Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations, 33263-33276 [2018-14779]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Notices
Article VII
The Commission and the State agree that
it is desirable to provide reciprocal
recognition of licenses for the materials listed
in Article I licensed by the other party or by
any other Agreement State.
Accordingly, the Commission and the State
agree to develop appropriate rules,
regulations, and procedures by which
reciprocity will be accorded.
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Article VIII
A. The Commission, upon its own
initiative after reasonable notice and
opportunity for hearing to the State or upon
request of the Governor of the State, may
terminate or suspend all or part of this
agreement and reassert the licensing and
regulatory authority vested in it under the
Act if the Commission finds that (1) such
termination or suspension is required to
protect public health and safety, or (2) the
State has not complied with one or more of
the requirements of Section 274 of the Act.
1. This Agreement will terminate without
further NRC action if the State does not
amend Wyoming Statute Section 35–11–
2004(c) to be compatible with Section
83b.(1)(A) of the Act by the end of the 2019
Wyoming legislative session. Upon passage
of a revised Wyoming Statute Section 35–11–
2004(c) that the NRC finds compatible with
Section 83b.(1)(A) of the Act, this paragraph
expires and is no longer part of the
Agreement.
B. The Commission may also, pursuant to
Section 274j. of the Act, temporarily suspend
all or part of this agreement if, in the
judgment of the Commission, an emergency
situation exists requiring immediate action to
protect public health and safety and the State
has failed to take necessary steps. The
Commission shall periodically review actions
taken by the State under this Agreement to
ensure compliance with Section 274 of the
Act, which requires a State program to be
adequate to protect public health and safety
with respect to the materials covered by this
Agreement and to be compatible with the
Commission’s program.
Article IX
In the licensing and regulation of
byproduct material as defined in Section
11e.(2) of the Act, or of any activity that
results in production of such material, the
State shall comply with the provisions of
Section 274o. of the Act, if in such licensing
and regulation, the State requires financial
surety arrangements for reclamation or longterm surveillance and maintenance of such
material.
A. The total amount of funds the State
collects for such purposes shall be
transferred to the United States if custody of
such material and its disposal site is
transferred to the United States upon
termination of the State license for such
material or any activity that results in the
production of such material. Such funds
include, but are not limited to, sums
collected for long-term surveillance or
maintenance. Such funds do not, however,
include monies held as surety where no
default has occurred and the reclamation or
other bonded activity has been performed;
and,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:07 Jul 16, 2018
Jkt 244001
33263
Article X
This Agreement shall become effective on
[date], and shall remain in effect unless and
until such time as it is terminated pursuant
to Article VIII.
Done at [location] this [date] day of
[month], 2018.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Kristine L. Svinicki, Chairman.
Done at [location] this [date] day of
[month], 2018.
For the State of Wyoming.
Matthew H. Mead,
Governor.
• Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for Docket ID NRC–2018–0140. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Jennifer
Borges; telephone: 301–287–9127;
email: Jennifer.Borges@nrc.gov. For
technical questions, contact the
individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
document.
• Mail comments to: May Ma, Office
of Administration, Mail Stop: TWFN–7–
A60M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555–
0001.
For additional direction on obtaining
information and submitting comments,
see ‘‘Obtaining Information and
Submitting Comments’’ in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
[FR Doc. 2018–14176 Filed 7–16–18; 8:45 am]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
Janet C. Burkhardt, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555–0001; telephone: 301–415–
1384, email: Janet.Burkhardt@nrc.gov.
B. Such surety or other financial
requirements must be sufficient to ensure
compliance with those standards established
by the Commission pertaining to bonds,
sureties, and financial arrangements to
ensure adequate reclamation and long-term
management of such byproduct material and
its disposal site.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[NRC–2018–0140]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Biweekly Notice; Applications and
Amendments to Facility Operating
Licenses and Combined Licenses
Involving No Significant Hazards
Considerations
I. Obtaining Information and
Submitting Comments
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Biweekly notice.
AGENCY:
Pursuant to Section 189a.(2)
of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) is
publishing this regular biweekly notice.
The Act requires the Commission to
publish notice of any amendments
issued, or proposed to be issued, and
grants the Commission the authority to
issue and make immediately effective
any amendment to an operating license
or combined license, as applicable,
upon a determination by the
Commission that such amendment
involves no significant hazards
consideration, notwithstanding the
pendency before the Commission of a
request for a hearing from any person.
This biweekly notice includes all
notices of amendments issued, or
proposed to be issued, from June 18,
2018, to June 29, 2018. The last
biweekly notice was published on July
3, 2018.
DATES: Comments must be filed by
August 16, 2018. A request for a hearing
must be filed by September 17, 2018.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
by any of the following methods:
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
A. Obtaining Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2018–
0140, 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 publiclyavailable information related to this
action by any of the following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for Docket ID NRC–2018–0140.
• NRC’s Agencywide Documents
Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may obtain publiclyavailable documents online in the
ADAMS Public Documents collection at
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/
adams.html. To begin the search, select
‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and then
select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS
Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS,
please contact the NRC’s Public
Document Room (PDR) reference staff at
1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by
email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. 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.
E:\FR\FM\17JYN1.SGM
17JYN1
33264
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Notices
B. Submitting Comments
Please include Docket ID NRC–2018–
0140, 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 https://
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.
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
II. Notice of Consideration of Issuance
of Amendments to Facility Operating
Licenses and Combined Licenses and
Proposed No Significant Hazards
Consideration Determination
The Commission has made a
proposed determination that the
following amendment requests involve
no significant hazards consideration.
Under the Commission’s regulations in
section 50.92 of title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (10 CFR), this
means that operation of the facility in
accordance with the proposed
amendment would not (1) involve a
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated, or (2) create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from
any accident previously evaluated; or
(3) involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety. The basis for this
proposed determination for each
amendment request is shown below.
The Commission is seeking public
comments on this proposed
determination. Any comments received
within 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice will be
considered in making any final
determination.
Normally, the Commission will not
issue the amendment until the
expiration of 60 days after the date of
publication of this notice. The
Commission may issue the license
amendment before expiration of the 60-
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:07 Jul 16, 2018
Jkt 244001
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
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/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
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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
E:\FR\FM\17JYN1.SGM
17JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Notices
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
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 Federallyrecognized Indian Tribe, or agency
thereof does not need to address the
standing requirements in 10 CFR
2.309(d) if the facility is located within
its boundaries. Alternatively, a State,
local governmental body, Federallyrecognized 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:07 Jul 16, 2018
Jkt 244001
with the NRC’s E-Filing rule (72 FR
49139; August 28, 2007, as amended at
77 FR 46562; August 3, 2012). The EFiling 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 https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/
e-submittals.html. Participants may not
submit paper copies of their filings
unless they seek an exemption in
accordance with the procedures
described below.
To comply with the procedural
requirements of E-Filing, at least 10
days prior to the filing deadline, the
participant should contact the Office of
the Secretary by email at
hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by telephone
at 301–415–1677, to (1) request a digital
identification (ID) certificate, which
allows the participant (or its counsel or
representative) to digitally sign
submissions and access the E-Filing
system for any proceeding in which it
is participating; and (2) advise the
Secretary that the participant will be
submitting a petition or other
adjudicatory document (even in
instances in which the participant, or its
counsel or representative, already holds
an NRC-issued digital ID certificate).
Based upon this information, the
Secretary will establish an electronic
docket for the hearing in this proceeding
if the Secretary has not already
established an electronic docket.
Information about applying for a
digital ID certificate is available on the
NRC’s public website at https://
www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/
getting-started.html. Once a participant
has obtained a digital ID certificate and
a docket has been created, the
participant can then submit
adjudicatory documents. Submissions
must be in Portable Document Format
(PDF). Additional guidance on PDF
submissions is available on the NRC’s
public website at https://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 EFiling 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
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
33265
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 https://
www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html, by email to
MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a tollfree 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
E:\FR\FM\17JYN1.SGM
17JYN1
33266
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Notices
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
have an NRC-issued digital ID certificate
as described above, click cancel when
the link requests certificates and you
will be automatically directed to the
NRC’s electronic hearing dockets where
you will be able to access any publicly
available documents in a particular
hearing docket. Participants are
requested not to include personal
privacy information, such as social
security numbers, home addresses, or
personal phone numbers in their filings,
unless an NRC regulation or other law
requires submission of such
information. For example, in some
instances, individuals provide home
addresses in order to demonstrate
proximity to a facility or site. With
respect to copyrighted works, except for
limited excerpts that serve the purpose
of the adjudicatory filings and would
constitute a Fair Use application,
participants are requested not to include
copyrighted materials in their
submission.
For further details with respect to
these license amendment applications,
see the application for amendment
which is available for public inspection
in ADAMS and at the NRC’s PDR. For
additional direction on accessing
information related to this document,
see the ‘‘Obtaining Information and
Submitting Comments’’ section of this
document.
Dominion Energy Nuclear Connecticut,
Inc. (DENC), Docket No. 50–423,
Millstone Power Station, Unit No. 3
(MPS3), New London County,
Connecticut
Date of amendment request: April 4,
2018. A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No.
ML18100A055.
Description of amendment request:
The amendment would revise the MPS3
Technical Specifications (TSs).
Specifically, with one Control Building
Inlet Ventilation Radiation monitor
channel inoperable for greater than 7
days, or if both radiation monitor
channels are inoperable, DENC proposes
to revise and reformat Action 18 in TS
Table 3.3–3, Functional Unit 7.e,
‘‘Control Building Inlet Ventilation
Radiation,’’ to allow control room
operators to manually place one train of
the Control Room Emergency
Ventilation System (CREVS) in the
emergency mode of operation to provide
additional time to restore one channel of
Control Building Inlet Ventilation
Radiation monitoring to OPERABLE
status.
Basis for proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination:
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
licensee has provided its analysis of the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:07 Jul 16, 2018
Jkt 244001
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.
Operation of MPS3 in accordance with the
proposed change does not involve a
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated. The proposed change removes an
overly restrictive requirement and adds a
conservative requirement for actions to be
taken when there is a loss of operability of
the CREVS actuation instrumentation. This
does not increase the probability of an
accident previously evaluated since the
CREVS actuation itself is not an accident
initiator. The proposed change is consistent
with standard TSs for Westinghouse plants
(NUREG–1431) and provides assurance that
the CREVS is in the conservative mode of
operation for a response to an accident.
Analysis demonstrates that with one train of
the CREVS in the emergency mode of
operation, control room operators are
adequately protected from the radiological
consequences of design basis accident events.
Therefore, the probability or consequences of
an accident previously evaluated is not
significantly increased.
Based on the above, 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.
Operation of MPS3 in accordance with the
proposed change does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated. The proposed change does not
involve a physical alteration of the plant or
change in the methods governing normal
plant operation. The proposed change
replaces the overly restrictive shutdown
requirement with a conservative action to be
taken upon loss of CREVS actuation
instrumentation operability, thereby avoiding
the risk associated with an immediate
controlled shutdown. Therefore, the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated is not created.
With one train of CREVS in the emergency
mode of operation, DENC has confirmed that
MPS3 is in compliance with the current
radiological analyses of record for design
basis accidents with dose consequences to
the control room. Therefore, the proposed
change does not affect the design basis
analyses and does not alter the assumptions
made in the MPS3 accident analysis.
Based on the above, the proposed
amendment does not create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a
significant reduction in the margin of safety?
Response: No.
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Operation of MPS3 in accordance with the
proposed change does not involve a
significant reduction in the margin of safety.
The proposed change revises and reformats
the Control Building lnlet Ventilation
Radiation TS to place the CREVS in the
conservative mode of operation for a
response to an accident. The proposed
change provides additional time to restore an
inoperable radiation monitor channel instead
of requiring an immediate controlled plant
shutdown and suspension of movement of
recently irradiated fuel assemblies, if
applicable. A plant shutdown is a transient
that may be avoided by providing a limited
time to make repairs. In addition, the control
room operators are adequately protected from
the radiological consequences of design basis
accident events with one train of the CREVS
in the emergency mode of operation. The
potential to avoid a plant transient in
conjunction with protecting control room
operators offsets any risk associated with the
proposed change.
Therefore, the proposed change does not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.
Based on the above, the proposed
amendment does not involve a significant
reduction in the margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee’s analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Lillian M.
Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion
Energy, Inc., 120 Tredegar Street, RS–2,
Richmond, VA 23219.
NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna.
Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Docket Nos.
