83 FR 50691 - 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 195 (October 9, 2018)

Page Range		50691-50700
FR Document		2018-21669

Pursuant to Section 189a.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is publishing this regular biweekly notice. The Act requires the Commission to publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to be issued, and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license or combined license, as applicable, upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person. This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or proposed to be issued, from September 11, 2018, to September 24, 2018. The last biweekly notice was published on September 25, 2018.

Federal Register, Volume 83 Issue 195 (Tuesday, October 9, 2018)

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 195 (Tuesday, October 9, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50691-50700]
From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2018-21669]

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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2018-0224]

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

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Biweekly notice.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 189a.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,
as amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is
publishing this regular biweekly notice. The Act requires the
Commission to publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to
be issued, and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make
immediately effective any amendment to an operating license or combined
license, as applicable, upon a determination by the Commission that
such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration,
notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a
hearing from any person.
This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or
proposed to be issued, from September 11, 2018, to September 24, 2018.
The last biweekly notice was published on September 25, 2018.

DATES: Comments must be filed by November 8, 2018. A request for a
hearing must be filed by December 10, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods
(unless this document describes a different method for submitting
comments on a specific subject):
Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2018-0224. Address
questions about Docket IDs in Regulations.gov to Jennifer Borges;
telephone: 301-287-9127; email: Jennifer.Borges@nrc.gov. For technical
questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this document.
Mail comments to: May Ma, Office of Administration, Mail
Stop: TWFN-7-

[[Page 50692]]

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: Ikeda Betts, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-
0001; telephone: 301-415-1959, email: Ikeda.Betts@nrc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments

A. Obtaining Information

Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2018-0224 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-2018-0224.
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 pdr.resource@nrc.gov. For the convenience of the reader,
instructions about obtaining materials referenced in this document are
provided in the ``Availability of Documents'' section.
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-2018-0224 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 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

[[Page 50693]]

include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists
with the applicant or licensee on a material issue of law or fact.
Contentions must be limited to matters within the scope of the
proceeding. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle
the petitioner to relief. A petitioner who fails to satisfy the
requirements at 10 CFR 2.309(f) with respect to at least one contention
will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding,
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene.
Parties have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the
hearing with respect to resolution of that party's admitted
contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence, consistent
with the NRC's regulations, policies, and procedures.
Petitions must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of
publication of this notice. Petitions and motions for leave to file new
or amended contentions that are filed after the deadline will not be
entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the
filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10
CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i) through (iii). The petition must be filed in
accordance with the filing instructions in the ``Electronic Submissions
(E-Filing)'' section of this document.
If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the
Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no
significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve
to establish when the hearing is held. If the final determination is
that the amendment request involves no significant hazards
consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it
immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any
hearing would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final
determination is that the amendment request involves a significant
hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before
the issuance of the amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent
danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will
issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.
A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian
Tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to
participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition should
state the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the
proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission no later
than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. The petition
must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the
``Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)'' section of this document, and
should meet the requirements for petitions set forth in this section,
except that under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(2) a State, local governmental body,
or Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof does not need
to address the standing requirements in 10 CFR 2.309(d) if the facility
is located within its boundaries. Alternatively, a State, local
governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof
may participate as a non-party under 10 CFR 2.315(c).
If a hearing is granted, any person who is not a party to the
proceeding and is not affiliated with or represented by a party may, at
the discretion of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited
appearance pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person
making a limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of
his or her position on the issues but may not otherwise participate in
the proceeding. A limited appearance may be made at any session of the
hearing or at any prehearing conference, subject to the limits and
conditions as may be imposed by the presiding officer. Details
regarding the opportunity to make a limited appearance will be provided
by the presiding officer if such sessions are scheduled.

B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)

All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a
request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition), any
motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the
submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and
documents filed by interested governmental entities that request to
participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the
NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007, as amended at 77 FR
46562; August 3, 2012). The E-Filing process requires participants to
submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in
some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Detailed
guidance on making electronic submissions may be found in the Guidance
for Electronic Submissions to the NRC and on the NRC website at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants may not submit
paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in
accordance with the procedures described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10
days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the
Office of the Secretary by email at hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by
telephone at 301-415-1677, to (1) request a digital identification (ID)
certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or
representative) to digitally sign submissions and access the E-Filing
system for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise
the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a petition or
other adjudicatory document (even in instances in which the
participant, or its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-
issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the
Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the hearing in this
proceeding if the Secretary has not already established an electronic
docket.
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is
available on the NRC's public website at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/getting-started.html. Once a participant has obtained a
digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant
can then submit adjudicatory documents. Submissions must be in Portable
Document Format (PDF). Additional guidance on PDF submissions is
available on the NRC's public website at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/electronic-sub-ref-mat.html. A filing is considered complete at the
time the document is submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be
timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system
no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of
a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends
the submitter an email notice confirming receipt of the document. The
E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access
to the document to the NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any
others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to
participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the
document on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and
other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for
and receive a digital ID certificate before adjudicatory documents are
filed so that they can obtain access to the documents via the E-Filing
system.
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-
Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the

[[Page 50694]]

NRC's Electronic Filing Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' link
located on the NRC's public website at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by email to MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a toll-free
call at 1-866-672-7640. The NRC Electronic Filing Help Desk is
available between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through
Friday, excluding government holidays.
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not
submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in
accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing
stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and
requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper
format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention:
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or
expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and
Adjudications Staff. Participants filing adjudicatory documents in this
manner are responsible for serving the document on all other
participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of
the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or
expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the
provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an
exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or
party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines
that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no
longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
https://adams.nrc.gov/ehd, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the
Commission or the presiding officer. If you do not have an NRC-issued
digital ID certificate as described above, click cancel when the link
requests certificates and you will be automatically directed to the
NRC's electronic hearing dockets where you will be able to access any
publicly available documents in a particular hearing docket.
Participants are requested not to include personal privacy information,
such as social security numbers, home addresses, or personal phone
numbers in their filings, unless an NRC regulation or other law
requires submission of such information. For example, in some
instances, individuals provide home addresses in order to demonstrate
proximity to a facility or site. With respect to copyrighted works,
except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory
filings and would constitute a Fair Use application, participants are
requested not to include copyrighted materials in their submission.
For further details with respect to these license amendment
application(s), 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. 50-413 and 50-414, Catawba
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 (Catawba), York County, South Carolina

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

Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Docket No. 50-400, Shearon Harris Nuclear
Power Plant, Unit 1 (Harris), Wake County, North Carolina

Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Docket No. 50-261, H.B. Robinson Steam
Electric Plant, Unit No. 2 (Robinson), Darlington County, South
Carolina

