83_FR_62851 83 FR 62618 - Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations

83 FR 62618 - 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 233 (December 4, 2018)

Page Range62618-62626
FR Document2018-25728

Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is publishing this regular biweekly notice. The Act requires the Commission to publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to be issued, and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license or combined license, as applicable, upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person. This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or proposed to be issued, from November 6, 2018, to November 19, 2018. The last biweekly notice was published on November 20, 2018.

Federal Register, Volume 83 Issue 233 (Tuesday, December 4, 2018) 
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 233 (Tuesday, December 4, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62618-62626]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2018-25728]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2018-0269]


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

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Biweekly notice.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the 
Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is publishing this 
regular biweekly notice. The Act requires the Commission to publish 
notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to be issued, and grants 
the Commission the authority to issue and make immediately effective 
any amendment to an operating license or combined license, as 
applicable, upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment 
involves no significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the 
pendency before the Commission of a request for a hearing from any 
person.
    This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or 
proposed to be issued, from November 6, 2018, to November 19, 2018. The 
last biweekly notice was published on November 20, 2018.

DATES: Comments must be filed by January 3, 2019. A request for a 
hearing must be filed by February 4, 2019.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods
     Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2018-0269. Address 
questions about Docket IDs in Regulations.gov to Jennifer Borges; 
telephone: 301-287-9127; email: [email protected]. For technical 
questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT section of this document.
     Mail comments to: May Ma, Office of Administration, Mail 
Stop: TWFN-7-A60M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001.
    For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting 
comments, see ``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' in the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lynn Ronewicz, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1927, email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments

A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2018-0269, 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-2018-0269.
     NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the 
ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select ``Begin Web-based ADAMS 
Search.'' For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public 
Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or 
by email to [email protected]. The ADAMS accession number for each 
document referenced (if it is available in ADAMS) is provided the first 
time that it is mentioned in this document.
     NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public 
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

B. Submitting Comments

    Please include Docket ID NRC-2018-0269, 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. Background

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

[[Page 62619]]

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

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

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

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

[[Page 62620]]

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

B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)

    All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a 
request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition), any 
motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the 
submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and 
documents filed by interested governmental entities that request to 
participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the 
NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007, as amended at 77 FR 
46562; August 3, 2012). The E-Filing process requires participants to 
submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in 
some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Detailed 
guidance on making electronic submissions may be found in the Guidance 
for Electronic Submissions to the NRC and on the NRC website at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants may not submit 
paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in 
accordance with the procedures described below.
    To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 
days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the 
Office of the Secretary by email at [email protected], or by 
telephone at 301-415-1677, to (1) request a digital identification (ID) 
certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or 
representative) to digitally sign submissions and access the E-Filing 
system for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise 
the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a petition or 
other adjudicatory document (even in instances in which the 
participant, or its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-
issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the 
Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the hearing in this 
proceeding if the Secretary has not already established an electronic 
docket.
    Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is 
available on the NRC's public website at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/getting-started.html. Once a participant has obtained a 
digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant 
can then submit adjudicatory documents. Submissions must be in Portable 
Document Format (PDF). Additional guidance on PDF submissions is 
available on the NRC's public website at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/electronic-sub-ref-mat.html. A filing is considered complete at the 
time the document is submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be 
timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system 
no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of 
a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends 
the submitter an email notice confirming receipt of the document. The 
E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access 
to the document to the NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any 
others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to 
participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the 
document on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and 
other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for 
and receive a digital ID certificate before adjudicatory documents are 
filed so that they can obtain access to the documents via the E-Filing 
system.
    A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-
Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC's Electronic 
Filing Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC's 
public website at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by 
email to [email protected], or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-
7640. The NRC Electronic Filing Help Desk is available between 9 a.m. 
and 6 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government 
holidays.
    Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not 
submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in 
accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing 
stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and 
requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper 
format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail 
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: 
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or 
expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and 
Adjudications Staff. Participants filing adjudicatory documents in this 
manner are responsible for serving the document on all other 
participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of 
the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or 
expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the 
provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an 
exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or 
party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines 
that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no 
longer exists.
    Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the 
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at 
https://adams.nrc.gov/ehd, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the 
Commission or the presiding officer. If you do not have an NRC-issued 
digital ID certificate as described above, click cancel when the link 
requests certificates and you will be automatically directed to the 
NRC's electronic hearing dockets where you will be able to access any 
publicly available documents in a particular hearing docket. 
Participants are requested not to include personal privacy information, 
such as social security numbers, home addresses, or personal phone 
numbers in their filings, unless an NRC regulation or other law 
requires submission of such information. For example, in some 
instances, individuals provide home addresses in order to demonstrate 
proximity to a facility or site. With respect to copyrighted works, 
except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory 
filings and would constitute a Fair Use application, participants are 
requested not to include copyrighted materials in their submission.
    For further details with respect to these license amendment 
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

[[Page 62621]]

information related to this document, see the ``Obtaining Information 
and Submitting Comments'' section of this document.

Union Electric Company, Docket No. 50-483, Callaway Plant, Unit 1, 
Callaway County, Missouri

    Date of amendment request: September 4, 2018. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18247A467.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise 
Emergency Action Levels (EALs) CA6.1, ``Cold Shutdown/Refueling System 
Malfunction--Hazardous event affecting a SAFETY SYSTEM needed for the 
current operating MODE: Alert,'' and SA9.1, ``System Malfunction--
Hazardous event affecting a SAFETY SYSTEM needed for the current 
operating MODE: Alert.'' The amendment would also add a new definition 
for the term ``Loss of Safety Function (LOSF),'' while redefining the 
term ``Visible Damage,'' and deleting the term Initiating Condition 
(IC) HG1 and associated EAL HG1.1, ``Hazard--Hostile Action resulting 
in loss of physical control of the facility: General Emergency,'' 
within the Callaway Plant's Radiological Emergency Response Plan 
(RERP).
    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 to the Callaway Plant emergency action 
levels do not impact the physical function of plant structures, 
systems, or components (SSC) or the manner in which SSCs perform 
their design function. The proposed changes have no effect on 
accident initiators or precursors, nor do they alter design 
assumptions. The proposed changes do not alter or prevent the 
ability of SSCs to perform their intended function to mitigate the 
consequences of an initiating event within assumed acceptance 
limits. No operating procedures or administrative controls that 
function to prevent or mitigate accidents are affected by the 
proposed changes. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes do not involve a physical alteration of the 
plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be 
installed, and no equipment will be removed), nor do the proposed 
changes involve a change in the method of plant operation. The 
proposed changes will not introduce failure modes that could result 
in a new accident, nor do the changes alter assumptions made in the 
safety analysis. 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.
    There is no change 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. 
There are no changes to setpoints or environmental conditions of any 
SSC or the mariner in which any SSC is operated. Margins of safety 
are unaffected by the proposed changes. The applicable requirements 
of 10 CFR 50.47 and 10 CFR 50, Appendix E will continue to be met. 
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve any 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: John O'Neill, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw 
Pittman LLP, 2300 N Street NW, Washington, DC 20037.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323, Diablo 
Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2 (DCPP), San Luis Obispo 
County, California

    Date of amendment request: September 12, 2018. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18255A368.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would 
revise the Emergency Plan for DCPP to extend staff augmentation times 
for Emergency Response Organization (ERO) functions.
    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 increase in staff augmentation times has no effect 
on normal plant operation or on any accident initiator or precursors 
and does not impact the function of plant structures, systems, or 
components. The proposed change does not alter or prevent the 
ability of the ERO to perform their intended functions to mitigate 
the consequences of an accident or event. The ability of the ERO to 
respond adequately to radiological emergencies has been demonstrated 
as acceptable in a staffing analysis as required by 10 CFR 50 
Appendix E.IV.A.9.
    Therefore, the proposed DCPP Emergency Plan changes do not 
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of 
an accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not impact the accident analysis. The 
change does 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 
change does not introduce failure modes that could result in a new 
accident, and the change does not alter assumptions made in the 
safety analysis. This proposed change increases the staff 
augmentation response times in the DCPP Emergency Plan, which are 
demonstrated as acceptable through a staffing analysis as required 
by 10 CFR 50 Appendix E.IV.A.9. The proposed change does not alter 
or prevent the ability of the ERO to perform their intended 
functions to mitigate the consequences of an accident or event.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    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 change is 
associated with the DCPP Emergency Plan staffing and does not impact 
operation of the plant or its response to transients or accidents. 
The change does not affect the Technical Specifications. The 
proposed change does not involve a change in the method of plant 
operation, and no accident analyses will be affected by the proposed 
change. Safety analysis acceptance criteria are not affected by this 
proposed change.
    A staffing analysis and a functional analysis were performed for 
the proposed change on the timeliness of performing major tasks for 
the functional areas of the DCPP Emergency Plan. The analyses 
concluded that an extension in staff augmentation times would not 
significantly affect the ability to perform the required Emergency 
Plan tasks. Therefore, the proposed change is determined to not 
adversely affect the ability to meet 10 CFR 50.54(q)(2), the 
requirements of 10 CFR 50 Appendix E, and the emergency

[[Page 62622]]

planning standards as described in 10 CFR 50.47 (b).
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Jennifer Post, Pacific Gas and Electric 
Company, P.O. Box 7442, San Francisco, CA 94120.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.; Georgia Power Company; 
Oglethorpe Power Corporation; Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia; 
and City of Dalton, Georgia, Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366, Edwin I. 
Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Appling County, Georgia

