83 FR 43901 - 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 167 (August 28, 2018)

Page Range		43901-43911
FR Document		2018-18028
Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is publishing this regular biweekly notice. The Act requires the Commission to publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to be issued, and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license or combined license, as applicable, upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person. This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or proposed to be issued, from July 31, 2018, to August 13, 2018. The last biweekly notice was published on August 14, 2018.
Federal Register, Volume 83 Issue 167 (Tuesday, August 28, 2018)
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 167 (Tuesday, August 28, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43901-43911]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2018-18028]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2018-0181]


Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility 
Operating Licenses and Combined; Licenses Involving No Significant 
Hazards Considerations

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Biweekly notice.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the 
Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is publishing this 
regular biweekly notice. The Act requires the Commission to publish 
notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to be issued, and grants 
the Commission the authority to issue and make immediately effective 
any amendment to an operating license or combined license, as 
applicable, upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment 
involves no significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the 
pendency before the Commission of a request for a hearing from any 
person.
    This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or 
proposed to be issued, from July 31, 2018, to August 13, 2018. The last 
biweekly notice was published on August 14, 2018.

DATES: Comments must be filed by September 27, 2018. A request for a 
hearing must be filed by October 29, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal Rulemaking website: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2018-0181. Address 
questions about NRC dockets to Jennifer Borges; telephone: 301-287-
9127; 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: TWFN-7-A60M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001.
    For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting 
comments, see ``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' in the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Janet Burkhardt, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1384; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments

A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2018-0181, 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-2018-0181.
     NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the 
ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select ``Begin Web-based ADAMS 
Search.'' For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public 
Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or 
by email to [email protected]. The ADAMS accession number for each 
document referenced (if it is available in ADAMS) is provided the first 
time that it is mentioned in this document.
     NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public 
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

B. Submitting Comments

    Please include Docket ID NRC-2018-0181, facility name, unit 
number(s), plant docket number, application date, and subject in your 
comment submission.
    The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact 
information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your 
comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into 
ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove 
identifying or contact information.
    If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons 
for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to 
include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be 
publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should 
state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to 
remove such information

[[Page 43902]]

before making the comment submissions available to the public or 
entering the comment into ADAMS.

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

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

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

    Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any 
persons (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by this action may 
file a request for a hearing and petition for leave to intervene 
(petition) with respect to the action. Petitions shall be filed in 
accordance with the Commission's ``Agency Rules of Practice and 
Procedure'' in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult a 
current copy of 10 CFR 2.309. The NRC's regulations are accessible 
electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's website at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. Alternatively, a copy of 
the regulations is available at the NRC's Public Document Room, located 
at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (First 
Floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. If a petition is filed, the 
Commission or a presiding officer will rule on the petition and, if 
appropriate, a notice of a hearing will be issued.
    As required by 10 CFR 2.309(d) the petition should specifically 
explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with 
particular reference to the following general requirements for 
standing: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the 
petitioner; (2) the nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to 
be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the 
petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; 
and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be 
entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest.
    In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f), the petition must also set 
forth the specific contentions which the petitioner seeks to have 
litigated in the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific 
statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In 
addition, the petitioner must provide a brief explanation of the bases 
for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or 
expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner 
intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The 
petitioner must also provide references to the specific sources and 
documents on which the petitioner intends to rely to support its 
position on the issue. The petition must include sufficient information 
to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant or licensee on 
a material issue of law or fact. Contentions must be limited to matters 
within the scope of the proceeding. The contention must be one which, 
if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner who 
fails to satisfy the requirements at 10 CFR 2.309(f) with respect to at 
least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
    Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, 
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene. 
Parties have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the 
hearing with respect to resolution of that party's admitted 
contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence, consistent 
with the NRC's regulations, policies, and procedures.
    Petitions must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of 
publication of this notice. Petitions and motions for leave to file new 
or amended contentions that are filed after the deadline will not be 
entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the 
filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 
CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i) through (iii). The petition must be filed in 
accordance with the filing instructions in the ``Electronic Submissions 
(E-Filing)'' section of this document.
    If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final 
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the 
Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no 
significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve 
to establish when the hearing is held. If the final determination is 
that the amendment request involves no significant hazards 
consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it 
immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any 
hearing would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final 
determination is that the amendment request involves a significant 
hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before 
the issuance of the amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent 
danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will 
issue 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-

[[Page 43903]]

recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof does not need to address the 
standing requirements in 10 CFR 2.309(d) if the facility is located 
within its boundaries. Alternatively, a State, local governmental body, 
Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof may participate as 
a non-party under 10 CFR 2.315(c).
    If a hearing is granted, any person who is not a party to the 
proceeding and is not affiliated with or represented by a party may, at 
the discretion of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited 
appearance pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person 
making a limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of 
his or her position on the issues but may not otherwise participate in 
the proceeding. A limited appearance may be made at any session of the 
hearing or at any prehearing conference, subject to the limits and 
conditions as may be imposed by the presiding officer. Details 
regarding the opportunity to make a limited appearance will be provided 
by the presiding officer if such sessions are scheduled.

B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)

    All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a 
request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition), any 
motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the 
submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and 
documents filed by interested governmental entities that request to 
participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the 
NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007, as amended at 77 FR 
46562; August 3, 2012). The E-Filing process requires participants to 
submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in 
some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Detailed 
guidance on making electronic submissions may be found in the Guidance 
for Electronic Submissions to the NRC and on the NRC website at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants may not submit 
paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in 
accordance with the procedures described below.
    To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 
days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the 
Office of the Secretary by email at [email protected], or by 
telephone at 301-415-1677, to (1) request a digital identification (ID) 
certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or 
representative) to digitally sign submissions and access the E-Filing 
system for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise 
the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a petition or 
other adjudicatory document (even in instances in which the 
participant, or its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-
issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the 
Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the hearing in this 
proceeding if the Secretary has not already established an electronic 
docket.
    Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is 
available on the NRC's public website at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/getting-started.html. Once a participant has obtained a 
digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant 
can then submit adjudicatory documents. Submissions must be in Portable 
Document Format (PDF). Additional guidance on PDF submissions is 
available on the NRC's public website at 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.

[[Page 43904]]

    For further details with respect to these license amendment 
applications, see the application for amendment which is available for 
public inspection in ADAMS and at the NRC's PDR. For additional 
direction on accessing information related to this document, see the 
``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' section of this 
document.

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

    Date of amendment request: May 31, 2018. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18159A035.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would modify 
Technical Specification 3.1.7, ``Rod Position Indication,'' to add a 
new Condition for more than one inoperable digital rod position 
indication (DRPI) per rod group, and revise the Action Note and to 
clarify the wording of current Required Actions A.1 and B.1. This 
change is consistent with NRC-approved Technical Specification Task 
Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-234-A, ``Add Action for More Than One [D]RPI 
Inoperable,'' Revision 1.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment provides a Condition and Required Actions 
for more than one inoperable digital rod position indications (DRPI) 
per rod group. The DRPls are not an initiator of any accident 
previously evaluated. The DRPls are one indication used by operators 
to verify control rod insertion following an accident; however other 
indications are available. Therefore, allowing a finite period of 
time to correct more than one inoperable DRPI prior to requiring a 
plant shutdown will not result in an increase in the consequences of 
any accident previously evaluated. The proposed amendment does not 
involve an increase in the probability or consequences of any 
accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment does not involve a physical alteration to 
the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be 
installed) or a change to the methods governing normal plant 
operation. The changes do not alter the assumptions made in the 
safety analysis. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create 
the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any 
accident previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in the margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment provides time to correct the condition of 
more than one DRPI inoperable in a rod group. Compensatory measures 
are required to verify that the rods monitored by the inoperable 
DRPls are not moved to ensure that there is no effect on core 
reactivity. Requiring a plant shutdown with inoperable rod position 
indications introduces plant risk and should not be initiated unless 
the rod position indication cannot be repaired in a reasonable 
period. As a result, the safety benefit provided by the proposed 
Condition offsets the small decrease in safety resulting from 
continued operation with more than one inoperable DRPI. Therefore, 
the proposed amendment does not involve a reduction in a margin of 
safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Kate B. Nolan, Deputy General Counsel, Duke 
Energy Carolinas, LLC, 550 South Tryon Street, M/C DEC45A, Charlotte, 
NC 28202-1802.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287, 
Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, Oconee County, South 
Carolina

