CBAC system 
required to support TS equipment. The Completion Time presented in 
the proposed TS is consistent with other [engineered safety feature 
(ESF)] mechanical system Completion Times and is supported by the 
inputs used in the current analysis.

[[Page 4292]]

    The CBAC systems, including the Control Building Heating, 
Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) and the Control Building 
Chilled Water systems, are designed for the mitigation of design 
basis accidents or transients, such as a Loss of Coolant Accident 
(LOCA). They are not designed, nor do they serve, for the prevention 
of those events. Consequently, the proposed amendment does not 
increase the probability of a previously evaluated accident 
occurring.
    Should an accident occur during the period of time that one 
subsystem of the CBAC system is out of service, the other subsystem 
components would serve to provide the minimum required air 
conditioning and chilled water assumed in the accident analysis. 
Therefore, the radiological consequences of associated accidents 
assuming no additional failures are not impacted by the proposed 
amendment.
    Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not 
significantly increase the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change provides a new technical specification 
providing a new completion time [(CT)] for one CBAC subsystem out of 
service CT. The change does not involve any unanalyzed modifications 
to the design or operational limits. The new CT does not introduce 
any new or unanalyzed modes of operation. No new accident scenarios, 
failure mechanisms or limiting single failures are introduced as 
result of the proposed change. The change has no adverse effects on 
any safety related system. Therefore, no new failure modes or 
accident precursors are created.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not change any accident analyses. The 
proposed change does not exceed or alter a design basis or safety 
limit, including limits on Control Building temperatures; therefore 
it does not significantly reduce the margin of safety. The proposed 
change establishes TS Allowed Outage Times for CBAC which are longer 
than the current governing LCO's. The risk implications of this 
amendment request were evaluated and found to be acceptable.
    During the proposed Completion Time, the supported systems will 
remain capable of providing adequate airflow and chilled water to 
maintain the supported systems capable of mitigating the 
consequences of a design basis event such as LOCA with no additional 
single failure.
    The proposed change does not impact accident offsite dose, 
containment pressure or temperature, emergency core cooling system 
(ECCS) or reactor protection system (RPS) settings or other 
parameter that could affect a margin of safety.
    Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not involve a 
significant reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: William B. Glew, Jr., Associate General 
Counsel--Entergy Services, Inc., 440 Hamilton Avenue, White Plains, NY 
10601.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.

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

    Date of amendment request: November 15, 2017. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17319A898.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the 
RBS Technical Specifications (TSs) by replacing the existing 
specifications related to ``operation with a potential for draining the 
reactor vessels'' (OPDRVs) with revised requirements for reactor 
pressure vessel (RPV) water inventory control (WIC) to protect Safety 
Limit 2.1.1.3. Safety Limit 2.1.1.3 requires reactor vessel water level 
to be greater than the top of active irradiated fuel. The proposed 
amendment would adopt changes, with variations as noted in the license 
amendment request, and is based on the NRC-approved safety evaluation 
for Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-542, 
Revision 2, ``Reactor Pressure Vessel Water Inventory Control,'' dated 
December 20, 2016 (ADAMS Accession No. ML16343B065).
    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 replaces existing TS requirements related to 
OPDRVs with new requirements on RPV WIC that will protect Safety 
Limit 2.1.1.3. Draining of RPV water inventory in Mode 4 (i.e., cold 
shutdown) and Mode 5 (i.e., refueling) is not an accident previously 
evaluated and, therefore, replacing the existing TS controls to 
prevent or mitigate such an event with a new set of controls has no 
effect on any accident previously evaluated. RPV water inventory 
control in Mode 4 or Mode 5 is not an initiator of any accident 
previously evaluated. The existing OPDRV controls or the proposed 
RPV WIC controls are not mitigating actions assumed in any accident 
previously evaluated.
    The proposed change reduces the probability of an unexpected 
draining event (which is not a previously evaluated accident) by 
imposing new requirements on the limiting time in which an 
unexpected draining event could result in the reactor vessel water 
level dropping to the top of the active fuel (TAF). These controls 
require cognizance of the plant configuration and control of 
configurations with unacceptably short drain times. These 
requirements reduce the probability of an unexpected draining event. 
The current TS requirements are only mitigating actions and impose 
no requirements that reduce the probability of an unexpected 
draining event.
    The proposed change reduces the consequences of an unexpected 
draining event (which is not a previously evaluated accident) by 
requiring an Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) subsystem to be 
operable at all times in Modes 4 and 5. The current TS requirements 
do not require any water injection systems, ECCS or otherwise, to be 
Operable in certain conditions in Mode 5. The change in requirement 
from two ECCS subsystems to one ECCS subsystem in Modes 4 and 5 does 
not significantly affect the consequences of an unexpected draining 
event because the proposed Actions ensure equipment is available 
within the limiting drain time that is as capable of mitigating the 
event as the current requirements.
    The proposed controls provide escalating compensatory measures 
to be established as calculated drain times decrease, such as 
verification of a second method of water injection and additional 
confirmations that containment and/or filtration would be available 
if needed.
    The proposed change reduces or eliminates some requirements that 
were determined to be unnecessary to manage the consequences of an 
unexpected draining event, such as automatic initiation of an ECCS 
subsystem and control room ventilation. These changes do not affect 
the consequences of any accident previously evaluated since a 
draining event in Modes 4 and 5 is not a previously evaluated 
accident and the requirements are not needed to adequately respond 
to a draining event.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change replaces existing TS requirements related to 
OPDRVs with new requirements on RPV WIC that will protect Safety 
Limit 2.1.1.3. The proposed change will not alter the design 
function of the equipment involved. Under the proposed change, some 
systems that are currently required to be operable during OPDRVs 
would be required to be available within the limiting drain time or 
to be in service depending on the limiting drain time. Should those 
systems be unable to be placed into