    Date of amendment request: June 29, 2018. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18180A396.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the 
Technical Specification (TS) requirements for the Hatch Nuclear Plant, 
Unit Nos. 1 and 2. Specifically, the amendments would increase the 
allowable values (AV) specified in TS Table 3.3.5.1-1 for automatic 
transfer of the high pressure coolant injection (HPCI) pump suction 
alignment from the condensate storage tank (CST) to the suppression 
pool for Unit Nos. 1 and 2. The proposed change would also increase the 
AV specified in TS Table 3.3.5.2-1 for automatic transfer of the 
reactor core isolation cooling (RCIC) pump suction alignment from the 
CST to the suppression pool for Unit No. 1.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change ensures the HPCI and RCIC pump automatic 
suction transfer functions from the CST to the suppression pool 
occur without introducing the possibility of vortex formation or air 
intrusion in the HPCI or RCIC pump suction path. The water level of 
the CST on automatic suction transfer of the HPCI and RCIC systems 
to the suppression pool is not an initiator or precursor to any 
accident previously evaluated. The CST water source is not assumed 
to mitigate the consequences for any design basis accident, but is 
assumed as a water source for the RCIC when mitigating a station 
blackout event. The revised AV will ensure the RCIC can perform this 
function.
    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 ensures the HPCI and RCIC pump automatic 
suction transfer functions from the CST to the suppression pool 
occur without introducing the possibility of vortex formation or air 
intrusion in the HPCI or RCIC pump suction path. HPCI, RCIC, and CST 
design functions are unaffected by this change. The change to the 
HPCI and RCIC automatic suction transfer functions would not create 
the possibility of any credible failure mechanism not considered in 
the design and licensing basis. Additionally, no new credible 
failure modes for the CST are introduced by the proposed changes.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change ensures the HPCI and RCIC pump automatic 
suction transfer functions from the CST to the suppression pool 
occur without introducing the possibility of vortex formation or air 
intrusion in the HPCI or RCIC pump suction path. The applicable 
margins of safety are the AVs for the HPCI and RCIC pump automatic 
suction transfer functions. The proposed change increases the margin 
of safety by revising the affected AVs to address more severe 
circumstances than considered in the current AVs. The proposed 
change does not exceed or alter a design basis or safety limit.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in the margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Millicent Ronnlund, Vice President and 
General Counsel, Southern Nuclear Operating Co., Inc., P.O. Box 1295, 
Birmingham, AL 35201-1295.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.; Georgia Power Company; 
Oglethorpe Power Corporation; Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia; 
and City of Dalton, Georgia, Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366, Edwin I. 
Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Appling County, Georgia

    Date of amendment request: August 6, 2018. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18218A297.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the 
technical specification (TS) end state for the required actions of the 
drywell spray function of the residual heat removal system for the 
Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2. Specifically, TS 3.6.2.5, 
``Residual Heat Removal (RHR) Drywell Spray,'' would be revised to 
modify the required end state of Cold Shutdown (Mode 4) to the new 
required end state of Hot Shutdown (Mode 3) if the needed action 
statements are not met for Unit Nos. 1 and 2.
    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, with NRC staff edits in square 
brackets:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The RHR drywell spray function is not an initiator of any 
accident previously evaluated but is assumed to mitigate some 
accidents previously evaluated. However, the proposed change does 
not alter the design or safety function of the RHR system, including 
the drywell spray mode. The proposed change revises the end state 
when the time allowed by TS to continue operation is exceeded for 
the drywell spray mode of the RHR system. This request is limited to 
an end state where entry into the shutdown mode is for a short 
interval and the primary purpose is to correct the initiating 
condition and return to power operation as soon as practical. Risk 
insights from both the qualitative and quantitative risk assessment 
were used to support a change in end state for similar boiling water 
reactor (BWR) systems as summarized in GE [General Electric] topical 
report NEDC-32988. These assessments provide an integrated 
discussion of deterministic and probabilistic issues focusing on 
specific TSs used to support similar TS end states and associated 
restrictions. SNC [Southern Nuclear Operating Company] finds that 
the risk insights also support the conclusion of the proposed change 
to the RHR drywell spray TS. Therefore, the probability of an 
accident previously evaluated is not significantly increased, if at 
all.
    The consequences of accidents previously evaluated that assume 
the drywell spray

[[Page 62623]]

function in accident mitigation are based on the plant operating 
with the reactor critical and at power. A DBA in hot shutdown would 
be considerably less severe than a DBA [design-basis accident] 
occurring during power operation since hot shutdown is associated 
with lower initial energy level and reduced decay heat load. The 
risk and defense-in-depth reasoning, provided in GE topical report 
NEDC-32988, supports the conclusion that hot shutdown is as safe as 
cold shutdown (if not safer) for repairing an inoperable RHR 
subsystem. SNC concludes the proposed change is acceptable in light 
of defense-in-depth considerations and because the time spent in hot 
shutdown to perform the repair is infrequent and limited. Therefore, 
the consequences of any accident that assumes the drywell spray 
function are not significantly affected by this change.
    Consequently, 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 does not change the design function or 
operation of the RHR drywell spray function. No plant modifications 
or changes to the plant configuration or method of operation are 
involved. If risk is assessed and managed, allowing a change to the 
end state for the RHR drywell spray TS when the allowed time for 
remaining in power operation with one or more RHR drywell spray 
subsystem inoperable is exceeded, i.e., entry into hot shutdown 
rather than cold shutdown to repair equipment, will not introduce 
new failure modes or effects and will not, in the absences of other 
unrelated failures, lead to an accident whose consequences exceed 
the consequences of accidents previously evaluated. The addition of 
a requirement to assess and manage the risk introduced by this 
change and the commitment to adhere to the industry guidance related 
to TS end states further minimizes possible concerns.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not affect any of the controlling 
values of parameters used to avoid exceeding regulatory or licensing 
limits. The proposed change does not exceed or alter the design 
basis or safety limits, or any limiting safety system settings. The 
requirement for the drywell spray mode of the RHR system to perform 
its designated safety function is unaffected. The risk assessment 
approach used in the GE topical report NEDC-32988 is comprehensive 
and follows NRC staff guidance. The risk assessment, summarized in 
GE topical report NEDC-32988, included evaluations of systems with 
similar functions as the drywell spray function of the RHR system. 
In addition, the NEDC-32988 risk analyses show that the criteria of 
the three-tiered approach for allowing TS changes, in accordance 
with NRC staff guidance, are met. The risk assessments used to 
justify TS changes associated with containment heat removal systems 
are also applicable [to] the RHR drywell spray TS because these 
systems perform an equivalent function as the drywell spray mode of 
the RHR system and there are no unique aspects of the RHR drywell 
spray containment heat removal function that would change the 
conclusion that a hot shutdown end state is acceptable. The risk 
assessment used to justify the TS change associated with fission 
product cleanup systems is also applicable to the RHR drywell spray 
TS because the systems are functionally similar and there are no 
aspects of the HNP [Hatch Nuclear Plant] RHR drywell spray fission 
product cleanup function that would change the conclusion that a hot 
shutdown end state is acceptable. Therefore, SNC has determined that 
the acceptability of hot shutdown end state for systems previously 
evaluated with similar functions is also acceptable for the HNP RHR 
drywell spray TS. As such, the net change to the margin of safety as 
a result of the proposed change is insignificant.
    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: Millicent Ronnlund, Vice President and 
General Counsel, Southern Nuclear Operating Co., Inc., P.O. Box 1295, 
Birmingham, AL 35201-1295.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), Docket No. 50-391, Watts Bar Nuclear 
Plant (WBN), Unit 2, Rhea County, Tennessee

    Date of amendment request: March 5, 2018. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18064A192.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise WBN 
Unit 2 Operating License (OL) Condition 2.C(4) to permit the use of the 
PAD4TCD computer program to continue to establish core operating limits 
until the WBN Unit 2 steam generators (SGs) are replaced with SGs 
equivalent to those in WBN Unit 1. The proposed change to allow the 
continued use of PAD4TCD to establish core operating limits until the 
installation of the WBN Unit 2 replacement SGs reflects TVA's plan for 
transitioning to PAD5 as part of the full spectrum loss-of-coolant 
accident (LOCA) Evaluation Methodology.
    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 Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) response to a large 
break LOCA as described in the WBN Unit 2 dual-unit Updated Final 
Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) Section 15.4.1 incorporated an 
explicit evaluation of the effects of TCD [thermal conductivity 
degradation]. The UFSAR evaluation considered fuel burn-up values 
that represent multi-cycle cores where the effects of TCD would be 
more evident. These analyses showed that the criteria specified in 
Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Sec.  50.46 are 
met. The core design process evaluates each reload core to verify 
that no fuel rods exceed the peaking limits shown in the WBN dual-
unit UFSAR Table 15.4-24. This ensures that the LOCA analysis in the 
WBN Unit 2 dual-unit UFSAR remains bounding for future operating 
cycles.
    The change to WBN Unit 2 OL Condition 2.C(4) does not change the 
safety analysis or any plant feature or design. Thus, it is 
concluded that a significant increase in the consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated will not occur as a result of the 
proposed change.
    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 does not create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 
The proposed change to WBN Unit 2 OL condition 2.C(4) does not 
change or modify the plant design, introduce any new modes of plant 
operation, change or modify the design of the ECCS, or change or 
modify the accident analyses presented in the UFSAR.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The LOCA safety analysis for WBN Unit 2 as described in the 
UFSAR explicitly accounts for the effect of TCD. The results of this 
analysis has established that WBN Unit 2 can operate safely in the 
unlikely event that a design basis LOCA event occurs, there are 
large margins to the regulatory limits when explicitly accounting 
for TCD. This proposed change to OL condition 2.C(4) does not change 
this analysis or its conclusions. Thus, the proposed change does not 
result in a significant reduction in a margin of safety.