Date of amendment request: May 10, 2018. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18131A068.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the
Technical Specifications (TSs) for Catawba and McGuire to remove
ventilation system heaters. Specifically, ventilation system heaters
would be removed from Catawba TSs 3.6.10, ``Annulus Ventilation System
(AVS),'' 3.7.10, ``Control Room Area Ventilation System (CRAVS),''
3.7.12, ``Auxiliary Building Filtered Ventilation Exhaust System
(ABFVES),'' 3.7.13, ``Fuel Handling Ventilation Exhaust System
(FHVES),'' 3.9.3, ``Containment Penetrations,'' 5.5.11, ``Ventilation
Filter Testing Program (VFTP),'' and 5.6.6, ``Ventilation Systems
Heater Report,'' and McGuire TSs 3.6.10, ``Annulus Ventilation System
(AVS),'' 3.7.9, ``Control Room Area Ventilation System (CRAVS),''
5.5.11, ``Ventilation Filter Testing Program (VFTP),'' and 5.6.6,
``Ventilation Systems Heater Failure Report.'' The specified relative
humidity (RH) for charcoal testing in the ventilation system
Surveillance Requirement (for Harris) and Ventilation Filter Testing
Program (for Robinson) is revised from 70% to 95% and the ventilation
system heaters will be removed from the Harris TSs 3/4.7.6, ``Control
Room Emergency Filtration System,'' 3/4.7.7, ``Reactor Auxiliary
Building (RAB) Emergency Exhaust System,'' 3/4.9.12, ``Fuel Handling
Building Emergency Exhaust System,'' TSs 3.7.11, ``Fuel Building Air
Cleanup System (FBACS),'' and 5.5.11, ``Ventilation Filter Testing
Program (VFTP).'' The proposed changes are consistent with Technical
Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-522, ``Revise
Ventilation System Surveillance Requirements to Operate for 10 Hours
per Month,'' Revision 0. Additionally, an administrative error is being
corrected in McGuire's TS 5.5.11, ``Ventilation Filter Testing Program
(VFTP).''
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 affects various CNS [Catawba], MNS
[McGuire], HNP [Harris], and RNP [Robinson] ventilation system TS.
For both CNS and MNS, the proposed change removes the requirement to
test the heaters in these systems, and removes the Conditions in the
associated TS which provide Required Actions, including reporting
requirements, for inoperable heaters. In addition, the proposed
change revises the CNS Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.9.3.2 to
operate for 15 continuous minutes without heaters running. For HNP
and RNP, the proposed change removes the operability of the heaters
from the SR. In addition, the electric heater output test is
proposed to be deleted and a corresponding change in the charcoal
filter testing to be made to require the testing be conducted at a
humidity of at least 95% RH, which is more stringent than the
current testing requirement of 70% RH.
These systems are not accident initiators and therefore, these
changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability of
an accident. The proposed system and filter testing changes are
consistent with current regulatory guidance for these systems and
will continue to assure that these systems perform their design
function, which may include mitigating accidents. Thus the change
does not involve a significant increase in the consequences of an
accident.
Therefore, it is concluded that this 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

[[Page 50695]]

accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change affects various CNS, MNS, HNP, and RNP
ventilation system TS. For both CNS and MNS, the proposed change
removes the requirement to test the heaters in these systems, and
removes the Conditions in the associated TS which provide Required
Actions, including reporting requirements, for inoperable heaters.
In addition, the proposed change revises the CNS Surveillance
Requirement (SR) 3.9.3.2 to operate for 15 continuous minutes
without heaters running. For HNP and RNP, the proposed change
removes the operability of the heaters from the SR. In addition, the
electric heater output test is proposed to be deleted and a
corresponding change in the charcoal filter testing to be made to
require the testing be conducted at a humidity of at least 95% RH,
which is more stringent than the current testing requirement of 70%
RH.
The change proposed for these ventilation systems do not change
any system operations or maintenance activities. Testing
requirements will be revised and will continue to demonstrate that
the Limiting Conditions for Operation are met and the system
components are capable of performing their intended safety
functions. The change does not create new failure modes or
mechanisms and no new accident precursors are generated.
Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change affects various CNS, MNS, HNP, and RNP
ventilation system TS. For both CNS and MNS, the proposed change
removes the requirement to test the heaters in these systems, and
removes the Conditions in the associated TS which provide Required
Actions, including reporting requirements, for inoperable heaters.
In addition, the proposed change revises the CNS Surveillance
Requirement (SR) 3.9.3.2 to operate for 15 continuous minutes
without heaters running. For HNP and RNP, the proposed change
removes the operability of the heaters from the SR. In addition, the
electric heater output test is proposed to be deleted and a
corresponding change in the charcoal filter testing to be made to
require the testing be conducted at a humidity of at least 95% RH,
which is more stringent than the current testing requirement of 70%
RH.
The proposed increase to 95% RH in the required testing of the
charcoal filters for HNP and RNP, compensates for the function of
the heaters, which was to reduce the humidity of the incoming air to
below the currently-specified value of 70% RH for the charcoal. The
proposed change is consistent with regulatory guidance and continues
to ensure that the performance of the charcoal filters is
acceptable.
The CNS and MNS ventilation systems are tested at 95% relative
humidity, and, therefore, do not require heaters to heat the
incoming air and reduce the relative humidity. The proposed change
eliminates Technical Specification requirements for testing of
heater operation, and removes administrative actions for heater
inoperability.
The proposed changes are consistent with the regulatory guidance
and 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
requested amendments involve no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Kathryn B. Nolan, Deputy General Counsel,
Duke Energy Corporation, 550 South Tryon Street, Mail Code DEC45A,
Charlotte, NC 28202.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael Markley.

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

Date of amendment request: August 14, 2018. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18227A535.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would adopt
Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-439,
``Eliminate Second Completion Times Limiting Time from Discovery of
Failure to Meet an LCO [Limiting Condition of Operation].'' The
proposed change deletes second Completion Times from the affected
Required Actions contained in the Technical Specifications (TSs), along
with removing the example contained in TS Section 1.3, and adding a
discussion about alternating between Conditions.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:

1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change eliminates second Completion Times from the
Technical Specifications. Completion Times are not an initiator to
any accident previously evaluated. The consequences of an accident
during the revised Completion Time are no different than the
consequences of the same accident during the existing Completion
Times. As a result, the probability and consequences of an accident
previously evaluated are not affected by this change. The proposed
change does not alter or prevent the ability of systems, structures,
and components (SSCs) from performing their intended function to
mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within the assumed
acceptance limits. The proposed change does not affect the source
term, containment isolation, or radiological release assumptions
used in evaluating the radiological consequences of an accident
previously evaluated. Further, the proposed change does not increase
the types or amounts of radioactive effluent that may be released
offsite nor significantly increase individual or cumulative
occupational/public radiation exposures. The proposed change is
consistent with 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 change does not involve a physical alteration to
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 proposed change will not alter the design function,
nor create new failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident
initiators for the equipment related to the TS being altered.
Thus, based on the above, this change does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from an accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change to delete the second Completion Time does
not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system
settings, or limited conditions for operation are determined. The
safety analysis acceptance criteria are not affected by this change.
The proposed change will not result in plant operation in a
configuration outside of the design basis.
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
requested amendments involve no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Kathryn B. Nolan, Deputy General Counsel,
550 South Tryon Street, M/C DEC45A, Charlotte, NC 28202.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Booma Venkataraman.