50–325 and 50–324, Brunswick Steam
Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2 (Brunswick
or BSEP), Brunswick County, North
Carolina
Date of amendment request: April 4,
2018, as supplemented by letter dated
May 29, 2018. Publicly-available
versions are in ADAMS under
Accession Nos. ML18094B058 and
ML18149A487, respectively.
Description of amendment request:
The amendments would modify the
BSEP Technical Specifications (TSs) to
relocate the pressure-temperature limit
curves to a licensee-controlled Pressure
and Temperature Limits Report (PTLR).
The amendment request was submitted
in accordance with guidance provided
in NRC Generic Letter 96–03,
‘‘Relocation of the Pressure Temperature
Limit Curves and Low Temperature
Overpressure Protections System
Limits,’’ dated January 31, 1996.
Basis for proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination:
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
E:\FR\FM\17JYN1.SGM
17JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Notices
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
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 license amendment adopts
the NRC approved methodology described in
Boiling Water Reactor Owner’s Group
(BWROG) Licensing Topical Report (LTR)
(BWROG–TP–11–022–A, SIR–05–044,
Revision 1–A), ‘‘Pressure Temperature Limits
Report Methodology for Boiling Water
Reactors.’’ The BSEP PTLR was developed
based on the methodology and template
provided in the BWROG LTR.
10 CFR 50, Appendix G, establishes
requirements to protect the integrity of the
reactor coolant pressure boundary (RCPB) in
nuclear power plants.
Implementing this NRC approved
methodology does not reduce the ability to
protect the reactor coolant pressure boundary
as specified in Appendix G, nor will this
change increase the probability of
malfunction of plant equipment, or the
failure of plant structures, systems, or
components. Incorporation of the new
methodology for calculating pressure and
temperature limit curves, and the relocation
of the pressure and temperature limit curves
from the TS to the PTLR provides an
equivalent level of assurance that the reactor
coolant pressure boundary is capable of
performing its intended safety functions.
The proposed changes do not adversely
affect accident initiators or precursors, and
do not alter the design assumptions,
conditions, or configuration of the plant or
the manner in which the plant is operated
and maintained. The ability of structures,
systems, and components to perform their
intended safety functions is not altered or
prevented by the proposed changes, and the
assumptions used in determining the
radiological consequences of previously
evaluated accidents are not affected.
Therefore, the proposed amendment 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.
Creation of the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident requires creating
one or more new accident precursors. New
accident precursors may be created by
modifications of plant configuration,
including changes in allowable modes of
operation.
The change in methodology for calculating
pressure and temperature limits and the
relocation of those limits to the PTLR do not
alter or involve any design basis accident
initiators. Reactor coolant pressure boundary
integrity will continue to be maintained in
accordance with 10 CFR part 50, Appendix
G, and the assumed accident performance of
plant structures, systems and components
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:07 Jul 16, 2018
Jkt 244001
will not be affected. 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 the
installed equipment is not being operated in
a new or different manner.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does
not create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not affect the
function of the reactor coolant pressure
boundary or its response during plant
transients. Calculating the Brunswick
pressure temperature limits using the NRC
approved structural integrity methodology
ensures adequate margins of safety relating to
reactor coolant pressure boundary integrity
are maintained. The proposed changes do not
alter the manner in which the Limiting
Conditions for Operation pressure and
temperature limits for the reactor coolant
pressure boundary are determined. There are
no changes to the setpoints at which
protective actions are initiated, and the
operability requirements for equipment
assumed to operate for accident mitigation
are not affected.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does
not result in 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: Kathryn B.
Nolan, Deputy General Counsel, 550
South Tryon Street, M/C DEC45A,
Charlotte, NC 28202.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Booma
Venkataraman.
Exelon FitzPatrick, LLC and Exelon
Generation Company, LLC, Docket No.
50–333, James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear
Power Plant (FitzPatrick), Oswego
County, New York
Date of amendment request: January
31, 2018. A publicly-available version is
in ADAMS under Accession No.
ML18037A782.
Description of amendment request:
The amendment would revise
FitzPatrick’s emergency plan by
changing the emergency action level
(EAL) schemes. The proposed changes
are based on the Nuclear Energy
Institute’s (NEI’s) guidance in NEI 99–
01, Revision 6, ‘‘Development of
Emergency Action Levels for NonPassive Reactors,’’ which was endorsed
by the NRC in a letter dated March 28,
2013 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML12346A463).
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
33267
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 FitzPatrick’s EAL
schemes to adopt the NRC-endorsed
guidance in NEI 99–01, Revision 6 do not
reduce the capability to meet the emergency
planning requirements established in 10 CFR
50.47 and 10 CFR part 50, Appendix E. The
proposed changes do not reduce the
functionality, performance, or capability of
FitzPatrick’s ERO [emergency response
organization] to respond in mitigating the
consequences of any design basis accident.
The probability of a reactor accident
requiring implementation of Emergency Plan
EALs has no relevance in determining
whether the proposed changes to the EALs
reduce the effectiveness of the Emergency
Plans. As discussed in Section D, ‘‘Planning
Basis,’’ of NUREG–0654, Revision 1, ‘‘Criteria
for Preparation and Evaluation of
Radiological Emergency Response Plants and
Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power
Plants:’’
‘‘. . . The overall objective of emergency
response plans is to provide dose savings
(and in some cases immediate life saving) for
a spectrum of accidents that could produce
offsite doses in excess of Protective Action
Guides (PAGs). No single specific accident
sequence should be isolated as the one for
which to plan because each accident could
have different consequences, both in nature
and degree. Further, the range of possible
selection for a planning basis is very large,
starting with a zero point of requiring no
planning at all because significant offsite
radiological accident consequences are
unlikely to occur, to planning for the worst
possible accident, regardless of its extremely
low likelihood. . . .’’
Therefore, Exelon did not consider the risk
insights regarding any specific accident
initiation or progression in evaluating the
proposed changes.
The proposed changes do not involve any
physical changes to plant equipment or
systems, nor do they alter the assumptions of
any accident analyses. The proposed changes
do not adversely affect accident initiators or
precursors nor do they alter the design
assumptions, conditions, and configuration
or the manner in which the plants are
operated and maintained. The proposed
changes do not adversely affect the ability of
Structures, Systems, or Components (SSCs)
to perform their intended safety functions in
mitigating the consequences of an initiating
event within the assumed acceptance limits.
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
E:\FR\FM\17JYN1.SGM
17JYN1
33268
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Notices
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to FitzPatrick’s EAL
schemes to adopt the NRC-endorsed
guidance in NEI 99–01, Revision 6 do not
involve any physical changes to plant
systems or equipment. The proposed changes
do not involve the addition of any new plant
equipment. The proposed changes will not
alter the design configuration, or method of
operation of plant equipment beyond its
normal functional capabilities. All
FitzPatrick ERO functions will continue to be
performed as required. The proposed changes
do not create any new credible failure
mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident
initiators.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not
create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from those that have been
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to FitzPatrick’s EAL
schemes to adopt the NRC-endorsed
guidance in NEI 99–01, Revision 6 do not
alter or exceed a design basis or safety limit.
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 manner in which any SSC is
operated. Margins of safety are unaffected by
the proposed changes to adopt the NEI 99–
01, Revision 6 EAL scheme guidance. The
applicable requirements of 10 CFR 50.47 and
10 CFR part 50, Appendix E will continue to
be met.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not
involve any reduction in a margin of safety.
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
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: Donald P.
Ferraro, Assistant General Counsel,
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 200
Exelon Way, Suite 305, Kennett Square,
PA 19348.
NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC,
Docket No. 50–289 and 50–320, Three
Mile Island Nuclear Station (TMI), Unit
Nos. 1 and 2, Dauphin County,
Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: March
19, 2018. A publicly-available version is
in ADAMS under Accession No.
ML18078A578.
Description of amendment request:
The amendment would revise the TMI
Site Emergency Plan (SEP) on-shift and
emergency response organization (ERO)
staffing to support the planned
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:07 Jul 16, 2018
Jkt 244001
permanent cessation of operations and
permanent defueling of TMI, Unit 1.
Specifically, the proposed changes
would eliminate the on-shift positions
not needed for the safe storage of spent
fuel in the spent fuel pool during the
initial decommissioning period and
eliminate the ERO positions not
necessary to effectively respond to
credible accidents for a permanently
shutdown and defueled power reactor
facility. The proposed changes will also
relocate full augmentation position
requirements from the SEP to the
Emergency Preparedness Implementing
Procedures.
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 TMI
Emergency Plan do not impact the function
of plant Structures, Systems, or Components
(SSCs). The proposed changes do not involve
the modification of any plant equipment or
affect plant operation. The proposed changes
do not affect accident initiators or precursors,
nor do the proposed changes alter design
assumptions. The proposed changes do not
prevent the ability of the on-shift staff and
ERO to perform their intended functions to
mitigate the consequences of any accident or
event that will be credible in the
permanently defueled condition. The
proposed changes only remove positions that
will no longer be needed or credited in the
Emergency Plan in the permanently defueled
condition.
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 reduce the number
of on-shift and ERO positions commensurate
with the hazards associated with a
permanently shutdown and defueled facility.
The proposed changes do not involve
installation of new equipment or
modification of existing equipment, so that
no new equipment failure modes are
introduced. Also, the proposed changes do
not result in a change to the way that the
equipment or facility is operated so that no
new accident initiators are created.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not
create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Response: No.
Margin of safety is associated with
confidence in the ability of the fission
product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, reactor
coolant system pressure boundary, and
containment structure) to limit the level of
radiation dose to the public. The proposed
changes do not adversely affect existing plant
safety margins or the reliability of the
equipment assumed to operate in the safety
analyses. There are no changes being made
to safety analysis assumptions, safety limits,
or limiting safety system settings that would
adversely affect plant safety as a result of the
proposed changes. The proposed changes are
associated with the Emergency Plan and
staffing and do not impact operation of the
plant or its response to transients or
accidents. The proposed changes do not
affect the Technical Specifications. The
proposed changes do not involve a change in
the method of plant operation, and no
accident analyses will be affected by the
proposed changes. Safety analysis acceptance
criteria are not affected by the proposed
changes and margins of safety are
maintained. The revised Emergency Plan will
continue to provide the necessary response
staff with the proposed changes.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee’s analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer,
Associate General Counsel, Exelon
Generation Company, LLC, 4300
Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555.
NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC,
Docket Nos. 50–352 and 50–353,
Limerick Generating Station, Unit Nos.
1 and 2, Montgomery County,
Pennsylvania
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50–171,
50–277, and 50–278, Peach Bottom
Atomic Power Station, Unit Nos. 1, 2,
and 3, York and Lancaster Counties,
Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: May 10,
2018. Publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Package Accession No.
ML18149A290.
Description of amendment request:
The amendments would revise the
emergency response organization (ERO)
positions identified in the emergency
plan for each site.
Basis for proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination:
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
licensee has provided its analysis of the
issue of no significant hazards
E:\FR\FM\17JYN1.SGM
17JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Notices
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
consideration for each site, which is
presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to the [site]
Emergency Plan do not increase the
probability or consequences of an accident.
The proposed changes do not impact the
function of plant Structures, Systems, or
Components (SSCs). The proposed changes
do not affect accident initiators or accident
precursors, nor do the changes alter design
assumptions. The proposed changes do not
alter or prevent the ability of the onsite ERO
to perform their intended functions to
mitigate the consequences of an accident or
event. The proposed changes remove ERO
positions no longer credited or considered
necessary in support of Emergency Plan
implementation.
Therefore, the proposed changes to the
[site] Emergency Plan do not involve a
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create
the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes have no impact on
the design, function, or operation of any
plant SSCs. The proposed changes do not
affect plant equipment or accident analyses.
The proposed changes do not involve a
physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new
or different type of equipment will be
installed), a change in the method of plant
operation, or new operator actions. The
proposed changes do not introduce failure
modes that could result in a new accident,
and the proposed changes do not alter
assumptions made in the safety analysis. The
proposed changes remove ERO positions no
longer credited or considered necessary in
support of Emergency Plan implementation.
Therefore, the proposed changes to the
[site] Emergency Plan do not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
Margin of safety is associated with
confidence in the ability of the fission
product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, reactor
coolant system pressure boundary, and
containment structure) to limit the level of
radiation dose to the public.
The proposed changes do not adversely
affect existing plant safety margins or the
reliability of the equipment assumed to
operate in the safety analyses. There are no
changes being made to safety analysis
assumptions, safety limits, or limiting safety
system settings that would adversely affect
plant safety as a result of the proposed
changes. Margins of safety are unaffected by
the proposed changes to the ERO staffing.