[[Page 62624]]


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

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

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

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

    Date of amendment request: February 1, 2018, as supplemented by 
letters dated July 9, 2018, and August 3, 2018. Publicly-available 
versions are in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML18036A227, ML18191B304, 
and ML18215A421, respectively.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the 
licensing basis for protection from tornado-generated missiles by 
identifying the TORMIS Computer Code as the methodology used for 
assessing tornado-generated missile protection of unprotected plant 
structures, systems, and components.
    Date of issuance: November 8, 2018.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment Nos: 199 (Unit 1) and 199 (Unit 2). A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18291A980; documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the related Safety Evaluation 
enclosed with the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-72 and NPF-77: The 
amendments revised the licensing basis.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 22, 2018 (83 FR 
23734). The supplemental letters dated July 9, 2018, and August 3, 
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 November 8, 2018.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-317 and 50-318, Calvert 
Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant (Calvert Cliffs), Units 1 and 2, Calvert 
County, Maryland; Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-220 
and 50-410, Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station (Nine Mile Point), Units 1 
and 2, Oswego County, New York; Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket 
No. 50-244, R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant (Ginna), Wayne County, New 
York

    Date of amendment request: March 26, 2018.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the 
licenses to eliminate the Nuclear Advisory Committee requirements for 
each facility.
    Date of issuance: November 15, 2018.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of the date of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 327 (Calvert Cliffs, Unit 1), 305 (Calvert Cliffs, 
Unit 2), 232 (Nine Mile Point, Unit 1), 173 (Nine Mile Point, Unit 2), 
and 133 (Ginna). A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML18309A301. Documents related to these amendments are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-53, DPR-69, DPR-63, 
NPF-69, and DPR-18: The amendments revised the Renewed Facility 
Operating Licenses.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 8, 2018 (83 FR 
20861).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a safety evaluation dated November 15, 2018.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50-397, Columbia Generating Station, 
Benton County, Washington

    Date of amendment request: December 18, 2017.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Section 4.2 
of Appendix B, ``Environmental Protection Plan (Nonradiological),'' of 
the Columbia Generating Station Renewed Facility Operating License to 
incorporate the terms and conditions of the incidental take statement 
included in the biological opinion issued by the National Marine 
Fisheries Service on March 10, 2017.
    Date of issuance: November 8, 2018.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 252. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML18283A125; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-21: The amendment 
revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and Environmental 
Protection Plan.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 13, 2018 (83 FR 
10916).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated November 8, 2018.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

[[Page 62625]]

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

    Date of amendment request: June 11, 2018.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments allow for deviation 
from National Fire Protection Association 805 requirements to allow the 
use of performance-based methods for flexible metallic conduit in 
configurations other than to connect components, and for flexible 
metallic conduit in lengths greater than short lengths.
    Date of issuance: November 16, 2018.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 342 (Unit 1) and 324 (Unit 2). A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18284A254; documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with 
the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-58 and DPR-74: The 
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 28, 2018 (83 FR 
43905).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated November 16, 2018.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: November 7, 2017, as supplemented by 
letters dated January 19, 2018, and August 14, 2018.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the 
Emergency Plan to move the Technical Support Center to a different 
location in a new facility located within the existing protected area.
    Date of issuance: November 13, 2018.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 180 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 341 (Unit No. 1) and 323 (Unit No. 2). A publicly-
available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18249A019; 
documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety 
Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-58 and DPR-74: The 
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 2, 2018 (83 FR 
169). The supplemental letters dated January 19, 2018, and August 14, 
2018, provided additional information that clarified the application, 
did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and 
did not change the 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 November 13, 2018.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: December 21, 2017, as supplemented by 
letter dated June 7, 2018.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments change Technical 
Specification (TS) 3.3.2, ``Engineered Safety Feature Actuation System 
(ESFAS) Instrumentation,'' by adding TS Actions that allow time to 
restore one high steam flow channel per steam line to Operable status 
before requiring a unit shutdown in the event two channels in one or 
more steam lines are discovered inoperable due to the trip setting not 
within Allowable Value.
    Date of issuance: November 7, 2018.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 221 (Unit 1) and 218 (Unit 2). A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18271A207; documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with 
the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-2 and NPF-8: The 
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 31, 2018 (83 FR 
36977).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated November 7, 2018.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: November 16, 2017.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the R. E. 
Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Technical Specifications for selected Reactor 
Trip System (RTS) and Engineered Safety Feature Actuation System 
(ESFAS) instrumentation channels. The change allows selected RTS (Table 
3.3.1-1) and ESFAS instrumentation channels (Table 3.3.2-1) to be 
bypassed during surveillance testing. Additionally, the change allows 
RTS and ESFAS input relays to be excluded from the Channel Operational 
Test. The change allows testing of Nuclear Instrumentation System power 
range functions, which are part of the RTS, with a permanently 
installed bypass capability, while other RTS and ESFAS functions will 
be capable of being bypassed utilizing permanent connections in the 
racks to connect a portable test box.
    Date of issuance: November 13, 2018.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 132. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML18213A369; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-18: The amendment 
revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical 
Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 6, 2018 (83 FR 
5281).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated November 13, 2018.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: November 15, 2017, as supplemented by 
letter dated April 26, 2018.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the River 
Bend Station, Unit 1, Technical Specifications by replacing the 
existing specifications related to ``operations with a potential for 
draining the reactor vessel'' with revised requirements for reactor 
pressure vessel water inventory control to protect Safety Limit 
2.1.1.3. Safety Limit 2.1.1.3 requires reactor vessel water level to be 
greater than the top of active irradiated fuel. The amendment adopted 
changes with variations, as noted in the license amendment request, and 
was based on the NRC-approved safety evaluation for Technical 
Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-542, Revision 2, 
``Reactor Pressure Vessel Water

[[Page 62626]]

Inventory Control,'' dated December 20, 2016.
    Date of issuance: November 7, 2018.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 120 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 193. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML18267A341; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-47: The amendment revised the 
Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 30, 2018 (83 FR 
4292). The supplemental letter dated April 26, 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 November 7, 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: December 21, 2017, as supplemented by 
letter dated June 12, 2018.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the 
Technical Specifications (TSs) pertaining to the Engineered Safety 
Features Actuation System instrumentation to resolve non-conservative 
actions associated with the Containment ventilation isolation and the 
Control Room ventilation isolation functions. In addition, the 
amendments revised the Control Room ventilation isolation function to 
no longer credit Containment radiation monitoring instrumentation, 
eliminated redundant radiation monitoring instrumentation requirements, 
eliminated select core alterations applicability requirements, 
relocated radiation monitoring and Reactor Coolant System leakage 
detection requirements within the TSs to align with their respective 
functions, and relocated the Spent Fuel Pool area monitoring 
requirements to licensee-controlled documents.
    Date of issuance: November 14, 2018.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 283 (Unit No. 3) and 277 (Unit No. 4). A publicly-
available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18255A360; 
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 TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 27, 2018 (83 
FR 8516). The supplemental letter dated June 12, 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 November 14, 2018.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated November 14, 2018.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, on November 20, 2018.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Craig G. Erlanger,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2018-25728 Filed 12-3-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

62618 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2018 / Notices ADAMS Document title accession No. NUREG–1520, Standard Review Plan for Fuel Cycle Facilities License Applications ...................................................................... ML15176A258 FCSS–ISG–01, Qualitative Criteria for Evaluation of Likelihood ........................................................................................................ ML051520236 FCSS–ISG–03, Nuclear Criticality Safety Performance Requirements and Double Contingency Principle ...................................... ML050690302 FCSS–ISG–05, Additional Reporting Requirements of 10 CFR 70.74 .............................................................................................. ML053630228 FCSS–ISG–08, Natural Phenomena Hazards .................................................................................................................................... ML052650305 FCSS–ISG–09, Initiating Event Frequencies ...................................................................................................................................... ML051520323 FCSS–ISG–10, Justification for Minimum Margin of Subcriticality for Safety .................................................................................... ML061650370 Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 28th day for Docket ID NRC–2018–0269. Address first time that it is mentioned in this of November 2018. questions about Docket IDs in document. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Regulations.gov to Jennifer Borges; • NRC’s PDR: You may examine and David Tiktinsky, telephone: 301–287–9127; email: purchase copies of public documents at Acting Chief, Facility Licensing and Oversight Jennifer.Borges@nrc.gov. For technical the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One Branch, Division of Fuel Cycle Safety, questions, contact the individual listed White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Safeguards, and Environmental Review, in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. Office of Nuclear Material Safety and CONTACT section of this document. B. Submitting Comments Safeguards. • Mail comments to: May Ma, Office [FR Doc. 2018–26225 Filed 12–3–18; 8:45 am] of Administration, Mail Stop: TWFN–7– Please include Docket ID NRC–2018– BILLING CODE 7590–01–P A60M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 0269, facility name, unit number(s), Commission, Washington, DC 20555– plant docket number, application date, 0001. and subject in your comment NUCLEAR REGULATORY For additional direction on obtaining submission. COMMISSION information and submitting comments, The NRC cautions you not to include see ‘‘Obtaining Information and identifying or contact information that [NRC–2018–0269] Submitting Comments’’ in the you do not want to be publicly Biweekly Notice; Applications and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of disclosed in your comment submission. Amendments to Facility Operating this document. The NRC will post all comment Licenses and Combined Licenses FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: submissions at http:// Involving No Significant Hazards Lynn Ronewicz, Office of Nuclear www.regulations.gov as well as enter the Considerations Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear comment submissions into ADAMS. Regulatory Commission, Washington DC The NRC does not routinely edit AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory comment submissions to remove 20555–0001; telephone: 301–415–1927, Commission. identifying or contact information. email: Lynn.Ronewicz@nrc.gov. ACTION: Biweekly notice. If you are requesting or aggregating SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: comments from other persons for SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Atomic I. Obtaining Information and submission to the NRC, then you should Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Submitting Comments inform those persons not to include Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory identifying or contact information that Commission (NRC) is publishing this A. Obtaining Information they do not want to be publicly regular biweekly notice. The Act Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2018– disclosed in their comment submission. requires the Commission to publish 0269, facility name, unit number(s), Your request should state that the NRC notice of any amendments issued, or plant docket number, application date, does not routinely edit comment proposed to be issued, and grants the and subject when contacting the NRC submissions to remove such information Commission the authority to issue and about the availability of information for before making the comment make immediately effective any this action. You may obtain publicly- submissions available to the public or amendment to an operating license or available information related to this entering the comment into ADAMS. combined license, as applicable, upon a action by any of the following methods: determination by the Commission that • Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to II. Background such amendment involves no significant http://www.regulations.gov and search Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of hazards consideration, notwithstanding for Docket ID NRC–2018–0269. 1954, as amended (the Act), the U.S. the pendency before the Commission of • NRC’s Agencywide Documents Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) a request for a hearing from any person. Access and Management System is publishing this regular biweekly This biweekly notice includes all (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly- notice. The Act requires the notices of amendments issued, or available documents online in the Commission to publish notice of any proposed to be issued, from November ADAMS Public Documents collection at amendments issued, or proposed to be 6, 2018, to November 19, 2018. The last http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ issued, and grants the Commission the biweekly notice was published on adams.html. To begin the search, select authority to issue and make November 20, 2018. ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.’’ For immediately effective any amendment DATES: Comments must be filed by problems with ADAMS, please contact to an operating license or combined January 3, 2019. A request for a hearing the NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR) license, as applicable, upon a must be filed by February 4, 2019. reference staff at 1–800–397–4209, 301– determination by the Commission that ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 415–4737, or by email to pdr.resource@ such amendment involves no significant by any of the following methods nrc.gov. The ADAMS accession number hazards consideration, notwithstanding • Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to for each document referenced (if it is the pendency before the Commission of http://www.regulations.gov and search available in ADAMS) is provided the a request for a hearing from any person. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:36 Dec 03, 2018 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04DEN1.SGM 04DEN1