[[Page 4293]]

service, the consequences are no different than if those systems 
were unable to perform their function under the current TS 
requirements.
    The event of concern under the current requirements and the 
proposed change is an unexpected draining event. The proposed change 
does not create new failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident 
initiators that would cause a draining event or a new or different 
kind of accident not previously evaluated or included in the design 
and licensing bases.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change replaces existing TS requirements related to 
OPDRVs with new requirements on RPV WIC. The current requirements do 
not have a stated safety basis and no margin of safety is 
established in the licensing basis. The safety basis for the new 
requirements is to protect Safety Limit 2.1.1.3. New requirements 
are added to determine the limiting time in which the RPV water 
inventory could drain to the top of the fuel in the reactor vessel 
should an unexpected draining event occur. Plant configurations that 
could result in lowering the RPV water level to the TAF within one 
hour are now prohibited. New escalating compensatory measures based 
on the limiting drain time replace the current controls. The 
proposed TS establish a safety margin by providing defense-in-depth 
to ensure that the Safety Limit is protected and to protect the 
public health and safety. While some less restrictive requirements 
are proposed for plant configurations with long calculated drain 
times, the overall effect of the change is to improve plant safety 
and to add safety margin.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: William B. Glew, Jr., Associate General 
Counsel--Entergy Services, Inc., 440 Hamilton Avenue, White Plains, NY 
10601.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, Docket No. 50-440, Perry Nuclear 
Power Plant, Unit No. 1, Lake County, Ohio

    Date of amendment request: December 6, 2017. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17347A788.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would add, replace, 
and modify numerous technical specification (TS) requirements related 
to operations that have the potential for draining the reactor vessel 
(OPDRVs) with new requirements on reactor pressure vessel water 
inventory control (RPV WIC) to protect TS Safety Limit 2.1.1.3. The 
proposed changes are based on Technical Specifications Task Force 
(TSTF) Traveler TSTF-542, ``Reactor Pressure Vessel Water Inventory 
Control.''
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change replaces existing TS requirements related to 
OPDRVs with new requirements on RPV WIC that will protect Safety 
Limit 2.1.1.3. Draining of RPV water inventory in Mode 4, (i.e., 
cold shutdown) and Mode 5 (i.e., refueling) is not an accident 
previously evaluated and, therefore, replacing the existing TS 
controls to prevent or mitigate such an event with a new set of 
controls has no effect on any accident previously evaluated. RPV 
water inventory control in Mode 4 or Mode 5 is not an initiator of 
any accident previously evaluated. The existing OPDRV controls or 
the proposed RPV WIC controls are not mitigating actions assumed in 
any accident previously evaluated.
    The proposed change reduces the probability of an unexpected 
draining event (which is not a previously evaluated accident) by 
imposing new requirements on the limiting time in which an 
unexpected draining event could result in the reactor vessel water 
level dropping to the top of active fuel (TAF). These controls 
require cognizance of the plant configuration and control of 
configurations with unacceptably short drain times. These 
requirements reduce the probability of an unexpected draining event. 
The current TS requirements are only mitigating actions and impose 
no requirements that reduce the probability of an unexpected 
draining event.
    The proposed change reduces the consequences of an unexpected 
draining event (which is not a previously evaluated accident) by 
requiring an Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) subsystem to be 
operable at all times in Modes 4 and 5. The current TS requirements 
do not require any water injection systems, ECCS or otherwise, to be 
Operable in certain conditions in Mode 5. The change in requirement 
from two ECCS subsystems to one ECCS subsystem in Modes 4 and 5 does 
not significantly affect the consequences of an unexpected draining 
event because the proposed Actions ensure equipment is available 
within the limiting drain time that is capable of mitigating the 
event as the current requirements. The proposed controls provide 
escalating compensatory measures to be established as calculated 
drain times decrease, such as verification of a second method of 
water injection and additional confirmations that containment and/or 
filtration would be available if needed.
    The proposed change reduces or eliminates some requirements that 
were determined to be unnecessary to manage the consequences of an 
unexpected draining event, such as automatic initiation of an ECCS 
subsystem and control room ventilation. These changes do not affect 
the consequences of any accident previously evaluated since a 
draining event in Modes 4 and 5 is not a previously evaluated 
accident and the requirements are not needed to adequately respond 
to a draining event.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change replaces existing TS requirements related to 
OPDRVs with new requirements on RPV WIC that will protect Safety 
Limit 2.1.1.3. The proposed change will not alter the design 
function of the equipment involved. Under the proposed change, some 
systems that are currently required to be operable during OPDRVs 
would be required to be available within the limiting drain time or 
to be in service depending on the limiting drain time. Should those 
systems be unable to be placed into service, the consequences are no 
different than if those systems were unable to perform their 
function under the current TS requirements.
    The event of concern under the current requirements and the 
proposed change is an unexpected draining event. The proposed change 
does not create new failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident 
initiators that would cause a draining event or a new or different 
kind of accident not previously evaluated or included in the design 
and license bases.
    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 a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change replaces existing TS requirements related to 
OPDRVs with new requirements on RPV WIC. The current requirements do 
not have a stated safety basis and no margin of safety is 
established in the license basis. The safety basis for the new 
requirements is to protect Safety Limit 2.1.1.3. New requirements 
are added to determine the limiting time in which the RPV water 
inventory could drain to the top of the fuel in the reactor vessel 
should an unexpected draining event occur. Plant configurations that 
could result in lowering the RPV water level to the TAF within one 
hour are now prohibited. New escalating compensatory measures based 
on the limiting

[[Page 4294]]

drain time replace the current controls. The proposed TS establish a 
safety margin by providing defense-in-depth to ensure that the 
Safety Limit is protected and to protect the public health and 
safety. While some less restrictive requirements are proposed for 
plant configurations with long calculated drain times, the overall 
effect of the change is to improve plant safety and to add safety 
margin.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: David W. Jenkins, FirstEnergy Corporation, 
Mail Stop A-GO-15, 76 South Main Street, Akron, OH 44308.
    NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.

PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50-354, Hope Creek Generating Station, 
Salem County, New Jersey

    Date of amendment request: September 21, 2017. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17265A847.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the 
Hope Creek Generating Station Technical Specifications (TSs) by 
replacing the existing specifications related to ``operation with a 
potential for draining the reactor vessel'' (OPDRV) with revised 
requirements for reactor pressure vessel (RPV) water inventory control 
(WIC) to protect Safety Limit 2.1.4. Safety Limit 2.1.4 requires 
reactor vessel water level to be greater than the top of active 
irradiated fuel. The amendment would adopt changes with variations as 
noted in the license amendment request and is based on the NRC-approved 
safety evaluation for Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) 
Traveler TSTF-542, Revision 2, ``Reactor Pressure Vessel Water 
Inventory Control,'' dated December 20, 2016.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change replaces existing TS requirements related to 
OPDRVs with new requirements on RPV WIC that will protect Safety 
Limit 2.1.4. Draining of RPV water inventory in OPCON [Operational 
Condition] 4 (i.e., cold shutdown) and OPCON 5 (i.e., refueling) is 
not an accident previously evaluated and, therefore, replacing the 
existing TS controls to prevent or mitigate such an event with a new 
set of controls has no effect on any accident previously evaluated. 
RPV water inventory control in OPCON 4 or OPCON 5 is not an 
initiator of any accident previously evaluated. The existing OPDRV 
controls or the proposed RPV WIC controls are not mitigating actions 
assumed in any accident previously evaluated.
    The proposed change reduces the probability of an unexpected 
draining event (which is not a previously evaluated accident) by 
imposing new requirements on the limiting time in which an 
unexpected draining event could result in the reactor vessel water 
level dropping to the top of the active fuel (TAF). These controls 
require cognizance of the plant configuration and control of 
configurations with unacceptably short drain times. These 
requirements reduce the probability of an unexpected draining event. 
The current TS requirements are only mitigating actions and impose 
no requirements that reduce the probability of an unexpected 
draining event.
    The proposed change reduces the consequences of an unexpected 
draining event (which is not a previously evaluated accident) by 
requiring an Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) subsystem to be 
operable at all times in OPCONs 4 and 5. The current TS requirements 
do not require any water injection systems, ECCS or otherwise, to be 
Operable in certain conditions in OPCON 5. The change in requirement 
from two ECCS subsystems to one ECCS subsystem in OPCONs 4 and 5 
does not significantly affect the consequences of an unexpected 
draining event because the proposed Actions ensure equipment is 
available within the limiting drain time that is as capable of 
mitigating the event as the current requirements. The proposed 
controls provide escalating compensatory measures to be established 
as calculated drain times decrease, such as verification of a second 
method of water injection and additional confirmations that 
containment and/or filtration would be available if needed.
    The proposed change reduces or eliminates some requirements that 
were determined to be unnecessary to manage the consequences of an 
unexpected draining event, such as automatic initiation of an ECCS 
subsystem and control room ventilation. These changes do not affect 
the consequences of any accident previously evaluated since a 
draining event in Modes 4 and 5 is not a previously evaluated 
accident and the requirements are not needed to adequately respond 
to a draining event.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change replaces existing TS requirements related to 
OPDRVs with new requirements on RPV WIC that will protect Safety 
Limit 2.1.4. The proposed change will not alter the design function 
of the equipment involved. Under the proposed change, some systems 
that are currently required to be operable during OPDRVs would be 
required to be available within the limiting drain time or to be in 
service depending on the limiting drain time. Should those systems 
be unable to be placed into service, the consequences are no 
different than if those systems were unable to perform their 
function under the current TS requirements.
    The event of concern under the current requirements and the 
proposed change is an unexpected draining event. The proposed change 
does not create new failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident 
initiators that would cause a draining event or a new or different 
kind of accident not previously evaluated or included in the design 
and licensing bases.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change replaces existing TS requirements related to 
OPDRVs with new requirements on RPV WIC. The current requirements do 
not have a stated safety basis and no margin of safety is 
established in the licensing basis. The safety basis for the new 
requirements is to protect Safety Limit 2.1.4. New requirements are 
added to determine the limiting time in which the RPV water 
inventory could drain to the top of the fuel in the reactor vessel 
should an unexpected draining event occur. Plant configurations that 
could result in lowering the RPV water level to the TAF within one 
hour are now prohibited. New escalating compensatory measures based 
on the limiting drain time replace the current controls. The 
proposed TS establish a safety margin by providing defense-in-depth 
to ensure that the Safety Limit is protected and to protect the 
public health and safety. While some less restrictive requirements 
are proposed for plant configurations with long calculated drain 
times, the overall effect of the change is to improve plant safety 
and to add safety margin.
    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: Jeffrie J. Keenan, PSEG Nuclear LLC--N21, 
P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038.
    NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna.

[[Page 4295]]

III. Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses 
and Combined Licenses

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

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414, Catawba 
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York County, South Carolina

    Date of amendment request: December 15, 2016, as supplemented by 
letters dated June 8, 2017, and July 17, 2017.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments modified Technical 
Specification (TS) 3.9.4, ``Residual Heat Removal (RHR) and Coolant 
Circulation--High Water Level,'' and TS 3.9.5, ``Residual Heat Removal 
(RHR) and Coolant Circulation--Low Water Level.'' Condition A of TS 
3.9.4 applies when RHR requirements are not met and includes four 
required actions. Required Action A.4 requires, within 4 hours, the 
closure of all containment penetrations providing direct access from 
containment atmosphere to outside atmosphere. The proposed changes 
revise Required Action A.4 and add new Required Actions A.5, A.6.1, and 
A.6.2 to clarify that the intent of the required actions is to 
establish containment closure. Each of these required actions will have 
a completion time of 4 hours. Condition B of TS 3.9.5 applies when no 
RHR loop is in operation and includes three required actions. Required 
Action B.3 requires the closure of all containment penetrations 
providing direct access from containment atmosphere to outside 
atmosphere. The proposed changes are the same as the proposed changes 
to TS 3.9.4, consisting of a revision to Required Action B.3 and the 
addition of new Required Actions B.4, B.5.1, and B.5.2. These proposed 
changes are consistent with Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) 
Traveler TSTF-197-A, Revision 2, ``Require Containment Closure When 
Shutdown Cooling Requirements Are Not Met.''
    Date of issuance: January 4, 2018.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 120 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 297 (Unit 1) and 293 (Unit 2). A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17296A208; documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with 
the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-35 and NPF-52: 
Amendments revised the Renewed Licenses and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 23, 2017 (82 FR 
23618).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated January 4, 2018.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: January 11, 2017, as supplemented by 
letter dated June 8, 2017.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments modified Technical 
Specification (TS) 3.9.4, ``Residual Heat Removal (RHR) and Coolant 
Circulation--High Water Level,'' and TS 3.9.5, ``Residual Heat Removal 
(RHR) and Coolant Circulation--Low Water Level.'' Condition A of TS 
3.9.4 applies when RHR requirements are not met and includes four 
required actions. Required Action A.4 requires, within 4 hours, the 
closure of all containment penetrations providing direct access from 
containment atmosphere to outside atmosphere. The proposed changes 
revise Required Action A.4 and add new Required Actions A.5, A.6.1, and 
A.6.2 to clarify that the intent of the required actions is to 
establish containment closure. Each of these required actions will have 
a completion time of 4 hours. Condition B of TS 3.9.5 applies when no 
RHR loop is in operation and includes three required actions. Required 
Action B.3 requires the closure of all containment penetrations 
providing direct access from containment atmosphere to outside 
atmosphere. The proposed changes are the same as the proposed changes 
to TS 3.9.4, consisting of a revision to Required Action B.3 and the 
addition of new Required Actions B.4, B.5.1, and B.5.2. These proposed 
changes are consistent with Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) 
Traveler TSTF-197-A, Revision 2, ``Require Containment Closure When 
Shutdown Cooling Requirements Are Not Met.''
    Date of issuance: January 5, 2018.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 120 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 305 (Unit 1) and 284 (Unit 2). A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17297A917; documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with 
the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-9 and NPF-17: 
Amendments revised the Renewed Licenses and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 23, 2017 (82 FR 
23619).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated January 5, 2018.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: Yes. One 
comment from a member of the public was received; however, it was not 
related to the proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination or to the proposed license amendment request.