[[Page 50696]]

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-317 and 50-318, Calvert
Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Calvert County, Maryland

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

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

Date of amendment request: August 31, 2018. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18249A096.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the
emergency response organization (ERO) positions identified in the
emergency plan for each site.
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 for each site, which is presented below:

1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to the [site] Emergency Plan do not
increase the probability or consequences of an accident. The
proposed changes do not impact the function of plant Structures,
Systems, or Components (SSCs). The proposed changes do not affect
accident initiators or accident precursors, nor do the changes alter
design assumptions. The proposed changes do not alter or prevent the
ability of the onsite ERO to perform their intended functions to
mitigate the consequences of an accident or event. The proposed
changes remove ERO positions no longer credited or considered
necessary in support of Emergency Plan implementation.
Therefore, the proposed changes to the [site] Emergency Plan do
not involve a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes have no impact on the design, function, or
operation of any plant SSCs. The proposed changes do not affect
plant equipment or accident analyses. The proposed changes do not
involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or
different type of equipment will be installed), a change in the
method of plant operation, or new operator actions. The proposed
changes do not introduce failure modes that could result in a new
accident, and the proposed changes do not alter assumptions made in
the safety analysis. The proposed changes remove ERO positions no
longer credited or considered necessary in support of Emergency Plan
implementation.
Therefore, the proposed changes to the [site] Emergency Plan do
not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident
from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
Margin of safety is associated with confidence in the ability of
the fission product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, reactor coolant
system pressure boundary, and containment structure) to limit the
level of radiation dose to the public.
The proposed changes do not adversely affect existing plant
safety margins or the reliability of the equipment assumed to
operate in the safety analyses. There are no changes being made to
safety analysis assumptions, safety limits, or limiting safety
system settings that would adversely affect plant safety as a result
of the proposed changes. Margins of safety are unaffected by the
proposed changes to the ERO staffing. The proposed changes are
associated with the [site] Emergency Plan staffing and do not impact
operation of the plant or its response to transients or accidents.
The proposed changes do not affect the Technical Specifications. The
proposed changes do not involve a change in the method of plant
operation, and no accident analyses will be affected by the proposed
changes. Safety analysis acceptance criteria are not affected by
these proposed changes. The proposed changes to the Emergency Plan
will continue to provide the necessary onsite ERO response staff.
Therefore, the proposed changes to the [site] Emergency Plan do
not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis for each site
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 requested amendments involve no significant hazards
consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel,
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL
60555.
NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.

Florida Power & Light Company, et al., Docket No. 50-389, St. Lucie
Plant (St. Lucie), Unit No. 2, St. Lucie County, Florida

Date of amendment request: June 29, 2018, as supplemented by letter
dated August 17, 2018. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS under
Accession Nos. ML18180A094 and ML18229A050, respectively.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the
Technical Specifications (TSs) by reducing the total number of control
element assemblies (CEAs) specified in the TSs from 91 to 87.
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.
A change is proposed in this License Amendment Request [(LAR)]
to eliminate all four 4-element Control Element Assemblies (CEAs)
currently used in the reactor core. These CEAs are part of 22 CEAs
comprising the Shutdown Bank A. CEAs are required to provide
sufficient shutdown margin during accident conditions. Removing
these four CEAs does not have any adverse impact on the probability
of these accidents, even for events were [sic] CEAs may be the
accident initiator (e.g., CEA withdrawal, CEA drop, CEA ejection).
On the contrary, for single CEA events the probability may even
decrease since the number of chances for an event to occur will
decrease with a lesser number of CEAs available. Also, since the
Core Operating Limits Report (COLR) shutdown margin requirements
will continue to be met, the accident analysis limits will not be
challenged, so the consequences of previously evaluated accidents
will remain unaffected.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
A change is proposed in this LAR to eliminate all four 4-element
CEAs currently used in the St. Lucie Unit 2 core, reducing the
number of CEAs in the core from 91 down to 87. With the proposed
changes, no new or different type of equipment will be installed.
The proposed change will not introduce credible new failure
mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident initiators not considered in
the design and/or licensing bases. As a result, the removal of the
4-element CEAs does not introduce a mechanism for creating 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 previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
A change is proposed in this LAR to eliminate all four 4-element
CEAs currently used in the St. Lucie Unit 2 core. This constitutes a
very small reduction of CEA worth available for shutdown margin, but
will not affect the minimum shutdown margin requirement as used in
the accident

[[Page 50697]]

analysis. Thus, this will not translate into a significant reduction
in a margin of safety.
The margin of safety is established through the core design
limits defined in the COLR, in addition to the equipment design,
operating parameters, and the setpoints at which automatic actions
are initiated for accident conditions. The proposed changes will not
adversely affect operation of plant equipment. These changes will
not result in a change to the setpoints at which protective actions
are initiated. The response of the plant systems to accidents and
transients design limits reported in the Updated Final Safety
Analysis Report (UFSAR) is unaffected by this change as nuclear
design and fuel management will ensure that the COLR specified
shutdown margin requirements are met. The change does not exceed or
alter a design basis or safety limit in the UFSAR or the license.
Therefore, accident analysis acceptance criteria are not affected.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.

The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Debbie Hendell, Managing Attorney--Nuclear,
Florida Power & Light Company, 700 Universe Blvd. MS LAW/JB, Juno
Beach, Florida 33408-0420.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Booma Venkataraman.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-
026, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4, Burke County,
Georgia

Date of amendment request: August 27, 2018. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18239A375.
Description of amendment request: The requested amendment proposes
to depart from information in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report
(UFSAR) (which includes the plant-specific Design Control Document Tier
2 information) and involves related changes to plant-specific Tier 1
information, with corresponding changes to the associated Combined
License (COL) Appendix C information. Specifically, the requested
amendment would revise the COL and licensing basis documents to add
vent lines to the piping between the passive core cooling system (PXS)
collection boxes and in-containment refueling water storage tank
(IRWST) to remove entrained air and improve the drain line flow rates.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:

1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes modify the PXS drain lines to add vent
lines to the piping between the PXS collection boxes and IRWST to
remove entrained air and improve drain line flow rates, the
corresponding ITAAC [inspections, tests, analyses, and acceptance
criteria] is modified to reflect this design change. The proposed
changes do not have any adverse effects on the design functions of
the PXS. The probabilities of accidents evaluated in the UFSAR are
not affected.
The changes do not adversely impact the support, design, or
operation of mechanical and fluid systems. The changes do not impact
the support, design, or operation of any safety-related structures.
There is no adverse change to the plant systems or response of the
systems to postulated accident conditions. There is no change to the
predicted radioactive releases due to normal operation or postulated
accident conditions. The plant response to previously evaluated
accidents or external events is not adversely affected, nor do the
proposed changes create any new accident precursors.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes modify the PXS drain lines to add vent
lines to the piping between the PXS collection boxes and IRWST to
remove entrained air and improve drain line flow rates, the
corresponding ITAAC is modified to reflect this design change. The
proposed changes do not have any adverse effects on the design
functions of the PXS, the structures or systems in which the PXS is
used, or any other systems, structures, and components (SSCs) design
functions or methods of operation that result in a new failure mode,
malfunction, or sequence of events that affect safety-related or
non-safety related equipment. This activity does not allow for a new
fission product release path, [does not] result in a new fission
product barrier [failure mode] mode, or create a new sequence of
events that result in a significant fuel cladding failure.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes modify the PXS drain lines to add vent
lines to the piping between the PXS collection boxes and IRWST to
remove entrained air and improve drain line flow rates, the
corresponding ITAAC is modified to reflect this design change.
The proposed changes do not have any adverse effects on the
design functions of the PXS.
No safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is
challenged or exceeded by these changes. Therefore, the proposed
changes do not involve a significant reduction in the margin of
safety.