    Date of amendment request: May 17, 2018. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18144A788.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise 
Technical Specification (TS) 3.8.1, ``AC [Alternating Current] 
Sources--Operating,'' by adding a surveillance requirement that 
verifies the ability of the Keowee Hydroelectric Unit auxiliary power 
system to automatically transfer from its normal auxiliary power source 
to its alternate auxiliary power source.
    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?
    No. The proposed TS change, which adds a Surveillance 
Requirement to TS 3.8.1 to test the automatic Keowee auxiliary power 
transfer circuitry, will allow ONS [Oconee Nuclear Station] to 
credit an existing design feature to facilitate mitigation of a 
postulated single failure. The proposed change does not modify the 
reactor coolant system pressure boundary, nor make any physical 
changes to the facility design, material, or construction standards. 
The proposed change is needed to eliminate a previously unrecognized 
single failure concern that resulted in a non-conservative TS. The 
proposed change does not affect the safety analyses thus dose 
consequences will remain within analyzed and acceptable limits. The 
probability of any design basis accident (DBA) is not increased by 
this change, nor are the consequences of any DBA increased by this 
change. The proposed change does not involve changes to any 
structures, systems, or components (SSCs) that can alter the 
probability for initiating a DBA event.
    Therefore, the proposed TS change does not significantly 
increase 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?
    No. The proposed new Surveillance Requirement to test the 
automatic Keowee auxiliary power transfer circuitry will allow ONS 
to credit an existing design feature to facilitate mitigation of a 
postulated single failure. The proposed change does not alter the 
plant configuration (no new or different type of equipment will be 
installed) or make changes in methods governing normal plant 
operation. The automatic Keowee auxiliary power transfer circuitry 
is currently installed and in use but not credited for accident 
mitigation. No new failure modes are identified, nor are any SSCs 
required to be operated outside the design bases. Therefore, the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any kind of 
accident previously evaluated is not created.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    No. The proposed new Surveillance Requirement to test the 
automatic Keowee auxiliary power transfer circuitry will allow ONS 
to credit an existing design feature to facilitate mitigation of a 
postulated single failure. The proposed change does not involve: (1) 
A physical alteration of the Oconee Units; (2) the installation of 
new or different equipment; (3) a change to any set points for 
parameters which initiate protective or mitigation action; or (4) 
any impact on the fission product barriers or safety limits. As long 
as the equipment continues to perform as expected and within the 
guidelines captured in the safety analyses, the change does not 
involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are

[[Page 43905]]

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Kate B. Nolan, Deputy General Counsel, Duke 
Energy Carolinas, LLC, 550 South Tryon Street, M/C DEC45A, Charlotte, 
NC 28202-1802.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

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

    Date of amendment request: August 2, 2018. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18218A075.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the 
Technical Specifications (TS) by deleting Figure 5.1-1, ``Site Area 
Map,'' removing references in the TS to Figure 5.1-1, and adding a site 
description.
    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 does not modify any plant equipment or 
affect plant operation. The proposed change neither impacts any 
structures, systems, or components (SSCs), nor alters any plant 
processes or procedures. The proposed change is administrative in 
nature and cannot adversely impact safety.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change has no impact on the design, function or 
operation of the plants. The proposed change is administrative in 
nature, and thereby cannot introduce new failure modes or 
unanticipated outcomes.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not affect plant safety margins or the 
reliability of the equipment assumed to operate in the safety 
analyses. The proposed change is administrative in nature, and 
thereby cannot affect any safety analysis assumptions, safety limits 
or limiting safety system settings.
    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: Debbie Hendell, Managing Attorney--Nuclear, 
Florida Power & Light Company, 700 Universe Blvd. MS LAW/JB, Juno 
Beach, FL 33408-0420.
    NRC Acting Branch Chief: Booma Venkataraman.

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

    Date of amendment request: June 11, 2018. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18164A033.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed change would allow 
for deviation from National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 805 
requirements, to allow for the use of flexible metallic conduit in 
configurations other than to connect components, and also in lengths 
greater than short lengths.
    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 use of flexible metallic conduit to be used other than to 
connect components or to be used in greater than short lengths does 
not impact fire prevention. Flexible metallic conduit has been in 
use since original plant construction, is allowed by the National 
Electrical Code and is not expected to increase the potential for a 
fire to start.
    The introduction of flexible metallic conduit does not create 
ignition sources and does not impact fire prevention. Cable 
installation procedures are utilized to ensure that the use of 
flexible metallic conduit is in accordance with the CNP design 
change process. Also, the use of flexible metallic conduit does not 
result in compromising automatic fire suppression functions, manual 
fire suppression functions, fire protection for systems and 
structures, or post-fire safe shutdown capability.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes do allow future physical changes to the 
facility that deviate from NFPA 805 requirements. However, the 
proposed changes do not alter any assumptions made in the safety 
analyses, nor do they involve any changes to plant procedures for 
ensuring that the plant is operated within analyzed limits. As such, 
no new failure modes or mechanisms that could cause a new or 
different kind of accident from any previously evaluated are being 
introduced.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes do not alter the manner in which safety 
limits or limiting safety system settings are determined. No changes 
to instrument/system actuation setpoints are involved. The safety 
analysis acceptance criteria are not affected by this change and the 
proposed changes will not permit plant operation in a configuration 
outside the design basis.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Robert B. Haemer, Senior Nuclear Counsel, 
One Cook Place, Bridgman, MI 49106.
    NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.

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

    Date of amendment request: June 11, 2018. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18169A147.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise 
Technical Specification (TS) 3.8.3, ``Diesel Fuel Oil, Lube Oil, and 
Starting Air,'' by relocating the current stored diesel fuel oil and 
lube oil numerical volume requirements from the TSs to the TS Bases. 
The proposed changes are consistent with Technical Specifications Task 
Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-501, Revision 1, ``Relocate Stored Fuel Oil 
and Lube Oil Volume Values to Licensee Control.'' The amendment would 
also revise TS 3.8.1, ``AC [Alternating Current] Sources--Operating,'' 
by relocating the specific

[[Page 43906]]

diesel fuel oil day tank numerical volume requirement to the TS Bases 
and replacing it with the day tank time requirement. The availability 
of this TS improvement was announced in the Federal Register on May 26, 
2010 (75 FR 29588), as part of the consolidated line item improvement 
process.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change removes the volume of diesel fuel oil and 
lube oil required to support 7-day operation of an onsite diesel 
generator, and the volume equivalent to a 6-day supply, to licensee 
control. The specific volume of fuel oil equivalent to a 7 and 6-day 
supply is calculated using the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) 
approved methodology described in Regulatory Guide 1.137, Revision 
1, ``Fuel-Oil Systems for Standby Diesel Generators'' and ANSI 
[American National Standards Institute] N195 1976, ``Fuel Oil 
[S]ystems for Standby Diesel-Generators.'' The specific volume of 
lube oil equivalent to a 7-day and 6-day supply is based on a 
conservative consumption value of 3 gallons/hour for the run time of 
the diesel generator. Because the requirement to maintain a 7-day 
supply of diesel fuel oil and lube oil is not changed and is 
consistent with the assumptions in the accident analyses, and the 
actions taken when the volume of fuel oil and lube oil are less than 
a 6-day supply have not changed, neither the probability nor the 
consequences of any accident previously evaluated will be affected.
    The proposed change also relocates the volume of diesel fuel oil 
required to support 3.9 hours of diesel generator operation at full 
load in the day tank. The specific volume and time is not changed 
and is consistent with the existing plant design basis to support 
the emergency diesel generator under accident loading conditions.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant 
(i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a 
change in the methods governing normal plant operation. The change 
does not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis but ensures 
that the diesel generator operates as assumed in the accident 
analysis. The proposed change is consistent with the safety analysis 
assumptions.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change relocates the volume of diesel fuel oil and 
lube oil required to support 7-day operation of an onsite diesel 
generator, the volume equivalent to a 6-day supply, and 3.9 hour day 
tank supply to licensee control. As the bases for the existing 
limits on diesel fuel oil, and lube oil are not changed, no change 
is made to the accident analysis assumptions and no margin of safety 
is reduced as part of this change.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Mr. John C. McClure, Nebraska Public Power 
District, Post Office Box 499, Columbus, NE 68602-0499.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.