The proposed changes are associated with
the [site] Emergency Plan staffing and do not
impact operation of the plant or its response
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:07 Jul 16, 2018
Jkt 244001
to transients or accidents. The proposed
changes do not affect the Technical
Specifications. The proposed changes do not
involve a change in the method of plant
operation, and no accident analyses will be
affected by the proposed changes. Safety
analysis acceptance criteria are not affected
by these proposed changes. The proposed
changes to the Emergency Plan will continue
to provide the necessary onsite ERO response
staff.
Therefore, the proposed changes to the
[site] Emergency Plan do not involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee’s analysis for each site and,
based on this review, it appears that the
three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
requested amendments involve no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer,
Associate General Counsel, Exelon
Generation Company, LLC, 4300
Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555.
NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.
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: May 4,
2018. A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No.
ML18129A219.
Description of amendment request:
The proposed change would modify
technical specification (TS)
requirements regarding Limiting
Condition for Operation (LCO) and
Surveillance Requirement (SR) usage, in
accordance with NRC-approved
Technical Specifications Task Force
(TSTF) Traveler TSTF–529, Revision 4,
‘‘Clarify Use and Application Rules.’’
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 Section 1.3 and
LCO 3.0.4 have no effect on the requirement
for systems to be Operable and have no effect
on the application of TS actions. The
proposed change to SR 3.0.3 states that the
allowance may only be used when there is
a reasonable expectation the surveillance will
be met when performed. Since the proposed
change does not significantly affect system
Operability, the proposed change will have
no effect on the initiating events for accidents
previously evaluated and will have no
significant effect on the ability of the systems
to mitigate accidents previously evaluated.
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
33269
Therefore, it is concluded that this change
does not involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change to the TS usage rules
does not affect the design or function of any
plant systems. The proposed change does not
change the Operability requirements for plant
systems or the actions taken when plant
systems are not operable.
Therefore, it is concluded that this change
does not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change clarifies the
application of Section 1.3 and LCO 3.0.4 and
does not result in changes in plant operation.
SR 3.0.3 is revised to allow application of SR
3.0.3 when an SR has not been previously
performed if there is reasonable expectation
that the SR will be met when performed. This
expands the use of SR 3.0.3 while ensuring
the affected system is capable of performing
its safety function. As a result, plant safety
is either improved or unaffected.
Therefore, it is concluded that this change
does not involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee’s analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Robert B.
Haemer, Senior Nuclear Counsel, One
Cook Place, Bridgman, MI 49106.
NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company,
Inc., Docket Nos. 52–025 and 52–026,
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Unit
Nos. 3 and 4, Burke County, Georgia
Date of amendment request: May 18,
2018. A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No.
ML18138A396.
Description of amendment request:
The amendment request proposes to
change Technical Specifications
Limiting Condition for Operation 3.3.8,
Engineered Safety Feature Actuation
System (ESFAS) Instrumentation,
related to Safeguard Actuation
Functions. Various ESFAS Functions
require applicability and corresponding
actions changes to more accurately
reflect their operation and related safety
analysis assumptions. This submittal
requests approval of the license
amendment necessary to implement
these changes.
E:\FR\FM\17JYN1.SGM
17JYN1
33270
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Notices
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:
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
1. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not involve
changes to current plant design or safety
analysis assumptions. These changes provide
Technical Specifications consistency with
the approved plant design and safety analysis
assumptions. The changes do not affect the
operation of any systems or equipment that
initiate an analyzed accident or alter any
structures, systems, and components (SSCs)
accident initiator or initiating sequence of
events. The proposed changes do not result
in any increase in the probability of an
analyzed accident occurring. Therefore, the
requested amendment does not involve a
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create
the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not involve
changes to current plant design or safety
analysis assumptions. These changes provide
Technical Specifications consistency with
the approved plant design and safety analysis
assumptions. The proposed changes do not
affect plant protection instrumentation
systems, and do not affect the design
function, support, design, or operation of
mechanical and fluid systems. The proposed
changes do not result in a new failure
mechanism or introduce any new accident
precursors. No design function described in
the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report
(UFSAR) is affected by the proposed changes.
Therefore, the requested amendment does
not create the possibility of a new or different
kind accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not involve
changes to current plant design or safety
analysis assumptions. These changes provide
Technical Specifications consistency with
the approved plant design and safety analysis
assumptions. No safety analysis or design
basis acceptance limit/criterion is involved.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not
involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee’s analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:07 Jul 16, 2018
Jkt 244001
Attorney for licensee: M. Stanford
Blanton, Balch & Bingham LLP, 1710
Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL
35203–2015.
NRC Branch Chief: Jennifer DixonHerrity.
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA),
Docket Nos. 50–259, 50–260, and 50–
296, Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN),
Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3, Limestone County,
Alabama
Date of amendment request: May 3,
2018. A publicly-available version is in
ADAMS under Accession No.
ML18124A053.
Description of amendment request:
The amendments would revise the BFN
Units 1, 2, and 3 renewed facility
operating licenses (RFOLs) to provide a
correction to previously submitted
information in relation to their
approved fire protection program under
10 CFR 50.48(c), ‘‘National Fire
Protection Association Standard NFPA
805.’’ Specifically, TVA requested to
modify the BFN licenses to reflect
changes to Item 3.3.4 in Table B–1,
‘‘Transition of Fundamental Fire
Protection Program & Design Elements,’’
of Attachment A in its NFPA 805
license amendment request dated March
27, 2013 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML13092A393).
Basis for proposed no significant
hazards consideration determination:
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
licensee has provided its analysis of the
issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented
below.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve
a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment adds the
reference to this letter to the BFN RFOL
License Condition paragraphs 2.C.(13),
2.C.(14), and 2.C.(7) for BFN Units 1, 2, and
3, respectively. The change encompassed by
the proposed amendment is to correct the
entry in Attachment A Table B–1 of the BFN
Transition Report.
The proposed change does not adversely
affect accident initiators or precursors nor
alter the design assumptions, conditions, and
configuration of the facility or the manner in
which the plant is operated and maintained.
The proposed change does not affect the
ability of structures, systems and components
(SSCs) to perform their intended safety
function to mitigate the consequences of an
initiating event within the assumed
acceptance limits.
Therefore, these proposed changes do not
involve a significant increase in the
probability of consequences of an accident
previously identified.
2. Does the proposed amendment create
the possibility of a new or different kind of
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment adds the
reference to this letter to the BFN RFOL
License Condition paragraphs 2.C.(13),
2.C.(14), and 2.C.(7) for BFN Units 1, 2, and
3, respectively. The change encompassed by
the proposed amendment is to correct the
entry in Attachment A Table B–1 of the BFN
Transition Report.
There is no risk impact to Core Damage
Frequency (CDF) or Large Early Release
Frequency (LERF) because this is an
administrative change. Plant secondary
combustibles, including insulating materials,
are considered in the fire modeling input to
the Fire PRA [Probabilistic Risk Assessment].
The proposed change does not result in
any new or different kinds of accident from
that previously evaluated because it does not
change any precursors or equipment that is
previously credited for accident mitigation.
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 amendment adds the
reference to this letter to the BFN RFOL
License Condition paragraphs 2.C.(13),
2.C.(14), and 2.C.(7) for BFN Units 1, 2, and
3, respectively. The change encompassed by
the proposed amendment are to correct the
entry in Attachment A Table B–1 of the BFN
Transition Report.
This proposed change corrects erroneous
information to previously approved
information in the BFN Transition Report.
This proposed change will have an
insignificant impact on the accident analysis
as it is a clarifying or administrative change.
Plant secondary combustibles, including
insulating materials, are considered in the
fire modeling input to the Fire PRA.
The proposed change will not result in any
new or different kinds of accident from that
previously evaluated because it does not
change any precursors or equipment that is
previously credited for accident mitigation.
Therefore, based on the above discussion,
these proposed changes do not involve a
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: General
Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority,
400 West Summit Hill Drive, 6A West
Tower, Knoxville, TN 37902.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Booma
Venkataraman.
E:\FR\FM\17JYN1.SGM
17JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Notices
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.
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Docket No.
50–400, Shearon Harris Nuclear Power
Plant, Unit No. 1, Wake and Chatham
Counties, North Carolina
Date of amendment request: June 5,
2017, as supplemented by letters dated
October 30, 2017, November 27, 2017,
and January 28, 2018.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendment revised the Technical
Specifications (TSs) to restrict the
steady-state voltage and frequency
limits for emergency diesel generator
(EDG) operation to ensure that accident
mitigation equipment can perform as
designed. In addition, the amendment
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:07 Jul 16, 2018
Jkt 244001
revised a TS to increase the voltage limit
for the EDG full load rejection test to
provide additional operating margin to
test acceptance criteria.
Date of issuance: June 20, 2018.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment No.: 165. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML18130A270;
documents related to this amendment
are listed in the Safety Evaluation
enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License
No. NPF–63: The amendment revised
the Renewed Facility Operating License
and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: September 26, 2017 (82 FR
44851). The supplemental letters dated
October 30, 2017, November 27, 2017,
and January 28, 2018, provided
additional information that clarified the
application, did not expand the scope of
the application as originally noticed,
and did not change the NRC staff’s
original proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination as
published in the Federal Register.
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated June 20, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.,
Docket No. 50–271, Vermont Yankee
Nuclear Power Station, Vernon,
Vermont
Date of amendment request: July 13,
2017.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendment approved the removal of the
existing cyber security license condition
from the facility operating license.
Date of issuance: June 27, 2018.
Effective date: As of the date the
licensee notifies the NRC in writing that
all spent nuclear fuel assemblies have
been transferred out of the spent fuel
pool and have been placed in dry
storage within the independent spent
fuel storage installation, and shall be
implemented within 60 days of the
effective date.
Amendment No.: 268. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML18145A208;
documents related to this amendment
are referenced in the Safety Evaluation
enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License
No. DPR–28: This amendment revised
the License.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: September 26, 2017 (82 FR
44852).
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
33271
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated June 27, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50–
313, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1
(ANO–1), Pope County, Arkansas
Date of amendment request: July 17,
2017.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendment revised the Technical
Specifications (TSs) for ANO–1 and
established a new Completion Time in
ANO–1 TS 3.7.5, ‘‘Emergency
Feedwater (EFW) System,’’ where one
steam supply to the turbine-driven EFW
pump is inoperable concurrent with an
inoperable motor-driven EFW train. The
amendment is consistent with NRCapproved Technical Specifications Task
Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF–412,
Revision 3, ‘‘Provide Actions for One
Steam Supply to Turbine Driven AFW
[Auxiliary Feedwater]/EFW Pump
Inoperable,’’ with certain plant-specific
deviations.
Date of issuance: June 19, 2018.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days from the date of
issuance.
Amendment No.: 260. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML18115A282;
documents related to this amendment
are listed in the Safety Evaluation
enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License
No. DPR–51: Amendment revised the
Renewed Facility Operating License and
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: October 10, 2017 (82 FR
47036).
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated June 19, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50–
368, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit No. 2
(ANO–2), Pope County, Arkansas
Date of amendment request: July 17,
2017.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendment revised the Technical
Specifications (TSs) for ANO–2 and
established Actions and Allowable
Outage Times in ANO–2 TS 3.7.1.2,
‘‘Emergency Feedwater System,’’ for
several combinations of inoperable
Emergency Feedwater (EFW) trains
consistent with NUREG–1432,
‘‘Standard Technical Specifications—
Combustion Engineering Plants,’’
Revision 4. The amendment includes
E:\FR\FM\17JYN1.SGM
17JYN1
33272
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Notices
changes incorporated by Technical
Specifications Task Force (TSTF)-340,
‘‘Allow 7 Day Completion Time for a
Turbine-Driven AFW [Auxiliary
Feedwater] Pump Inoperable,’’ Revision
3 and TSTF–412, ‘‘Provide Actions for
One Steam Supply to Turbine Driven
AFW/EFW Pump Inoperable,’’ Revision
3.
Date of issuance: June 19, 2018.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days from the date of
issuance.
Amendment No.: 310. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML18134A253;
documents related to this amendment
are listed in the Safety Evaluation
enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License
No. NPF–6: Amendment revised the
Renewed Facility Operating License and
TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: October 10, 2017 (82 FR
47036).
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated June 19, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Exelon Generation Company, LLC,
Docket Nos. 50–317 and 50–318, Calvert
Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1
and 2, Calvert County, Maryland,
Exelon Generation Company, LLC,
Docket Nos. 50–220 and 50–410, Nine
Mile, Point, Nuclear Station, Unit Nos.