The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
requested amendments involve no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Mr. M. Stanford Blanton, Balch & Bingham
LLP, 1710 Sixth Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203-2015.
NRC Branch Chief: Jennifer Dixon-Herrity.

Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-280 and 50-281,
Surry Power Station (Surry), Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Surry County, Virginia

Date of amendment request: July 31, 2018. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18218A170.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the
Technical Specifications (TSs) for Facility Operating License Numbers
DRP-32 and DRP-37 for Surry, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, respectively. The
proposed license amendment request (LAR) replaces the current Small
Break Loss of Coolant Accident (SBLOCA) methodologies contained in the
TS list of NRC-approved methodologies for determining core operating
limits with a new SBLOCA methodology. Specifically, the proposed LAR
adds the Framatome Topical Report EMF-2328(P)(A), ``PWR [Pressurized-
Water Reactor] Small Break LOCA Evaluation Model S-RELAP5 Based,'' as
supplemented by the Surry-specific application report ANP-3676P,
``Surry Fuel-Vendor Independent Small Break LOCA Analysis,'' to the
list of methodologies approved for reference in the Core Operating
Limits Report (COLR) in TS 6.2.C. This reference replaces two existing
COLR references for the current Westinghouse SBLOCA Evaluation Model.
The added reference identifies the analytical methods used to determine
core operating limits for the SBLOCA event described in the Surry
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR), Section 14.5.2.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination:

[[Page 50698]]

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 to TS 6.2.C permits the use of an NRC-
approved methodology for analysis of the Small Break Loss of Coolant
Accident (SBLOCA) to determine if Surry Power Station (Surry) Units
1 and 2 continue to meet the applicable design and safety analysis
acceptance criteria. The proposed change to the list of NRC-approved
methodologies in TS 6.2.C has no direct impact upon plant operation
or configuration. The list of methodologies in TS 6.2.C does not
impact either the initiation of an accident or the mitigation of its
consequences. The results of the revised SBLOCA transient analysis
and existing pre-transient oxidation limits demonstrate that Surry
Units 1 and 2 continue to satisfy the 10 CFR 50.46(b)(1-3) Emergency
Core Cooling System performance acceptance criteria using an NRC-
approved evaluation model.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change will not create the possibility of a new or
different accident due to credible new failure mechanisms,
malfunctions, or accident initiators not previously considered.
There is no change to the parameters within which the plant is
normally operated and no physical plant modifications are being
made; thus, the possibility of a new or different type of accident
is not created.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
No design basis or safety limits are exceeded or altered by this
change. Approved methodologies have been used to ensure that the
plant continues to meet applicable design criteria and safety
analysis acceptance criteria.
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: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion
Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar St., RS-2, Richmond, VA 23219.
NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

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

South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, South Carolina Public Service
Authority, Docket No. 50-395, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station
(Summer), Unit No. 1, Fairfield County, South Carolina

Date of amendment request: August 24, 2018, as supplemented by
letter dated August 31, 2018.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the
Summer, Unit No. 1, Technical Specifications (TS) for a one-time
extension to the TS surveillance requirement of channel calibrations of
the Core Exit Temperature Instrumentation. The surveillance requirement
of TS 4.3.3.6 will be revised to allow a one-time extension of the
frequency of the Core Exit Temperature Instrumentation Channel
Calibrations from ``every refueling outage,'' which has been
interpreted as 18 months, to ``every 19 months.''
Date of publication of individual notice in Federal Register:
September 10, 2018 (83 FR 45688).
Expiration date of individual notice: September 23, 2018 (public
comments); November 9, 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.
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.

DTE Electric Company, Docket No. 50-341, Fermi 2, Monroe County,
Michigan

Date of amendment request: October 9, 2017.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the technical
specification (TS) requirements in TS 3.10.1, ``Inservice Leak and
Hydrostatic Testing Operation,'' by adopting Technical Specification
Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-484, Revision 0, ``Use of TS 3.10.1 for
Scram Time Testing Activities.'' Specifically, the proposed changes
revised the Limiting Condition for Operation 3.10.1 to expand its scope
to include provisions for temperature excursions greater than 200
degrees Fahrenheit as a consequence of maintaining pressure for
inservice leak and hydrostatic testing, and as a consequence of
maintaining pressure for scram time testing initiated in conjunction
with an inservice leak or

[[Page 50699]]

hydrostatic test, while considering operational conditions to be in
Mode 4.
Date of issuance: September 13, 2018.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 210. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML18165A202; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-43: The amendment
revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and TS.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 27, 2018 (83
FR 8509).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments contained in
a Safety Evaluation dated September 13, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

DTE Electric Company, Docket No. 50-341, Fermi 2, Monroe County,
Michigan

Date of amendment request: August 31, 2017, as supplemented by
letters dated April 4, May 17, June 27, and August 7, 2018.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment replaced the existing
technical specification requirements related to ``operations with a
potential for draining the reactor vessel,'' with new requirements on
reactor pressure vessel water inventory control to protect Technical
Specification Safety Limit 2.1.1.3, which requires the reactor vessel
water level to be greater than the top of active irradiated fuel.
Date of issuance: September 17, 2018.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 120 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 211. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML18247A452; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-43: The amendment
revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical
Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 7, 2017 (82 FR
51649). The supplemental letters dated April 4, May 17, June 27, and
August 7, 2018, provided additional information that clarified the
application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally
noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no
significant hazards consideration determination as published in the
Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 17, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

DTE Electric Company, Docket No. 50-341, Fermi 2, Monroe County,
Michigan

Date of amendment request: August 24, 2017, as supplemented by
letters dated October 18, 2017, February 21 and February 27, 2018.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment eliminated the main
steam line radiation monitor (MSLRM) functions for initiating a reactor
protection system automatic reactor trip and automatic closure of the
main steam isolation valves and main steam line drain valves for the
associated (Group 1) primary containment isolation system (PCIS).
Specifically, it removed requirements for the MSLRM trip function from
Technical Specification (TS) Table 3.3.1.1-1, ``Reactor Protection
System Instrumentation.'' The amendment also removed requirements for
PCIS Group 1 isolation from TS Table 3.3.6.1-1, ``Primary Containment
Isolation Instrumentation,'' and the MSLRM isolation function is
relocated and retained for the current existing PCIS Group 2 isolation
of the reactor water sample line.
Date of issuance: September 20, 2018.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
during the next refueling outage following approval.
Amendment No.: 212. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML18250A163; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-43: The amendment
revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 2, 2018 (83 FR
164). The supplemental letters dated October 18, 2017, February 21 and
February 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 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 September 20, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Docket No. 50-261, H.B. Robinson Steam
Electric Plant, Unit No. 2, Darlington County, South Carolina