Northern States Power Company--Minnesota, Docket No. 50-263, Monticello 
Nuclear Generating Plant (MNGP), Wright County, Minnesota

    Date of amendment request: July 3, 2018. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18187A400.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
modify the MNGP technical specifications to adopt Technical 
Specification Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-551, Revision 3, ``Revise 
Secondary Containment Surveillance Requirements.''
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change addresses conditions during which the 
secondary containment SRs [surveillance requirements] are not met. 
The secondary containment is not an initiator of any accident 
previously evaluated. As a result, the probability of any accident 
previously evaluated is not increased. The consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated while utilizing the proposed changes 
are no different than the consequences of an accident while 
utilizing the existing four hour Completion Time for an inoperable 
secondary containment. In addition, the proposed Note for SR 
3.6.4.1.1 provides an alternative means to ensure the secondary 
containment safety function is met. As a result, the consequences of 
an accident previously evaluated are not significantly increased.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not alter the protection system design, 
create new failure modes, or change any modes of operation. The 
proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant 
and no new or different kind of equipment will be installed. 
Consequently, there are no new initiators that could result in a new 
or different kind of accident.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change addresses conditions during which the 
secondary containment SR is not met. Conditions in which the 
secondary containment vacuum is less than the required vacuum are 
acceptable provided the conditions do not affect the ability of the 
SGT [Standby Gas Treatment] System to establish the required 
secondary containment vacuum under post-accident conditions within 
the time assumed in the accident analysis. This condition is 
incorporated in the proposed change by requiring an analysis of 
actual environmental and secondary containment pressure conditions 
to confirm the capability of the SGT System is maintained within the 
assumptions of the accident analysis. Therefore, the safety function 
of the secondary containment is not affected. The allowance for both 
an inner and outer secondary containment door to be open 
simultaneously for entry and exit does not affect the safety 
function of the secondary containment as the doors are promptly 
closed after entry or exit, thereby restoring the secondary 
containment boundary.
    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: Peter M. Glass, Assistant General Counsel, 
Xcel Energy Services, Inc., 414 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, MN 55401.

[[Page 43907]]

    NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.

PSEG Nuclear LLC, and Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-
272 and 50-311, Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, 
Salem County, New Jersey

    Date of amendment request: June 29, 2018. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18180A291.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise 
Technical Specification (TS) \3/4\.3.1, ``Reactor Trip System 
Instrumentation''; TS \3/4\.3.2, ``Engineered Safety Feature Actuation 
System Instrumentation''; TS \3/4\.7.1.5, ``Main Steam Isolation 
Valves''; and add a new TS for feedwater isolation to better align the 
TS with the design basis analyses and the design of the 
instrumentation.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes to the TS will not alter the way any 
structure, system, or component (SSC) functions, and will not alter 
the manner in which the plant is operated. The proposed changes do 
not alter the design of any SSC. Therefore the probability of an 
accident previously evaluated is not significantly increased.
    The proposed changes more accurately align the TS with the 
design bases accident analysis for the main steam line break, 
feedwater line break and feedwater malfunction. Therefore, the 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated are not increased.
    Therefore, these proposed changes do not represent a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes do not involve a modification to the 
physical configuration of the plant or changes in the methods 
governing normal plant operation. The proposed changes do not impose 
any new or different requirement or introduce a new accident 
initiator, accident precursor, or malfunction mechanism.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Do[es] the proposed [change] involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes to the TS impose requirements that are 
consistent with assumptions in the safety analyses. The proposed 
changes will not result in changes to system design or setpoints 
that are intended to ensure timely identification of plant 
conditions that could be precursors to accidents or potential 
degradation of accident mitigation systems.
    The proposed amendment will not result in a design basis or 
safety limit being exceeded or altered. Therefore, since the 
proposed changes do not impact the response of the plant to a design 
basis accident, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Ryan K. Lighty, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, 
1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004-2541
    NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna.

PSEG Nuclear LLC, and Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-
272 and 50-311, Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, 
Salem County, New Jersey.

    Date of amendment request: June 29, 2018. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18183A025.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would delete 
duplicative Technical Specification (TS) requirements to the refueling 
water storage tank (RWST) in TS 3.1.2.6, ``Borated Water Sources--
Operating,'' and would revise TS 3.5.5, ``Refueling Water Storage 
Tank,'' to ensure compliance with assumptions used in the design basis 
accident and containment response analyses and to make Salem TS 
requirements for the RWST consistent with NUREG-1431, Revision 4, 
``Standard Technical Specifications--Westinghouse Plants.''
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes do not adversely affect accident initiators 
or precursors or alter the design assumptions, conditions, or 
configuration of the facility or the manner in which the plant is 
operated and maintained. The proposed changes do not alter or 
prevent the ability of structures, systems, and components (SSCs) to 
perform their intended function to mitigate the consequences of an 
initiating event within the acceptance limits. The proposed changes 
do not affect the source term, containment isolation, or 
radiological release assumptions used in evaluating the radiological 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated. The proposed 
change is consistent with and continues to support the safety 
analysis assumptions and resultant consequences.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes do not alter or involve any design basis 
accident initiators. The changes to the Technical Specifications 
regarding RWST operational limits are primarily administrative in 
nature and do not affect the design or operation of the plant. 
Increasing the allowable out of service time (AOT) for the RWST does 
not cause any plant systems to become initiators of a new or 
different type of accident. Systems and equipment will be operated 
in the same configuration and manner that is currently allowed and 
for which the systems were designed.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not alter the permanent plant design, 
including instrument set points, nor does it change the assumptions 
contained in the safety analyses.
    The RWST continues to meet the design requirements relative to 
core and containment cooling and reactivity control; there is no 
reduction in capability or change in design configuration. 
Increasing the RWST AOT for reasons directly related to boron 
concentration or temperature does not affect any accident analysis 
assumptions, initial conditions, or results. Adding an upper 
temperature limit to the LCO [limiting condition for operation] for 
TS 3.5.5 ensures the RWST remains within temperature ranges assumed 
in the plant's safety analyses. Removing the upper limit on RWST 
volume does not alter the RWST design and the limit is not used as 
an input or assumption in any plant safety analysis. The proposed 
changes do not alter a design basis or safety limit.
    Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed changes do not 
involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the

[[Page 43908]]

amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Ryan K. Lighty, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, 
1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004-2541.
    NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna.