1 and 2, Oswego County, New York,
Exelon Generation Company, LLC,
Docket No. 50–244, R.E. Ginna Nuclear
Power Plant, Wayne County, New York
Date of amendment request: May 31,
2017.
Brief description of amendments: The
amendments revised the emergency
plans for each facility by changing the
emergency action level schemes. The
changes are based on the Nuclear
Energy Institute’s (NEI’s) guidance in
NEI 99–01, Revision 6, ‘‘Development of
Emergency Action Levels for NonPassive Reactors,’’ which was endorsed
by the NRC by letter dated March 28,
2013 (ADAMS Package Accession No.
ML13091A209).
Date of issuance: June 26, 2018.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented on
or before June 28, 2019.
Amendment Nos.: Calvert Cliffs—324/
302; Nine Mile Point—230/171; and,
Ginna—128. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession
No. ML18137A614; documents related
to these amendments are listed in the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:07 Jul 16, 2018
Jkt 244001
Safety Evaluation enclosed with the
amendments.
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR–
53, DPR–69, DPR–63, NPF–69, and
DPR–18: Amendments revised the
emergency plans.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: August 1, 2017 (82 FR 35838).
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendments is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated June 26, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC,
Docket Nos. 50–237 and 50–249,
Dresden Nuclear Power Station (DNPS),
Unit Nos. 2 and 3, Grundy County,
Illinois
Date of amendment request: May 3,
2017, as supplemented by letter dated
February 14, 2018.
Brief description of amendments: The
amendments revised the DNPS
Technical Specification (TS) 5.5.12,
‘‘Primary Containment Leakage Rate
Testing Program,’’ to allow for the
permanent extension of the Type A
integrated leak rate testing and the Type
C leak rate testing frequencies.
Date of issuance: June 29, 2018.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 257 (Unit 2) and
250 (Unit 3). A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession
No. ML18137A271; documents related
to these amendments are listed in the
Safety Evaluation enclosed with the
amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License
Nos. DPR–19 and DPR–25: Amendments
revised the Renewed Facility Operating
Licenses and TS.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: August 1, 2017 (82 FR 35838).
The supplemental letter dated February
14, 2018, provided additional
information that clarified the
application, did not expand the scope of
the application as originally noticed,
and did not change the staff’s original
proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination as
published in the Federal Register.
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendments is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated June 29, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC,
Docket No. 50–244, R. E. Ginna Nuclear
Power Plant (Ginna), Wayne County,
New York
Date of amendment request: June 30,
2017, as supplemented by letters dated
October 25, 2017, and June 5, 2018.
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Brief description of amendment: The
amendment revised the license to delete
the modification to install overcurrent
protection on its emergency diesel
generators which was required as part of
Ginna’s implementation of its riskinformed, performance-based fire
protection program in accordance with
10 CFR 50.48(c).
Date of issuance: June 25, 2018.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 127. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML18114A025;
documents related to this amendment
are listed in the Safety Evaluation
enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License
No. DPR–18: Amendment revised the
Renewed Facility Operating License.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: October 3, 2017 (82 FR
46097). The supplemental letters dated
October 25, 2017, and June 5, 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 June 25, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC,
Docket Nos. STN 50–456 and STN 50–
457, Braidwood Station, Unit Nos. 1 and
2, Will County, Illinois and Docket Nos.
STN 50–454 and STN 50–455, Byron
Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Ogle County,
Illinois
Date of amendment request: June 30,
2017, as supplemented by letters dated
October 25, 2017, and May 29, 2018.
Brief description of amendments: The
amendments revised Technical
Specification (TS) 3.1.4, ‘‘Rod Group
Alignment Limits,’’ TS 3.1.5,
‘‘Shutdown Bank Insertion Limits,’’ TS
3.1.6, ‘‘Control Bank Insertion Limits,’’
and TS 3.1.7, ‘‘Rod Position Indication.’’
Date of issuance: June 27, 2018.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days from the date of
issuance.
Amendment Nos: 196 (Braidwood,
Unit 1) and 196 (Braidwood, Unit 2);
202 (Bryon, Unit 1) and 202 (Bryon,
Unit 2). A publicly-available version is
in ADAMS under Accession No.
ML18065A529; documents related to
these amendments are listed in the
E:\FR\FM\17JYN1.SGM
17JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Notices
related Safety Evaluation enclosed with
the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License
Nos. NPF–72, NPF–77, NPF–37, and
NPF–66: The amendments revised the
Renewed Facility Operating Licenses
and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: August 29, 2017 (82 FR
41069). The supplemental letters dated
October 25, 2017, and May 29, 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 June 27, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating
Company, Docket No. 50–440, Perry
Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No. 1, Lake
County, Ohio
Date of amendment request:
September 11, 2017.
Brief description of amendment: The
amendment revised the requirements in
Technical Specification (TS) 3.3.6.1,
‘‘Primary Containment and Drywell
Isolation Instrumentation,’’ by adding
an ACTIONS note to Limiting Condition
of Operation 3.3.6.1 to allow
intermittent opening, under
administrative control, of containment
and drywell penetration flow paths that
are isolated.
Date of issuance: June 25, 2018.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 181. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML18157A084;
documents related to this amendment
are listed in the Safety Evaluation
enclosed with the amendment.
Facility Operating License No. NPF–
58: Amendment revised the Facility
Operating License and TS.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: November 7, 2017 (82 FR
51652).
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated June 25, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:07 Jul 16, 2018
Jkt 244001
South Carolina Electric & Gas Company,
South Carolina Public Service
Authority, Docket No. 50–395, Virgil C.
Summer Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1,
Fairfield County, South Carolina
Date of amendment request: October
6, 2017, as supplemented by letter dated
April 19, 2018.
Brief description of amendment: This
amendment increased the Integrated
Leak Rate Test Peak Calculated
Containment Internal Pressure, Pa,
listed in Technical Specification (TS)
6.8.4.g, ‘‘Containment Leakage Rate
Testing Program,’’ from 45.1 pounds per
square inch gauge (psig) to 46.0 psig. It
also removed the reference to
Regulatory Guide 1.163, ‘‘PerformanceBased Containment Leak Test Program,’’
and American National Standards
Institute/American Nuclear Society
(ANSI/ANS)-56.8–2002, ‘‘Containment
System Leakage Testing Requirements,’’
and replaced the reference of Nuclear
Energy Institute (NEI) 94–01, Revision
3–A, ‘‘Industry Guideline for
Implementing Performance-Based
Option of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix J,’’
with NEI 94–01, Revision 2–A.
Date of issuance: June 28, 2018.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 210. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML18141A668,
documents related to this amendment
are listed in the Safety Evaluation
enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License
No. NPF–12: Amendment revised the
Renewed Facility Operating License and
the TS.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: November 21, 2017 (82 FR
55409). The supplemental letter dated
April 19, 2018, provided additional
information that clarified the
application, did not expand the scope of
the application as originally noticed,
and did not change the staff’s original
proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination as
published in the Federal Register.
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated June 28, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company,
Docket Nos. 50–348 and 50–364, Joseph
M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1
and 2, Houston County, Alabama
Date of amendment request:
December 21, 2017.
Brief description of amendments: The
amendments modified Technical
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
33273
Specification (TS) 3.7.5, ‘‘Auxiliary
Feedwater (AFW) System,’’ to establish
a new Completion Time for the
Condition where one steam supply to
the turbine driven AFW pump is
inoperable concurrent with an
inoperable motor driven AFW train. In
addition, the amendments added
specific Conditions and Action
requirements: (1) For when two motor
driven AFW trains are inoperable at the
same time and; (2) for when the turbine
driven AFW train is inoperable either
(a) due solely to one inoperable steam
supply, or (b) due to reasons other than
one inoperable steam supply. The
proposed changes are consistent with
NRC-approved Technical Specification
Task Force (TSTF) Traveler, TSTF–412,
Revision 3, ‘‘Provide Actions for One
Steam Supply to Turbine Driven AFW/
EFW [Emergency Feedwater] Pump
Inoperable’’ dated January 10, 2007.
Date of issuance: June 27, 2018.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 219 (Unit 1) and
216 (Unit 2). A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession
No. ML18151A174. 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 TS.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: February 13, 2018 (83 FR
6234).
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendments is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated June 27, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Susquehanna Nuclear, LLC, Docket Nos.
50–387 and 50–388, Susquehanna
Steam Electric Station, Unit Nos. 1 and
2, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request:
December 14, 2017.
Brief description of amendments: The
amendments revised Technical
Specification (TS) 3.6.4.1, ‘‘Secondary
Containment,’’ Surveillance
Requirement (SR) 3.6.4.1.1. The SR was
revised to address conditions during
which the secondary containment
pressure may not meet the SR pressure
requirements. The changes are based on
Technical Specification Task Force
(TSTF) Traveler TSTF–551, Revision 3,
‘‘Revise Secondary Containment
Surveillance Requirements.’’
Date of issuance: June 26, 2018.
E:\FR\FM\17JYN1.SGM
17JYN1
33274
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Notices
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment Nos.: 270 (Unit 1) and
252 (Unit 2). A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession
No. ML18150A281. Documents related
to these amendments are listed in the
Safety Evaluation enclosed with the
amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License
Nos. NPF–14 and NPF–22: The
amendments revised the Renewed
Facility Operating Licenses and TS.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: February 27, 2018 (83 FR
8520).
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendments is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated June 26, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket
Nos. 50–390 and 50–391, Watts Bar
Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Rhea
County, Tennessee
Date of amendment request:
November 23, 2016, as supplemented by
letters dated September 29, November
16, and December 27, 2017, and May 11,
2018.
Brief description of amendments: The
amendments revised the Technical
Specification (TS) requirements on
control and shutdown rods, and rod and
bank position indication in the Units 1
and 2, TS 3.1.5, ‘‘Rod Group Alignment
Limits,’’ TS 3.1.6, ‘‘Shutdown Bank
Insertion Limits,’’ TS 3.1.7, ‘‘Control
Bank Insertion Limits,’’ and TS 3.1.8,
‘‘Rod Position Indication.’’
Date of issuance: June 26, 2018.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 120 (Unit 1) and 20
(Unit 2). A publicly-available version is
in ADAMS under Accession No.
ML18079A029; documents related to
these amendments are listed in the
Safety Evaluation enclosed with the
amendments.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF–
90 and NPF–96: Amendments revised
the Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: March 14, 2017 (82 FR
13672). The supplemental letters dated
September 29, November 16, and
December 27, 2017, expanded the scope
of the amendment request as originally
noticed in the Federal Register. A
second notice was published in the
Federal Register on February 21, 2018
(83 FR 7500), which superseded the
original notice in its entirety. The
supplemental letter dated May 11, 2018,
provided additional information that
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:07 Jul 16, 2018
Jkt 244001
clarified the application, did not expand
the scope of the application as renoticed, and did not change the NRC
staff’s 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 June 26, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
IV. Notice of Issuance of Amendments
to Facility Operating Licenses and
Combined Licenses and Final
Determination of No Significant
Hazards Consideration and
Opportunity for a Hearing (Exigent
Public Announcement or Emergency
Circumstances)
During the period since publication of
the last biweekly notice, the
Commission has issued the following
amendment. The Commission has
determined for this amendment that the
application for the amendment 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.
Because of exigent or emergency
circumstances associated with the date
the amendment was needed, there was
not time for the Commission to publish,
for public comment before issuance, its
usual notice of consideration of
issuance of amendment, proposed no
significant hazards consideration
determination, and opportunity for a
hearing.
For exigent circumstances, the
Commission has either issued a Federal
Register notice providing opportunity
for public comment or has used local
media to provide notice to the public in
the area surrounding a licensee’s facility
of the licensee’s application and of the
Commission’s proposed determination
of no significant hazards consideration.
The Commission has provided a
reasonable opportunity for the public to
comment, using its best efforts to make
available to the public means of
communication for the public to
respond quickly, and in the case of
telephone comments, the comments
have been recorded or transcribed as
appropriate and the licensee has been
informed of the public comments.
In circumstances where failure to act
in a timely way would have resulted, for
example, in derating or shutdown of a
nuclear power plant or in prevention of
either resumption of operation or of
PO 00000
Frm 00083
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
increase in power output up to the
plant’s licensed power level, the
Commission may not have had an
opportunity to provide for public
comment on its no significant hazards
consideration determination. In such
case, the license amendment has been
issued without opportunity for
comment. If there has been some time
for public comment but less than 30
days, the Commission may provide an
opportunity for public comment. If
comments have been requested, it is so
stated. In either event, the State has
been consulted by telephone whenever
possible.