Date of amendment request: September 27, 2017, as supplemented by
letters dated May 16, July 11, and August 1, 2018.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical
Specifications to reflect the addition of a second qualified offsite
power circuit. In addition, the amendment authorized changing the
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report to allow for the use of automatic
load tap changers on the new (230 kilovolt (kV)) and the replacement
(115 kV) startup transformers.
Date of issuance: September 10, 2018.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
by the end of the next refueling outage.
Amendment No.: 261. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML18228A584; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-23: The amendment
revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical
Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 5, 2017 (82 FR
57471). The supplemental letters dated May 16, July 11, and August 1,
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 September 10, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

Date of amendment request: May 17, 2018.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical
Specification (TS) 2.1.1, ``Reactor Core SLs [Safety Limits],'' to
change Cycle 24 Safety Limit Minimum Critical Power Ratio (SLMCPR)
numeric values. Specifically, the amendment modified the TS to decrease
the numeric values of SLMCPR for Fitzpatrick from >= 1.10 to >= 1.07
for two recirculation loop operation and from >= 1.13 to >= 1.09 for
single recirculation loop operation.

[[Page 50700]]

Date of issuance: September 19, 2018.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
prior to startup from the fall 2018 refueling outage.
Amendment No.: 322. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML18214A706; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-59: The amendment
revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and TS.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 13, 2018 (83 FR
32692).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 19, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Florida Power & Light Company, Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251, Turkey
Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 3 and 4, Miami-Dade County, Florida

Date of amendment request: August 23, 2017, as supplemented by
letters dated October 19, 2017, and March 27, 2018.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the
Technical Specifications by relocating the explosive gas monitoring
instrumentation, explosive gas mixture, and gas decay tanks system
requirements to licensee-controlled documents and establishing a gas
decay tank explosive gas and radioactivity monitoring program. The
amendments also relocated the standby feedwater system requirements to
licensee-controlled documents and modified related auxiliary feedwater
system requirements.
Date of issuance: September 11, 2018.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 282 (Unit No. 3) and 276 (Unit No. 4). A publicly-
available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18214A125;
documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety
Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-31 and DPR-41: The
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 21, 2017 (82
FR 55406). The supplemental letter dated March 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 September 11, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation, Docket No. 50-482, Wolf Creek
Generating Station, Unit 1 (WCGS), Coffey County, Kansas

Date of amendment request: June 28, 2017, as supplemented by
letters dated February 15, May 29, June 20, and August 30, 2018.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment added new Technical
Specification (TS) 3.7.20, ``Class 1E Electrical Equipment Air
Conditioning (A/C) System,'' to the WCGS TSs. New TS 3.7.20 includes
(1) a limiting condition for operation (LCO) statement, (2) an
Applicability statement, during which the LCO must be met, (3) ACTIONS
to be applied when the LCO is not met, including Conditions, Required
Actions, and Completion Times, and (4) Surveillance Requirements with a
specified Frequency to demonstrate that the LCO is met for the Class 1E
Electrical Equipment A/C System trains at WCGS. Additionally, the Table
of Contents is also revised to reflect the incorporation of new TS
3.7.20.
Date of issuance: September 11, 2018.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 219. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML18219A564; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-42: The amendment
revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical
Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 3, 2017 (82 FR
46099). The supplemental letters dated February 15, May 29, June 20,
and August 30, 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 September 11, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 1st day of October, 2018.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Gregory F. Suber,
Acting Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of
Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2018-21669 Filed 10-5-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 9, 2018 / Notices 50693

include sufficient information to show petitioner’s interest in the proceeding. accordance with the procedures
that a genuine dispute exists with the The petition should be submitted to the described below.
applicant or licensee on a material issue Commission no later than 60 days from To comply with the procedural
of law or fact. Contentions must be the date of publication of this notice. requirements of E-Filing, at least 10
limited to matters within the scope of The petition must be filed in accordance days prior to the filing deadline, the
the proceeding. The contention must be with the filing instructions in the participant should contact the Office of
one which, if proven, would entitle the ‘‘Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)’’ the Secretary by email at
petitioner to relief. A petitioner who section of this document, and should hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by telephone
fails to satisfy the requirements at 10 meet the requirements for petitions set at 301–415–1677, to (1) request a digital
CFR 2.309(f) with respect to at least one forth in this section, except that under identification (ID) certificate, which
contention will not be permitted to 10 CFR 2.309(h)(2) a State, local allows the participant (or its counsel or
participate as a party. governmental body, or Federally- representative) to digitally sign
Those permitted to intervene become recognized Indian Tribe, or agency submissions and access the E-Filing
parties to the proceeding, subject to any thereof does not need to address the system for any proceeding in which it
limitations in the order granting leave to standing requirements in 10 CFR is participating; and (2) advise the
intervene. Parties have the opportunity 2.309(d) if the facility is located within Secretary that the participant will be
to participate fully in the conduct of the its boundaries. Alternatively, a State, submitting a petition or other
hearing with respect to resolution of local governmental body, Federally- adjudicatory document (even in
that party’s admitted contentions, recognized Indian Tribe, or agency instances in which the participant, or its
including the opportunity to present thereof may participate as a non-party counsel or representative, already holds
evidence, consistent with the NRC’s under 10 CFR 2.315(c). an NRC-issued digital ID certificate).
regulations, policies, and procedures. If a hearing is granted, any person Based upon this information, the
Petitions must be filed no later than who is not a party to the proceeding and Secretary will establish an electronic
60 days from the date of publication of is not affiliated with or represented by docket for the hearing in this proceeding
this notice. Petitions and motions for a party may, at the discretion of the if the Secretary has not already
leave to file new or amended presiding officer, be permitted to make established an electronic docket.
contentions that are filed after the a limited appearance pursuant to the Information about applying for a
deadline will not be entertained absent provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person digital ID certificate is available on the
a determination by the presiding officer making a limited appearance may make NRC’s public website at http://
that the filing demonstrates good cause an oral or written statement of his or her www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/
by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR position on the issues but may not getting-started.html. Once a participant
2.309(c)(1)(i) through (iii). The petition otherwise participate in the proceeding. has obtained a digital ID certificate and
must be filed in accordance with the A limited appearance may be made at a docket has been created, the
filing instructions in the ‘‘Electronic any session of the hearing or at any participant can then submit
Submissions (E-Filing)’’ section of this prehearing conference, subject to the adjudicatory documents. Submissions
document. limits and conditions as may be must be in Portable Document Format
If a hearing is requested, and the imposed by the presiding officer. Details (PDF). Additional guidance on PDF
Commission has not made a final regarding the opportunity to make a submissions is available on the NRC’s
determination on the issue of no limited appearance will be provided by public website at http://www.nrc.gov/
significant hazards consideration, the the presiding officer if such sessions are site-help/electronic-sub-ref-mat.html. A
Commission will make a final scheduled. filing is considered complete at the time
determination on the issue of no the document is submitted through the
significant hazards consideration. The B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing) NRC’s E-Filing system. To be timely, an
final determination will serve to All documents filed in NRC electronic filing must be submitted to
establish when the hearing is held. If the adjudicatory proceedings, including a the E-Filing system no later than 11:59
final determination is that the request for hearing and petition for p.m. Eastern Time on the due date.
amendment request involves no leave to intervene (petition), any motion Upon receipt of a transmission, the E-
significant hazards consideration, the or other document filed in the Filing system time-stamps the document
Commission may issue the amendment proceeding prior to the submission of a and sends the submitter an email notice
and make it immediately effective, request for hearing or petition to confirming receipt of the document. The
notwithstanding the request for a intervene, and documents filed by E-Filing system also distributes an email
hearing. Any hearing would take place interested governmental entities that notice that provides access to the
after issuance of the amendment. If the request to participate under 10 CFR document to the NRC’s Office of the
final determination is that the 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance General Counsel and any others who
amendment request involves a with the NRC’s E-Filing rule (72 FR have advised the Office of the Secretary
significant hazards consideration, then 49139; August 28, 2007, as amended at that they wish to participate in the
any hearing held would take place 77 FR 46562; August 3, 2012). The E- proceeding, so that the filer need not
before the issuance of the amendment Filing process requires participants to serve the document on those
unless the Commission finds an submit and serve all adjudicatory participants separately. Therefore,
imminent danger to the health or safety documents over the internet, or in some applicants and other participants (or
of the public, in which case it will issue cases to mail copies on electronic their counsel or representative) must
an appropriate order or rule under 10 storage media. Detailed guidance on apply for and receive a digital ID
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1