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-327 and 50-328, Sequoyah 
Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Hamilton County, Tennessee

    Date of amendment request: March 16, 2018. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18075A365.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would adopt 10 CFR 
50.69, ``Risk-informed categorization and treatment of structures, 
systems and components for nuclear power reactors.'' The provisions of 
50.69 allow improved focus on equipment that has safety significance, 
resulting in improved plant safety.
    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 consequence of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change will permit the use of a risk-informed 
categorization process to modify the scope of structures, systems, 
and components (SSCs) subject to Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) 
special treatment requirements and to implement alternative 
treatments per the regulations. The process used to evaluate SSCs 
for changes to NRC special treatment requirements and the use of 
alternative requirements ensures the ability of the SSCs to perform 
their design function. The potential change to special treatment 
requirements does not change the design and operation of the SSCs. 
As a result, the proposed change does not significantly affect any 
initiators to accidents previously evaluated or the ability to 
mitigate any accidents previously evaluated. The consequences of the 
accidents previously evaluated are not affected because the 
mitigation functions performed by the SSCs assumed in the safety 
analysis are not being modified. The SSCs required to safely shut 
down the reactor and maintain it in a safe shutdown condition 
following an accident will continue to perform their design 
functions.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change will permit the use of a risk-informed 
categorization process to modify the scope of SSCs subject to NRC 
special treatment requirements and to implement alternative 
treatments per the regulations. The proposed change does not change 
the functional requirements, configuration, or method of operation 
of any SSC. Under the proposed change, no additional plant equipment 
will be installed.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change will permit the use of a risk-informed 
categorization process to modify the scope of SSCs subject to NRC 
special treatment requirements and to implement alternative 
treatments per the regulations. The proposed change does not affect 
any safety limits or operating parameters used to establish the 
safety margin. The safety margins included in analyses of accidents 
are not affected by the proposed change. The regulation requires 
that there be no significant effect on plant risk due to any change 
to the special treatment requirements for SSCs and that the SSCs 
continue to be capable of performing their design basis functions, 
as well as to perform any beyond design basis functions consistent 
with the categorization process and results.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 
400 West Summit Hill Drive, 6A West Tower, Knoxville, TN 37902.
    NRC Acting Branch Chief: Booma Venkataraman.

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

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

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 50-390, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, 
Unit 1, Rhea County, Tennessee

    Date of amendment request: July 8, 2018. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18189A001.
    Brief description of amendment request: The proposed amendment 
would modify the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 1, Technical 
Specifications to extend Surveillance Requirements 3.3.1.5, 3.3.2.2, 
and 3.3.6.2.
    Date of publication of individual notice in Federal Register: July 
16, 2018 (83 FR 32912).
    Expiration date of individual notice: August 15, 2018 (public 
comments); September 14, 2018 (hearing requests).

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

    During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, 
the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has 
determined for each of these amendments that the application complies 
with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 
as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The 
Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the 
Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR chapter I, which are set 
forth in the license amendment.
    A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility 
operating license or combined license, as applicable, proposed no 
significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a 
hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the Federal 
Register as indicated.
    Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that 
these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in 
accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), 
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be 
prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an 
environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 
10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, 
it is so indicated.

[[Page 43909]]

    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.

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, as supplemented by 
letter dated March 28, 2018.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the RBS 
technical specifications (TSs) by adding a new TS 3.7.7, ``Control 
Building Air Conditioning (CBAC) System.'' This new TS specifically 
addresses the air conditioning function for switchgear and other 
electrical equipment located in the RBS control building. A TS 
Surveillance Requirement 3.7.7.1 was added to verify that each CBAC 
subsystem has the capability to remove the assumed heat load. The 
amendment also corrected the RBS operating license Antitrust 
Conditions, Appendix C, due to an administrative error.
    Date of issuance: July 31, 2018.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 192. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML18177A387; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-47: The amendment revised the 
Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 30, 2018 (83 FR 
4291). The supplement dated March 28, 2018, provided additional 
information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of 
the application as originally noticed, and did not change the NRC 
staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination as published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 31, 2018.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-271, Vermont Yankee 
Nuclear Power Station (VY), Windham County, Vermont

    Date of amendment request: March 29, 2017, as supplemented by 
letters dated June 28 and September 14, 2017, and January 18, 2018.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendment replaces the VY 
Physical Security Plan with an Independent Spent Fuel Storage 
Installation (ISFSI) Only Security Plan. The NRC staff determined that 
the proposed VY ISFSI-Only Security Plan continues to meet the 
standards in 10 CFR 72.212, ``Conditions of general license issued 
under Sec.  72.210,'' paragraph (b)(9). As such, the VY ISFSI-Only 
Security Plan provides reasonable assurance that adequate protective 
measures can and will be taken in the event of a design basis threat of 
radiological sabotage related to the spent fuel. These changes more 
fully reflect the status of the facility, as well as the reduced scope 
of potential physical security challenges at the site once all spent 
fuel has been moved to dry cask storage within the onsite ISFSI, an 
activity which is currently scheduled for completion in 2018.
    Date of issuance: July 25, 2018.
    Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days following VY's submittal of a written certification to 
the NRC that all spent nuclear fuel assemblies have been transferred 
out of the spent fuel pool and placed in storage within the onsite 
ISFSI.
    Amendment No.: 269: A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML18165A423; the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 
amendment includes safeguards information that is withheld from public 
disclosure.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-28: The amendment 
revised the Renewed Facility Operating License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 26, 2017 (82 
FR 44847).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 25, 2018.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353, Limerick 
Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania

    Date of amendment request: June 28, 2017, as supplemented by 
letters dated August 14, 2017, and January 19, April 23, and July 27, 
2018.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments added a new license 
condition to the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses to allow the 
implementation of risk-informed categorization and treatment of 
structures, systems, and components for nuclear power reactors in 
accordance with 10 CFR 50.69.
    Date of issuance: July 31, 2018.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days.
    Amendment Nos.: 230 (Unit 1) and 193 (Unit 2). A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18165A162; documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with 
the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-39 and NPF-85: The 
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 26, 2017 (82 
FR 44854). The supplemental letters dated letters dated August 14, 
2017, and January 19, April 23, and July 27, 2018, provided additional 
information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of 
the application as originally noticed, and did not change the NRC 
staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination as published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 31, 2018.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. STN 50-456 and STN 50-457, 
Braidwood Station (Braidwood), Units 1 and 2, Will County, Illinois

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. STN 50-454 and STN 50-455, 
Byron Station (Byron), Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Ogle County, Illinois

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-317 and 50-318, Calvert 
Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant (Calvert Cliffs), Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Calvert 
County, Maryland
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-461, Clinton Power 
Station (Clinton), Unit No. 1, DeWitt County, Illinois
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-237 and 50-249, Dresden 
Nuclear Power Station (Dresden), Units 2 and 3, Grundy County, Illinois

[[Page 43910]]

Exelon Generation Company, LLC and Exelon FitzPatrick, LLC, Docket No. 
50-333, James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant (FitzPatrick), Oswego 
County, New York

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-374, LaSalle 
County Station (LaSalle), Units 1 and 2, LaSalle County, Illinois

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353, Limerick 
Generating Station (Limerick), Units 1 and 2, Montgomery County, 
Pennsylvania

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-220 and 50-410, Nine 
Mile Point Nuclear Station (Nine Mile), Units 1 and 2, Oswego County, 
New York

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-
277 and 50-278, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station (Peach Bottom), Units 
2 and 3, York and Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-254 and 50-265, Quad 
Cities Nuclear Power Station (Quad Cities), Units 1 and 2, Rock Island 
County, Illinois

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

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-289, Three Mile Island 
Nuclear Station (TMI), Unit 1, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania

    Date of amendment request: March 1, 2018.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the 
technical specifications for each facility to relocate the staff 
qualification requirements to the Exelon Generation Company, LLC 
quality assurance topical report.
    Date of issuance: August 2, 2018.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 197/197 (Braidwood Units 1 and 2); 203/203 (Byron 
Units 1 and 2); 325/303 (Calvert Cliffs Units 1 and 2); 219 (Clinton); 
258/251 Dresden Units 2 and 3); 320 (FitzPatrick); 229/215 (LaSalle, 
Units 1 and 2); 231/194 (Limerick Units 1 and 2); 231/172 (Nine Mile 
Units 1 and 2); 319/322 (Peach Bottom Units 2 and 3); 270/265 (Quad 
Cities Units 1 and 2); 129 (Ginna); and 294 (TMI). A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18206A282. Documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with 
the amendments.
    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-72, NPF-77, NPF-37, NPF-66, 
DPR-53, DPR-69, NPF-62, DPR-19, DPR-25, DPR-59, NPF-11, NPF-18, NPF-39, 
NPF-85, DPR-63, NPF-69, DPR-44, DPR-56, DPR-29, DPR-30, DPR-18, and 
DPR-50: Amendments revised the Facility Operating Licenses and 
Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 24, 2018 (83 FR 
17862).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a safety evaluations dated August 2, 2018.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: August 7, 2017, as supplemented by 
letter dated January 31, 2018.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment replaced the existing 
technical specification (TS) requirements related to ``operations with 
a potential for draining the reactor vessel'' (OPDRVs) with new 
requirements on reactor pressure vessel (RPV) water inventory control 
to protect Safety Limit 2.1.1.3. Safety Limit 2.1.1.3 requires RPV 
water level to be greater than the top of active irradiated fuel. The 
changes are based on NRC-approved Technical Specifications Task Force 
(TSTF) Traveler TSTF-542, Revision 2, ``Reactor Pressure Vessel Water 
Inventory Control.''
    Date of issuance: August 1, 2018.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
prior to the fall 2018 refueling outage (RE30).
    Amendment No.: 260. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML18186A549; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-46: Amendment revised 
the Renewed Facility Operating License and TS.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 24, 2017 (82 FR 
49238). The supplemental letter dated January 31, 2018, provided 
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand 
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change 
the NRC staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination as published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated August 1, 2018.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC, Docket No. 50-443, Seabrook Station, Unit 
No. 1, Rockingham County, New Hampshire