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-247, Indian Point 
Nuclear Generating Unit No. 2, Westchester County, New York

    Date of amendment request: April 7, 2017, as supplemented by letter 
dated August 17, 2017.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical 
Specification Section 3.5.4, ``Refueling Water Storage Tank (RWST),'' 
to allow for the temporary connection between

[[Page 4296]]

the non-seismically qualified piping of the boric acid recovery system 
to the seismically qualified piping of the RWST for the purpose of 
purifying the contents of the RWST in advance of the Indian Point 
Nuclear Generating Unit No. 2 spring 2018 refueling outage. Operation 
in this mode will be under administrative controls and will only be 
applicable through the end of the spring 2018 refueling outage.
    Date of issuance: January 11, 2018.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days.
    Amendment No.: 288. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML17348A695; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Facility Operating License No. DPR-26: The amendment revised the 
Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 18, 2017 (82 FR 
32881). The supplemental letter dated August 17, 2017, provided 
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand 
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change 
the NRC staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination as published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated January 11, 2018.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: December 29, 2016, as supplemented by 
letter dated August 25, 2017.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment modified GGNS 
Technical Specification (TS) 5.5.12, ``10 CFR Appendix J, Testing 
Program,'' and TS Surveillance Requirement 3.6.5.1.1 to allow for a one 
cycle extension to the 10-year frequency of the GGNS containment 
leakage rate test (i.e., Integrated Leakage Rate Test or Type A test) 
and the drywell bypass leakage rate test, respectively.
    Date of issuance: December 29, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
by February 18, 2018.
    Amendment No: 214. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML17334A739; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-29: The amendment 
revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 23, 2017 (82 FR 
23625). The supplemental letter dated August 25, 2017, provided 
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand 
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change 
the NRC staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination as published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 29, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-237 and 50-249, Dresden 
Nuclear Power Station (DNPS), Unit Nos. 2 and 3, Grundy County, 
Illinois

    Date of amendment request: February 10, 2017, as supplemented by 
letters dated July 13, December 20, and December 21, 2017.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the DNPS, 
Unit Nos. 2 and 3, Technical Specifications (TSs) by replacing the 
existing specifications related to ``operations with a potential for 
draining the reactor vessel'' with revised requirements for reactor 
pressure vessel water inventory control to protect Safety Limit 
2.1.1.3. Safety Limit 2.1.1.3 requires reactor vessel water level to be 
greater than the top of active irradiated fuel. The amendments adopt 
changes, with variations, as noted in the license amendment request, 
and are based on the NRC-approved safety evaluation for Technical 
Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-542, Revision 2, 
``Reactor Pressure Vessel Water Inventory Control,'' dated December 20, 
2016.
    Date of issuance: January 8, 2018.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
prior to the beginning of the DNPS, Unit No. 3, refueling outage 
currently planned for fall of 2018.
    Amendment Nos.: 256 (Unit No. 2) and 249 (Unit No. 3). A publicly-
available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17272A783; 
documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety 
Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-19 and DPR-25: 
Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 11, 2017 (82 FR 
17457). The supplemental letters dated July 13, December 20, and 
December 21, 2017, provided additional information that clarified the 
application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally 
noticed, and did not change the NRC staff's original proposed no 
significant hazards consideration determination as published in the 
Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety evaluation dated January 8, 2018.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, on January 23, 2018.
    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Greg A. Casto,
Acting Deputy Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office 
of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2018-01469 Filed 1-29-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
4290 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 30, 2018 / Notices

the Federal Register a notice of position on the issue. The petition must should state the nature and extent of the
issuance. If the Commission makes a include sufficient information to show petitioner’s interest in the proceeding.
final no significant hazards that a genuine dispute exists with the The petition should be submitted to the
consideration determination, any applicant or licensee on a material issue Commission no later than 60 days from
hearing will take place after issuance. of law or fact. Contentions must be the date of publication of this notice.
The Commission expects that the need limited to matters within the scope of The petition must be filed in accordance
to take this action will occur very the proceeding. The contention must be with the filing instructions in the
infrequently. one which, if proven, would entitle the ‘‘Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)’’
petitioner to relief. A petitioner who section of this document, and should
A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing
fails to satisfy the requirements at 10 meet the requirements for petitions set
and Petition for Leave To Intervene
CFR 2.309(f) with respect to at least one forth in this section, except that under
Within 60 days after the date of contention will not be permitted to 10 CFR 2.309(h)(2) a State, local
publication of this notice, any persons participate as a party. governmental body, or federally
(petitioner) whose interest may be 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’s 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
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:18 Jan 29, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00109 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\30JAN1.SGM 30JAN1
4292 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 30, 2018 / Notices