CFR part 2. making electronic submissions may be certificate before adjudicatory
A State, local governmental body, found in the Guidance for Electronic documents are filed so that they can
Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or Submissions to the NRC and on the NRC obtain access to the documents via the
agency thereof, may submit a petition to website at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/ E-Filing system.
the Commission to participate as a party e-submittals.html. Participants may not A person filing electronically using
under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition submit paper copies of their filings the NRC’s adjudicatory E-Filing system
should state the nature and extent of the unless they seek an exemption in may seek assistance by contacting the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:13 Oct 05, 2018 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\09OCN1.SGM 09OCN1

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 9, 2018 / Notices 50695

accident from any accident previously Technical Specification requirements for components (SSCs) from performing their
evaluated? testing of heater operation, and removes intended function to mitigate the
Response: No. administrative actions for heater consequences of an initiating event within
The proposed change affects various CNS, inoperability. the assumed acceptance limits. The proposed
MNS, HNP, and RNP ventilation system TS. The proposed changes are consistent with change does not affect the source term,
For both CNS and MNS, the proposed change the regulatory guidance and do not involve
containment isolation, or radiological release
removes the requirement to test the heaters a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
in these systems, and removes the Conditions assumptions used in evaluating the
in the associated TS which provide Required The NRC staff has reviewed the radiological consequences of an accident
Actions, including reporting requirements, licensee’s analysis and, based on this previously evaluated. Further, the proposed
for inoperable heaters. In addition, the review, it appears that the three change does not increase the types or
proposed change revises the CNS standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are amounts of radioactive effluent that may be
Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.9.3.2 to satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff released offsite nor significantly increase
operate for 15 continuous minutes without proposes to determine that the individual or cumulative occupational/
heaters running. For HNP and RNP, the requested amendments involve no public radiation exposures. The proposed
proposed change removes the operability of change is consistent with the safety analysis
the heaters from the SR. In addition, the
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Kathryn B. assumptions and resultant consequences.
electric heater output test is proposed to be
deleted and a corresponding change in the Nolan, Deputy General Counsel, Duke Therefore, the proposed change does not
charcoal filter testing to be made to require Energy Corporation, 550 South Tryon involve a significant increase in the
the testing be conducted at a humidity of at Street, Mail Code DEC45A, Charlotte, probability or consequences of an accident
least 95% RH, which is more stringent than NC 28202. previously evaluated.
the current testing requirement of 70% RH. NRC Branch Chief: Michael Markley. 2. Does the proposed change create the
The change proposed for these ventilation possibility of a new or different kind of
systems do not change any system operations Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Docket Nos. accident from any accident previously
or maintenance activities. Testing 50–325 and 50–324, Brunswick Steam evaluated?
requirements will be revised and will Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, Brunswick Response: No.
continue to demonstrate that the Limiting County, North Carolina The proposed change does not involve a
Conditions for Operation are met and the
Date of amendment request: August physical alteration to the plant (i.e., no new
system components are capable of
performing their intended safety functions. 14, 2018. A publicly-available version is or different type of equipment will be
The change does not create new failure in ADAMS under Accession No. installed) or a change in the methods
modes or mechanisms and no new accident ML18227A535. governing normal plant operation. The
precursors are generated. Description of amendment request: proposed change will not alter the design
Therefore, it is concluded that this change The amendments would adopt function, nor create new failure mechanisms,
does not create the possibility of a new or malfunctions, or accident initiators for the
Technical Specification Task Force
different kind of accident from any accident equipment related to the TS being altered.
previously evaluated. (TSTF) Traveler TSTF–439, ‘‘Eliminate
Second Completion Times Limiting Thus, based on the above, this change does
3. Does the proposed change involve a not create the possibility of a new or different
significant reduction in a margin of safety? Time from Discovery of Failure to Meet
kind of accident from an accident previously
Response: No. an LCO [Limiting Condition of
evaluated.
The proposed change affects various CNS, Operation].’’ The proposed change
MNS, HNP, and RNP ventilation system TS. 3. Does the proposed change involve a
deletes second Completion Times from
For both CNS and MNS, the proposed change significant reduction in a margin of safety?
the affected Required Actions contained
removes the requirement to test the heaters Response: No.
in the Technical Specifications (TSs),
in these systems, and removes the Conditions The proposed change to delete the second
along with removing the example
in the associated TS which provide Required Completion Time does not alter the manner
Actions, including reporting requirements, contained in TS Section 1.3, and adding in which safety limits, limiting safety system
for inoperable heaters. In addition, the a discussion about alternating between settings, or limited conditions for operation
proposed change revises the CNS Conditions. are determined. The safety analysis
Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.9.3.2 to Basis for proposed no significant acceptance criteria are not affected by this
operate for 15 continuous minutes without hazards consideration determination: change. The proposed change will not result
heaters running. For HNP and RNP, the As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the in plant operation in a configuration outside
proposed change removes the operability of licensee has provided its analysis of the
the heaters from the SR. In addition, the of the design basis.
issue of no significant hazards Therefore, the proposed change does not
electric heater output test is proposed to be
consideration, which is presented involve a significant reduction in a margin of
deleted and a corresponding change in the
charcoal filter testing to be made to require below: safety.
the testing be conducted at a humidity of at 1. Does the proposed change involve a
least 95% RH, which is more stringent than significant increase in the probability or The NRC staff has reviewed the
the current testing requirement of 70% RH. consequences of an accident previously licensee’s analysis and, based on this
The proposed increase to 95% RH in the evaluated? review, it appears that the three
required testing of the charcoal filters for Response: No. standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
HNP and RNP, compensates for the function The proposed change eliminates second satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
of the heaters, which was to reduce the Completion Times from the Technical
humidity of the incoming air to below the Specifications. Completion Times are not an
proposes to determine that the
currently-specified value of 70% RH for the initiator to any accident previously requested amendments involve no
charcoal. The proposed change is consistent evaluated. The consequences of an accident significant hazards consideration.
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1