    Date of amendment request: July 28, 2017.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical 
Specifications (TS) such that a direct current (DC) electrical train is 
operable with one 100 percent capacity battery aligned to both DC buses 
in the associated electrical train.
    Date of issuance: August 7, 2018.
    Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days of the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 157. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML18199A609; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-86: Amendment revised the 
Facility Operating License and TS.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 10, 2017 (82 FR 
47038).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated August 7, 2018.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-
425, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, Burke County, 
Georgia

    Date of amendment request: June 22, 2017, as supplemented by 
letters dated February 6, February 21, April 26, and August 6, 2018.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments incorporate the use 
of the peer-reviewed plant-specific seismic probabilistic risk 
assessment into the previously approved 10 CFR 50.69 categorization 
process.
    Date of issuance: August 10, 2018.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: Unit 1--196; Unit 2--179. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18180A062; documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with 
the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-68 and NPF-81: 
Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses.

[[Page 43911]]

    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 29, 2017 (82 FR 
41072). The supplemental letters dated February 6, February 21, April 
26, and August 6, 2018, provided additional information that clarified 
the application, did not expand the scope of the application as 
originally noticed, and did not change the 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 August 10, 2018.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-327 and 50-328, Sequoyah 
Nuclear Plant (SQN), Units 1 and 2, Hamilton County, Tennessee

    Date of amendment request: September 29, 2017, as supplemented by 
letter dated March 14, 2018.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the SQN 
Emergency Plan to change staff composition and to extend staff 
augmentation times for Emergency Response Organization functions.
    Date of issuance: August 6, 2018.
    Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 180 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 342--Unit 1 and 335--Unit 2. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18159A461; documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with 
the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-77 and DPR-79. 
Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 27, 2018 (83 
FR 8520). The supplemental letter dated March 14, 2018, provided 
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand 
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change 
the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination as published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated August 6, 2018.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 16th day of August 2018.
    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Gregory F. Suber,
Deputy Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of 
Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2018-18028 Filed 8-27-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
43902 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 28, 2018 / Notices

before making the comment affected by this action may file a request Those permitted to intervene become
submissions available to the public or for a hearing and petition for leave to parties to the proceeding, subject to any
entering the comment into ADAMS. intervene (petition) with respect to the limitations in the order granting leave to
action. Petitions shall be filed in intervene. Parties have the opportunity
II. Notice of Consideration of Issuance
accordance with the Commission’s to participate fully in the conduct of the
of Amendments to Facility Operating
‘‘Agency Rules of Practice and hearing with respect to resolution of
Licenses and Combined Licenses and
Procedure’’ in 10 CFR part 2. Interested that party’s admitted contentions,
Proposed No Significant Hazards
persons should consult a current copy including the opportunity to present
Consideration Determination
of 10 CFR 2.309. The NRC’s regulations evidence, consistent with the NRC’s
The Commission has made a are accessible electronically from the regulations, policies, and procedures.
proposed determination that the NRC Library on the NRC’s website at Petitions must be filed no later than
following amendment requests involve http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc- 60 days from the date of publication of
no significant hazards consideration. collections/cfr/. Alternatively, a copy of this notice. Petitions and motions for
Under the Commission’s regulations in the regulations is available at the NRC’s leave to file new or amended
§ 50.92 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Public Document Room, located at One contentions that are filed after the
Regulations (10 CFR), this means that White Flint North, Room O1–F21, 11555 deadline will not be entertained absent
operation of the facility in accordance Rockville Pike (First Floor), Rockville, a determination by the presiding officer
with the proposed amendment would Maryland 20852. If a petition is filed, that the filing demonstrates good cause
not (1) involve a significant increase in the Commission or a presiding officer by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR
the probability or consequences of an will rule on the petition and, if 2.309(c)(1)(i) through (iii). The petition
accident previously evaluated, or (2) appropriate, a notice of a hearing will be must be filed in accordance with the
create the possibility of a new or issued. filing instructions in the ‘‘Electronic
different kind of accident from any Submissions (E-Filing)’’ section of this
As required by 10 CFR 2.309(d) the
accident previously evaluated; or (3) document.
petition should specifically explain the
involve a significant reduction in a If a hearing is requested, and the
reasons why intervention should be
margin of safety. The basis for this Commission has not made a final
permitted with particular reference to
proposed determination for each determination on the issue of no
the following general requirements for
amendment request is shown below. significant hazards consideration, the
The Commission is seeking public standing: (1) The name, address, and
Commission will make a final
comments on this proposed telephone number of the petitioner; (2)
determination on the issue of no
determination. Any comments received the nature of the petitioner’s right under
significant hazards consideration. The
within 30 days after the date of the Act to be made a party to the final determination will serve to
publication of this notice will be proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of establish when the hearing is held. If the
considered in making any final the petitioner’s property, financial, or final determination is that the
determination. other interest in the proceeding; and (4) amendment request involves no
Normally, the Commission will not the possible effect of any decision or significant hazards consideration, the
issue the amendment until the order which may be entered in the Commission may issue the amendment
expiration of 60 days after the date of proceeding on the petitioner’s interest. and make it immediately effective,
publication of this notice. The In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f), notwithstanding the request for a
Commission may issue the license the petition must also set forth the hearing. Any hearing would take place
amendment before expiration of the 60- specific contentions which the after issuance of the amendment. If the
day period provided that its final petitioner seeks to have litigated in the final determination is that the
determination is that the amendment proceeding. Each contention must amendment request involves a
involves no significant hazards consist of a specific statement of the significant hazards consideration, then
consideration. In addition, the issue of law or fact to be raised or any hearing held would take place
Commission may issue the amendment controverted. In addition, the petitioner before the issuance of the amendment
prior to the expiration of the 30-day must provide a brief explanation of the unless the Commission finds an
comment period if circumstances bases for the contention and a concise imminent danger to the health or safety
change during the 30-day comment statement of the alleged facts or expert of the public, in which case it will issue
period such that failure to act in a opinion which support the contention an appropriate order or rule under 10
timely way would result, for example in and on which the petitioner intends to CFR part 2.
derating or shutdown of the facility. If rely in proving the contention at the A State, local governmental body,
the Commission takes action prior to the hearing. The petitioner must also Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or
expiration of either the comment period provide references to the specific agency thereof, may submit a petition to
or the notice period, it will publish in sources and documents on which the the Commission to participate as a party
the Federal Register a notice of petitioner intends to rely to support its under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition
issuance. If the Commission makes a position on the issue. The petition must should state the nature and extent of the
final no significant hazards include sufficient information to show petitioner’s interest in the proceeding.
consideration determination, any that a genuine dispute exists with the The petition should be submitted to the
hearing will take place after issuance. applicant or licensee on a material issue Commission no later than 60 days from
The Commission expects that the need of law or fact. Contentions must be the date of publication of this notice.
to take this action will occur very limited to matters within the scope of The petition must be filed in accordance
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES

infrequently. the proceeding. The contention must be with the filing instructions in the
one which, if proven, would entitle the ‘‘Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)’’
A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing petitioner to relief. A petitioner who section of this document, and should
and Petition for Leave To Intervene fails to satisfy the requirements at 10 meet the requirements for petitions set
Within 60 days after the date of CFR 2.309(f) with respect to at least one forth in this section, except that under
publication of this notice, any persons contention will not be permitted to 10 CFR 2.309(h)(2) a State, local
(petitioner) whose interest may be participate as a party. governmental body, or Federally-