The CBAC systems, including the Control The NRC staff has reviewed the evaluated. The existing OPDRV controls or
Building Heating, Ventilation, and Air licensee’s analysis and, based on this the proposed RPV WIC controls are not
Conditioning (HVAC) and the Control review, it appears that the three mitigating actions assumed in any accident
Building Chilled Water systems, are designed previously evaluated.
for the mitigation of design basis accidents or
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
The proposed change reduces the
transients, such as a Loss of Coolant Accident satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff probability of an unexpected draining event
(LOCA). They are not designed, nor do they proposes to determine that the (which is not a previously evaluated
serve, for the prevention of those events. amendment request involves no accident) by imposing new requirements on
Consequently, the proposed amendment does significant hazards consideration. the limiting time in which an unexpected
not increase the probability of a previously Attorney for licensee: William B. draining event could result in the reactor
evaluated accident occurring. Glew, Jr., Associate General Counsel— vessel water level dropping to the top of the
Should an accident occur during the Entergy Services, Inc., 440 Hamilton active fuel (TAF). These controls require
period of time that one subsystem of the cognizance of the plant configuration and
CBAC system is out of service, the other
Avenue, White Plains, NY 10601.
control of configurations with unacceptably
subsystem components would serve to NRC Branch Chief: Robert J.
short drain times. These requirements reduce
provide the minimum required air Pascarelli. the probability of an unexpected draining
conditioning and chilled water assumed in Entergy Louisiana, LLC, and Entergy event. The current TS requirements are only
the accident analysis. Therefore, the mitigating actions and impose no
radiological consequences of associated Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50–458,
requirements that reduce the probability of
accidents assuming no additional failures are River Bend Station, Unit 1 (RBS), West an unexpected draining event.
not impacted by the proposed amendment. Feliciana Parish, Louisiana The proposed change reduces the
Therefore, it is concluded that this change Date of amendment request: consequences of an unexpected draining
does not significantly increase the probability event (which is not a previously evaluated
or consequences of an accident previously
November 15, 2017. A publicly-
available version is in ADAMS under accident) by requiring an Emergency Core
evaluated. Cooling System (ECCS) subsystem to be
2. Does the proposed change create the Accession No. ML17319A898.
operable at all times in Modes 4 and 5. The
possibility of a new or different kind of Description of amendment request: current TS requirements do not require any
accident from any previously evaluated? The amendment would revise the RBS water injection systems, ECCS or otherwise,
Response: No. Technical Specifications (TSs) by to be Operable in certain conditions in Mode
The proposed change provides a new replacing the existing specifications 5. The change in requirement from two ECCS
technical specification providing a new related to ‘‘operation with a potential for subsystems to one ECCS subsystem in Modes
completion time [(CT)] for one CBAC
subsystem out of service CT. The change
draining the reactor vessels’’ (OPDRVs) 4 and 5 does not significantly affect the
with revised requirements for reactor consequences of an unexpected draining
does not involve any unanalyzed
pressure vessel (RPV) water inventory event because the proposed Actions ensure
modifications to the design or operational
control (WIC) to protect Safety Limit equipment is available within the limiting
limits. The new CT does not introduce any
drain time that is as capable of mitigating the
new or unanalyzed modes of operation. No 2.1.1.3. Safety Limit 2.1.1.3 requires event as the current requirements.
new accident scenarios, failure mechanisms reactor vessel water level to be greater
or limiting single failures are introduced as The proposed controls provide escalating
than the top of active irradiated fuel. compensatory measures to be established as
result of the proposed change. The change The proposed amendment would adopt
has no adverse effects on any safety related calculated drain times decrease, such as
system. Therefore, no new failure modes or changes, with variations as noted in the verification of a second method of water
accident precursors are created. license amendment request, and is injection and additional confirmations that
Therefore, the proposed change does not based on the NRC-approved safety containment and/or filtration would be
create the possibility of a new or different evaluation for Technical Specifications available if needed.
kind of accident from any previously Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF–542, The proposed change reduces or eliminates
evaluated. some requirements that were determined to
Revision 2, ‘‘Reactor Pressure Vessel be unnecessary to manage the consequences
3. Does the proposed change involve a Water Inventory Control,’’ dated
significant reduction in a margin of safety? of an unexpected draining event, such as
December 20, 2016 (ADAMS Accession automatic initiation of an ECCS subsystem
Response: No.
The proposed change does not change any No. ML16343B065). and control room ventilation. These changes
accident analyses. The proposed change does Basis for proposed no significant do not affect the consequences of any
not exceed or alter a design basis or safety hazards consideration determination: accident previously evaluated since a
limit, including limits on Control Building As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the draining event in Modes 4 and 5 is not a
temperatures; therefore it does not licensee has provided its analysis of the previously evaluated accident and the
significantly reduce the margin of safety. The issue of no significant hazards requirements are not needed to adequately
proposed change establishes TS Allowed respond to a draining event.
consideration, which is presented
Outage Times for CBAC which are longer Therefore, the proposed change does not
below: involve a significant increase in the
than the current governing LCO’s. The risk
implications of this amendment request were 1. Does the proposed amendment involve probability or consequences of an accident
evaluated and found to be acceptable. a significant increase in the probability or previously evaluated.
During the proposed Completion Time, the consequences of an accident previously 2. Does the proposed amendment create
supported systems will remain capable of evaluated? the possibility of a new or different kind of
providing adequate airflow and chilled water Response: No. accident from any previously evaluated?
to maintain the supported systems capable of The proposed change replaces existing TS Response: No.
mitigating the consequences of a design basis requirements related to OPDRVs with new The proposed change replaces existing TS
event such as LOCA with no additional requirements on RPV WIC that will protect requirements related to OPDRVs with new
single failure. Safety Limit 2.1.1.3. Draining of RPV water requirements on RPV WIC that will protect
The proposed change does not impact inventory in Mode 4 (i.e., cold shutdown) Safety Limit 2.1.1.3. The proposed change
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES

accident offsite dose, containment pressure and Mode 5 (i.e., refueling) is not an accident will not alter the design function of the
or temperature, emergency core cooling previously evaluated and, therefore, equipment involved. Under the proposed
system (ECCS) or reactor protection system replacing the existing TS controls to prevent change, some systems that are currently
(RPS) settings or other parameter that could or mitigate such an event with a new set of required to be operable during OPDRVs
affect a margin of safety. controls has no effect on any accident would be required to be available within the
Therefore, it is concluded that this change previously evaluated. RPV water inventory limiting drain time or to be in service
does not involve a significant reduction in a control in Mode 4 or Mode 5 is not an depending on the limiting drain time. Should
margin of safety. initiator of any accident previously those systems be unable to be placed into