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2018 / Notices 62619 III. Notice of Consideration of Issuance action. Petitions shall be filed in to participate fully in the conduct of the of Amendments to Facility Operating accordance with the Commission’s hearing with respect to resolution of Licenses and Combined Licenses and ‘‘Agency Rules of Practice and that party’s admitted contentions, Proposed No Significant Hazards Procedure’’ in 10 CFR part 2. Interested including the opportunity to present Consideration Determination persons should consult a current copy evidence, consistent with the NRC’s The Commission has made a of 10 CFR 2.309. The NRC’s regulations regulations, policies, and procedures. are accessible electronically from the Petitions must be filed no later than proposed determination that the NRC Library on the NRC’s website at 60 days from the date of publication of following amendment requests involve http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc- this notice. Petitions and motions for no significant hazards consideration. collections/cfr/. Alternatively, a copy of leave to file new or amended Under the Commission’s regulations in the regulations is available at the NRC’s contentions that are filed after the § 50.92 of title 10 of the Code of Federal deadline will not be entertained absent Public Document Room, located at One Regulations (10 CFR), this means that a determination by the presiding officer White Flint North, Room O1–F21, 11555 operation of the facility in accordance that the filing demonstrates good cause Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, with the proposed amendment would by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR Maryland 20852. If a petition is filed, not (1) involve a significant increase in 2.309(c)(1)(i) through (iii). The petition the Commission or a presiding officer the probability or consequences of an must be filed in accordance with the will rule on the petition and, if accident previously evaluated; or (2) filing instructions in the ‘‘Electronic appropriate, a notice of a hearing will be create the possibility of a new or issued. Submissions (E-Filing)’’ section of this different kind of accident from any As required by 10 CFR 2.309(d) the document. accident previously evaluated; or (3) petition should specifically explain the If a hearing is requested, and the involve a significant reduction in a reasons why intervention should be Commission has not made a final margin of safety. The basis for this permitted with particular reference to determination on the issue of no proposed determination for each the following general requirements for significant hazards consideration, the amendment request is shown below. standing: (1) The name, address, and Commission will make a final The Commission is seeking public telephone number of the petitioner; (2) determination on the issue of no comments on this proposed the nature of the petitioner’s right under significant hazards consideration. The determination. Any comments received the Act to be made a party to the final determination will serve to within 30 days after the date of proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of establish when the hearing is held. If the publication of this notice will be the petitioner’s property, financial, or final determination is that the considered in making any final other interest in the proceeding; and (4) amendment request involves no determination. the possible effect of any decision or significant hazards consideration, the Normally, the Commission will not order which may be entered in the Commission may issue the amendment issue the amendment until the proceeding on the petitioner’s interest. and make it immediately effective, expiration of 60 days after the date of In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f), notwithstanding the request for a publication of this notice. The the petition must also set forth the hearing. Any hearing would take place Commission may issue the license specific contentions which the after issuance of the amendment. If the amendment before expiration of the 60- petitioner seeks to have litigated in the final determination is that the day period provided that its final proceeding. Each contention must amendment request involves a determination is that the amendment consist of a specific statement of the significant hazards consideration, then involves no significant hazards issue of law or fact to be raised or any hearing held would take place consideration. In addition, the controverted. In addition, the petitioner before the issuance of the amendment Commission may issue the amendment must provide a brief explanation of the unless the Commission finds an prior to the expiration of the 30-day bases for the contention and a concise imminent danger to the health or safety comment period if circumstances statement of the alleged facts or expert of the public, in which case it will issue change during the 30-day comment opinion which support the contention an appropriate order or rule under 10 period such that failure to act in a and on which the petitioner intends to CFR part 2. timely way would result, for example in rely in proving the contention at the A State, local governmental body, derating or shutdown of the facility. If hearing. The petitioner must also Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or the Commission takes action prior to the provide references to the specific agency thereof, may submit a petition to expiration of either the comment period sources and documents on which the the Commission to participate as a party or the notice period, it will publish in petitioner intends to rely to support its under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition the Federal Register a notice of position on the issue. The petition must should state the nature and extent of the issuance. If the Commission makes a include sufficient information to show petitioner’s interest in the proceeding. final no significant hazards that a genuine dispute exists with the The petition should be submitted to the consideration determination, any applicant or licensee on a material issue Commission no later than 60 days from hearing will take place after issuance. of law or fact. Contentions must be the date of publication of this notice. The Commission expects that the need limited to matters within the scope of The petition must be filed in accordance to take this action will occur very the proceeding. The contention must be with the filing instructions in the infrequently. one which, if proven, would entitle the ‘‘Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)’’ petitioner to relief. A petitioner who section of this document, and should A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing meet the requirements for petitions set fails to satisfy the requirements at 10 and Petition for Leave To Intervene forth in this section, except that under CFR 2.309(f) with respect to at least one Within 60 days after the date of contention will not be permitted to 10 CFR 2.309(h)(2) a State, local publication of this notice, any persons participate as a party. governmental body, or Federally- (petitioner) whose interest may be Those permitted to intervene become recognized Indian Tribe, or agency affected by this action may file a request parties to the proceeding, subject to any thereof, does not need to address the for a hearing and petition for leave to limitations in the order granting leave to standing requirements in 10 CFR intervene (petition) with respect to the intervene. Parties have the opportunity 2.309(d) if the facility is located within VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:36 Dec 03, 2018 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04DEN1.SGM 04DEN1