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:00 Aug 27, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\28AUN1.SGM 28AUN1
43904 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 28, 2018 / Notices

For further details with respect to governing normal plant operation. The consequences of an accident previously
these license amendment applications, changes do not alter the assumptions made evaluated?
see the application for amendment in the safety analysis. Therefore, the No. The proposed TS change, which adds
proposed amendment does not create the a Surveillance Requirement to TS 3.8.1 to test
which is available for public inspection possibility of a new or different kind of the automatic Keowee auxiliary power
in ADAMS and at the NRC’s PDR. For accident from any accident previously transfer circuitry, will allow ONS [Oconee
additional direction on accessing evaluated. Nuclear Station] to credit an existing design
information related to this document, 3. Does the proposed amendment involve feature to facilitate mitigation of a postulated
see the ‘‘Obtaining Information and a significant reduction in the margin of single failure. The proposed change does not
Submitting Comments’’ section of this safety? modify the reactor coolant system pressure
document. Response: No. boundary, nor make any physical changes to
The proposed amendment provides time to the facility design, material, or construction
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket correct the condition of more than one DRPI standards. The proposed change is needed to
Nos. 50–369 and 50–370, McGuire inoperable in a rod group. Compensatory eliminate a previously unrecognized single
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, measures are required to verify that the rods failure concern that resulted in a non-
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina monitored by the inoperable DRPls are not conservative TS. The proposed change does
moved to ensure that there is no effect on not affect the safety analyses thus dose
Date of amendment request: May 31, core reactivity. Requiring a plant shutdown consequences will remain within analyzed
2018. A publicly-available version is in with inoperable rod position indications and acceptable limits. The probability of any
ADAMS under Accession No. introduces plant risk and should not be design basis accident (DBA) is not increased
ML18159A035. initiated unless the rod position indication by this change, nor are the consequences of
cannot be repaired in a reasonable period. As any DBA increased by this change. The
Description of amendment request: a result, the safety benefit provided by the
The amendments would modify proposed change does not involve changes to
proposed Condition offsets the small
Technical Specification 3.1.7, ‘‘Rod any structures, systems, or components
decrease in safety resulting from continued
(SSCs) that can alter the probability for
Position Indication,’’ to add a new operation with more than one inoperable
initiating a DBA event.
Condition for more than one inoperable DRPI. Therefore, the proposed amendment
does not involve a reduction in a margin of Therefore, the proposed TS change does
digital rod position indication (DRPI) not significantly increase the probability or
per rod group, and revise the Action safety.
consequences of an accident previously
Note and to clarify the wording of The NRC staff has reviewed the evaluated.
current Required Actions A.1 and B.1. licensee’s analysis and, based on this 2. Does the proposed amendment create
This change is consistent with NRC- review, it appears that the three the possibility of a new or different kind of
approved Technical Specification Task standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are accident from any accident previously
Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF–234–A, satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff evaluated?
proposes to determine that the No. The proposed new Surveillance
‘‘Add Action for More Than One [D]RPI
Requirement to test the automatic Keowee
Inoperable,’’ Revision 1. amendment request involves no
auxiliary power transfer circuitry will allow
Basis for proposed no significant significant hazards consideration. ONS to credit an existing design feature to
hazards consideration determination: Attorney for licensee: Kate B. Nolan, facilitate mitigation of a postulated single
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the Deputy General Counsel, Duke Energy failure. The proposed change does not alter
licensee has provided its analysis of the Carolinas, LLC, 550 South Tryon Street, the plant configuration (no new or different
issue of no significant hazards M/C DEC45A, Charlotte, NC 28202– type of equipment will be installed) or make
consideration, which is presented 1802. changes in methods governing normal plant
below: NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. operation. The automatic Keowee auxiliary
Markley. power transfer circuitry is currently installed
1. Does the proposed amendment involve and in use but not credited for accident
a significant increase in the probability or Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket mitigation. No new failure modes are
consequences of an accident previously Nos. 50–269, 50–270, and 50–287, identified, nor are any SSCs required to be
evaluated? Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and operated outside the design bases. Therefore,
Response: No. 3, Oconee County, South Carolina the possibility of a new or different kind of
The proposed amendment provides a accident from any kind of accident
Condition and Required Actions for more Date of amendment request: May 17, previously evaluated is not created.
than one inoperable digital rod position 2018. A publicly-available version is in 3. Does the proposed amendment involve
indications (DRPI) per rod group. The DRPls ADAMS under Accession No. a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
are not an initiator of any accident previously ML18144A788. No. The proposed new Surveillance
evaluated. The DRPls are one indication used Description of amendment request: Requirement to test the automatic Keowee
by operators to verify control rod insertion The amendments would revise auxiliary power transfer circuitry will allow
following an accident; however other Technical Specification (TS) 3.8.1, ‘‘AC ONS to credit an existing design feature to
indications are available. Therefore, allowing [Alternating Current] Sources— facilitate mitigation of a postulated single
a finite period of time to correct more than Operating,’’ by adding a surveillance failure. The proposed change does not
one inoperable DRPI prior to requiring a involve: (1) A physical alteration of the
plant shutdown will not result in an increase
requirement that verifies the ability of
Oconee Units; (2) the installation of new or
in the consequences of any accident the Keowee Hydroelectric Unit auxiliary
different equipment; (3) a change to any set
previously evaluated. The proposed power system to automatically transfer points for parameters which initiate
amendment does not involve an increase in from its normal auxiliary power source protective or mitigation action; or (4) any
the probability or consequences of any to its alternate auxiliary power source. impact on the fission product barriers or
accident previously evaluated. Basis for proposed no significant safety limits. As long as the equipment
2. Does the proposed amendment create hazards consideration determination: continues to perform as expected and within
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES

the possibility of a new or different kind of As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the the guidelines captured in the safety
accident from any accident previously licensee has provided its analysis of the analyses, the change does not involve a
evaluated? issue of no significant hazards significant reduction in the margin of safety.
Response: No.
consideration, which is presented The NRC staff has reviewed the
The proposed amendment does not involve
a physical alteration to the plant (i.e., no new below: licensee’s analysis and, based on this
or different type of equipment will be 1. Does the proposed amendment involve review, it appears that the three
installed) or a change to the methods a significant increase in the probability or standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:00 Aug 27, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\28AUN1.SGM 28AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 28, 2018 / Notices 43905