Under its regulations, the Commission
may issue and make an amendment
immediately effective, notwithstanding
the pendency before it of a request for
a hearing from any person, in advance
of the holding and completion of any
required hearing, where it has
determined that no significant hazards
consideration is involved.
The Commission has applied the
standards of 10 CFR 50.92 and has made
a final determination that the
amendment involves no significant
hazards consideration. The basis for this
determination is contained in the
documents related to this action.
Accordingly, the amendment has been
issued and made effective as indicated.
Unless otherwise indicated, the
Commission has determined that this
amendment satisfies 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 this
amendment. If the Commission has
prepared an environmental assessment
under the special circumstances
provision in 10 CFR 51.12(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 application for
amendment, (2) the amendment to
Facility Operating License or Combined
License, as applicable, 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.
A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing
and Petition for Leave To Intervene
The Commission is also offering an
opportunity for a hearing with respect to
the issuance of the amendment. Within
60 days after the date of publication of
this notice, any persons (petitioner)
whose interest may be affected by this
E:\FR\FM\17JYN1.SGM
17JYN1
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Notices
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 https://
www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:07 Jul 16, 2018
Jkt 244001
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-
PO 00000
Frm 00084
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
33275
recognized Indian Tribe, or agency
thereof does not need to address the
standing requirements in 10 CFR
2.309(d) if the facility is located within
its boundaries. Alternatively, a State,
local governmental body, Federallyrecognized 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 EFiling 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 https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/
e-submittals.html. Participants may not
submit paper copies of their filings
unless they seek an exemption in
accordance with the procedures
described below.
To comply with the procedural
requirements of E-Filing, at least 10
days prior to the filing deadline, the
participant should contact the Office of
the Secretary by email at
hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by telephone
at 301–415–1677, to (1) request a digital
identification (ID) certificate, which
allows the participant (or its counsel or
representative) to digitally sign
E:\FR\FM\17JYN1.SGM
17JYN1
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
33276
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Notices
submissions and access the E-Filing
system for any proceeding in which it
is participating; and (2) advise the
Secretary that the participant will be
submitting a petition or other
adjudicatory document (even in
instances in which the participant, or its
counsel or representative, already holds
an NRC-issued digital ID certificate).
Based upon this information, the
Secretary will establish an electronic
docket for the hearing in this proceeding
if the Secretary has not already
established an electronic docket.
Information about applying for a
digital ID certificate is available on the
NRC’s public website at https://
www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/
getting-started.html. Once a participant
has obtained a digital ID certificate and
a docket has been created, the
participant can then submit
adjudicatory documents. Submissions
must be in Portable Document Format
(PDF). Additional guidance on PDF
submissions is available on the NRC’s
public website at https://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 EFiling 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 https://
www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html, by email to
MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a tollfree 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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:07 Jul 16, 2018
Jkt 244001
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00085
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Exelon Generation Company, LLC,
Docket Nos. 50–277 and 50–278, Peach
Bottom Atomic Power Station, Unit Nos.
2 and 3 (Peach Bottom), York County,
Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: June 21,
2018.
Description of amendments: The
amendments revised the Peach Bottom
Technical Specifications (TSs) for a onetime suspension of the emergency diesel
generator (EDG) No. 4 (E–4) surveillance
requirements. Specifically, the
amendments revised TS Surveillance
Requirements 3.8.1.2, 3.8.1.3, 3.8.1.6,
and 3.8.3.4 to suspend performing
required monthly surveillance testing
on the E–4 EDG until the E–3 EDG is
returned to operable status, not to
exceed 2205 hours Eastern Time on June
27, 2018.
Date of issuance: June 23, 2018.
Effective date: June 23, 2018.
Amendment Nos.: 318 (Unit 1) and
321 (Unit 2). A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession
No. ML18173A042. Documents related
to these amendments are listed in the
Safety Evaluation enclosed with the
amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License
Nos. DPR–44 and DPR–56: The
amendments revised the Renewed
Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
Public comments requested as to
proposed no significant hazards
consideration: No.
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendments, finding of
emergency circumstances, State
consultation, and final no significant
hazards consideration determination are
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated
June 23, 2018.
Attorney for licensee: J. Bradley
Fewell, Vice President and Deputy
General Counsel, Exelon Generation
Company, LLC, 200 Exelon Way,
Kennett Square, PA 19348.
NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 5th day
of July 2018.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Gregory F. Suber,
Deputy Director, Division of Operating
Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2018–14779 Filed 7–16–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
Sunshine Act Meetings
TIME AND DATE:
July 19, 2018.
E:\FR\FM\17JYN1.SGM
17JYN1
2:00 p.m. on Thursday,
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 137 (Tuesday, July 17, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33263-33276]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14779]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2018-0140]
Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility
Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant
Hazards Considerations
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Biweekly notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 189a.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,
as amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is
publishing this regular biweekly notice. The Act requires the
Commission to publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to
be issued, and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make
immediately effective any amendment to an operating license or combined
license, as applicable, upon a determination by the Commission that
such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration,
notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a
hearing from any person.
This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or
proposed to be issued, from June 18, 2018, to June 29, 2018. The last
biweekly notice was published on July 3, 2018.
DATES: Comments must be filed by August 16, 2018. A request for a
hearing must be filed by September 17, 2018.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2018-0140. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Jennifer Borges; telephone: 301-287-
9127; email: [email protected]. For technical questions, contact
the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this document.
Mail comments to: May Ma, Office of Administration, Mail
Stop: TWFN-7-A60M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001.
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting
comments, see ``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Janet C. Burkhardt, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1384, email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments
A. Obtaining Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2018-0140, 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 https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2018-0140.
NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the
ADAMS Public Documents collection at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select ``ADAMS Public Documents'' and
then select ``Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.'' For problems with ADAMS,
please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at
1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected]. The
ADAMS accession number for each document referenced (if it is available
in ADAMS) is provided the first time that it is mentioned in this
document.
NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
[[Page 33264]]
B. Submitting Comments
Please include Docket ID NRC-2018-0140, 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 https://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into
ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove
identifying or contact information.
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons
for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to
include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be
publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should
state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to
remove such information before making the comment submissions available
to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
II. Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility
Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses and Proposed No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under
the Commission's regulations in section 50.92 of title 10 of the Code
of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), this means that operation of the
facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1)
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated, or (2) create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated;
or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis
for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown
below.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final
determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period if circumstances change during the 30-day comment
period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for
example in derating or shutdown of the facility. If the Commission
takes action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or
the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a notice of
issuance. If the Commission makes a final no significant hazards
consideration determination, any hearing will take place after
issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will
occur very infrequently.
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 https://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
[[Page 33265]]
amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, then
any hearing held would take place before the issuance of the amendment
unless the Commission finds an imminent danger to the health or safety
of the public, in which case it will issue an appropriate order or rule
under 10 CFR part 2.
A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian
Tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to
participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition should
state the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the
proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission no later
than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. The petition
must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the
``Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)'' section of this document, and
should meet the requirements for petitions set forth in this section,
except that under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(2) a State, local governmental body,
or Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof does not need
to address the standing requirements in 10 CFR 2.309(d) if the facility
is located within its boundaries. Alternatively, a State, local
governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof
may participate as a non-party under 10 CFR 2.315(c).
If a hearing is granted, any person who is not a party to the
proceeding and is not affiliated with or represented by a party may, at
the discretion of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited
appearance pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person
making a limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of
his or her position on the issues but may not otherwise participate in
the proceeding. A limited appearance may be made at any session of the
hearing or at any prehearing conference, subject to the limits and
conditions as may be imposed by the presiding officer. Details
regarding the opportunity to make a limited appearance will be provided
by the presiding officer if such sessions are scheduled.
B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a
request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition), any
motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the
submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and
documents filed by interested governmental entities that request to
participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the
NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007, as amended at 77 FR
46562; August 3, 2012). The E-Filing process requires participants to
submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in
some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Detailed
guidance on making electronic submissions may be found in the Guidance
for Electronic Submissions to the NRC and on the NRC website at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants may not submit
paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in
accordance with the procedures described below.
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10
days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the
Office of the Secretary by email at [email protected], or by
telephone at 301-415-1677, to (1) request a digital identification (ID)
certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or
representative) to digitally sign submissions and access the E-Filing
system for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise
the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a petition or
other adjudicatory document (even in instances in which the
participant, or its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-
issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the
Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the hearing in this
proceeding if the Secretary has not already established an electronic
docket.
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is
available on the NRC's public website at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/getting-started.html. Once a participant has obtained a
digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant
can then submit adjudicatory documents. Submissions must be in Portable
Document Format (PDF). Additional guidance on PDF submissions is
available on the NRC's public website at https://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 https://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
[[Page 33266]]
have an NRC-issued digital ID certificate as described above, click
cancel when the link requests certificates and you will be
automatically directed to the NRC's electronic hearing dockets where
you will be able to access any publicly available documents in a
particular hearing docket. Participants are requested not to include
personal privacy information, such as social security numbers, home
addresses, or personal phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC
regulation or other law requires submission of such information. For
example, in some instances, individuals provide home addresses in order
to demonstrate proximity to a facility or site. With respect to
copyrighted works, except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose
of the adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use
application, participants are requested not to include copyrighted
materials in their submission.
For further details with respect to these license amendment
applications, see the application for amendment which is available for
public inspection in ADAMS and at the NRC's PDR. For additional
direction on accessing information related to this document, see the
``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' section of this
document.
Dominion Energy Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. (DENC), Docket No. 50-423,
Millstone Power Station, Unit No. 3 (MPS3), New London County,
Connecticut
Date of amendment request: April 4, 2018. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18100A055.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the
MPS3 Technical Specifications (TSs). Specifically, with one Control
Building Inlet Ventilation Radiation monitor channel inoperable for
greater than 7 days, or if both radiation monitor channels are
inoperable, DENC proposes to revise and reformat Action 18 in TS Table
3.3-3, Functional Unit 7.e, ``Control Building Inlet Ventilation
Radiation,'' to allow control room operators to manually place one
train of the Control Room Emergency Ventilation System (CREVS) in the
emergency mode of operation to provide additional time to restore one
channel of Control Building Inlet Ventilation Radiation monitoring to
OPERABLE status.
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.
Operation of MPS3 in accordance with the proposed change does
not involve a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously evaluated. The proposed
change removes an overly restrictive requirement and adds a
conservative requirement for actions to be taken when there is a
loss of operability of the CREVS actuation instrumentation. This
does not increase the probability of an accident previously
evaluated since the CREVS actuation itself is not an accident
initiator. The proposed change is consistent with standard TSs for
Westinghouse plants (NUREG-1431) and provides assurance that the
CREVS is in the conservative mode of operation for a response to an
accident. Analysis demonstrates that with one train of the CREVS in
the emergency mode of operation, control room operators are
adequately protected from the radiological consequences of design
basis accident events. Therefore, the probability or consequences of
an accident previously evaluated is not significantly increased.
Based on the above, 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.
Operation of MPS3 in accordance with the proposed change does
not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident
from any accident previously evaluated. The proposed change does not
involve a physical alteration of the plant or change in the methods
governing normal plant operation. The proposed change replaces the
overly restrictive shutdown requirement with a conservative action
to be taken upon loss of CREVS actuation instrumentation
operability, thereby avoiding the risk associated with an immediate
controlled shutdown. Therefore, the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated is
not created.
With one train of CREVS in the emergency mode of operation, DENC
has confirmed that MPS3 is in compliance with the current
radiological analyses of record for design basis accidents with dose
consequences to the control room. Therefore, the proposed change
does not affect the design basis analyses and does not alter the
assumptions made in the MPS3 accident analysis.
Based on the above, the proposed amendment does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in
the margin of safety?
Response: No.
Operation of MPS3 in accordance with the proposed change does
not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety. The
proposed change revises and reformats the Control Building lnlet
Ventilation Radiation TS to place the CREVS in the conservative mode
of operation for a response to an accident. The proposed change
provides additional time to restore an inoperable radiation monitor
channel instead of requiring an immediate controlled plant shutdown
and suspension of movement of recently irradiated fuel assemblies,
if applicable. A plant shutdown is a transient that may be avoided
by providing a limited time to make repairs. In addition, the
control room operators are adequately protected from the
radiological consequences of design basis accident events with one
train of the CREVS in the emergency mode of operation. The potential
to avoid a plant transient in conjunction with protecting control
room operators offsets any risk associated with the proposed change.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
Based on the above, the proposed amendment does not involve a
significant reduction in the margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion
Energy, Inc., 120 Tredegar Street, RS-2, Richmond, VA 23219.
NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna.
Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-325 and 50-324, Brunswick
Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2 (Brunswick or BSEP), Brunswick
County, North Carolina
Date of amendment request: April 4, 2018, as supplemented by letter
dated May 29, 2018. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS under
Accession Nos. ML18094B058 and ML18149A487, respectively.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would modify the
BSEP Technical Specifications (TSs) to relocate the pressure-
temperature limit curves to a licensee-controlled Pressure and
Temperature Limits Report (PTLR). The amendment request was submitted
in accordance with guidance provided in NRC Generic Letter 96-03,
``Relocation of the Pressure Temperature Limit Curves and Low
Temperature Overpressure Protections System Limits,'' dated January 31,
1996.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
[[Page 33267]]
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 license amendment adopts the NRC approved
methodology described in Boiling Water Reactor Owner's Group (BWROG)
Licensing Topical Report (LTR) (BWROG-TP-11-022-A, SIR-05-044,
Revision 1-A), ``Pressure Temperature Limits Report Methodology for
Boiling Water Reactors.'' The BSEP PTLR was developed based on the
methodology and template provided in the BWROG LTR.
10 CFR 50, Appendix G, establishes requirements to protect the
integrity of the reactor coolant pressure boundary (RCPB) in nuclear
power plants.
Implementing this NRC approved methodology does not reduce the
ability to protect the reactor coolant pressure boundary as
specified in Appendix G, nor will this change increase the
probability of malfunction of plant equipment, or the failure of
plant structures, systems, or components. Incorporation of the new
methodology for calculating pressure and temperature limit curves,
and the relocation of the pressure and temperature limit curves from
the TS to the PTLR provides an equivalent level of assurance that
the reactor coolant pressure boundary is capable of performing its
intended safety functions.
The proposed changes do not adversely affect accident initiators
or precursors, and do not alter the design assumptions, conditions,
or configuration of the plant or the manner in which the plant is
operated and maintained. The ability of structures, systems, and
components to perform their intended safety functions is not altered
or prevented by the proposed changes, and the assumptions used in
determining the radiological consequences of previously evaluated
accidents are not affected.
Therefore, the proposed amendment 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.
Creation of the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident requires creating one or more new accident precursors. New
accident precursors may be created by modifications of plant
configuration, including changes in allowable modes of operation.
The change in methodology for calculating pressure and
temperature limits and the relocation of those limits to the PTLR do
not alter or involve any design basis accident initiators. Reactor
coolant pressure boundary integrity will continue to be maintained
in accordance with 10 CFR part 50, Appendix G, and the assumed
accident performance of plant structures, systems and components
will not be affected. 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 the installed equipment is not being
operated in a new or different manner.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not affect the function of the reactor
coolant pressure boundary or its response during plant transients.
Calculating the Brunswick pressure temperature limits using the NRC
approved structural integrity methodology ensures adequate margins
of safety relating to reactor coolant pressure boundary integrity
are maintained. The proposed changes do not alter the manner in
which the Limiting Conditions for Operation pressure and temperature
limits for the reactor coolant pressure boundary are determined.
There are no changes to the setpoints at which protective actions
are initiated, and the operability requirements for equipment
assumed to operate for accident mitigation are not affected.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not result in 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: Kathryn B. Nolan, Deputy General Counsel,
550 South Tryon Street, M/C DEC45A, Charlotte, NC 28202.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Booma Venkataraman.
Exelon FitzPatrick, LLC and Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No.
50-333, James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant (FitzPatrick), Oswego
County, New York
Date of amendment request: January 31, 2018. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18037A782.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise
FitzPatrick's emergency plan by changing the emergency action level
(EAL) schemes. The proposed changes are based on the Nuclear Energy
Institute's (NEI's) guidance in NEI 99-01, Revision 6, ``Development of
Emergency Action Levels for Non-Passive Reactors,'' which was endorsed
by the NRC in a letter dated March 28, 2013 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML12346A463).
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to FitzPatrick's EAL schemes to adopt the
NRC-endorsed guidance in NEI 99-01, Revision 6 do not reduce the
capability to meet the emergency planning requirements established
in 10 CFR 50.47 and 10 CFR part 50, Appendix E. The proposed changes
do not reduce the functionality, performance, or capability of
FitzPatrick's ERO [emergency response organization] to respond in
mitigating the consequences of any design basis accident.
The probability of a reactor accident requiring implementation
of Emergency Plan EALs has no relevance in determining whether the
proposed changes to the EALs reduce the effectiveness of the
Emergency Plans. As discussed in Section D, ``Planning Basis,'' of
NUREG-0654, Revision 1, ``Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of
Radiological Emergency Response Plants and Preparedness in Support
of Nuclear Power Plants:''
``. . . The overall objective of emergency response plans is to
provide dose savings (and in some cases immediate life saving) for a
spectrum of accidents that could produce offsite doses in excess of
Protective Action Guides (PAGs). No single specific accident
sequence should be isolated as the one for which to plan because
each accident could have different consequences, both in nature and
degree. Further, the range of possible selection for a planning
basis is very large, starting with a zero point of requiring no
planning at all because significant offsite radiological accident
consequences are unlikely to occur, to planning for the worst
possible accident, regardless of its extremely low likelihood. . .
.''
Therefore, Exelon did not consider the risk insights regarding
any specific accident initiation or progression in evaluating the
proposed changes.
The proposed changes do not involve any physical changes to
plant equipment or systems, nor do they alter the assumptions of any
accident analyses. The proposed changes do not adversely affect
accident initiators or precursors nor do they alter the design
assumptions, conditions, and configuration or the manner in which
the plants are operated and maintained. The proposed changes do not
adversely affect the ability of Structures, Systems, or Components
(SSCs) to perform their intended safety functions in mitigating the
consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance
limits.
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
[[Page 33268]]
accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to FitzPatrick's EAL schemes to adopt the
NRC-endorsed guidance in NEI 99-01, Revision 6 do not involve any
physical changes to plant systems or equipment. The proposed changes
do not involve the addition of any new plant equipment. The proposed
changes will not alter the design configuration, or method of
operation of plant equipment beyond its normal functional
capabilities. All FitzPatrick ERO functions will continue to be
performed as required. The proposed changes do not create any new
credible failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident initiators.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from those that have been
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to FitzPatrick's EAL schemes to adopt the
NRC-endorsed guidance in NEI 99-01, Revision 6 do not alter or
exceed a design basis or safety limit. 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 manner in which any SSC
is operated. Margins of safety are unaffected by the proposed
changes to adopt the NEI 99-01, Revision 6 EAL scheme guidance. The
applicable requirements of 10 CFR 50.47 and 10 CFR part 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: Donald P. Ferraro, Assistant General
Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 200 Exelon Way, Suite 305,
Kennett Square, PA 19348.
NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-289 and 50-320, Three
Mile Island Nuclear Station (TMI), Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Dauphin County,
Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: March 19, 2018. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18078A578.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the
TMI Site Emergency Plan (SEP) on-shift and emergency response
organization (ERO) staffing to support the planned permanent cessation
of operations and permanent defueling of TMI, Unit 1. Specifically, the
proposed changes would eliminate the on-shift positions not needed for
the safe storage of spent fuel in the spent fuel pool during the
initial decommissioning period and eliminate the ERO positions not
necessary to effectively respond to credible accidents for a
permanently shutdown and defueled power reactor facility. The proposed
changes will also relocate full augmentation position requirements from
the SEP to the Emergency Preparedness Implementing Procedures.
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 TMI Emergency Plan do not impact the
function of plant Structures, Systems, or Components (SSCs). The
proposed changes do not involve the modification of any plant
equipment or affect plant operation. The proposed changes do not
affect accident initiators or precursors, nor do the proposed
changes alter design assumptions. The proposed changes do not
prevent the ability of the on-shift staff and ERO to perform their
intended functions to mitigate the consequences of any accident or
event that will be credible in the permanently defueled condition.
The proposed changes only remove positions that will no longer be
needed or credited in the Emergency Plan in the permanently defueled
condition.
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 reduce the number of on-shift and ERO
positions commensurate with the hazards associated with a
permanently shutdown and defueled facility. The proposed changes do
not involve installation of new equipment or modification of
existing equipment, so that no new equipment failure modes are
introduced. Also, the proposed changes do not result in a change to
the way that the equipment or facility is operated so that no new
accident initiators are created.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
Margin of safety is associated with confidence in the ability of
the fission product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, reactor coolant
system pressure boundary, and containment structure) to limit the
level of radiation dose to the public. The proposed changes do not
adversely affect existing plant safety margins or the reliability of
the equipment assumed to operate in the safety analyses. There are
no changes being made to safety analysis assumptions, safety limits,
or limiting safety system settings that would adversely affect plant
safety as a result of the proposed changes. The proposed changes are
associated with the Emergency Plan and staffing and do not impact
operation of the plant or its response to transients or accidents.
The proposed changes do not affect the Technical Specifications. The
proposed changes do not involve a change in the method of plant
operation, and no accident analyses will be affected by the proposed
changes. Safety analysis acceptance criteria are not affected by the
proposed changes and margins of safety are maintained. The revised
Emergency Plan will continue to provide the necessary response staff
with the proposed changes.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel,
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL
60555.
NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353, Limerick
Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-
171, 50-277, and 50-278, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Unit Nos.
1, 2, and 3, York and Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: May 10, 2018. Publicly-available version
is in ADAMS under Package Accession No. ML18149A290.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the
emergency response organization (ERO) positions identified in the
emergency plan for each site.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
[[Page 33269]]
consideration for each site, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to the [site] Emergency Plan do not
increase the probability or consequences of an accident. The
proposed changes do not impact the function of plant Structures,
Systems, or Components (SSCs). The proposed changes do not affect
accident initiators or accident precursors, nor do the changes alter
design assumptions. The proposed changes do not alter or prevent the
ability of the onsite ERO to perform their intended functions to
mitigate the consequences of an accident or event. The proposed
changes remove ERO positions no longer credited or considered
necessary in support of Emergency Plan implementation.
Therefore, the proposed changes to the [site] Emergency Plan do
not involve a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes have no impact on the design, function, or
operation of any plant SSCs. The proposed changes do not affect
plant equipment or accident analyses. The proposed changes do not
involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or
different type of equipment will be installed), a change in the
method of plant operation, or new operator actions. The proposed
changes do not introduce failure modes that could result in a new
accident, and the proposed changes do not alter assumptions made in
the safety analysis. The proposed changes remove ERO positions no
longer credited or considered necessary in support of Emergency Plan
implementation.
Therefore, the proposed changes to the [site] Emergency Plan do
not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident
from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
Margin of safety is associated with confidence in the ability of
the fission product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, reactor coolant
system pressure boundary, and containment structure) to limit the
level of radiation dose to the public.
The proposed changes do not adversely affect existing plant
safety margins or the reliability of the equipment assumed to
operate in the safety analyses. There are no changes being made to
safety analysis assumptions, safety limits, or limiting safety
system settings that would adversely affect plant safety as a result
of the proposed changes. Margins of safety are unaffected by the
proposed changes to the ERO staffing. The proposed changes are
associated with the [site] Emergency Plan staffing and do not impact
operation of the plant or its response to transients or accidents.
The proposed changes do not affect the Technical Specifications. The
proposed changes do not involve a change in the method of plant
operation, and no accident analyses will be affected by the proposed
changes. Safety analysis acceptance criteria are not affected by
these proposed changes. The proposed changes to the Emergency Plan
will continue to provide the necessary onsite ERO response staff.
Therefore, the proposed changes to the [site] Emergency Plan do
not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis for each site
and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10
CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to
determine that the requested amendments involve no significant hazards
consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel,
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL
60555.
NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.
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: May 4, 2018. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18129A219.
Description of amendment request: The proposed change would modify
technical specification (TS) requirements regarding Limiting Condition
for Operation (LCO) and Surveillance Requirement (SR) usage, in
accordance with NRC-approved Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF)
Traveler TSTF-529, Revision 4, ``Clarify Use and Application Rules.''