62620 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2018 / Notices its boundaries. Alternatively, a State, submitting a petition or other filing stating why there is good cause for local governmental body, Federally- adjudicatory document (even in not filing electronically and requesting recognized Indian Tribe, or agency instances in which the participant, or its authorization to continue to submit thereof, may participate as a non-party counsel or representative, already holds documents in paper format. Such filings under 10 CFR 2.315(c). an NRC-issued digital ID certificate). must be submitted by: (1) First class If a hearing is granted, any person Based upon this information, the mail addressed to the Office of the who is not a party to the proceeding and Secretary will establish an electronic Secretary of the Commission, U.S. is not affiliated with or represented by docket for the hearing in this proceeding Nuclear Regulatory Commission, a party may, at the discretion of the if the Secretary has not already Washington, DC 20555–0001, Attention: presiding officer, be permitted to make established an electronic docket. Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or a limited appearance pursuant to the Information about applying for a (2) courier, express mail, or expedited provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person digital ID certificate is available on the delivery service to the Office of the making a limited appearance may make NRC’s public website at http:// Secretary, 11555 Rockville Pike, an oral or written statement of his or her www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/ Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: position on the issues but may not getting-started.html. Once a participant Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. otherwise participate in the proceeding. has obtained a digital ID certificate and Participants filing adjudicatory A limited appearance may be made at a docket has been created, the documents in this manner are any session of the hearing or at any participant can then submit responsible for serving the document on prehearing conference, subject to the adjudicatory documents. Submissions all other participants. Filing is limits and conditions as may be must be in Portable Document Format considered complete by first-class mail imposed by the presiding officer. Details (PDF). Additional guidance on PDF as of the time of deposit in the mail, or regarding the opportunity to make a submissions is available on the NRC’s by courier, express mail, or expedited limited appearance will be provided by public website at http://www.nrc.gov/ delivery service upon depositing the the presiding officer if such sessions are site-help/electronic-sub-ref-mat.html. A document with the provider of the scheduled. filing is considered complete at the time service. A presiding officer, having the document is submitted through the granted an exemption request from B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing) NRC’s E-Filing system. To be timely, an using E-Filing, may require a participant All documents filed in NRC electronic filing must be submitted to or party to use E-Filing if the presiding adjudicatory proceedings, including a the E-Filing system no later than 11:59 officer subsequently determines that the request for hearing and petition for p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. reason for granting the exemption from leave to intervene (petition), any motion Upon receipt of a transmission, the E- use of E-Filing no longer exists. or other document filed in the Filing system time-stamps the document Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceeding prior to the submission of a and sends the submitter an email notice proceedings will appear in the NRC’s request for hearing or petition to confirming receipt of the document. The electronic hearing docket which is intervene, and documents filed by E-Filing system also distributes an email available to the public at https:// interested governmental entities that notice that provides access to the adams.nrc.gov/ehd, unless excluded request to participate under 10 CFR document to the NRC’s Office of the pursuant to an order of the Commission 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance General Counsel and any others who or the presiding officer. If you do not with the NRC’s E-Filing rule (72 FR have advised the Office of the Secretary have an NRC-issued digital ID certificate 49139; August 28, 2007, as amended at that they wish to participate in the as described above, click cancel when 77 FR 46562; August 3, 2012). The E- proceeding, so that the filer need not the link requests certificates and you Filing process requires participants to serve the document on those will be automatically directed to the submit and serve all adjudicatory participants separately. Therefore, NRC’s electronic hearing dockets where documents over the internet, or in some applicants and other participants (or you will be able to access any publicly cases to mail copies on electronic their counsel or representative) must available documents in a particular storage media. Detailed guidance on apply for and receive a digital ID hearing docket. Participants are making electronic submissions may be certificate before adjudicatory requested not to include personal found in the Guidance for Electronic documents are filed so that they can privacy information, such as social Submissions to the NRC and on the NRC obtain access to the documents via the security numbers, home addresses, or website at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/ E-Filing system. personal phone numbers in their filings, e-submittals.html. Participants may not A person filing electronically using unless an NRC regulation or other law submit paper copies of their filings the NRC’s adjudicatory E-Filing system requires submission of such unless they seek an exemption in may seek assistance by contacting the information. For example, in some accordance with the procedures NRC’s Electronic Filing Help Desk instances, individuals provide home described below. through the ‘‘Contact Us’’ link located addresses in order to demonstrate To comply with the procedural on the NRC’s public website at http:// proximity to a facility or site. With requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 www.nrc.gov/site-help/e- respect to copyrighted works, except for days prior to the filing deadline, the submittals.html, by email to limited excerpts that serve the purpose participant should contact the Office of MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a toll- of the adjudicatory filings and would the Secretary by email at free call at 1–866–672–7640. The NRC constitute a Fair Use application, hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by telephone Electronic Filing Help Desk is available participants are requested not to include at 301–415–1677, to (1) request a digital between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m., Eastern copyrighted materials in their identification (ID) certificate, which Time, Monday through Friday, submission. allows the participant (or its counsel or excluding government holidays. For further details with respect to representative) to digitally sign Participants who believe that they these license amendment application(s), submissions and access the E-Filing have a good cause for not submitting see the application for amendment system for any proceeding in which it documents electronically must file an which is available for public inspection is participating; and (2) advise the exemption request, in accordance with in ADAMS and at the NRC’s PDR. For Secretary that the participant will be 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper additional direction on accessing VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:36 Dec 03, 2018 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04DEN1.SGM 04DEN1

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2018 / Notices 62621 information related to this document, or different type of equipment will be plant operation or on any accident initiator see the ‘‘Obtaining Information and installed, and no equipment will be or precursors and does not impact the Submitting Comments’’ section of this removed), nor do the proposed changes function of plant structures, systems, or involve a change in the method of plant components. The proposed change does not document. operation. The proposed changes will not alter or prevent the ability of the ERO to Union Electric Company, Docket No. introduce failure modes that could result in perform their intended functions to mitigate 50–483, Callaway Plant, Unit 1, a new accident, nor do the changes alter the consequences of an accident or event. Callaway County, Missouri assumptions made in the safety analysis. The ability of the ERO to respond adequately Therefore, the proposed change does not to radiological emergencies has been Date of amendment request: create the possibility of a new or different demonstrated as acceptable in a staffing September 4, 2018. A publicly-available kind of accident from any accident analysis as required by 10 CFR 50 Appendix version is in ADAMS under Accession previously evaluated. E.IV.A.9. No. ML18247A467. 3. Does the proposed amendment involve Therefore, the proposed DCPP Emergency Description of amendment request: a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Plan changes do not involve a significant Response: No. increase in the probability or consequences The amendment would revise There is no change being made to safety of an accident previously evaluated. Emergency Action Levels (EALs) CA6.1, analysis assumptions, safety limits, or 2. Does the proposed change create the ‘‘Cold Shutdown/Refueling System limiting safety system settings that would possibility of a new or different kind of Malfunction—Hazardous event affecting adversely affect plant safety as a result of the accident from any accident previously a SAFETY SYSTEM needed for the proposed changes. There are no changes to evaluated? current operating MODE: Alert,’’ and setpoints or environmental conditions of any Response: No. SA9.1, ‘‘System Malfunction— SSC or the mariner in which any SSC is The proposed change does not impact the Hazardous event affecting a SAFETY operated. Margins of safety are unaffected by accident analysis. The change does not the proposed changes. The applicable involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., SYSTEM needed for the current requirements of 10 CFR 50.47 and 10 CFR 50, no new or different type of equipment will operating MODE: Alert.’’ The Appendix E will continue to be met. be installed), a change in the method of plant amendment would also add a new Therefore, the proposed changes do not operation, or new operator actions. The definition for the term ‘‘Loss of Safety involve any reduction in a margin of safety. proposed change does not introduce failure Function (LOSF),’’ while redefining the modes that could result in a new accident, The NRC staff has reviewed the term ‘‘Visible Damage,’’ and deleting the and the change does not alter assumptions licensee’s analysis and, based on this term Initiating Condition (IC) HG1 and made in the safety analysis. This proposed review, it appears that the three associated EAL HG1.1, ‘‘Hazard— change increases the staff augmentation standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are response times in the DCPP Emergency Plan, Hostile Action resulting in loss of satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff which are demonstrated as acceptable physical control of the facility: General proposes to determine that the through a staffing analysis as required by 10 Emergency,’’ within the Callaway amendment request involves no CFR 50 Appendix E.IV.A.9. The proposed Plant’s Radiological Emergency significant hazards consideration. change does not alter or prevent the ability Response Plan (RERP). Attorney for licensee: John O’Neill, of the ERO to perform their intended Basis for proposed no significant functions to mitigate the consequences of an Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, hazards consideration determination: accident or event. 2300 N Street NW, Washington, DC As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the Therefore, the proposed change does not 20037. licensee has provided its analysis of the NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. create the possibility of a new or different issue of no significant hazards Pascarelli. kind of accident from any accident consideration, which is presented previously evaluated. below: Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 3. Does the proposed change involve a Docket Nos. 50–275 and 50–323, Diablo significant reduction in a margin of safety? 1. Does the proposed amendment involve Response: No. a significant increase in the probability or Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 Margin of safety is associated with consequences of an accident previously and 2 (DCPP), San Luis Obispo County, confidence in the ability of the fission evaluated? California product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, reactor Response: No. Date of amendment request: coolant system pressure boundary, and The proposed changes to the Callaway containment structure) to limit the level of Plant emergency action levels do not impact September 12, 2018. A publicly- available version is in ADAMS under radiation dose to the public. The proposed the physical function of plant structures, Accession No. ML18255A368. change is associated with the DCPP systems, or components (SSC) or the manner Description of amendment request: Emergency Plan staffing and does not impact in which SSCs perform their design function. operation of the plant or its response to The proposed changes have no effect on The proposed amendments would transients or accidents. The change does not accident initiators or precursors, nor do they revise the Emergency Plan for DCPP to alter design assumptions. The proposed affect the Technical Specifications. The extend staff augmentation times for proposed change does not involve a change changes do not alter or prevent the ability of Emergency Response Organization in the method of plant operation, and no SSCs to perform their intended function to mitigate the consequences of an initiating (ERO) functions. accident analyses will be affected by the event within assumed acceptance limits. No Basis for proposed no significant proposed change. Safety analysis acceptance operating procedures or administrative hazards consideration determination: criteria are not affected by this proposed controls that function to prevent or mitigate As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the change. accidents are affected by the proposed licensee has provided its analysis of the A staffing analysis and a functional changes. Therefore, the proposed changes do issue of no significant hazards analysis were performed for the proposed not involve a significant increase in the change on the timeliness of performing major consideration, which is presented tasks for the functional areas of the DCPP probability or consequences of an accident below: Emergency Plan. The analyses concluded previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed amendment create 1. Does the proposed change involve a that an extension in staff augmentation times the possibility of a new or different kind of significant increase in the probability or would not significantly affect the ability to accident from any accident previously consequences of an accident previously perform the required Emergency Plan tasks. evaluated? evaluated? Therefore, the proposed change is Response: No. Response: No. determined to not adversely affect the ability The proposed changes do not involve a The proposed increase in staff to meet 10 CFR 50.54(q)(2), the requirements physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new augmentation times has no effect on normal of 10 CFR 50 Appendix E, and the emergency VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:36 Dec 03, 2018 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04DEN1.SGM 04DEN1