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:18 Jan 29, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00111 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\30JAN1.SGM 30JAN1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 30, 2018 / Notices 4293

service, the consequences are no different and modify numerous technical proposed controls provide escalating
than if those systems were unable to perform specification (TS) requirements related compensatory measures to be established as
their function under the current TS to operations that have the potential for calculated drain times decrease, such as
requirements. verification of a second method of water
The event of concern under the current
draining the reactor vessel (OPDRVs) injection and additional confirmations that
requirements and the proposed change is an with new requirements on reactor containment and/or filtration would be
unexpected draining event. The proposed pressure vessel water inventory control available if needed.
change does not create new failure (RPV WIC) to protect TS Safety Limit The proposed change reduces or eliminates
mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident 2.1.1.3. The proposed changes are based some requirements that were determined to
initiators that would cause a draining event on Technical Specifications Task Force be unnecessary to manage the consequences
or a new or different kind of accident not (TSTF) Traveler TSTF–542, ‘‘Reactor of an unexpected draining event, such as
previously evaluated or included in the automatic initiation of an ECCS subsystem
Pressure Vessel Water Inventory
design and licensing bases. and control room ventilation. These changes
Therefore, the proposed change does not Control.’’ do not affect the consequences of any
create the possibility of a new or different Basis for proposed no significant accident previously evaluated since a
kind of accident from any previously hazards consideration determination: draining event in Modes 4 and 5 is not a
evaluated. As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the previously evaluated accident and the
3. Does the proposed amendment involve licensee has provided its analysis of the requirements are not needed to adequately
a significant reduction in a margin of safety? issue of no significant hazards respond to a draining event.
Response: No. consideration, which is presented Therefore, the proposed change does not
The proposed change replaces existing TS involve a significant increase in the
below:
requirements related to OPDRVs with new probability or consequences of an accident
requirements on RPV WIC. The current 1. Does the proposed amendment involve previously evaluated.
requirements do not have a stated safety basis a significant increase in the probability or 2. Does the proposed amendment create
and no margin of safety is established in the consequences of an accident previously the possibility of a new or different kind of
licensing basis. The safety basis for the new evaluated? accident from any accident previously
requirements is to protect Safety Limit Response: No. evaluated?
2.1.1.3. New requirements are added to The proposed change replaces existing TS Response: No.
determine the limiting time in which the requirements related to OPDRVs with new The proposed change replaces existing TS
RPV water inventory could drain to the top requirements on RPV WIC that will protect
requirements related to OPDRVs with new
of the fuel in the reactor vessel should an Safety Limit 2.1.1.3. Draining of RPV water
requirements on RPV WIC that will protect
unexpected draining event occur. Plant inventory in Mode 4, (i.e., cold shutdown)
Safety Limit 2.1.1.3. The proposed change
configurations that could result in lowering and Mode 5 (i.e., refueling) is not an accident
will not alter the design function of the
the RPV water level to the TAF within one previously evaluated and, therefore,
equipment involved. Under the proposed
hour are now prohibited. New escalating replacing the existing TS controls to prevent
change, some systems that are currently
compensatory measures based on the limiting or mitigate such an event with a new set of
required to be operable during OPDRVs
drain time replace the current controls. The controls has no effect on any accident
would be required to be available within the
proposed TS establish a safety margin by previously evaluated. RPV water inventory
limiting drain time or to be in service
providing defense-in-depth to ensure that the control in Mode 4 or Mode 5 is not an
initiator of any accident previously depending on the limiting drain time. Should
Safety Limit is protected and to protect the
evaluated. The existing OPDRV controls or those systems be unable to be placed into
public health and safety. While some less
the proposed RPV WIC controls are not service, the consequences are no different
restrictive requirements are proposed for
plant configurations with long calculated mitigating actions assumed in any accident than if those systems were unable to perform
drain times, the overall effect of the change previously evaluated. their function under the current TS
is to improve plant safety and to add safety The proposed change reduces the requirements.
margin. probability of an unexpected draining event The event of concern under the current
Therefore, the proposed change does not (which is not a previously evaluated requirements and the proposed change is an
involve a significant reduction in a margin of accident) by imposing new requirements on unexpected draining event. The proposed
safety. the limiting time in which an unexpected change does not create new failure
draining event could result in the reactor mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident
The NRC staff has reviewed the vessel water level dropping to the top of initiators that would cause a draining event
licensee’s analysis and, based on this active fuel (TAF). These controls require or a new or different kind of accident not
review, it appears that the three cognizance of the plant configuration and previously evaluated or included in the
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are control of configurations with unacceptably design and license bases.
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff short drain times. These requirements reduce Therefore, the proposed change does not
proposes to determine that the the probability of an unexpected draining create the possibility of a new or different
event. The current TS requirements are only kind of accident from any accident
amendment request involves no previously evaluated.
significant hazards consideration. mitigating actions and impose no
requirements that reduce the probability of 3. Does the proposed amendment involve
Attorney for licensee: William B. a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
an unexpected draining event.
Glew, Jr., Associate General Counsel— The proposed change reduces the Response: No.
Entergy Services, Inc., 440 Hamilton consequences of an unexpected draining The proposed change replaces existing TS
Avenue, White Plains, NY 10601. event (which is not a previously evaluated requirements related to OPDRVs with new
NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. accident) by requiring an Emergency Core requirements on RPV WIC. The current
Pascarelli. Cooling System (ECCS) subsystem to be requirements do not have a stated safety basis
operable at all times in Modes 4 and 5. The and no margin of safety is established in the
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating current TS requirements do not require any license basis. The safety basis for the new
Company, Docket No. 50–440, Perry water injection systems, ECCS or otherwise, requirements is to protect Safety Limit
Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No. 1, Lake to be Operable in certain conditions in Mode 2.1.1.3. New requirements are added to
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES

County, Ohio 5. The change in requirement from two ECCS determine the limiting time in which the
subsystems to one ECCS subsystem in Modes RPV water inventory could drain to the top
Date of amendment request: of the fuel in the reactor vessel should an
4 and 5 does not significantly affect the
December 6, 2017. A publicly-available consequences of an unexpected draining unexpected draining event occur. Plant
version is in ADAMS under Accession event because the proposed Actions ensure configurations that could result in lowering
No. ML17347A788. equipment is available within the limiting the RPV water level to the TAF within one
Description of amendment request: drain time that is capable of mitigating the hour are now prohibited. New escalating
The amendment would add, replace, event as the current requirements. The compensatory measures based on the limiting