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 Section 1.3 and LCO 3.0.4 have no effect
on the requirement for systems to be Operable and have no effect on
the application of TS actions. The proposed change to SR 3.0.3
states that the allowance may only be used when there is a
reasonable expectation the surveillance will be met when performed.
Since the proposed change does not significantly affect system
Operability, the proposed change will have no effect on the
initiating events for accidents previously evaluated and will have
no significant effect on the ability of the systems to mitigate
accidents previously evaluated.
Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change to the TS usage rules does not affect the
design or function of any plant systems. The proposed change does
not change the Operability requirements for plant systems or the
actions taken when plant systems are not operable.
Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change clarifies the application of Section 1.3 and
LCO 3.0.4 and does not result in changes in plant operation. SR
3.0.3 is revised to allow application of SR 3.0.3 when an SR has not
been previously performed if there is reasonable expectation that
the SR will be met when performed. This expands the use of SR 3.0.3
while ensuring the affected system is capable of performing its
safety function. As a result, plant safety is either improved or
unaffected.
Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Robert B. Haemer, Senior Nuclear Counsel,
One Cook Place, Bridgman, MI 49106.
NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-
026, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Unit Nos. 3 and 4, Burke County,
Georgia
Date of amendment request: May 18, 2018. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18138A396.
Description of amendment request: The amendment request proposes to
change Technical Specifications Limiting Condition for Operation 3.3.8,
Engineered Safety Feature Actuation System (ESFAS) Instrumentation,
related to Safeguard Actuation Functions. Various ESFAS Functions
require applicability and corresponding actions changes to more
accurately reflect their operation and related safety analysis
assumptions. This submittal requests approval of the license amendment
necessary to implement these changes.
[[Page 33270]]
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 do not involve changes to current plant
design or safety analysis assumptions. These changes provide
Technical Specifications consistency with the approved plant design
and safety analysis assumptions. The changes do not affect the
operation of any systems or equipment that initiate an analyzed
accident or alter any structures, systems, and components (SSCs)
accident initiator or initiating sequence of events. The proposed
changes do not result in any increase in the probability of an
analyzed accident occurring. Therefore, the requested amendment does
not involve a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not involve changes to current plant
design or safety analysis assumptions. These changes provide
Technical Specifications consistency with the approved plant design
and safety analysis assumptions. The proposed changes do not affect
plant protection instrumentation systems, and do not affect the
design function, support, design, or operation of mechanical and
fluid systems. The proposed changes do not result in a new failure
mechanism or introduce any new accident precursors. No design
function described in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report
(UFSAR) is affected by the proposed changes. Therefore, the
requested amendment does not create the possibility of a new or
different kind accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not involve changes to current plant
design or safety analysis assumptions. These changes provide
Technical Specifications consistency with the approved plant design
and safety analysis assumptions. No safety analysis or design basis
acceptance limit/criterion is involved. Therefore, the proposed
amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: M. Stanford Blanton, Balch & Bingham LLP,
1710 Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 35203-2015.
NRC Branch Chief: Jennifer Dixon-Herrity.
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), Docket Nos. 50-259, 50-260, and 50-
296, Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN), Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3, Limestone
County, Alabama
Date of amendment request: May 3, 2018. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18124A053.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the
BFN Units 1, 2, and 3 renewed facility operating licenses (RFOLs) to
provide a correction to previously submitted information in relation to
their approved fire protection program under 10 CFR 50.48(c),
``National Fire Protection Association Standard NFPA 805.''
Specifically, TVA requested to modify the BFN licenses to reflect
changes to Item 3.3.4 in Table B-1, ``Transition of Fundamental Fire
Protection Program & Design Elements,'' of Attachment A in its NFPA 805
license amendment request dated March 27, 2013 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML13092A393).
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below.
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment adds the reference to this letter to the
BFN RFOL License Condition paragraphs 2.C.(13), 2.C.(14), and
2.C.(7) for BFN Units 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The change
encompassed by the proposed amendment is to correct the entry in
Attachment A Table B-1 of the BFN Transition Report.
The proposed change does not adversely affect accident
initiators or precursors nor alter the design assumptions,
conditions, and configuration of the facility or the manner in which
the plant is operated and maintained. The proposed change does not
affect the ability of structures, systems and components (SSCs) to
perform their intended safety function to mitigate the consequences
of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits.
Therefore, these proposed changes do not involve a significant
increase in the probability of consequences of an accident
previously identified.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment adds the reference to this letter to the
BFN RFOL License Condition paragraphs 2.C.(13), 2.C.(14), and
2.C.(7) for BFN Units 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The change
encompassed by the proposed amendment is to correct the entry in
Attachment A Table B-1 of the BFN Transition Report.
There is no risk impact to Core Damage Frequency (CDF) or Large
Early Release Frequency (LERF) because this is an administrative
change. Plant secondary combustibles, including insulating
materials, are considered in the fire modeling input to the Fire PRA
[Probabilistic Risk Assessment].
The proposed change does not result in any new or different
kinds of accident from that previously evaluated because it does not
change any precursors or equipment that is previously credited for
accident mitigation.
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 amendment adds the reference to this letter to the
BFN RFOL License Condition paragraphs 2.C.(13), 2.C.(14), and
2.C.(7) for BFN Units 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The change
encompassed by the proposed amendment are to correct the entry in
Attachment A Table B-1 of the BFN Transition Report.
This proposed change corrects erroneous information to
previously approved information in the BFN Transition Report. This
proposed change will have an insignificant impact on the accident
analysis as it is a clarifying or administrative change. Plant
secondary combustibles, including insulating materials, are
considered in the fire modeling input to the Fire PRA.
The proposed change will not result in any new or different
kinds of accident from that previously evaluated because it does not
change any precursors or equipment that is previously credited for
accident mitigation.
Therefore, based on the above discussion, these proposed changes
do not involve a 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: General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority,
400 West Summit Hill Drive, 6A West Tower, Knoxville, TN 37902.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Booma Venkataraman.
[[Page 33271]]
III. Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses
and Combined Licenses
During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice,
the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has
determined for each of these amendments that the application complies
with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,
as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The
Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the
Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR chapter I, which are set
forth in the license amendment.
A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility
operating license or combined license, as applicable, proposed no
significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a
hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the Federal
Register as indicated.
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that
these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in
accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b),
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be
prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an
environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in
10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment,
it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the action see (1) the
applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's
related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as
indicated. All of these items can be accessed as described in the
``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' section of this
document.
Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Docket No. 50-400, Shearon Harris Nuclear
Power Plant, Unit No. 1, Wake and Chatham Counties, North Carolina
Date of amendment request: June 5, 2017, as supplemented by letters
dated October 30, 2017, November 27, 2017, and January 28, 2018.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical
Specifications (TSs) to restrict the steady-state voltage and frequency
limits for emergency diesel generator (EDG) operation to ensure that
accident mitigation equipment can perform as designed. In addition, the
amendment revised a TS to increase the voltage limit for the EDG full
load rejection test to provide additional operating margin to test
acceptance criteria.
Date of issuance: June 20, 2018.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment No.: 165. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML18130A270; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-63: The amendment
revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 26, 2017 (82
FR 44851). The supplemental letters dated October 30, 2017, November
27, 2017, and January 28, 2018, provided additional information that
clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application
as originally noticed, and did not change the NRC staff's original
proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as
published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 20, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-271, Vermont Yankee
Nuclear Power Station, Vernon, Vermont
Date of amendment request: July 13, 2017.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment approved the removal
of the existing cyber security license condition from the facility
operating license.
Date of issuance: June 27, 2018.
Effective date: As of the date the licensee notifies the NRC in
writing that all spent nuclear fuel assemblies have been transferred
out of the spent fuel pool and have been placed in dry storage within
the independent spent fuel storage installation, and shall be
implemented within 60 days of the effective date.
Amendment No.: 268. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML18145A208; documents related to this amendment are
referenced in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-28: This amendment
revised the License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 26, 2017 (82
FR 44852).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 27, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-313, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit
1 (ANO-1), Pope County, Arkansas
Date of amendment request: July 17, 2017.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical
Specifications (TSs) for ANO-1 and established a new Completion Time in
ANO-1 TS 3.7.5, ``Emergency Feedwater (EFW) System,'' where one steam
supply to the turbine-driven EFW pump is inoperable concurrent with an
inoperable motor-driven EFW train. The amendment is consistent with
NRC-approved Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-
412, Revision 3, ``Provide Actions for One Steam Supply to Turbine
Driven AFW [Auxiliary Feedwater]/EFW Pump Inoperable,'' with certain
plant-specific deviations.
Date of issuance: June 19, 2018.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 260. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML18115A282; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-51: Amendment revised
the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 10, 2017 (82 FR
47036).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 19, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-368, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit
No. 2 (ANO-2), Pope County, Arkansas
Date of amendment request: July 17, 2017.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical
Specifications (TSs) for ANO-2 and established Actions and Allowable
Outage Times in ANO-2 TS 3.7.1.2, ``Emergency Feedwater System,'' for
several combinations of inoperable Emergency Feedwater (EFW) trains
consistent with NUREG-1432, ``Standard Technical Specifications--
Combustion Engineering Plants,'' Revision 4. The amendment includes
[[Page 33272]]
changes incorporated by Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF)-340,
``Allow 7 Day Completion Time for a Turbine-Driven AFW [Auxiliary
Feedwater] Pump Inoperable,'' Revision 3 and TSTF-412, ``Provide
Actions for One Steam Supply to Turbine Driven AFW/EFW Pump
Inoperable,'' Revision 3.
Date of issuance: June 19, 2018.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 310. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML18134A253; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-6: Amendment revised the
Renewed Facility Operating License and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 10, 2017 (82 FR
47036).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 19, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-317 and 50-318, Calvert
Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Calvert County,
Maryland, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-220 and 50-
410, Nine Mile, Point, Nuclear Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Oswego
County, New York, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-244,
R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, Wayne County, New York
Date of amendment request: May 31, 2017.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the
emergency plans for each facility by changing the emergency action
level schemes. The changes are based on the Nuclear Energy Institute's
(NEI's) guidance in NEI 99-01, Revision 6, ``Development of Emergency
Action Levels for Non-Passive Reactors,'' which was endorsed by the NRC
by letter dated March 28, 2013 (ADAMS Package Accession No.
ML13091A209).
Date of issuance: June 26, 2018.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
on or before June 28, 2019.
Amendment Nos.: Calvert Cliffs--324/302; Nine Mile Point--230/171;
and, Ginna--128. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML18137A614; documents related to these amendments are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-53, DPR-69, DPR-63, NPF-69, and
DPR-18: Amendments revised the emergency plans.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 1, 2017 (82 FR
35838).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 26, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-237 and 50-249, Dresden
Nuclear Power Station (DNPS), Unit Nos. 2 and 3, Grundy County,
Illinois
Date of amendment request: May 3, 2017, as supplemented by letter
dated February 14, 2018.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the DNPS
Technical Specification (TS) 5.5.12, ``Primary Containment Leakage Rate
Testing Program,'' to allow for the permanent extension of the Type A
integrated leak rate testing and the Type C leak rate testing
frequencies.
Date of issuance: June 29, 2018.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 257 (Unit 2) and 250 (Unit 3). A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18137A271; documents related
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with
the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-19 and DPR-25:
Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TS.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 1, 2017 (82 FR
35838). The supplemental letter dated February 14, 2018, provided
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change
the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 29, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-244, R. E. Ginna Nuclear
Power Plant (Ginna), Wayne County, New York
Date of amendment request: June 30, 2017, as supplemented by
letters dated October 25, 2017, and June 5, 2018.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the license
to delete the modification to install overcurrent protection on its
emergency diesel generators which was required as part of Ginna's
implementation of its risk-informed, performance-based fire protection
program in accordance with 10 CFR 50.48(c).
Date of issuance: June 25, 2018.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 127. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML18114A025; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-18: Amendment revised
the Renewed Facility Operating License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 3, 2017 (82 FR
46097). The supplemental letters dated October 25, 2017, and June 5,
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 June 25, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. STN 50-456 and STN 50-457,
Braidwood Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Will County, Illinois and Docket
Nos. STN 50-454 and STN 50-455, Byron Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Ogle
County, Illinois
Date of amendment request: June 30, 2017, as supplemented by
letters dated October 25, 2017, and May 29, 2018.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical
Specification (TS) 3.1.4, ``Rod Group Alignment Limits,'' TS 3.1.5,
``Shutdown Bank Insertion Limits,'' TS 3.1.6, ``Control Bank Insertion
Limits,'' and TS 3.1.7, ``Rod Position Indication.''