with regulatory guidance and continues to during the revised Completion Time are no Attorney for licensee: Kathryn B.
ensure that the performance of the charcoal different than the consequences of the same
Nolan, Deputy General Counsel, 550
filters is acceptable. accident during the existing Completion
The CNS and MNS ventilation systems are Times. As a result, the probability and South Tryon Street, M/C DEC45A,
tested at 95% relative humidity, and, consequences of an accident previously Charlotte, NC 28202.
therefore, do not require heaters to heat the evaluated are not affected by this change. The NRC Acting Branch Chief: Booma
incoming air and reduce the relative proposed change does not alter or prevent the Venkataraman.
humidity. The proposed change eliminates ability of systems, structures, and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:13 Oct 05, 2018 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\09OCN1.SGM 09OCN1

50696 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 9, 2018 / Notices

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, assumptions made in the safety analysis. The element assemblies (CEAs) specified in
Docket Nos. 50–317 and 50–318, Calvert proposed changes remove ERO positions no the TSs from 91 to 87.
Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 longer credited or considered necessary in
support of Emergency Plan implementation. Basis for proposed no significant
and 2, Calvert County, Maryland hazards consideration determination:
Therefore, the proposed changes to the
Exelon Generation Company, LLC and [site] Emergency Plan do not create the As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
Exelon FitzPatrick, LLC, Docket No. 50– possibility of a new or different kind of licensee has provided its analysis of the
333, James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power accident from any accident previously issue of no significant hazards
Plant, Oswego County, New York evaluated. consideration, which is presented
3. Does the proposed amendment involve below:
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Docket Nos. 50–220 and 50–410, Nine Response: No. 1. Does the proposed amendment involve
Mile Point Nuclear Station, Units 1 and Margin of safety is associated with a significant increase in the probability or
2, Oswego County, New York confidence in the ability of the fission consequences of an accident previously
product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, reactor evaluated?
Date of amendment request: August coolant system pressure boundary, and Response: No.
31, 2018. A publicly-available version is containment structure) to limit the level of A change is proposed in this License
in ADAMS under Accession No. radiation dose to the public. Amendment Request [(LAR)] to eliminate all
ML18249A096. The proposed changes do not adversely four 4-element Control Element Assemblies
Description of amendment request: affect existing plant safety margins or the (CEAs) currently used in the reactor core.
reliability of the equipment assumed to These CEAs are part of 22 CEAs comprising
The amendments would revise the
operate in the safety analyses. There are no the Shutdown Bank A. CEAs are required to
emergency response organization (ERO) changes being made to safety analysis provide sufficient shutdown margin during
positions identified in the emergency assumptions, safety limits, or limiting safety accident conditions. Removing these four
plan for each site. system settings that would adversely affect CEAs does not have any adverse impact on
Basis for proposed no significant plant safety as a result of the proposed the probability of these accidents, even for
hazards consideration determination: changes. Margins of safety are unaffected by events were [sic] CEAs may be the accident
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the the proposed changes to the ERO staffing. initiator (e.g., CEA withdrawal, CEA drop,
licensee has provided its analysis of the The proposed changes are associated with CEA ejection). On the contrary, for single
issue of no significant hazards the [site] Emergency Plan staffing and do not CEA events the probability may even
impact operation of the plant or its response decrease since the number of chances for an
consideration for each site, which is
to transients or accidents. The proposed event to occur will decrease with a lesser
presented below: changes do not affect the Technical number of CEAs available. Also, since the
1. Does the proposed amendment involve Specifications. The proposed changes do not Core Operating Limits Report (COLR)
a significant increase in the probability or involve a change in the method of plant shutdown margin requirements will continue
consequences of an accident previously operation, and no accident analyses will be to be met, the accident analysis limits will
evaluated? affected by the proposed changes. Safety not be challenged, so the consequences of
Response: No. analysis acceptance criteria are not affected previously evaluated accidents will remain
The proposed changes to the [site] by these proposed changes. The proposed unaffected.
Emergency Plan do not increase the changes to the Emergency Plan will continue Therefore, the proposed change does not
probability or consequences of an accident. to provide the necessary onsite ERO response involve a significant increase in the
The proposed changes do not impact the staff. probability or consequences of an accident
function of plant Structures, Systems, or Therefore, the proposed changes to the previously evaluated.
Components (SSCs). The proposed changes [site] Emergency Plan do not involve a 2. Does the proposed amendment create
do not affect accident initiators or accident significant reduction in a margin of safety. the possibility of a new or different kind of
precursors, nor do the changes alter design accident from any accident previously
The NRC staff has reviewed the
assumptions. The proposed changes do not evaluated?
alter or prevent the ability of the onsite ERO licensee’s analysis for each site and, Response: No.
to perform their intended functions to based on this review, it appears that the A change is proposed in this LAR to
mitigate the consequences of an accident or three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are eliminate all four 4-element CEAs currently
event. The proposed changes remove ERO satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff used in the St. Lucie Unit 2 core, reducing
positions no longer credited or considered proposes to determine that the the number of CEAs in the core from 91
necessary in support of Emergency Plan requested amendments involve no down to 87. With the proposed changes, no
implementation. significant hazards consideration. new or different type of equipment will be
Therefore, the proposed changes to the Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer, installed. The proposed change will not
[site] Emergency Plan do not involve a Associate General Counsel, Exelon introduce credible new failure mechanisms,
significant increase in the probability or malfunctions, or accident initiators not
Generation Company, LLC, 4300
consequences of an accident previously considered in the design and/or licensing
evaluated. Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555. bases. As a result, the removal of the 4-
2. Does the proposed amendment create NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona. element CEAs does not introduce a
the possibility of a new or different kind of Florida Power & Light Company, et al., mechanism for creating a new or different
accident from any accident previously Docket No. 50–389, St. Lucie Plant (St. kind of accident.
evaluated? Therefore, the proposed change does not
Response: No.
Lucie), Unit No. 2, St. Lucie County, create the possibility of a new or different
The proposed changes have no impact on Florida kind of accident from any previously
the design, function, or operation of any Date of amendment request: June 29, evaluated.
plant SSCs. The proposed changes do not 2018, as supplemented by letter dated 3. Does the proposed amendment involve
affect plant equipment or accident analyses. August 17, 2018. Publicly-available a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1