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:18 Jan 29, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00112 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\30JAN1.SGM 30JAN1
4294 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 30, 2018 / Notices

drain time replace the current controls. The requirements on RPV WIC that will protect The proposed change replaces existing TS
proposed TS establish a safety margin by Safety Limit 2.1.4. Draining of RPV water requirements related to OPDRVs with new
providing defense-in-depth to ensure that the inventory in OPCON [Operational Condition] requirements on RPV WIC that will protect
Safety Limit is protected and to protect the 4 (i.e., cold shutdown) and OPCON 5 (i.e., Safety Limit 2.1.4. The proposed change will
public health and safety. While some less refueling) is not an accident previously not alter the design function of the
restrictive requirements are proposed for evaluated and, therefore, replacing the equipment involved. Under the proposed
plant configurations with long calculated existing TS controls to prevent or mitigate change, some systems that are currently
drain times, the overall effect of the change such an event with a new set of controls has required to be operable during OPDRVs
is to improve plant safety and to add safety no effect on any accident previously would be required to be available within the
margin. evaluated. RPV water inventory control in limiting drain time or to be in service
Therefore, the proposed amendment does OPCON 4 or OPCON 5 is not an initiator of depending on the limiting drain time. Should
not involve a significant reduction in a any accident previously evaluated. The those systems be unable to be placed into
margin of safety. existing OPDRV controls or the proposed service, the consequences are no different
RPV WIC controls are not mitigating actions than if those systems were unable to perform
The NRC staff has reviewed the assumed in any accident previously their function under the current TS
licensee’s analysis and, based on this evaluated. requirements.
review, it appears that the three The proposed change reduces the The event of concern under the current
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are probability of an unexpected draining event requirements and the proposed change is an
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff (which is not a previously evaluated unexpected draining event. The proposed
proposes to determine that the accident) by imposing new requirements on change does not create new failure
amendment request involves no the limiting time in which an unexpected mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident
draining event could result in the reactor initiators that would cause a draining event
significant hazards consideration.
vessel water level dropping to the top of the or a new or different kind of accident not
Attorney for licensee: David W.
active fuel (TAF). These controls require previously evaluated or included in the
Jenkins, FirstEnergy Corporation, Mail cognizance of the plant configuration and design and licensing bases.
Stop A–GO–15, 76 South Main Street, control of configurations with unacceptably Therefore, the proposed change does not
Akron, OH 44308. short drain times. These requirements reduce create the possibility of a new or different
NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona. the probability of an unexpected draining kind of accident from any previously
event. The current TS requirements are only evaluated.
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50–354,
mitigating actions and impose no 3. Does the proposed amendment involve
Hope Creek Generating Station, Salem requirements that reduce the probability of a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
County, New Jersey an unexpected draining event. Response: No.
Date of amendment request: The proposed change reduces the The proposed change replaces existing TS
September 21, 2017. A publicly- consequences of an unexpected draining requirements related to OPDRVs with new
available version is in ADAMS under event (which is not a previously evaluated requirements on RPV WIC. The current
accident) by requiring an Emergency Core requirements do not have a stated safety basis
Accession No. ML17265A847. Cooling System (ECCS) subsystem to be
Description of amendment request: and no margin of safety is established in the
operable at all times in OPCONs 4 and 5. The licensing basis. The safety basis for the new
The amendment would revise the Hope current TS requirements do not require any requirements is to protect Safety Limit 2.1.4.
Creek Generating Station Technical water injection systems, ECCS or otherwise, New requirements are added to determine
Specifications (TSs) by replacing the to be Operable in certain conditions in the limiting time in which the RPV water
existing specifications related to OPCON 5. The change in requirement from inventory could drain to the top of the fuel
‘‘operation with a potential for draining two ECCS subsystems to one ECCS in the reactor vessel should an unexpected
the reactor vessel’’ (OPDRV) with subsystem in OPCONs 4 and 5 does not draining event occur. Plant configurations
revised requirements for reactor significantly affect the consequences of an that could result in lowering the RPV water
pressure vessel (RPV) water inventory unexpected draining event because the level to the TAF within one hour are now
proposed Actions ensure equipment is prohibited. New escalating compensatory
control (WIC) to protect Safety Limit available within the limiting drain time that
2.1.4. Safety Limit 2.1.4 requires reactor measures based on the limiting drain time
is as capable of mitigating the event as the replace the current controls. The proposed
vessel water level to be greater than the current requirements. The proposed controls TS establish a safety margin by providing
top of active irradiated fuel. The provide escalating compensatory measures to defense-in-depth to ensure that the Safety
amendment would adopt changes with be established as calculated drain times Limit is protected and to protect the public
variations as noted in the license decrease, such as verification of a second health and safety. While some less restrictive
amendment request and is based on the method of water injection and additional requirements are proposed for plant
NRC-approved safety evaluation for confirmations that containment and/or configurations with long calculated drain
Technical Specifications Task Force filtration would be available if needed. times, the overall effect of the change is to
The proposed change reduces or eliminates improve plant safety and to add safety
(TSTF) Traveler TSTF–542, Revision 2, some requirements that were determined to
‘‘Reactor Pressure Vessel Water margin.
be unnecessary to manage the consequences Therefore, the proposed change does not
Inventory Control,’’ dated December 20, of an unexpected draining event, such as involve a significant reduction in a margin of
2016. automatic initiation of an ECCS subsystem safety.
Basis for proposed no significant and control room ventilation. These changes
hazards consideration determination: do not affect the consequences of any The NRC staff has reviewed the
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the accident previously evaluated since a licensee’s analysis and, based on this
licensee has provided its analysis of the draining event in Modes 4 and 5 is not a review, it appears that the three
issue of no significant hazards previously evaluated accident and the
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
requirements are not needed to adequately
consideration, which is presented satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
respond to a draining event.
below: proposes to determine that the
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES

Therefore, the proposed change does not
1. Does the proposed amendment involve involve a significant increase in the amendment request involves no
a significant increase in the probability or probability or consequences of an accident significant hazards consideration.
consequences of an accident previously previously evaluated. Attorney for licensee: Jeffrie J. Keenan,
evaluated? 2. Does the proposed amendment create
PSEG Nuclear LLC—N21, P.O. Box 236,
Response: No. the possibility of a new or different kind of
The proposed change replaces existing TS accident from any previously evaluated? Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038.
requirements related to OPDRVs with new Response: No. NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:18 Jan 29, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00113 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\30JAN1.SGM 30JAN1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 20 / Tuesday, January 30, 2018 / Notices 4295

III. Notice of Issuance of Amendments when RHR requirements are not met and includes four required actions.
to Facility Operating Licenses and and includes four required actions. Required Action A.4 requires, within 4
Combined Licenses Required Action A.4 requires, within 4 hours, the closure of all containment
During the period since publication of hours, the closure of all containment penetrations providing direct access
the last biweekly notice, the penetrations providing direct access from containment atmosphere to outside
Commission has issued the following from containment atmosphere to outside atmosphere. The proposed changes
amendments. The Commission has atmosphere. The proposed changes revise Required Action A.4 and add new
determined for each of these revise Required Action A.4 and add new Required Actions A.5, A.6.1, and A.6.2
amendments that the application Required Actions A.5, A.6.1, and A.6.2 to clarify that the intent of the required
complies with the standards and to clarify that the intent of the required actions is to establish containment
requirements of the Atomic Energy Act actions is to establish containment closure. Each of these required actions
of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the closure. Each of these required actions will have a completion time of 4 hours.
Commission’s rules and regulations. will have a completion time of 4 hours. Condition B of TS 3.9.5 applies when no
The Commission has made appropriate Condition B of TS 3.9.5 applies when no RHR loop is in operation and includes
findings as required by the Act and the RHR loop is in operation and includes three required actions. Required Action
Commission’s rules and regulations in three required actions. Required Action B.3 requires the closure of all
10 CFR chapter I, which are set forth in B.3 requires the closure of all containment penetrations providing
the license amendment. containment penetrations providing direct access from containment
A notice of consideration of issuance direct access from containment atmosphere to outside atmosphere. The
of amendment to facility operating atmosphere to outside atmosphere. The proposed changes are the same as the
license or combined license, as proposed changes are the same as the proposed changes to TS 3.9.4, consisting
applicable, proposed no significant proposed changes to TS 3.9.4, consisting of a revision to Required Action B.3 and
hazards consideration determination, of a revision to Required Action B.3 and the addition of new Required Actions
and opportunity for a hearing in the addition of new Required Actions B.4, B.5.1, and B.5.2. These proposed
connection with these actions, was B.4, B.5.1, and B.5.2. These proposed changes are consistent with Technical
published in the Federal Register as changes are consistent with Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF)
indicated. Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF–197–A, Revision 2,
Unless otherwise indicated, the Traveler TSTF–197–A, Revision 2, ‘‘Require Containment Closure When
Commission has determined that these ‘‘Require Containment Closure When Shutdown Cooling Requirements Are
amendments satisfy the criteria for Shutdown Cooling Requirements Are Not Met.’’
categorical exclusion in accordance Not Met.’’ Date of issuance: January 5, 2018.
Date of issuance: January 4, 2018. Effective date: As of the date of
with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental
issuance and shall be implemented within 120 days of issuance.
impact statement or environmental Amendment Nos.: 305 (Unit 1) and
within 120 days of issuance.
assessment need be prepared for these Amendment Nos.: 297 (Unit 1) and 284 (Unit 2). A publicly-available
amendments. If the Commission has 293 (Unit 2). A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession
prepared an environmental assessment version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17297A917; documents related
under the special circumstances No. ML17296A208; documents related to these amendments are listed in the
provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the
made a determination based on that Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
assessment, it is so indicated. amendments. Renewed Facility Operating License
For further details with respect to the Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF–9 and NPF–17: Amendments
action see (1) the applications for Nos. NPF–35 and NPF–52: Amendments revised the Renewed Licenses and TSs.
amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) revised the Renewed Licenses and TSs. Date of initial notice in Federal
the Commission’s related letter, Safety Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 23, 2017 (82 FR 23619).
Evaluation and/or Environmental Register: May 23, 2017 (82 FR 23618). The Commission’s related evaluation
Assessment as indicated. All of these The Commission’s related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a
items can be accessed as described in of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated January 5, 2018.
the ‘‘Obtaining Information and Safety Evaluation dated January 4, 2018. No significant hazards consideration
Submitting Comments’’ section of this No significant hazards consideration comments received: Yes. One comment
document. comments received: No. from a member of the public was
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket received; however, it was not related to
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket
Nos. 50–413 and 50–414, Catawba the proposed no significant hazards
Nos. 50–369 and 50–370, McGuire
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York consideration determination or to the
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2,
County, South Carolina proposed license amendment request.
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Date of amendment request: Date of amendment request: January Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.,
December 15, 2016, as supplemented by 11, 2017, as supplemented by letter Docket No. 50–247, Indian Point
letters dated June 8, 2017, and July 17, dated June 8, 2017. Nuclear Generating Unit No. 2,
2017. Brief description of amendments: The Westchester County, New York
Brief description of amendments: The amendments modified Technical Date of amendment request: April 7,
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES

amendments modified Technical Specification (TS) 3.9.4, ‘‘Residual Heat 2017, as supplemented by letter dated
Specification (TS) 3.9.4, ‘‘Residual Heat Removal (RHR) and Coolant August 17, 2017.
Removal (RHR) and Coolant Circulation—High Water Level,’’ and TS Brief description of amendment: The
Circulation—High Water Level,’’ and TS 3.9.5, ‘‘Residual Heat Removal (RHR) amendment revised Technical
3.9.5, ‘‘Residual Heat Removal (RHR) and Coolant Circulation—Low Water Specification Section 3.5.4, ‘‘Refueling
and Coolant Circulation—Low Water Level.’’ Condition A of TS 3.9.4 applies Water Storage Tank (RWST),’’ to allow
Level.’’ Condition A of TS 3.9.4 applies when RHR requirements are not met for the temporary connection between

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:18 Jan 29, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00114 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\30JAN1.SGM 30JAN1
Document Created: 2018-10-26 10:12:31
Document Modified: 2018-10-26 10:12:31
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 March 1, 2018. A request for a hearing must be filed by April 2, 2018.
Contact		Lynn Ronewicz, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1927, email: [email protected]
FR Citation		83 FR 4289