62622 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2018 / Notices planning standards as described in 10 CFR an initiator or precursor to any accident Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 50.47 (b). previously evaluated. The CST water source Inc.; Georgia Power Company; Therefore, the proposed change does not is not assumed to mitigate the consequences Oglethorpe Power Corporation; involve a significant reduction in a margin of for any design basis accident, but is assumed Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia; safety. as a water source for the RCIC when and City of Dalton, Georgia, Docket Nos. The NRC staff has reviewed the mitigating a station blackout event. The 50–321 and 50–366, Edwin I. Hatch licensee’s analysis and, based on this revised AV will ensure the RCIC can perform this function. Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, review, it appears that the three Appling County, Georgia Therefore, the proposed change does not standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are involve a significant increase in the Date of amendment request: August 6, satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff probability or consequences of an accident 2018. A publicly-available version is in proposes to determine that the previously evaluated. ADAMS under Accession No. amendment request involves no 2. Does the proposed change create the ML18218A297. significant hazards consideration. possibility of a new or different kind of Description of amendment request: Attorney for licensee: Jennifer Post, accident from any accident previously The amendments would revise the Pacific Gas and Electric Company, P.O. evaluated? technical specification (TS) end state for Box 7442, San Francisco, CA 94120. Response: No. NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. the required actions of the drywell spray The proposed change ensures the HPCI and Pascarelli. RCIC pump automatic suction transfer function of the residual heat removal functions from the CST to the suppression system for the Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit Southern Nuclear Operating Company, pool occur without introducing the Nos. 1 and 2. Specifically, TS 3.6.2.5, Inc.; Georgia Power Company; possibility of vortex formation or air ‘‘Residual Heat Removal (RHR) Drywell Oglethorpe Power Corporation; intrusion in the HPCI or RCIC pump suction Spray,’’ would be revised to modify the Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia; path. HPCI, RCIC, and CST design functions required end state of Cold Shutdown and City of Dalton, Georgia, Docket Nos. are unaffected by this change. The change to (Mode 4) to the new required end state 50–321 and 50–366, Edwin I. Hatch the HPCI and RCIC automatic suction transfer of Hot Shutdown (Mode 3) if the needed Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, functions would not create the possibility of action statements are not met for Unit Appling County, Georgia any credible failure mechanism not Nos. 1 and 2. considered in the design and licensing basis. Basis for proposed no significant Date of amendment request: June 29, Additionally, no new credible failure modes hazards consideration determination: 2018. A publicly-available version is in for the CST are introduced by the proposed ADAMS under Accession No. As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the changes. ML18180A396. licensee has provided its analysis of the Therefore, the proposed changes do not Description of amendment request: create the possibility of a new or different issue of no significant hazards The amendments would revise the kind of accident from any previously consideration, which is presented Technical Specification (TS) evaluated. below, with NRC staff edits in square requirements for the Hatch Nuclear 3. Does the proposed change involve a brackets: Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2. Specifically, significant reduction in a margin of safety? 1. Does the proposed amendment involve the amendments would increase the Response: No. a significant increase in the probability or allowable values (AV) specified in TS The proposed change ensures the HPCI and consequences of an accident previously Table 3.3.5.1–1 for automatic transfer of RCIC pump automatic suction transfer evaluated? the high pressure coolant injection functions from the CST to the suppression Response: No. pool occur without introducing the The RHR drywell spray function is not an (HPCI) pump suction alignment from initiator of any accident previously evaluated possibility of vortex formation or air the condensate storage tank (CST) to the intrusion in the HPCI or RCIC pump suction but is assumed to mitigate some accidents suppression pool for Unit Nos. 1 and 2. path. The applicable margins of safety are the previously evaluated. However, the proposed The proposed change would also AVs for the HPCI and RCIC pump automatic change does not alter the design or safety increase the AV specified in TS Table suction transfer functions. The proposed function of the RHR system, including the 3.3.5.2–1 for automatic transfer of the change increases the margin of safety by drywell spray mode. The proposed change reactor core isolation cooling (RCIC) revising the affected AVs to address more revises the end state when the time allowed severe circumstances than considered in the by TS to continue operation is exceeded for pump suction alignment from the CST the drywell spray mode of the RHR system. to the suppression pool for Unit No. 1. current AVs. The proposed change does not This request is limited to an end state where Basis for proposed no significant exceed or alter a design basis or safety limit. entry into the shutdown mode is for a short hazards consideration determination: Therefore, the proposed change does not interval and the primary purpose is to correct As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the involve a significant reduction in the margin the initiating condition and return to power of safety. operation as soon as practical. Risk insights licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards from both the qualitative and quantitative The NRC staff has reviewed the risk assessment were used to support a consideration, which is presented licensee’s analysis and, based on this change in end state for similar boiling water below: review, it appears that the three reactor (BWR) systems as summarized in GE 1. Does the proposed change involve a standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are [General Electric] topical report NEDC– significant increase in the probability or satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 32988. These assessments provide an consequences of an accident previously proposes to determine that the integrated discussion of deterministic and evaluated? amendment request involves no probabilistic issues focusing on specific TSs Response: No. used to support similar TS end states and The proposed change ensures the HPCI and significant hazards consideration. associated restrictions. SNC [Southern RCIC pump automatic suction transfer Attorney for licensee: Millicent Nuclear Operating Company] finds that the functions from the CST to the suppression Ronnlund, Vice President and General risk insights also support the conclusion of pool occur without introducing the Counsel, Southern Nuclear Operating the proposed change to the RHR drywell possibility of vortex formation or air Co., Inc., P.O. Box 1295, Birmingham, spray TS. Therefore, the probability of an intrusion in the HPCI or RCIC pump suction AL 35201–1295. accident previously evaluated is not path. The water level of the CST on significantly increased, if at all. automatic suction transfer of the HPCI and NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. The consequences of accidents previously RCIC systems to the suppression pool is not Markley. evaluated that assume the drywell spray VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:36 Dec 03, 2018 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04DEN1.SGM 04DEN1

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2018 / Notices 62623 function in accident mitigation are based on approach for allowing TS changes, in Basis for proposed no significant the plant operating with the reactor critical accordance with NRC staff guidance, are met. hazards consideration determination: and at power. A DBA in hot shutdown would The risk assessments used to justify TS As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the be considerably less severe than a DBA changes associated with containment heat removal systems are also applicable [to] the licensee has provided its analysis of the [design-basis accident] occurring during power operation since hot shutdown is RHR drywell spray TS because these systems issue of no significant hazards associated with lower initial energy level and perform an equivalent function as the consideration, which is presented reduced decay heat load. The risk and drywell spray mode of the RHR system and below: defense-in-depth reasoning, provided in GE there are no unique aspects of the RHR 1. Does the proposed amendment involve topical report NEDC–32988, supports the drywell spray containment heat removal a significant increase in the probability or conclusion that hot shutdown is as safe as function that would change the conclusion consequences of an accident previously cold shutdown (if not safer) for repairing an that a hot shutdown end state is acceptable. evaluated? inoperable RHR subsystem. SNC concludes The risk assessment used to justify the TS Response: No. the proposed change is acceptable in light of change associated with fission product The Emergency Core Cooling System defense-in-depth considerations and because cleanup systems is also applicable to the (ECCS) response to a large break LOCA as the time spent in hot shutdown to perform RHR drywell spray TS because the systems described in the WBN Unit 2 dual-unit the repair is infrequent and limited. are functionally similar and there are no Updated Final Safety Analysis Report Therefore, the consequences of any accident aspects of the HNP [Hatch Nuclear Plant] (UFSAR) Section 15.4.1 incorporated an that assumes the drywell spray function are RHR drywell spray fission product cleanup explicit evaluation of the effects of TCD not significantly affected by this change. function that would change the conclusion [thermal conductivity degradation]. The Consequently, the proposed change does that a hot shutdown end state is acceptable. UFSAR evaluation considered fuel burn-up not involve a significant increase in the Therefore, SNC has determined that the values that represent multi-cycle cores where probability or consequences of an accident acceptability of hot shutdown end state for the effects of TCD would be more evident. previously evaluated. systems previously evaluated with similar These analyses showed that the criteria 2. Does the proposed amendment create functions is also acceptable for the HNP RHR specified in Title 10 of the Code of Federal the possibility of a new or different kind of drywell spray TS. As such, the net change to Regulations (CFR) § 50.46 are met. The core accident from any accident previously the margin of safety as a result of the design process evaluates each reload core to evaluated? proposed change is insignificant. verify that no fuel rods exceed the peaking Response: No. Therefore, the proposed change does not limits shown in the WBN dual-unit UFSAR The proposed change does not change the involve a significant reduction in a margin of Table 15.4–24. This ensures that the LOCA design function or operation of the RHR safety. analysis in the WBN Unit 2 dual-unit UFSAR drywell spray function. No plant The NRC staff has reviewed the remains bounding for future operating cycles. modifications or changes to the plant licensee’s analysis and, based on this The change to WBN Unit 2 OL Condition configuration or method of operation are review, it appears that the three 2.C(4) does not change the safety analysis or involved. If risk is assessed and managed, any plant feature or design. Thus, it is standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are concluded that a significant increase in the allowing a change to the end state for the satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff consequences of an accident previously RHR drywell spray TS when the allowed time for remaining in power operation with proposes to determine that the evaluated will not occur as a result of the one or more RHR drywell spray subsystem amendment request involves no proposed change. inoperable is exceeded, i.e., entry into hot significant hazards consideration. Therefore, the proposed change does not shutdown rather than cold shutdown to Attorney for licensee: Millicent involve a significant increase in the repair equipment, will not introduce new Ronnlund, Vice President and General probability or consequences of an accident failure modes or effects and will not, in the Counsel, Southern Nuclear Operating previously evaluated. absences of other unrelated failures, lead to 2. Does the proposed amendment create Co., Inc., P.O. Box 1295, Birmingham, the possibility of a new or different kind of an accident whose consequences exceed the AL 35201–1295. consequences of accidents previously accident from any accident previously NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. evaluated? evaluated. The addition of a requirement to Markley. assess and manage the risk introduced by this Response: No. The proposed change does not create the change and the commitment to adhere to the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), possibility of a new or different kind of industry guidance related to TS end states Docket No. 50–391, Watts Bar Nuclear accident from any accident previously further minimizes possible concerns. Plant (WBN), Unit 2, Rhea County, evaluated. The proposed change to WBN Therefore, the proposed change does not Tennessee Unit 2 OL condition 2.C(4) does not change create the possibility of a new or different or modify the plant design, introduce any kind of accident from any accident Date of amendment request: March 5, new modes of plant operation, change or previously evaluated. 2018. A publicly-available version is in modify the design of the ECCS, or change or 3. Does the proposed amendment involve ADAMS under Accession No. modify the accident analyses presented in a significant reduction in a margin of safety? ML18064A192. the UFSAR. Response: No. Description of amendment request: Therefore, the proposed change does not The proposed change does not affect any The amendment would revise WBN create the possibility of a new or different of the controlling values of parameters used kind of accident from any previously Unit 2 Operating License (OL) to avoid exceeding regulatory or licensing evaluated. limits. The proposed change does not exceed Condition 2.C(4) to permit the use of the PAD4TCD computer program to 3. Does the proposed amendment involve or alter the design basis or safety limits, or a significant reduction in a margin of safety? any limiting safety system settings. The continue to establish core operating Response: No. requirement for the drywell spray mode of limits until the WBN Unit 2 steam The LOCA safety analysis for WBN Unit 2 the RHR system to perform its designated generators (SGs) are replaced with SGs as described in the UFSAR explicitly safety function is unaffected. The risk equivalent to those in WBN Unit 1. The accounts for the effect of TCD. The results of assessment approach used in the GE topical proposed change to allow the continued this analysis has established that WBN Unit report NEDC–32988 is comprehensive and use of PAD4TCD to establish core 2 can operate safely in the unlikely event that follows NRC staff guidance. The risk a design basis LOCA event occurs, there are operating limits until the installation of assessment, summarized in GE topical report large margins to the regulatory limits when NEDC–32988, included evaluations of the WBN Unit 2 replacement SGs explicitly accounting for TCD. This proposed systems with similar functions as the drywell reflects TVA’s plan for transitioning to change to OL condition 2.C(4) does not spray function of the RHR system. In PAD5 as part of the full spectrum loss- change this analysis or its conclusions. Thus, addition, the NEDC–32988 risk analyses of-coolant accident (LOCA) Evaluation the proposed change does not result in a show that the criteria of the three-tiered Methodology. significant reduction in a margin of safety. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:36 Dec 03, 2018 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04DEN1.SGM 04DEN1