The proposed changes do not involve a versions are in ADAMS under Response: No.
physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new A change is proposed in this LAR to
or different type of equipment will be
Accession Nos. ML18180A094 and eliminate all four 4-element CEAs currently
installed), a change in the method of plant ML18229A050, respectively. used in the St. Lucie Unit 2 core. This
operation, or new operator actions. The Description of amendment request: constitutes a very small reduction of CEA
proposed changes do not introduce failure The amendment would revise the worth available for shutdown margin, but
modes that could result in a new accident, Technical Specifications (TSs) by will not affect the minimum shutdown
and the proposed changes do not alter reducing the total number of control margin requirement as used in the accident

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:13 Oct 05, 2018 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\09OCN1.SGM 09OCN1

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 9, 2018 / Notices 50697

analysis. Thus, this will not translate into a licensee has provided its analysis of the drain line flow rates, the corresponding
significant reduction in a margin of safety. issue of no significant hazards ITAAC is modified to reflect this design
The margin of safety is established through consideration, which is presented change.
the core design limits defined in the COLR, The proposed changes do not have any
below:
in addition to the equipment design, adverse effects on the design functions of the
operating parameters, and the setpoints at 1. Does the proposed amendment involve PXS.
which automatic actions are initiated for a significant increase in the probability or No safety analysis or design basis
accident conditions. The proposed changes consequences of an accident previously acceptance limit/criterion is challenged or
will not adversely affect operation of plant evaluated? exceeded by these changes. Therefore, the
equipment. These changes will not result in Response: No. proposed changes do not involve a
a change to the setpoints at which protective The proposed changes modify the PXS significant reduction in the margin of safety.
actions are initiated. The response of the drain lines to add vent lines to the piping
plant systems to accidents and transients between the PXS collection boxes and The NRC staff has reviewed the
design limits reported in the Updated Final IRWST to remove entrained air and improve licensee’s analysis and, based on this
Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) is unaffected drain line flow rates, the corresponding review, it appears that the three
by this change as nuclear design and fuel ITAAC [inspections, tests, analyses, and standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
management will ensure that the COLR acceptance criteria] is modified to reflect this satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
specified shutdown margin requirements are design change. The proposed changes do not proposes to determine that the
met. The change does not exceed or alter a have any adverse effects on the design
requested amendments involve no
design basis or safety limit in the UFSAR or functions of the PXS. The probabilities of
accidents evaluated in the UFSAR are not significant hazards consideration.
the license. Therefore, accident analysis
acceptance criteria are not affected. affected. Attorney for licensee: Mr. M. Stanford
Therefore, the proposed change does not The changes do not adversely impact the Blanton, Balch & Bingham LLP, 1710
involve a significant reduction in a margin of support, design, or operation of mechanical Sixth Avenue North Birmingham, AL
safety. and fluid systems. The changes do not 35203–2015.
impact the support, design, or operation of NRC Branch Chief: Jennifer Dixon-
The NRC staff has reviewed the any safety-related structures. There is no
licensee’s analysis and, based on this Herrity.
adverse change to the plant systems or
review, it appears that the three response of the systems to postulated Virginia Electric and Power Company,
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are accident conditions. There is no change to Docket Nos. 50–280 and 50–281, Surry
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff the predicted radioactive releases due to Power Station (Surry), Unit Nos. 1 and
proposes to determine that the normal operation or postulated accident 2, Surry County, Virginia
amendment request involves no conditions. The plant response to previously
evaluated accidents or external events is not Date of amendment request: July 31,
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Debbie Hendell, adversely affected, nor do the proposed 2018. A publicly-available version is in
Managing Attorney—Nuclear, Florida changes create any new accident precursors. ADAMS under Accession No.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does ML18218A170.
Power & Light Company, 700 Universe not involve a significant increase in the
Blvd. MS LAW/JB, Juno Beach, Florida Description of amendment request:
probability or consequences of an accident The amendments would revise the
33408–0420. previously evaluated.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Booma Technical Specifications (TSs) for
2. Does the proposed amendment create
Venkataraman. the possibility of a new or different kind of Facility Operating License Numbers
accident from any accident previously DRP–32 and DRP–37 for Surry, Unit
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, evaluated? Nos. 1 and 2, respectively. The
Inc., Docket Nos. 52–025 and 52–026, Response: No. proposed license amendment request
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 The proposed changes modify the PXS (LAR) replaces the current Small Break
and 4, Burke County, Georgia drain lines to add vent lines to the piping Loss of Coolant Accident (SBLOCA)
Date of amendment request: August between the PXS collection boxes and methodologies contained in the TS list
IRWST to remove entrained air and improve of NRC-approved methodologies for
27, 2018. A publicly-available version is drain line flow rates, the corresponding
in ADAMS under Accession No. determining core operating limits with a
ITAAC is modified to reflect this design
ML18239A375. change. The proposed changes do not have new SBLOCA methodology.
Description of amendment request: any adverse effects on the design functions Specifically, the proposed LAR adds the
The requested amendment proposes to of the PXS, the structures or systems in Framatome Topical Report EMF–
depart from information in the Updated which the PXS is used, or any other systems, 2328(P)(A), ‘‘PWR [Pressurized-Water
Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) structures, and components (SSCs) design Reactor] Small Break LOCA Evaluation
(which includes the plant-specific functions or methods of operation that result Model S–RELAP5 Based,’’ as
Design Control Document Tier 2 in a new failure mode, malfunction, or supplemented by the Surry-specific
information) and involves related sequence of events that affect safety-related application report ANP–3676P, ‘‘Surry
or non-safety related equipment. This activity
changes to plant-specific Tier 1 Fuel-Vendor Independent Small Break
does not allow for a new fission product
information, with corresponding release path, [does not] result in a new LOCA Analysis,’’ to the list of
changes to the associated Combined fission product barrier [failure mode] mode, methodologies approved for reference in
License (COL) Appendix C information. or create a new sequence of events that result the Core Operating Limits Report
Specifically, the requested amendment in a significant fuel cladding failure. (COLR) in TS 6.2.C. This reference
would revise the COL and licensing Therefore, the proposed amendment does replaces two existing COLR references
basis documents to add vent lines to the not create the possibility of a new or different for the current Westinghouse SBLOCA
piping between the passive core cooling kind of accident from any accident Evaluation Model. The added reference
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1

system (PXS) collection boxes and in- previously evaluated. identifies the analytical methods used to
3. Does the proposed amendment involve determine core operating limits for the
containment refueling water storage a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
tank (IRWST) to remove entrained air Response: No.
SBLOCA event described in the Surry
and improve the drain line flow rates. The proposed changes modify the PXS Updated Final Safety Analysis Report
Basis for proposed no significant drain lines to add vent lines to the piping (UFSAR), Section 14.5.2.
hazards consideration determination: between the PXS collection boxes and Basis for proposed no significant
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the IRWST to remove entrained air and improve hazards consideration determination:

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:13 Oct 05, 2018 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\09OCN1.SGM 09OCN1

Document Created: 2018-10-06 00:58:47
Document Modified: 2018-10-06 00:58:47

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 November 8, 2018. A request for a hearing must be filed by December 10, 2018.
Contact		Ikeda Betts, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555- 0001; telephone: 301-415-1959, email: [email protected]
FR Citation		83 FR 50691