Date of issuance: June 27, 2018.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos: 196 (Braidwood, Unit 1) and 196 (Braidwood, Unit 2);
202 (Bryon, Unit 1) and 202 (Bryon, Unit 2). A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18065A529; documents related
to these amendments are listed in the
[[Page 33273]]
related Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-72, NPF-77, NPF-37, and
NPF-66: The amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses
and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 29, 2017 (82 FR
41069). The supplemental letters dated October 25, 2017, and May 29,
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 June 27, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, Docket No. 50-440, Perry Nuclear
Power Plant, Unit No. 1, Lake County, Ohio
Date of amendment request: September 11, 2017.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the
requirements in Technical Specification (TS) 3.3.6.1, ``Primary
Containment and Drywell Isolation Instrumentation,'' by adding an
ACTIONS note to Limiting Condition of Operation 3.3.6.1 to allow
intermittent opening, under administrative control, of containment and
drywell penetration flow paths that are isolated.
Date of issuance: June 25, 2018.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 181. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML18157A084; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-58: Amendment revised the
Facility Operating License and TS.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 7, 2017 (82 FR
51652).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 25, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, South Carolina Public Service
Authority, Docket No. 50-395, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit
No. 1, Fairfield County, South Carolina
Date of amendment request: October 6, 2017, as supplemented by
letter dated April 19, 2018.
Brief description of amendment: This amendment increased the
Integrated Leak Rate Test Peak Calculated Containment Internal
Pressure, Pa, listed in Technical Specification (TS) 6.8.4.g,
``Containment Leakage Rate Testing Program,'' from 45.1 pounds per
square inch gauge (psig) to 46.0 psig. It also removed the reference to
Regulatory Guide 1.163, ``Performance-Based Containment Leak Test
Program,'' and American National Standards Institute/American Nuclear
Society (ANSI/ANS)-56.8-2002, ``Containment System Leakage Testing
Requirements,'' and replaced the reference of Nuclear Energy Institute
(NEI) 94-01, Revision 3-A, ``Industry Guideline for Implementing
Performance-Based Option of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix J,'' with NEI 94-
01, Revision 2-A.
Date of issuance: June 28, 2018.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 210. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML18141A668, documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-12: Amendment revised
the Renewed Facility Operating License and the TS.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 21, 2017 (82
FR 55409). The supplemental letter dated April 19, 2018, provided
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change
the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 28, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-364,
Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Houston County,
Alabama
Date of amendment request: December 21, 2017.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments modified Technical
Specification (TS) 3.7.5, ``Auxiliary Feedwater (AFW) System,'' to
establish a new Completion Time for the Condition where one steam
supply to the turbine driven AFW pump is inoperable concurrent with an
inoperable motor driven AFW train. In addition, the amendments added
specific Conditions and Action requirements: (1) For when two motor
driven AFW trains are inoperable at the same time and; (2) for when the
turbine driven AFW train is inoperable either (a) due solely to one
inoperable steam supply, or (b) due to reasons other than one
inoperable steam supply. The proposed changes are consistent with NRC-
approved Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Traveler, TSTF-412,
Revision 3, ``Provide Actions for One Steam Supply to Turbine Driven
AFW/EFW [Emergency Feedwater] Pump Inoperable'' dated January 10, 2007.
Date of issuance: June 27, 2018.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 219 (Unit 1) and 216 (Unit 2). A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18151A174. 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 TS.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 13, 2018 (83
FR 6234).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 27, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Susquehanna Nuclear, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-387 and 50-388, Susquehanna
Steam Electric Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: December 14, 2017.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical
Specification (TS) 3.6.4.1, ``Secondary Containment,'' Surveillance
Requirement (SR) 3.6.4.1.1. The SR was revised to address conditions
during which the secondary containment pressure may not meet the SR
pressure requirements. The changes are based on Technical Specification
Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-551, Revision 3, ``Revise Secondary
Containment Surveillance Requirements.''
Date of issuance: June 26, 2018.
[[Page 33274]]
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment Nos.: 270 (Unit 1) and 252 (Unit 2). A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18150A281. Documents related
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with
the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-14 and NPF-22: The
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TS.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 27, 2018 (83
FR 8520).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 26, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-390 and 50-391, Watts Bar
Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Rhea County, Tennessee
Date of amendment request: November 23, 2016, as supplemented by
letters dated September 29, November 16, and December 27, 2017, and May
11, 2018.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the
Technical Specification (TS) requirements on control and shutdown rods,
and rod and bank position indication in the Units 1 and 2, TS 3.1.5,
``Rod Group Alignment Limits,'' TS 3.1.6, ``Shutdown Bank Insertion
Limits,'' TS 3.1.7, ``Control Bank Insertion Limits,'' and TS 3.1.8,
``Rod Position Indication.''
Date of issuance: June 26, 2018.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 120 (Unit 1) and 20 (Unit 2). A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18079A029; documents related
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with
the amendments.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-90 and NPF-96: Amendments
revised the Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 14, 2017 (82 FR
13672). The supplemental letters dated September 29, November 16, and
December 27, 2017, expanded the scope of the amendment request as
originally noticed in the Federal Register. A second notice was
published in the Federal Register on February 21, 2018 (83 FR 7500),
which superseded the original notice in its entirety. The supplemental
letter dated May 11, 2018, provided additional information that
clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application
as re-noticed, and did not change the NRC staff's 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 June 26, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
IV. Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and
Combined Licenses and Final Determination of No Significant Hazards
Consideration and Opportunity for a Hearing (Exigent Public
Announcement or Emergency Circumstances)
During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice,
the Commission has issued the following amendment. The Commission has
determined for this amendment that the application for the amendment
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.
Because of exigent or emergency circumstances associated with the
date the amendment was needed, there was not time for the Commission to
publish, for public comment before issuance, its usual notice of
consideration of issuance of amendment, proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination, and opportunity for a hearing.
For exigent circumstances, the Commission has either issued a
Federal Register notice providing opportunity for public comment or has
used local media to provide notice to the public in the area
surrounding a licensee's facility of the licensee's application and of
the Commission's proposed determination of no significant hazards
consideration. The Commission has provided a reasonable opportunity for
the public to comment, using its best efforts to make available to the
public means of communication for the public to respond quickly, and in
the case of telephone comments, the comments have been recorded or
transcribed as appropriate and the licensee has been informed of the
public comments.
In circumstances where failure to act in a timely way would have
resulted, for example, in derating or shutdown of a nuclear power plant
or in prevention of either resumption of operation or of increase in
power output up to the plant's licensed power level, the Commission may
not have had an opportunity to provide for public comment on its no
significant hazards consideration determination. In such case, the
license amendment has been issued without opportunity for comment. If
there has been some time for public comment but less than 30 days, the
Commission may provide an opportunity for public comment. If comments
have been requested, it is so stated. In either event, the State has
been consulted by telephone whenever possible.
Under its regulations, the Commission may issue and make an
amendment immediately effective, notwithstanding the pendency before it
of a request for a hearing from any person, in advance of the holding
and completion of any required hearing, where it has determined that no
significant hazards consideration is involved.
The Commission has applied the standards of 10 CFR 50.92 and has
made a final determination that the amendment involves no significant
hazards consideration. The basis for this determination is contained in
the documents related to this action. Accordingly, the amendment has
been issued and made effective as indicated.
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that this
amendment satisfies 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 this amendment. If the Commission has prepared an
environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in
10 CFR 51.12(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
application for amendment, (2) the amendment to Facility Operating
License or Combined License, as applicable, 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.
A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing and Petition for Leave To Intervene
The Commission is also offering an opportunity for a hearing with
respect to the issuance of the amendment. Within 60 days after the date
of publication of this notice, any persons (petitioner) whose interest
may be affected by this
[[Page 33275]]
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 https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. Alternatively, a copy of
the regulations is available at the NRC's Public Document Room, located
at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first
floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. If a petition is filed, the
Commission or a presiding officer will rule on the petition and, if
appropriate, a notice of a hearing will be issued.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309(d) the petition should specifically
explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with
particular reference to the following general requirements for
standing: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the
petitioner; (2) the nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to
be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the
petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding;
and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be
entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f), the petition must also set
forth the specific contentions which the petitioner seeks to have
litigated in the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific
statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In
addition, the petitioner must provide a brief explanation of the bases
for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or
expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner
intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The
petitioner must also provide references to the specific sources and
documents on which the petitioner intends to rely to support its
position on the issue. The petition must include sufficient information
to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant or licensee on
a material issue of law or fact. Contentions must be limited to matters
within the scope of the proceeding. The contention must be one which,
if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner who
fails to satisfy the requirements at 10 CFR 2.309(f) with respect to at
least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding,
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene.
Parties have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the
hearing with respect to resolution of that party's admitted
contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence, consistent
with the NRC's regulations, policies, and procedures.
Petitions must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of
publication of this notice. Petitions and motions for leave to file new
or amended contentions that are filed after the deadline will not be
entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the
filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10
CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i) through (iii). The petition must be filed in
accordance with the filing instructions in the ``Electronic Submissions
(E-Filing)'' section of this document.
If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the
Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no
significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve
to establish when the hearing is held. If the final determination is
that the amendment request involves no significant hazards
consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it
immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any
hearing would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final
determination is that the amendment request involves a significant
hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before
the issuance of the amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent
danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will
issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.
A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian
Tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to
participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition should
state the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the
proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission no later
than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. The petition
must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the
``Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)'' section of this document, and
should meet the requirements for petitions set forth in this section,
except that under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(2) a State, local governmental body,
or Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof does not need
to address the standing requirements in 10 CFR 2.309(d) if the facility
is located within its boundaries. Alternatively, a State, local
governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof
may participate as a non-party under 10 CFR 2.315(c).
If a hearing is granted, any person who is not a party to the
proceeding and is not affiliated with or represented by a party may, at
the discretion of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited
appearance pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person
making a limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of
his or her position on the issues but may not otherwise participate in
the proceeding. A limited appearance may be made at any session of the
hearing or at any prehearing conference, subject to the limits and
conditions as may be imposed by the presiding officer. Details
regarding the opportunity to make a limited appearance will be provided
by the presiding officer if such sessions are scheduled.
B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a
request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition), any
motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the
submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and
documents filed by interested governmental entities that request to
participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the
NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007, as amended at 77 FR
46562; August 3, 2012). The E-Filing process requires participants to
submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in
some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Detailed
guidance on making electronic submissions may be found in the Guidance
for Electronic Submissions to the NRC and on the NRC website at https://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
[[Page 33276]]
submissions and access the E-Filing system for any proceeding in which
it is participating; and (2) advise the Secretary that the participant
will be submitting a petition or other adjudicatory document (even in
instances in which the participant, or its counsel or representative,
already holds an NRC-issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this
information, the Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the
hearing in this proceeding if the Secretary has not already established
an electronic docket.
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is
available on the NRC's public website at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/getting-started.html. Once a participant has obtained a
digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant
can then submit adjudicatory documents. Submissions must be in Portable
Document Format (PDF). Additional guidance on PDF submissions is
available on the NRC's public website at https://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 https://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.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-277 and 50-278, Peach
Bottom Atomic Power Station, Unit Nos. 2 and 3 (Peach Bottom), York
County, Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: June 21, 2018.
Description of amendments: The amendments revised the Peach Bottom
Technical Specifications (TSs) for a one-time suspension of the
emergency diesel generator (EDG) No. 4 (E-4) surveillance requirements.
Specifically, the amendments revised TS Surveillance Requirements
3.8.1.2, 3.8.1.3, 3.8.1.6, and 3.8.3.4 to suspend performing required
monthly surveillance testing on the E-4 EDG until the E-3 EDG is
returned to operable status, not to exceed 2205 hours Eastern Time on
June 27, 2018.
Date of issuance: June 23, 2018.
Effective date: June 23, 2018.
Amendment Nos.: 318 (Unit 1) and 321 (Unit 2). A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18173A042. Documents related
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with
the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-44 and DPR-56: The
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
Public comments requested as to proposed no significant hazards
consideration: No.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments, finding of
emergency circumstances, State consultation, and final no significant
hazards consideration determination are contained in a Safety
Evaluation dated June 23, 2018.
Attorney for licensee: J. Bradley Fewell, Vice President and Deputy
General Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 200 Exelon Way,
Kennett Square, PA 19348.
NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 5th day of July 2018.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Gregory F. Suber,
Deputy Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of
Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2018-14779 Filed 7-16-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P