62624 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2018 / Notices The NRC staff has reviewed the Exelon Generation Company, LLC, eliminate the Nuclear Advisory licensee’s analysis and, based on this Docket Nos. STN 50–456 and STN 50– Committee requirements for each review, it appears that the three 457, Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, facility. standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are Will County, Illinois Date of issuance: November 15, 2018. satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff Effective date: As of the date of Date of amendment request: February issuance and shall be implemented proposes to determine that the 1, 2018, as supplemented by letters amendment request involves no within 60 days of the date of issuance. dated July 9, 2018, and August 3, 2018. Amendment Nos.: 327 (Calvert Cliffs, significant hazards consideration. Publicly-available versions are in Unit 1), 305 (Calvert Cliffs, Unit 2), 232 Attorney for licensee: General ADAMS under Accession Nos. (Nine Mile Point, Unit 1), 173 (Nine Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, ML18036A227, ML18191B304, and Mile Point, Unit 2), and 133 (Ginna). A 400 West Summit Hill Drive, 6A West ML18215A421, respectively. publicly-available version is in ADAMS Tower, Knoxville, TN 37902. Brief description of amendments: The under Accession No. ML18309A301. amendments revised the licensing basis Documents related to these amendments NRC Branch Chief: Undine Shoop. for protection from tornado-generated are listed in the Safety Evaluation III. Notice of Issuance of Amendments missiles by identifying the TORMIS enclosed with the amendments. to Facility Operating Licenses and Computer Code as the methodology Renewed Facility Operating License Combined Licenses used for assessing tornado-generated Nos. DPR–53, DPR–69, DPR–63, NPF– missile protection of unprotected plant 69, and DPR–18: The amendments During the period since publication of structures, systems, and components. revised the Renewed Facility Operating the last biweekly notice, the Date of issuance: November 8, 2018. Licenses. Commission has issued the following Effective date: As of the date of Date of initial notice in Federal amendments. The Commission has issuance and shall be implemented Register: May 8, 2018 (83 FR 20861). determined for each of these within 90 days from the date of The Commission’s related evaluation amendments that the application issuance. of the amendments is contained in a complies with the standards and Amendment Nos: 199 (Unit 1) and safety evaluation dated November 15, requirements of the Atomic Energy Act 199 (Unit 2). A publicly-available 2018. of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the version is in ADAMS under Accession No significant hazards consideration Commission’s rules and regulations. No. ML18291A980; documents related comments received: No. The Commission has made appropriate to these amendments are listed in the Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50–397, findings as required by the Act and the related Safety Evaluation enclosed with Columbia Generating Station, Benton Commission’s rules and regulations in the amendments. County, Washington 10 CFR chapter I, which are set forth in Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF–72 and NPF–77: The Date of amendment request: the license amendment. December 18, 2017. amendments revised the licensing basis. A notice of consideration of issuance Date of initial notice in Federal Brief description of amendment: The of amendment to facility operating Register: May 22, 2018 (83 FR 23734). amendment revised Section 4.2 of license or combined license, as The supplemental letters dated July 9, Appendix B, ‘‘Environmental Protection applicable, proposed no significant 2018, and August 3, 2018, provided Plan (Nonradiological),’’ of the hazards consideration determination, Columbia Generating Station Renewed additional information that clarified the and opportunity for a hearing in Facility Operating License to application, did not expand the scope of connection with these actions, was incorporate the terms and conditions of the application as originally noticed, published in the Federal Register as the incidental take statement included and did not change the NRC staff’s indicated. in the biological opinion issued by the original proposed no significant hazards National Marine Fisheries Service on Unless otherwise indicated, the consideration determination as March 10, 2017. Commission has determined that these published in the Federal Register. Date of issuance: November 8, 2018. amendments satisfy the criteria for The Commission’s related evaluation Effective date: As of the date of categorical exclusion in accordance of the amendments is contained in a issuance and shall be implemented with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant Safety Evaluation dated November 8, within 60 days from the date of to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental 2018. issuance. impact statement or environmental No significant hazards consideration Amendment No.: 252. A publicly- assessment need be prepared for these comments received: No. available version is in ADAMS under amendments. If the Commission has Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Accession No. ML18283A125; prepared an environmental assessment Docket Nos. 50–317 and 50–318, Calvert documents related to this amendment under the special circumstances Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant (Calvert are listed in the Safety Evaluation provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has Cliffs), Units 1 and 2, Calvert County, enclosed with the amendment. made a determination based on that Maryland; Exelon Generation Company, Renewed Facility Operating License assessment, it is so indicated. LLC, Docket Nos. 50–220 and 50–410, No. NPF–21: The amendment revised Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station (Nine the Renewed Facility Operating License For further details with respect to the and Environmental Protection Plan. action, see (1) the applications for Mile Point), Units 1 and 2, Oswego Date of initial notice in Federal amendment; (2) the amendment; and (3) County, New York; Exelon Generation Register: March 13, 2018 (83 FR the Commission’s related letter, Safety Company, LLC, Docket No. 50–244, R. E. 10916). Evaluation, and/or Environmental Ginna Nuclear Power Plant (Ginna), The Commission’s related evaluation Assessment, as indicated. All of these Wayne County, New York of the amendment is contained in a items can be accessed as described in Date of amendment request: March Safety Evaluation dated November 8, the ‘‘Obtaining Information and 26, 2018. 2018. Submitting Comments’’ section of this Brief description of amendments: The No significant hazards consideration document. amendments revised the licenses to comments received: No. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:36 Dec 03, 2018 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04DEN1.SGM 04DEN1