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff Therefore, the proposed change does not 2. Does the proposed amendment create
proposes to determine that the involve a significant reduction in a margin of the possibility of a new or different kind of
amendment request involves no safety. accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
significant hazards consideration. The NRC staff has reviewed the Response: No.
Attorney for licensee: Kate B. Nolan, licensee’s analysis and, based on this The proposed changes do allow future
Deputy General Counsel, Duke Energy review, it appears that the three physical changes to the facility that deviate
Carolinas, LLC, 550 South Tryon Street, standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are from NFPA 805 requirements. However, the
M/C DEC45A, Charlotte, NC 28202– satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposed changes do not alter any
1802. proposes to determine that the assumptions made in the safety analyses, nor
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. amendment request involves no do they involve any changes to plant
Markley. significant hazards consideration. procedures for ensuring that the plant is
operated within analyzed limits. As such, no
Florida Power & Light Company, et al., Attorney for licensee: Debbie Hendell,
new failure modes or mechanisms that could
Docket Nos. 50–335 and 50–389, St. Managing Attorney—Nuclear, Florida cause a new or different kind of accident
Lucie Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, St. Lucie Power & Light Company, 700 Universe from any previously evaluated are being
County, Florida Blvd. MS LAW/JB, Juno Beach, FL introduced.
33408–0420. Therefore, the proposed changes do not
Date of amendment request: August 2, NRC Acting Branch Chief: Booma create the possibility of a new or different
2018. A publicly-available version is in Venkataraman. kind of accident from any previously
ADAMS under Accession No. evaluated.
ML18218A075. Indiana Michigan Power Company, 3. Does the proposed amendment involve
Description of amendment request: Docket Nos. 50–315 and 50–316, Donald a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
The amendments would revise the C. Cook Nuclear Plant (CNP), Units Nos. Response: No.
Technical Specifications (TS) by 1 and 2, Berrien County, Michigan The proposed changes do not alter the
deleting Figure 5.1–1, ‘‘Site Area Map,’’ manner in which safety limits or limiting
Date of amendment request: June 11, safety system settings are determined. No
removing references in the TS to Figure 2018. A publicly-available version is in changes to instrument/system actuation
5.1–1, and adding a site description. ADAMS under Accession No. setpoints are involved. The safety analysis
Basis for proposed no significant ML18164A033. acceptance criteria are not affected by this
hazards consideration determination: Description of amendment request: change and the proposed changes will not
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the The proposed change would allow for permit plant operation in a configuration
licensee has provided its analysis of the deviation from National Fire Protection outside the design basis.
issue of no significant hazards Association (NFPA) 805 requirements, Therefore, the proposed changes do not
consideration, which is presented to allow for the use of flexible metallic involve a significant reduction in a margin of
below: safety.
conduit in configurations other than to
1. Does the proposed amendment involve connect components, and also in The NRC staff has reviewed the
a significant increase in the probability or lengths greater than short lengths. licensee’s analysis and, based on this
consequences of an accident previously Basis for proposed no significant review, it appears that the three
evaluated? hazards consideration determination: standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
Response: No. satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
The proposed change does not modify any
plant equipment or affect plant operation. licensee has provided its analysis of the proposes to determine that the
The proposed change neither impacts any issue of no significant hazards amendment request involves no
structures, systems, or components (SSCs), consideration, which is presented significant hazards consideration.
nor alters any plant processes or procedures. below: Attorney for licensee: Robert B.
The proposed change is administrative in Haemer, Senior Nuclear Counsel, One
1. Does the proposed amendment involve
nature and cannot adversely impact safety. Cook Place, Bridgman, MI 49106.
a significant increase in the probability or
Therefore, the proposed changes do not NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.
consequences of an accident previously
involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident evaluated? Nebraska Public Power District, Docket
previously evaluated. Response: No. No. 50–298, Cooper Nuclear Station,
2. Does the proposed amendment create The use of flexible metallic conduit to be
used other than to connect components or to
Nemaha County, Nebraska
the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously be used in greater than short lengths does not Date of amendment request: June 11,
evaluated? impact fire prevention. Flexible metallic 2018. A publicly-available version is in
Response: No. conduit has been in use since original plant ADAMS under Accession No.
The proposed change has no impact on the construction, is allowed by the National ML18169A147.
design, function or operation of the plants. Electrical Code and is not expected to Description of amendment request:
The proposed change is administrative in increase the potential for a fire to start. The amendment would revise Technical
nature, and thereby cannot introduce new The introduction of flexible metallic
conduit does not create ignition sources and
Specification (TS) 3.8.3, ‘‘Diesel Fuel
failure modes or unanticipated outcomes.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not does not impact fire prevention. Cable Oil, Lube Oil, and Starting Air,’’ by
create the possibility of a new or different installation procedures are utilized to ensure relocating the current stored diesel fuel
kind of accident from any previously that the use of flexible metallic conduit is in oil and lube oil numerical volume
evaluated. accordance with the CNP design change requirements from the TSs to the TS
3. Does the proposed amendment involve process. Also, the use of flexible metallic Bases. The proposed changes are
a significant reduction in a margin of safety? conduit does not result in compromising consistent with Technical Specifications
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES

Response: No. automatic fire suppression functions, manual Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF–501,
The proposed change does not affect plant fire suppression functions, fire protection for Revision 1, ‘‘Relocate Stored Fuel Oil
safety margins or the reliability of the systems and structures, or post-fire safe
equipment assumed to operate in the safety shutdown capability.
and Lube Oil Volume Values to
analyses. The proposed change is Therefore, the proposed changes do not Licensee Control.’’ The amendment
administrative in nature, and thereby cannot involve a significant increase in the would also revise TS 3.8.1, ‘‘AC
affect any safety analysis assumptions, safety probability or consequences of an accident [Alternating Current] Sources—
limits or limiting safety system settings. previously evaluated. Operating,’’ by relocating the specific

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:00 Aug 27, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\28AUN1.SGM 28AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 28, 2018 / Notices 43907

NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona. The proposed changes to the TS impose which the plant is operated and maintained.
requirements that are consistent with The proposed changes do not alter or prevent
PSEG Nuclear LLC, and Exelon assumptions in the safety analyses. The the ability of structures, systems, and
Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. proposed changes will not result in changes components (SSCs) to perform their intended
50–272 and 50–311, Salem Nuclear to system design or setpoints that are function to mitigate the consequences of an
Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, intended to ensure timely identification of initiating event within the acceptance limits.
Salem County, New Jersey plant conditions that could be precursors to The proposed changes do not affect the
accidents or potential degradation of accident source term, containment isolation, or
Date of amendment request: June 29, mitigation systems. radiological release assumptions used in
2018. A publicly-available version is in The proposed amendment will not result evaluating the radiological consequences of
ADAMS under Accession No. in a design basis or safety limit being an accident previously evaluated. The
ML18180A291. exceeded or altered. Therefore, since the proposed change is consistent with and
Description of amendment request: proposed changes do not impact the response continues to support the safety analysis
The amendments would revise of the plant to a design basis accident, the assumptions and resultant consequences.
Technical Specification (TS) 3⁄4.3.1, proposed changes do not involve a Therefore, the proposed change does not
significant reduction in a margin of safety. involve a significant increase in the
‘‘Reactor Trip System Instrumentation’’; probability or consequences of an accident
TS 3⁄4.3.2, ‘‘Engineered Safety Feature The NRC staff has reviewed the previously evaluated.
Actuation System Instrumentation’’; TS licensee’s analysis and, based on this 2. Does the proposed change create the
3⁄4.7.1.5, ‘‘Main Steam Isolation Valves’’;
review, it appears that the three possibility of a new or different kind of
and add a new TS for feedwater standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are accident from any accident previously
isolation to better align the TS with the satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff evaluated?
design basis analyses and the design of proposes to determine that the Response: No.
the instrumentation. The proposed changes do not alter or
amendment request involves no
Basis for proposed no significant involve any design basis accident initiators.
significant hazards consideration. The changes to the Technical Specifications
hazards consideration determination: Attorney for licensee: Ryan K. Lighty, regarding RWST operational limits are
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, 1111 primarily administrative in nature and do not
licensee has provided its analysis of the Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, affect the design or operation of the plant.
issue of no significant hazards DC 20004–2541 Increasing the allowable out of service time
consideration, which is presented NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna. (AOT) for the RWST does not cause any plant
below: systems to become initiators of a new or
PSEG Nuclear LLC, and Exelon different type of accident. Systems and
1. Does the proposed change involve a Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. equipment will be operated in the same
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
50–272 and 50–311, Salem Nuclear configuration and manner that is currently
Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, allowed and for which the systems were
evaluated?
Salem County, New Jersey. designed.
Response: No.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not
The proposed changes to the TS will not Date of amendment request: June 29,
alter the way any structure, system, or create the possibility of a new or different
2018. A publicly-available version is in kind of accident from any previously
component (SSC) functions, and will not
alter the manner in which the plant is ADAMS under Accession No. evaluated.
operated. The proposed changes do not alter ML18183A025. 3. Does the proposed change involve a
the design of any SSC. Therefore the Description of amendment request: significant reduction in a margin of safety?
probability of an accident previously The amendments would delete Response: No.
evaluated is not significantly increased. The proposed change does not alter the
duplicative Technical Specification (TS)
The proposed changes more accurately permanent plant design, including
requirements to the refueling water instrument set points, nor does it change the
align the TS with the design bases accident storage tank (RWST) in TS 3.1.2.6,
analysis for the main steam line break, assumptions contained in the safety analyses.
‘‘Borated Water Sources—Operating,’’ The RWST continues to meet the design
feedwater line break and feedwater
malfunction. Therefore, the consequences of and would revise TS 3.5.5, ‘‘Refueling requirements relative to core and
an accident previously evaluated are not Water Storage Tank,’’ to ensure containment cooling and reactivity control;
increased. compliance with assumptions used in there is no reduction in capability or change
Therefore, these proposed changes do not the design basis accident and in design configuration. Increasing the RWST
represent a significant increase in the containment response analyses and to AOT for reasons directly related to boron
probability or consequences of an accident concentration or temperature does not affect
make Salem TS requirements for the
previously evaluated. any accident analysis assumptions, initial
RWST consistent with NUREG–1431, conditions, or results. Adding an upper
2. Does the proposed change create the
Revision 4, ‘‘Standard Technical temperature limit to the LCO [limiting
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously Specifications—Westinghouse Plants.’’ condition for operation] for TS 3.5.5 ensures
evaluated? Basis for proposed no significant the RWST remains within temperature ranges
Response: No. hazards consideration determination: assumed in the plant’s safety analyses.
The proposed changes do not involve a As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the Removing the upper limit on RWST volume
modification to the physical configuration of licensee has provided its analysis of the does not alter the RWST design and the limit
the plant or changes in the methods issue of no significant hazards is not used as an input or assumption in any
governing normal plant operation. The plant safety analysis. The proposed changes
consideration, which is presented
proposed changes do not impose any new or do not alter a design basis or safety limit.
below: Therefore, it is concluded that the
different requirement or introduce a new
accident initiator, accident precursor, or 1. Does the proposed change involve a proposed changes do not involve a
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES

malfunction mechanism. significant increase in the probability or significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not consequences of an accident previously The NRC staff has reviewed the
create the possibility of a new or different evaluated?
kind of accident from any accident Response: No.
licensee’s analysis and, based on this
previously evaluated. The proposed changes do not adversely review, it appears that the three
3. Do[es] the proposed [change] involve a affect accident initiators or precursors or alter standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
significant reduction in a margin of safety? the design assumptions, conditions, or satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
Response: No. configuration of the facility or the manner in proposes to determine that the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:00 Aug 27, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\28AUN1.SGM 28AUN1
43908 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 28, 2018 / Notices

amendment request involves no Response: No. proposed to be issued involving no
significant hazards consideration. The proposed change will permit the use significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Ryan K. Lighty, of a risk-informed categorization process to For details, see the individual notice
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, 1111 modify the scope of SSCs subject to NRC
special treatment requirements and to
in the Federal Register on the day and
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, page cited. This notice does not extend
implement alternative treatments per the
DC 20004–2541. regulations. The proposed change does not the notice period of the original notice.
NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna. change the functional requirements, Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket configuration, or method of operation of any
SSC. Under the proposed change, no
50–390, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 1,
Nos. 50–327 and 50–328, Sequoyah Rhea County, Tennessee
additional plant equipment will be installed.
Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Hamilton
Therefore, the proposed change does not Date of amendment request: July 8,
County, Tennessee create the possibility of a new or different 2018. A publicly-available version is in
Date of amendment request: March kind of accident from any accident
ADAMS under Accession No.
16, 2018. A publicly-available version is previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a ML18189A001.
in ADAMS under Accession No. Brief description of amendment
ML18075A365. significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No. request: The proposed amendment
Description of amendment request:
The proposed change will permit the use would modify the Watts Bar Nuclear
The amendments would adopt 10 CFR of a risk-informed categorization process to Plant, Unit 1, Technical Specifications
50.69, ‘‘Risk-informed categorization modify the scope of SSCs subject to NRC to extend Surveillance Requirements
and treatment of structures, systems and special treatment requirements and to 3.3.1.5, 3.3.2.2, and 3.3.6.2.
components for nuclear power implement alternative treatments per the
Date of publication of individual
reactors.’’ The provisions of 50.69 allow regulations. The proposed change does not
notice in Federal Register: July 16,
improved focus on equipment that has affect any safety limits or operating
parameters used to establish the safety 2018 (83 FR 32912).
safety significance, resulting in
improved plant safety. margin. The safety margins included in Expiration date of individual notice:
Basis for proposed no significant analyses of accidents are not affected by the August 15, 2018 (public comments);
hazards consideration determination: proposed change. The regulation requires September 14, 2018 (hearing requests).
that there be no significant effect on plant
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the risk due to any change to the special IV. Notice of Issuance of Amendments
licensee has provided its analysis of the treatment requirements for SSCs and that the to Facility Operating Licenses and
issue of no significant hazards SSCs continue to be capable of performing Combined Licenses
consideration, which is presented their design basis functions, as well as to
below: perform any beyond design basis functions During the period since publication of
consistent with the categorization process the last biweekly notice, the
1. Does the proposed change involve a Commission has issued the following
significant increase in the probability or and results.
consequence of an accident previously Therefore, the proposed change does not amendments. The Commission has
evaluated? involve a significant reduction in a margin of determined for each of these
Response: No. safety. amendments that the application
The proposed change will permit the use The NRC staff has reviewed the complies with the standards and
of a risk-informed categorization process to licensee’s analysis and, based on this requirements of the Atomic Energy Act
modify the scope of structures, systems, and of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the
components (SSCs) subject to Nuclear
review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are Commission’s rules and regulations.
Regulatory Commission (NRC) special
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff The Commission has made appropriate
treatment requirements and to implement
alternative treatments per the regulations. proposes to determine that the findings as required by the Act and the
The process used to evaluate SSCs for amendment request involves no Commission’s rules and regulations in
changes to NRC special treatment significant hazards consideration. 10 CFR chapter I, which are set forth in
requirements and the use of alternative Attorney for licensee: General the license amendment.
requirements ensures the ability of the SSCs Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, A notice of consideration of issuance
to perform their design function. The of amendment to facility operating
potential change to special treatment 400 West Summit Hill Drive, 6A West
Tower, Knoxville, TN 37902. license or combined license, as
requirements does not change the design and
operation of the SSCs. As a result, the NRC Acting Branch Chief: Booma applicable, proposed no significant
proposed change does not significantly affect Venkataraman. hazards consideration determination,
any initiators to accidents previously and opportunity for a hearing in
evaluated or the ability to mitigate any III. Previously Published Notices of connection with these actions, was
accidents previously evaluated. The Consideration of Issuance of published in the Federal Register as
consequences of the accidents previously Amendments to Facility Operating indicated.
evaluated are not affected because the Licenses and Combined Licenses, Unless otherwise indicated, the
mitigation functions performed by the SSCs Proposed No Significant Hazards
assumed in the safety analysis are not being
Commission has determined that these
Consideration Determination, and amendments satisfy the criteria for
modified. The SSCs required to safely shut Opportunity for a Hearing
down the reactor and maintain it in a safe categorical exclusion in accordance
shutdown condition following an accident The following notice was previously with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant
will continue to perform their design published as a separate individual to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental
functions. notice. The notice content was the same impact statement or environmental
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES

Therefore, the proposed change does not as above. It was published as an assessment need be prepared for these
involve a significant increase in the individual notice either because time amendments. If the Commission has
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
did not allow the Commission to wait prepared an environmental assessment
2. Does the proposed change create the for this biweekly notice or because the under the special circumstances
possibility of a new or different kind of action involved exigent circumstances. provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has
accident from any accident previously It is repeated here because the biweekly made a determination based on that
evaluated? notice lists all amendments issued or assessment, it is so indicated.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:00 Aug 27, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\28AUN1.SGM 28AUN1
Document Created: 2018-08-28 00:22:07
Document Modified: 2018-08-28 00:22:07
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 September 27, 2018. A request for a hearing must be filed by October 29, 2018.
Contact		Janet Burkhardt, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1384; email: [email protected]
FR Citation		83 FR 43901