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2018 / Notices 62625 Indiana Michigan Power Company, Date of initial notice in Federal Specifications for selected Reactor Trip Docket Nos. 50–315 and 50–316, Donald Register: January 2, 2018 (83 FR 169). System (RTS) and Engineered Safety C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and The supplemental letters dated January Feature Actuation System (ESFAS) 2, Berrien County, Michigan 19, 2018, and August 14, 2018, provided instrumentation channels. The change Date of amendment request: June 11, additional information that clarified the allows selected RTS (Table 3.3.1–1) and 2018. application, did not expand the scope of ESFAS instrumentation channels (Table Brief description of amendments: The the application as originally noticed, 3.3.2–1) to be bypassed during amendments allow for deviation from and did not change the NRC staff’s surveillance testing. Additionally, the National Fire Protection Association 805 original proposed no significant hazards change allows RTS and ESFAS input requirements to allow the use of consideration determination as relays to be excluded from the Channel performance-based methods for flexible published in the Federal Register. Operational Test. The change allows metallic conduit in configurations other The Commission’s related evaluation testing of Nuclear Instrumentation than to connect components, and for of the amendments is contained in a System power range functions, which flexible metallic conduit in lengths Safety Evaluation dated November 13, are part of the RTS, with a permanently greater than short lengths. 2018. installed bypass capability, while other Date of issuance: November 16, 2018. No significant hazards consideration RTS and ESFAS functions will be Effective date: As of the date of comments received: No. capable of being bypassed utilizing issuance and shall be implemented Southern Nuclear Operating Company, permanent connections in the racks to within 90 days of issuance. Docket Nos. 50–348 and 50–364, Joseph connect a portable test box. Amendment Nos.: 342 (Unit 1) and Date of issuance: November 13, 2018. M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Effective date: As of the date of 324 (Unit 2). A publicly-available Houston County, Alabama version is in ADAMS under Accession issuance and shall be implemented No. ML18284A254; documents related Date of amendment request: within 60 days of issuance. to these amendments are listed in the December 21, 2017, as supplemented by Amendment No.: 132. A publicly- Safety Evaluation enclosed with the letter dated June 7, 2018. available version is in ADAMS under amendments. Brief description of amendments: The Accession No. ML18213A369; Renewed Facility Operating License amendments change Technical documents related to this amendment Nos. DPR–58 and DPR–74: The Specification (TS) 3.3.2, ‘‘Engineered are listed in the Safety Evaluation amendments revised the Renewed Safety Feature Actuation System enclosed with the amendment. Facility Operating Licenses. (ESFAS) Instrumentation,’’ by adding Renewed Facility Operating License Date of initial notice in Federal TS Actions that allow time to restore No. DPR–18: The amendment revised Register: August 28, 2018 (83 FR one high steam flow channel per steam the Renewed Facility Operating License 43905). line to Operable status before requiring and Technical Specifications. The Commission’s related evaluation a unit shutdown in the event two Date of initial notice in Federal of the amendments is contained in a channels in one or more steam lines are Register: February 6, 2018 (83 FR Safety Evaluation dated November 16, discovered inoperable due to the trip 5281). 2018. setting not within Allowable Value. The Commission’s related evaluation No significant hazards consideration Date of issuance: November 7, 2018. of the amendment is contained in a comments received: No. Effective date: As of the date of Safety Evaluation dated November 13, issuance and shall be implemented 2018. Indiana Michigan Power Company, within 30 days of issuance. No significant hazards consideration Docket Nos. 50–315 and 50–316, Donald Amendment Nos.: 221 (Unit 1) and comments received: No. C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 218 (Unit 2). A publicly-available 2, Berrien County, Michigan Entergy Louisiana, LLC, and Entergy version is in ADAMS under Accession Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50–458, Date of amendment request: No. ML18271A207; documents related River Bend Station, Unit 1, West November 7, 2017, as supplemented by to these amendments are listed in the Feliciana Parish, Louisiana letters dated January 19, 2018, and Safety Evaluation enclosed with the August 14, 2018. amendments. Date of amendment request: Brief description of amendments: The Renewed Facility Operating License November 15, 2017, as supplemented by amendments revised the Emergency Nos. NPF–2 and NPF–8: The letter dated April 26, 2018. Plan to move the Technical Support amendments revised the Renewed Brief description of amendment: The Center to a different location in a new Facility Operating Licenses and TSs. amendment revised the River Bend facility located within the existing Date of initial notice in Federal Station, Unit 1, Technical Specifications protected area. Register: July 31, 2018 (83 FR 36977). by replacing the existing specifications Date of issuance: November 13, 2018. The Commission’s related evaluation related to ‘‘operations with a potential Effective date: As of the date of of the amendments is contained in a for draining the reactor vessel’’ with issuance and shall be implemented Safety Evaluation dated November 7, revised requirements for reactor within 180 days of issuance. 2018. pressure vessel water inventory control Amendment Nos.: 341 (Unit No. 1) No significant hazards consideration to protect Safety Limit 2.1.1.3. Safety and 323 (Unit No. 2). A publicly- comments received: No. Limit 2.1.1.3 requires reactor vessel available version is in ADAMS under water level to be greater than the top of Accession No. ML18249A019; Exelon Generation Company, LLC, active irradiated fuel. The amendment documents related to these amendments Docket No. 50–244, R. E. Ginna Nuclear adopted changes with variations, as are listed in the Safety Evaluation Power Plant, Wayne County, New York noted in the license amendment request, enclosed with the amendments. Date of amendment request: and was based on the NRC-approved Renewed Facility Operating License November 16, 2017. safety evaluation for Technical Nos. DPR–58 and DPR–74: The Brief description of amendment: The Specifications Task Force (TSTF) amendments revised the Renewed amendment revised the R. E. Ginna Traveler TSTF–542, Revision 2, Facility Operating Licenses. Nuclear Power Plant Technical ‘‘Reactor Pressure Vessel Water VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:36 Dec 03, 2018 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04DEN1.SGM 04DEN1

62626 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2018 / Notices Inventory Control,’’ dated December 20, Amendment Nos.: 283 (Unit No. 3) information, analyze relevant issues and 2016. and 277 (Unit No. 4). A publicly- facts, and formulate proposed positions Date of issuance: November 7, 2018. available version is in ADAMS under and actions, as appropriate, for Effective date: As of the date of Accession No. ML18255A360; deliberation by the Full Committee. issuance and shall be implemented documents related to these amendments within 120 days from the date of Members of the public desiring to are listed in the Safety Evaluation issuance. provide oral statements and/or written enclosed with the amendments. Amendment No.: 193. A publicly- Renewed Facility Operating License comments should notify the Designated available version is in ADAMS under Nos. DPR–31 and DPR–41: The Federal Official (DFO), Quynh Nguyen Accession No. ML18267A341; amendments revised the Renewed (Telephone 301–415–5844 or email: documents related to this amendment Facility Operating Licenses and TSs. Quynh.Nguyen@nrc.gov) five days prior are listed in the Safety Evaluation Date of initial notice in Federal to the meeting, if possible, so that enclosed with the amendment. Register: February 27, 2018 (83 FR arrangements can be made. Thirty-five Facility Operating License No. NPF– 8516). The supplemental letter dated hard copies of each presentation or 47: The amendment revised the Facility June 12, 2018, provided additional handout should be provided to the DFO Operating License and Technical information that clarified the thirty minutes before the meeting. In Specifications. application, did not expand the scope of addition, one electronic copy of each Date of initial notice in Federal the application as originally noticed, presentation should be emailed to the Register: January 30, 2018 (83 FR and did not change the NRC staff’s DFO one day before the meeting. If an 4292). The supplemental letter dated original proposed no significant hazards electronic copy cannot be provided April 26, 2018, provided additional consideration determination as within this timeframe, presenters information that clarified the published in the Federal Register. should provide the DFO with a CD application, did not expand the scope of The Commission’s related evaluation containing each presentation at least the application as originally noticed, of the amendments is contained in a thirty minutes before the meeting. and did not change the NRC staff’s Safety Evaluation dated November 14, Electronic recordings will be permitted original proposed no significant hazards 2018. consideration determination as only during those portions of the No significant hazards consideration published in the Federal Register. meeting that are open to the public. The comments received: No. The Commission’s related evaluation The Commission’s related evaluation public bridgeline number for the of the amendment is contained in a of the amendments is contained in a meeting is 866–822–3032, passcode Safety Evaluation dated November 7, Safety Evaluation dated November 14, 8272423. Detailed procedures for the 2018. 2018. conduct of and participation in ACRS No significant hazards consideration No significant hazards consideration meetings were published in the Federal comments received: No. comments received: No. Register on October 4, 2017 (82 FR 46312). Florida Power & Light Company, Docket Dated at Rockville, Maryland, on Nos. 50–250 and 50–251, Turkey Point November 20, 2018. Information regarding changes to the Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 3 and 4, For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. agenda, whether the meeting has been Miami-Dade County, Florida Craig G. Erlanger, canceled or rescheduled, and the time Date of amendment request: Director, Division of Operating Reactor allotted to present oral statements can December 21, 2017, as supplemented by Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor be obtained by contacting the identified Regulation. DFO. Moreover, in view of the letter dated June 12, 2018. Brief description of amendments: The [FR Doc. 2018–25728 Filed 12–3–18; 8:45 am] possibility that the schedule for ACRS amendments revised the Technical BILLING CODE 7590–01–P meetings may be adjusted by the Specifications (TSs) pertaining to the Chairman as necessary to facilitate the Engineered Safety Features Actuation conduct of the meeting, persons System instrumentation to resolve non- NUCLEAR REGULATORY planning to attend should check with conservative actions associated with the COMMISSION the DFO if such rescheduling would Containment ventilation isolation and result in a major inconvenience. Meeting of the Advisory Committee on the Control Room ventilation isolation If attending this meeting, please enter Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) functions. In addition, the amendments through the Three White Flint North Subcommittee on Planning and revised the Control Room ventilation Procedures building, 11601 Landsdown Street, isolation function to no longer credit North Bethesda, MD 20852. After Containment radiation monitoring The ACRS Subcommittee on Planning registering with Security, please instrumentation, eliminated redundant and Procedures will hold a meeting on radiation monitoring instrumentation proceed to conference room 1C3–1C5, December 5, 2018, at the U.S. Nuclear requirements, eliminated select core Regulatory Commission, Three White located directly behind the security alterations applicability requirements, Flint North, 11601 Landsdown Street, desk on the first floor. You may contact relocated radiation monitoring and Conference Rooms 1C3–1C5, North Mr. Theron Brown (Telephone 301– Reactor Coolant System leakage Bethesda, MD 20852. 415–6702) for assistance or to be detection requirements within the TSs The meeting will be open to public escorted to the meeting room. to align with their respective functions, attendance. Dated: November 28, 2018. and relocated the Spent Fuel Pool area The agenda for the subject meeting Christopher Brown, monitoring requirements to licensee- shall be as follows: Wednesday, controlled documents. December 5, 2018—12:00 p.m. until 1:00 Acting Chief, Technical Support Branch, Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards. Date of issuance: November 14, 2018. p.m. Effective date: As of the date of The Subcommittee will discuss [FR Doc. 2018–26226 Filed 12–3–18; 8:45 am] issuance and shall be implemented proposed ACRS activities and related BILLING CODE 7590–01–P within 90 days of issuance. matters. The Subcommittee will gather VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:36 Dec 03, 2018 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\04DEN1.SGM 04DEN1


Document Created: 2018-12-04 00:42:52
Document Modified: 2018-12-04 00:42:52
CategoryRegulatory Information
CollectionFederal Register
sudoc ClassAE 2.7:
GS 4.107:
AE 2.106:
PublisherOffice of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
SectionNotices
ActionBiweekly notice.
DatesComments must be filed by January 3, 2019. A request for a hearing must be filed by February 4, 2019.
ContactLynn Ronewicz, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1927, email: [email protected]
FR Citation83 FR 62618 
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR