Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations, 40342-40355 [2018-17132]

Agencies

• NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 157 (Tuesday, August 14, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40342-40355]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-17132]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2018-0164]


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 July 17, 2018, to July 30, 2018. The last 
biweekly notice was published on July 31, 2018.

DATES: Comments must be filed by September 13, 2018. A request for a 
hearing must be filed by October 15, 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-2018-0164. 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,

[[Page 40343]]

see ``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' in the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paula Blechman, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2242; email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments

A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2018-0164, 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-2018-0164.
     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 ``Begin Web-based ADAMS 
Search.'' For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public 
Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or 
by email to [email protected]. The ADAMS accession number for each 
document referenced (if it is available in ADAMS) is provided the first 
time that it is mentioned in this document.
     NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public 
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

B. Submitting Comments

    Please include Docket ID NRC-2018-0164, 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

[[Page 40344]]

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 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

[[Page 40345]]

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

Arizona Public Service Company, et al., Docket Nos. STN 50-528, STN 50-
529, and STN 50-530, Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 
1, 2, and 3, Maricopa County, Arizona

    Date of amendment request: July 31, 2015, as supplemented by 
letters dated April 11, 2016; November 3, 2017; May 18, 2018; and June 
1, 2018. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS under Accession Nos. 
ML15218A300, ML16102A463, ML17307A188, ML18138A480, and ML18152B874, 
respectively.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would modify the 
technical specification (TS) requirements related to Completion Times 
(CTs) for Required Actions to provide the option to calculate longer, 
risk-informed CTs. The methodology for using the Risk Informed 
Completion Time (RICT) Program is described in Nuclear Energy Institute 
(NEI) topical report NEI 06-09, ``Risk-Informed Technical 
Specifications Initiative 4b, Risk-Managed Technical Specifications 
(RMTS) Guidelines,'' Revision 0-A (ADAMS Accession No. ML12286A322), 
which was approved by the NRC on May 17, 2007. The license amendment 
request (LAR) was originally noticed in the Federal Register on 
December 8, 2015 (80 FR 76317). The licensee originally proposed to 
adopt, with plant-specific variations, Technical Specifications Task 
Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-505, Revision 1, ``Provide Risk-Informed 
Extended Completion Times--RITSTF [Risk Informed TSTF] Initiative 4b'' 
(ADAMS Accession No. ML111650552). By letter dated November 15, 2016 
(ADAMS Accession No. ML16281A021), the NRC staff informed the TSTF of 
its decision to suspend NRC approval of TSTF-505, Revision 1, because 
of concerns identified during the review of plant-specific LARs for 
adoption of the traveler. The NRC staff's letter also stated that it 
would continue reviewing applications already received and site-
specific proposals to address the staff's concerns. Although the scope 
of the amendment request has not changed, the basis for the amendments 
will no longer rely on TSTF-505. This notice is being reissued in its 
entirety to include the revised description of the amendment request. 
The proposed no significant hazards consideration determination is 
identical to the one published in the Federal Register on December 8, 
2015.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change permits the use of RICTs provided the 
associated risk is assessed and managed in accordance with the NRC-
accepted RICT Program. The proposed use of RICTs does not involve a 
significant increase in the probability of an accident previously 
evaluated because the change only affects TS Conditions, Required 
Actions and CTs associated with risk informed technical 
specifications and does not involve changes to the plant, its modes 
of operation, or TS mode applicability. The proposed license 
amendment references regulatory commitments to achieve the baseline 
PRA [probabilistic risk assessment] risk metrics specified in the 
NRC model evaluation. The changes proposed by regulatory commitments 
will be implemented under the requirements of 10 CFR 50.59 without 
the need for prior NRC approval. The proposed change does not 
increase the consequences of an accident because the accident 
mitigation functions of the affected systems, structures, or 
components (SSCs) are not changed.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility or different 
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change permits the use of RICTs provided the 
associated risk is assessed and managed in accordance with the NRC-
accepted RICT Program. The proposed use of RICTs does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated because the change only affects TS Conditions, 
Required Actions and CTs associated with risk informed technical 
specifications. The proposed change does not involve a physical 
alteration of the plant and does not involve installation of new or 
different kind of equipment. The proposed license amendment 
references regulatory commitments to achieve the baseline PRA risk 
metrics specified in the NRC model evaluation. The changes proposed 
by

[[Page 40346]]

regulatory commitments will be implemented under the requirements of 
10 CFR 50.59 without the need for prior NRC approval. The proposed 
change does not alter the accident mitigation functions of the 
affected SSCs and does not introduce new or different SSC failure 
modes than already evaluated.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change permits the use of RICTs provided the risk 
levels associated with inoperable equipment within the scope of the 
RICT program are assessed and managed in accordance with the NRC 
approved RICT Program. The proposed change implements a risk-
informed Configuration Risk Management Program (CRMP) to assure that 
adequate margins of safety are maintained. Application of these new 
specifications and the CRMP considers cumulative effects of multiple 
systems or components being out of service and does so more 
effectively than the current TS. In this regard, the implementation 
of the CRMP is considered an improvement in safety.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
that 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 involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Michael G. Green, Senior Regulatory Counsel, 
Pinnacle West Capital Corporation, P.O. Box 52034, Mail Station 8695, 
Phoenix, Arizona 85072-2034.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.

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

    Date of amendment request: March 14, 2018. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18073A137.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment modifies 
the technical specification definition of ``Shutdown Margin'' (SDM) to 
require calculation of the SDM at a reactor moderator temperature of 68 
degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F) per hour or a higher temperature that 
represents the most reactive state throughout the operating cycle. This 
change is needed to address new boiling water reactor (BWR) fuel 
designs, which may be more reactive at shutdown temperatures above 
68[emsp14][deg]F.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change revises the definition of SDM. SDM is not an 
initiator to any accident previously evaluated. Accordingly, the 
proposed change to the definition of SDM has no effect on the 
probability of any accident previously evaluated. SDM is an 
assumption in the analysis of some previously evaluated accidents 
and inadequate SDM could lead to an increase in consequences for 
those accidents. However, the proposed change revises the SDM 
definition to ensure that the correct SDM is determined for all fuel 
types at all times during the fuel cycle.
    As a result, the proposed change does not adversely affect the 
consequences of any accident previously evaluated.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change revises the definition of SDM. The change 
does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or 
different type of equipment will be installed) or a change in the 
methods governing normal plant operations. The change does not alter 
assumptions made in the safety analysis regarding SDM.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change revises the definition of SDM. The proposed 
change does not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting 
safety system settings or limiting conditions for operation are 
determined. The proposed change ensures that the SDM assumed in 
determining safety limits, limiting safety system settings or 
limiting conditions for operation is correct for all BWR fuel types 
at all times during the fuel cycle. Therefore, the proposed change 
does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Jon P. Christinidis, DTE Energy, Expert 
Attorney--Regulatory, 688 WCB, One Energy Plaza, Detroit, MI 48226-
1279.
    NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Date of amendment request: June 20, 2018. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18172A315.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the 
Emergency Action Levels (EALs) for CNS, MNS, ONS, BNP, HNP, and RNP 
consistent with Emergency Preparedness Frequently Asked Questions 
(EPFAQs) 2015-013 (EAL HG1.1) and 2016-002 (EALs CA6.1 and SA9.1 (SA8.1 
for BNP)). The amendments would revise the EALs for HNP and RNP 
consistent with EPFAQ 2015-014 (EAL HS6.1).
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes to EALs HG1.1, CA6.1, SA9.1 (SA8.1 for 
BNP), and HS6.1 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 Duke Energy's Emergency 
Response Organization (ERO) to respond in mitigating the 
consequences of any design basis accident. The proposed changes do 
not involve any physical changes to plant

[[Page 40347]]

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. There is no impact on the source term or pathways assumed in 
accidents previously assumed. No analysis assumptions are violated 
and there are no adverse effects on the factors that contribute to 
offsite or onsite dose as the result of an accident.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes to EALs HG1.1, CA6.1, SA9.1 (SA8.1 for 
BNP), and HS6.1 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 Duke Energy 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 any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    Margin of safety is related to the confidence in the ability of 
the fission product barriers to perform their design functions 
during and following an accident. These barriers include the fuel 
cladding, the reactor coolant system, and the containment system.
    The proposed changes to EALs HG1.1, CA6.1, SA9.1 (SA8.1 for 
BNP), and HS6.1 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. 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 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: Kathryn B. Nolan, Deputy General Counsel, 
Duke Energy Corporation, 550 South Tryon Street, Mail Code DEC45A, 
Charlotte NC 28202.
    NRC Acting Branch Chief: Booma Venkatamaraman.

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-255, Palisades Nuclear 
Plant (PNP), Van Buren County, Michigan

    Date of amendment request: May 30, 2018. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18152A922.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
revise the PNP Technical Specification (TS) 3.3.5, ``Diesel Generator 
(DG)--Undervoltage Start (UV Start),'' Surveillance Requirement (SR) 
3.3.5.2a by adding a channel calibration requirement for the combined 
time delay setpoints for the degraded voltage sensing relay and the 
degraded voltage time delay relay.
    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 would revise a TS SR to include, for each 
degraded voltage channel, calibration of the time delay setpoint for 
the degraded voltage sensing relay in combination with the setpoint 
for the time delay relay. The minimum time delay setpoint in the 
revised TS SR would be long enough to override any brief voltage 
disturbances. The maximum time delay setpoint in the revised TS SR 
would be short enough to not exceed the maximum time delays assumed 
in the PNP Final Safety Analysis Report accident analyses for the 
operation of safety related equipment and to not result in failure 
of safety related equipment due to sustained degraded voltage 
conditions. Therefore, safety related loads would be available to 
perform their required safety functions under these conditions.
    The proposed change does not adversely affect accident 
initiators or precursors, and does not affect the design 
assumptions, conditions, or configuration of the plant, or the 
manner in which the plant is operated or maintained.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment would revise a TS SR to include, for each 
degraded voltage channel, calibration of the time delay setpoint for 
the degraded voltage sensing relay in combination with the time 
delay setpoint for the time delay relay. The conduct of surveillance 
tests on safety related plant equipment is a means of assuring that 
the equipment is capable of performing its functions that are 
credited in the safety analyses for the facility. The proposed 
amendment would not affect the operation of safety related equipment 
assumed in accident analyses, and would not create any new failure 
mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident initiators not considered in 
the design and licensing bases.
    Therefore, the possibility of a new or different kind of 
accident from any previously evaluated has not been created.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment would revise a TS SR to include, for each 
degraded voltage channel, calibration of the time delay setpoint for 
the degraded voltage sensing relay in combination with the time 
delay setpoint for the time delay relay. The conduct of surveillance 
tests on safety related plant equipment is a means of assuring that 
the equipment is capable of maintaining the margin of safety 
established in the safety analyses for the facility. The proposed 
amendment would not introduce changes to limits established in the 
accident analyses. The minimum time delay setpoint in the revised TS 
SR would be long enough to override any brief voltage disturbances. 
The maximum time delay setpoint in the revised TS SR would be short 
enough to not exceed the maximum time delays assumed in the PNP 
Final Safety Analysis Report accident analyses for the operation of 
safety related equipment and to not result in failure of safety 
related equipment due to sustained degraded voltage conditions.
    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: Anna Jones, Senior Counsel, Entergy 
Services, Inc., 101 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20001.
    NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.

[[Page 40348]]

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-461, Clinton Power 
Station, Unit No. 1, DeWitt County, Illinois

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

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

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

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-352 and No. 50-353, 
Limerick Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Montgomery County, 
Pennsylvania

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, and PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-
277 and 50-278, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Unit Nos. 2 and 3, 
York and Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania

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

    Date of amendment request: June 15, 2018. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18166A197.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the 
technical specification (TS) requirements associated with the average 
power range monitors (APRMs).
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:
    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The APRM system and the RPS [reactor protection system] are not 
initiators of any accidents previously evaluated. As a result, the 
proposed change does not affect the probability of any accident 
previously evaluated. The APRM system and the RPS functions act to 
mitigate the consequences of accidents previously evaluated. The 
reliability of the APRM system and the RPS is not significantly 
affected by removing the gain adjustment requirement on the APRM 
channels when the APRMs are calibrated conservatively with respect 
to the calculated heat balance. This is because the actual core 
thermal power at which the reactor will automatically trip is lower, 
thereby increasing the margin to the core thermal limits and the 
limiting safety system settings assumed in the safety analyses. The 
consequences of an accident during the adjustment of the APRM 
instrumentation are no different from those during the existing 
surveillance testing period or the existing time allowed to restore 
the instruments to operable status. As a result, the ability of the 
APRM system and the RPS to mitigate any accident previously 
evaluated is not significantly affected.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes do not alter the protection system designs, 
create new failure modes, or change any modes of operation. The 
proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant; 
no new or different kind of equipment will be installed. 
Consequently, there are no new initiators that could result in a new 
or different kind of accident.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The margin of safety provided by the APRM system and the RPS is 
to ensure that the reactor is shut down automatically when plant 
parameters exceed the setpoints for the system. Any reduction in the 
margin of safety resulting from the adjustment of the APRM channels 
while continuing operation is considered to be offset by delaying a 
plant shutdown (i.e., a transient) for a short time with the APRM 
system, the primary indication of core power and an input to the 
RPS, not calibrated. Additionally, the short time period required 
for adjustment is consistent with the time allowed by TS to restore 
the core power distribution parameters to within limits and is 
acceptable based on the low probability of a transient or design 
basis accident occurring simultaneously with inaccurate APRM 
channels.
    The proposed changes do not alter setpoints or limits 
established or assumed by the accident analyses. The TS continue to 
require operability of the RPS functions, which provide core 
protection for postulated reactivity insertion events occurring 
during power operating conditions consistent with the plant safety 
analyses.
    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 
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.

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

    Date of amendment request: April 19, 2018. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18157A123.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise 
licenses and the technical specifications (TSs) as follows:

 Division 3 Battery Surveillance Testing

    The proposed amendments would revise TS 3.8.4, ``DC Sources-
Operating,'' and TS 3.8.6, ``Battery Parameters,'' by removing the Mode 
restrictions for performance of TS surveillance requirements (SRs) 
3.8.4.3 and 3.8.6.6 for the Division 3 direct current (DC) electrical 
power subsystem battery. The Division 3 DC electrical power subsystem 
feeds emergency DC loads associated with the high pressure core spray 
(HPCS) system. Surveillance Requirement 3.8.4.3 verifies that the 
battery capacity is adequate for the battery to perform its required 
functions. Surveillance Requirement 3.8.6.6 verifies battery capacity 
is greater than or equal to (>=) 80 percent of the manufacturer's 
rating when subjected to a performance discharge test (or a modified 
performance discharge test). The proposed amendments would remove these 
Mode restrictions for the Division 3 battery, allowing performance of 
SRs 3.8.4.3 and 3.8.6.6 for the Division 3 battery during Mode 1 or 2, 
potentially minimizing impact on HPCS unavailability. Eliminating the 
requirement to perform SRs 3.8.4.3 and 3.8.6.6 only during Mode 3, 4, 
or 5 (hot shutdown, cold shutdown, or refueling conditions) will 
provide greater flexibility in scheduling Division 3 battery testing 
activities by allowing the testing to be performed during non-outage 
times.

 High Pressure Core Spray Diesel Generator Surveillance Testing
    The proposed amendments would revise TS 3.8.1, ``AC Sources-
Operating,'' by revising certain SRs pertaining to the Division 3 
diesel generator (DG). The Division 3 DG is an

[[Page 40349]]

independent source of onsite alternating current (AC) power dedicated 
to the HPCS system. The TSs currently prohibit performing the testing 
required by SRs 3.8.1.9, 3.8.1.10, 3.8.1.11, 3.8.1.12, 3.8.1.13, 
3.8.1.16, 3.8.1.17, and 3.8.1.19, in Modes 1 or 2. The proposed 
amendments would remove these Mode restrictions and allow all eight of 
the identified SRs to be performed in any operating Mode for the 
Division 3 DG. The Mode restrictions will remain applicable to the 
other two safety-related (Division 1 and Division 2) DGs.
    The proposed change will provide greater flexibility in scheduling 
Division 3 DG testing activities by allowing the testing to be 
performed during non-outage times. Having a completely tested Division 
3 DG available for the duration of a refueling outage will reduce the 
number of system re-alignments and operator workload during an outage.
    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 analyzed?
    Response: No.
    The Division 3 HPCS DG electrical power subsystem and its 
associated emergency loads are accident mitigating features, not 
accident initiators. Therefore, the proposed TS changes to allow the 
performance of certain Division 3 AC Sources surveillance testing in 
any plant operating Mode will not significantly impact the 
probability of any previously evaluated accident.
    The design and function of plant equipment is not being modified 
by the proposed changes. Neither the battery test frequency nor the 
time that the TSs allow the HPCS system to be inoperable are being 
revised. Battery testing in accordance with the proposed TS changes 
will continue to verify that the Division 3 DC electrical power 
subsystem is capable of performing its required function of 
providing DC power to HPCS system equipment, consistent with the 
plant safety analyses. The battery testing will occur during a 
planned HPCS outage and therefore will not result in an increase in 
risk above the current work practices of planned HPCS system 
maintenance outages. Any risk associated with the testing of the 
Division 3 battery will be bounded and addressed with the risk 
associated with the HPCS system outage. In addition, the HPCS system 
reliability and availability are monitored and evaluated in 
relationship to Maintenance Rule goals to ensure that total outage 
times do not degrade operational safety over time.
    Testing is limited to only one electrical division of equipment 
at a time to ensure that design basis requirements are met. Should a 
fault occur while testing the Division 3 battery, there would be no 
significant impact on any accident consequences since the other two 
divisional DC electrical power subsystems and their associated 
emergency loads would be available to provide the minimum safety 
functions necessary to shut down the unit and maintain it in a 
safety shutdown condition.
    The Division 3 HPCS DG and its associated emergency loads are 
accident mitigating features, not accident initiators. Therefore, 
the proposed TS changes to allow the performance of Division 3 DG 
surveillance testing in any plant operating mode will not 
significantly impact the probability of any previously evaluated 
accident.
    The design of plant equipment is not being modified by the 
proposed changes. As such, the ability of the Division 3 DG to 
respond to a design basis accident will not be adversely impacted by 
the proposed changes. The proposed changes to the TS surveillance 
testing requirements for the Division 3 DG do not affect the 
operability requirements for the DG, as verification of such 
operability will continue to be performed as required. Continued 
verification of operability supports the capability of the Division 
3 DG to perform its required function of providing emergency power 
to HPCS system equipment, consistent with the plant safety analyses. 
Limiting testing to only one DG at a time ensures that design basis 
requirements are met. Should a fault occur while testing the 
Division 3 DG, there would be no significant impact on any accident 
consequences since the other two divisional DGs and associated 
emergency loads would be available to provide the minimum safety 
functions necessary to shut down the unit and maintain it in a safe 
shutdown condition.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not result in 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.
    No changes are being made to the plant that would introduce any 
new accident causal mechanisms. Equipment will be operated in the 
same configuration with the exception of the plant operating mode in 
which the Division 3 battery and DG surveillance testing are 
conducted. Performance of these surveillance tests while online will 
continue to verify operability of the Division 3 battery and DG. The 
battery testing will potentially minimize the out-of-service time 
for the HPCS system. The proposed amendments do not impact any plant 
systems that are accident initiators and do not adversely impact any 
accident mitigating systems.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in 
the margin of safety.
    Margin of safety is related to confidence in the ability of the 
fission product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, reactor coolant 
system, and primary containment) to perform their design functions 
during and following postulated accidents. The proposed changes to 
the TS surveillance testing requirements for the Division 3 AC 
Sources and DG do not affect the operability requirements, as 
verification of such operability will continue to be performed as 
required. Continued verification of operability supports the 
capability of the Division 3 AC Sources and DG to perform the 
required functions of providing emergency power to HPCS system 
equipment, consistent with the plant safety analyses.
    Consequently, the performance of the fission product barriers 
will not be adversely impacted by implementation of the proposed 
amendments. In addition, the proposed changes do not alter setpoints 
or limits established or assumed by the accident analysis.
    The additional online unavailability of the HPCS system does not 
constitute a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The 
battery testing will be performed when the HPCS system is already 
out of service for a planned system outage and therefore the testing 
will not result in an increase in risk above the current work 
practices of planned system maintenance outages, as currently 
allowed by the TS.
    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: David J. Wrona.

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

    Date of amendment request: December 5, 2014; as supplemented by 
letters dated July 8 and July 22, 2016; February 25, 2017; and February 
1, March 15, and June 7, 2018. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS 
under Accession Nos. ML14353A016, ML16193A659, ML16208A061, 
ML17058A181, ML18032A614, ML18074A116, and ML18158A228, respectively.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would modify the 
Technical Specification (TS) requirements related to Completion Times 
for Required Actions to provide the option to calculate longer, risk-

[[Page 40350]]

informed Completion Times. The amendments would also add a new program, 
the Risk Informed Completion Time (RICT) Program, to TS Section 6.0, 
``Administrative Controls.'' The methodology for using the Risk 
Informed Completion Time Program is described in Nuclear Energy 
Institute (NEI) topical report NEI 06-09, ``Risk-Informed Technical 
Specifications Initiative 4b, Risk-Managed Technical Specifications 
(RMTS) Guidelines,'' Revision 0-A (ADAMS Accession No. ML12286A322), 
which was approved by the NRC on May 17, 2007. The license amendment 
request was originally noticed in the Federal Register on March 17, 
2015 (80 FR 13908). The licensee originally proposed to adopt, with 
plant specific variations, Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) 
Traveler TSTF-505, Revision 1, ``Provide Risk-Informed Extended 
Completion Times--RITSTF [Risk Informed TSTF] Initiative 4b'' 
(Accession No. ML111650552). By letter dated November 15, 2016 (ADAMS 
Accession No. ML16281A021), the NRC staff informed the TSTF of its 
decision to suspend NRC approval of TSTF-505, Revision 1, because of 
concerns identified during the review of plant-specific license 
amendment requests for adoption of the traveler. The NRC staff's letter 
also stated that it would continue reviewing applications already 
received and site-specific proposals to address the staff's concerns. 
Although the scope of the amendment request has not changed, the basis 
for the amendments will no longer rely on TSTF-505. The notice is being 
reissued in its entirety to include the description of the amendment 
request and proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change permits the extension of Completion Times 
provided the associated risk is assessed and managed in accordance 
with the NRC[-]approved Risk Informed Completion Time Program. The 
proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the 
probability of an accident previously evaluated because the change 
involves no change to the plant or its modes of operation. The 
proposed change does not increase the consequences of an accident 
because the design-basis mitigation function of the affected systems 
is not changed and the consequences of an accident [occurring] 
during the extended Completion Time are no different from those 
[occurring] during the existing Completion Time.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not change the design, configuration, 
or method of operation of the plant. The proposed change does not 
involve a physical alteration of the plant (no new or different kind 
of equipment will be installed).
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change permits the extension of Completion Times 
provided risk is assessed and managed in accordance with the NRC[-
]approved Risk Informed Completion Time Program. The proposed change 
implements a risk-informed configuration management program to 
assure that adequate margins of safety are maintained. Application 
of these new specifications and the configuration management program 
considers cumulative effects of multiple systems or components being 
out of service and does so more effectively than the current TS.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

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

Northern States Power Company (NSPM), Docket Nos. 50-282 and 50-306, 
Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, (PINGP) 
Goodhue County, Minnesota

    Date of amendment request: May 18, 2018. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18138A402.
    Brief description of amendment request: The proposed amendments 
would modify paragraph 2.C(4)(c) of the PINGP Renewed Facility 
Operating Licenses (RFOLs) which requires the implementation of 
modification to PINGP as described in Attachment S, Table S-2, of the 
PINGP license amendment request (LAR) dated December 14, 2016, to adopt 
the National Fire Protection Association Standard (NFPA) 805. 
Specifically, NSPM is requesting the deletion of five modifications 
from Table S-2 of the December 14, 2016, LAR.
    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 a reference to this letter to the 
PINGP, Units 1 and 2, RFOLs. The changes encompassed by this 
proposed amendment are to delete five modifications that are no 
longer needed from a risk perspective. The revision is based on five 
changes to Table S-2 proposed in this license amendment request 
(LAR). The proposed changes have been reviewed in the fire 
Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) model approved as part of 
PINGP's transition to NFPA 805 and the results were found to be 
acceptable. Fire protection defense in depth and adequate safety 
margins are maintained with the changes proposed in this LAR.
    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 changes do not 
adversely 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. The proposed change does not increase the probability or 
consequences of an accident as verified by the risk analysis 
performed.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment adds a reference to this letter to the 
PINGP, Units 1 and 2, RFOLs. The changes encompassed by this 
proposed amendment are to delete five modifications that are no 
longer needed from a risk perspective. The revision is based on five 
changes to Table S-2 proposed in this LAR. The proposed changes have 
been reviewed in the fire PRA model approved as part of PINGP's 
transition to NFPA 805 and the results were found to be acceptable. 
Fire protection defense in depth and adequate safety margins are 
maintained with the changes proposed in this LAR.
    The proposed changes will not result in any new or different 
kinds of accident from that previously evaluated because it does not

[[Page 40351]]

change any precursors or equipment that is previously credited for 
accident mitigation.
    Therefore, the proposed changes 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.
    The proposed amendment adds a reference to this letter to the 
PINGP, Units 1 and 2, RFOLs. The changes encompassed by this 
proposed amendment are to delete five modifications that are no 
longer needed from a risk perspective. The revision is based on five 
changes to Table S-2 proposed in this LAR. The proposed changes have 
been reviewed in the fire PRA model approved as part of PINGP's 
transition to NFPA 805 and the results were found to be acceptable. 
Fire protection defense in depth and adequate safety margins are 
maintained with the changes proposed in this LAR.
    The proposed change does not adversely affect any SSCs credited 
for accident mitigation. The margins of safety previously evaluated 
are not significantly affected. The change does not affect the 
design function or capabilities of any plant systems.
    Therefore, the proposed changes will not impact or reduce any 
margins of safety previously evaluated.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Peter M. Glass, Assistant General Counsel, 
Xcel Energy Services, Inc., 414 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, MN 55401.
    NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.

Northern States Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-282 and 50-306, Prairie 
Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, (PINGP) Goodhue 
County, Minnesota

    Date of amendment request: June 26, 2018. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18177A450.
    Brief description of amendment request: The proposed amendments 
would revise PINGP Technical Specifications (TSs) by eliminating second 
Completion Times limiting time from discovery of failure to meet a 
limiting condition for operation (LCO). These changes are consistent 
with NRC-approved Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler 
TSTF-439, Revision 2, ``Eliminate Second Completion Times Limiting Time 
from Discovery of Failure to Meet an LCO.''
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change eliminates second Completion Times from the 
Technical Specifications. Completion Times are not an initiator to 
any accident previously evaluated. As a result, the probability of 
an accident previously evaluated is not affected. The consequences 
of an accident during the revised Completion Time are no different 
than the consequences of the same accident during the existing 
Completion Times. As a result, the consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated are not affected by this change. The proposed 
change does not alter or prevent the ability of SSCs [structures, 
systems, and components] from performing their intended function to 
mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within the assumed 
acceptance limits. The proposed change does not affect the source 
term, containment isolation, or radiological release assumptions 
used in evaluating the radiological consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated. Further, the proposed change does not increase 
the types or amounts of radioactive effluent that may be released 
offsite nor significantly increase individual or cumulative 
occupational/public radiation exposures. The proposed change is 
consistent with the safety analysis assumptions and resultant 
consequences.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of 
the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be 
installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant 
operation. The proposed change does not alter any assumptions made 
in the safety analysis.
    Therefore, the proposed changes 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.
    The proposed change to delete the second Completion Time does 
not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system 
settings, or limiting conditions for operation are determined. The 
safety analysis acceptance criteria are not affected by this change. 
The proposed change will not result in plant operation in a 
configuration outside of the design basis.
    Therefore, the proposed 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: Peter M. Glass, Assistant General Counsel, 
Xcel Energy Services, Inc., 414 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, MN 55401.
    NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.

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

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

    Date of amendment request: June 29, 2018. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18183A343.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise 
technical specification (TS) requirements in Section 3/4.0, 
``Applicability,'' regarding Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) and 
Surveillance Requirement (SR) usage. These changes are consistent with 
NRC-approved Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-
529, ``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 change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes to 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 4.0.3 states 
that the allowance may only be used when there is a reasonable 
expectation the surveillance will be met when performed. Since the 
proposed changes do not significantly affect system Operability, the 
proposed changes will have no significant 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.

[[Page 40352]]

    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 LCO 3.0.4 and 
does not result in changes in plant operation. SR 4.0.3 is revised 
to allow application of SR 4.0.3 when an SR has not been previously 
performed and there is reasonable expectation that the SR will be 
met when performed. This expands the use of SR 4.0.3 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: Ryan K. Lighty, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, 
1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004-2541.
    NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna.

United States Maritime Administration (MARAD), Docket No. 50-238, 
Nuclear Ship SAVANNAH (NSS), Baltimore, Maryland

    Date of amendment request: June 19, 2018. A publically-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18173A128.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
revise Technical Specification (TS) Section 2.0, ``Radioactive 
Releases,'' from its original custom form to industry typical 10 CFR 
50.36a TSs for effluents from nuclear power reactors.
    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 is administrative and does not involve 
modification of any plant equipment or affect basic plant operation. 
The proposed amendment revises all of Technical Specification 
Section 2.0, Radioactive Releases from its original custom form to 
typical 10 CFR 50.36a, Technical Specifications on effluents from 
nuclear power reactors that are consistent with those of plants in 
advanced stages of decommissioning. The proposed amendment also 
deletes three Technical Specifications whose requirements are 
included in STS-005-020, Offsite Dose Calculation Manual and 
therefore, are no longer necessary as standalone Technical 
Specifications. These three Technical Specifications include one 
associated with the annual report, one associated with area 
monitoring thermoluminescent dosimeters and one associated with 
environmental monitoring.
    The NSS's reactor is not operational and the level of 
radioactivity in the NSS has significantly decreased from the levels 
that existed when the final shutdown was completed on November 8, 
1970. No aspect of any of the proposed changes is an initiator of 
any accident previously evaluated. Consequently, the probability of 
an accident previously evaluated is not significantly increased.
    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.
    All of the proposed changes are administrative and do not 
involve physical alteration of plant equipment that was not 
previously allowed by Technical Specifications. The proposed 
amendment revises all of Technical Specification Section 2.0, 
Radioactive Releases from its original custom form to typical 10 CFR 
50.36a, Technical Specifications on effluents from nuclear power 
reactors that are consistent with those of plants in advanced stages 
of decommissioning. The proposed amendment also deletes three 
Technical Specifications whose requirements are included in STS-005-
020, Offsite Dose Calculation Manual and therefore, are no longer 
necessary as standalone Technical Specifications. These three 
Technical Specifications include one associated with the annual 
report, one associated with area monitoring thermoluminescent 
dosimeters and one associated with environmental monitoring.
    These proposed changes do not change the method by which any 
safety-related system performs its function given that all primary, 
auxiliary and secondary systems are deactivated, disabled and 
perform no active function. No new or different types of equipment 
will be installed, and the basic operation of installed equipment is 
unchanged. The methods governing plant operation and testing remain 
consistent with current safety analysis assumptions.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
    3. Does the change involve a significant reduction in a margin 
of safety?
    Response: No.
    All of the proposed changes are administrative in nature. The 
proposed amendment revises all of Technical Specification Section 
2.0, Radioactive Releases from its original custom form to typical 
10 CFR 50.36a, Technical Specifications on effluents from nuclear 
power reactors that are consistent with those of plants in advanced 
stages of decommissioning. The proposed amendment also deletes three 
Technical Specifications whose requirements are included in STS-005-
020, Offsite Dose Calculation Manual and therefore, are no longer 
necessary as standalone Technical Specifications. These three 
Technical Specifications include one associated with the annual 
report, one associated with area monitoring thermoluminescent 
dosimeters and one associated with environmental monitoring.
    No margins of safety exist that are relevant to the ship's 
defueled and partially dismantled reactor. As such, there are no 
changes being made to safety analysis assumptions, safety limits or 
safety system settings that would adversely affect plant safety as a 
result of the proposed changes.
    As such, there are no changes being made to safety analysis 
assumptions, safety limits or safety system settings that would 
adversely affect plant safety or are relevant to the ship's defueled 
and partially dismantled reactor as a result of 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.
    Advisor for licensee: Erhard W. Koehler, U.S. Department of 
Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, 
Washington, DC 20590.
    NRC Branch Chief: Bruce Watson.

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

    The following notices were previously published as separate 
individual notices. The notice content was the same as above. They were 
published as individual notices either because time did not allow the 
Commission to wait for this biweekly notice or because the action 
involved exigent circumstances. They are repeated here because the 
biweekly notice lists all amendments issued or proposed to be issued 
involving no significant hazards consideration.

[[Page 40353]]

    For details, see the individual notice in the Federal Register on 
the day and page cited. This notice does not extend the notice period 
of the original notice.

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

    Date of amendment request: May 17, 2018. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18137A418.
    Brief description of amendment request: The proposed amendment 
would revise Technical Specifications 2.1.1, ``Reactor Core SLs [safety 
limits]'' to change Cycle 24 Safety Limit Minimum Critical Power Ratio 
(SLMCPR) numeric values resulting from SLMCPR analyses performed.
    Date of publication of individual notice in Federal Register: July 
13, 2018 (83 FR 32691).
    Expiration date of individual notice: August 13, 2018 (public 
comments); September 11, 2018 (hearing requests).

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

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

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

    Date of amendment request: July 17, 2017, as supplemented by letter 
dated January 8, 2018.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Fermi 2 
Technical Specification (TS) 3.7.2, ``Emergency Equipment Cooling Water 
(EECW)/Emergency Equipment Service Water (EESW) System and Ultimate 
Heat Sink (UHS).'' Specifically, the amendment revised TS 3.7.2 
conditions and surveillance requirements to reflect a proposed change 
to the design of the two redundant cross-tie lines that are part of the 
UHS.
    Date of issuance: July 17, 2018.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 120 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 209. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML18144A064; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-43: Amendment revised 
the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 26, 2017 (82 
FR 44850). The supplemental letter dated January 8, 2018, provided 
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand 
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change 
the NRC staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination as published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 17, 2018.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-382, Waterford Steam Electric 
Station, Unit No. 3, St. Charles Parish, Louisiana

    Date of amendment request: November 28, 2017, as supplemented by 
letters dated December 7, 2017, and May 8, 2018.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Section 4.3.3 
of the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report to indicate that the 
RAPTOR-M3G code is used for reactor vessel fluence calculations. The 
use of the RAPTOR-M3G code meets the criteria present in Regulatory 
Guide (RG) 1.190, ``Calculational and Dosimetry Methods for Determining 
Pressure Vessel Neutron Fluence,'' dated March 2001.
    Date of issuance: July 23, 2018.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
30 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 252. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML18180A298; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-38: The amendment revised the 
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 16, 2018 (83 FR 
2228). The supplement dated May 8, 2018, provided additional 
information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of 
the application as originally noticed, and did not change the NRC 
staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination as published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 23, 2018.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: September 14, 2017, as supplemented by 
letter dated March 15, 2018.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical 
Specification (TS) 3.6.4.1, ``Secondary Containment,'' Surveillance 
Requirement (SR) 3.6.4.1.3. The SR is revised to address conditions 
during which the secondary containment pressure may not meet the SR 
pressure requirements.
    Date of issuance: July 19, 2018.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be 
implemented within 60 days.
    Amendment No.: 319. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML18180A372; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-59: The amendment 
revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and TSs.

[[Page 40354]]

    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 7, 2017 (82 FR 
51650). The supplemental letter dated March 15, 2018, provided 
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand 
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change 
the NRC staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination as published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 19, 2018.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-334 and 
50-412, Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Beaver County, 
Pennsylvania

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket No. 50-346, 
Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 1, Ottawa County, Ohio

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

    Date of amendment request: August 11, 2017.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments changed the 
respective technical specifications (TSs) as follows:
    The changes revised Section 1.3, ``Completion Times,'' and Section 
3.0, ``LCO Applicability'' of the TSs to clarify the use and 
application of the TS usage rules, as described below:
     Section 1.3 is revised to clarify ``discovery'' and to 
discuss exceptions to starting the Completion Time at condition entry.
     Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) 3.0.4.b is revised 
to clarify that LCO 3.0.4.a, LCO 3.0.4.b, and LCO 3.0.4.c are 
independent options.
     Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.0.3 is revised to allow 
application of SR 3.0.3 when an SR has not been previously performed 
and to clarify the application of SR 3.0.3.
    The changes to the TSs are consistent with Technical Specifications 
Task Force (TSTF-529), Revision 4, ``Clarify Use and Application 
Rules.'' The NRC staff-issued safety evaluation for TSTF-529 was 
provided to the Technical Specifications Task Force in a letter dated 
April 21, 2016. This review included a review of the NRC staff's 
evaluation, as well as the information provided in TSTF-529.
    Date of issuance: July 30, 2018.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 303/192 (Beaver Valley Unit Nos. 1 and 2); 297 
(Davis-Besse); and 182 (Perry). A publicly-available version is in 
ADAMS under Accession No. ML18179A467; documents related to these 
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 
amendments.
    Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-66, NPF-73, NPF-3, and NPF-58: 
The amendments revised the Licenses and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 7, 2017 (82 FR 
51651).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 30, 2018.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: January 31, 2018.
    Description of amendment: The amendments included changes to 
Combined License Appendix A, Technical Specifications (TSs) related to 
fuel management. Specifically, the amendments proposed improvements to 
the TSs for the Rod Position Indication, the Control Rod Drive 
Mechanism, Power Range Neutron Flux Channels and the Mechanical Shim 
Augmentation.
    Date of issuance: July 19, 2018.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 134 (Unit 3) and 133 (Unit 4). A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18082B374; documents related 
to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 
amendment.
    Facility Combined Licenses No. NPF-91 and NPF-92: Amendments 
revised the Facility Combined Licenses.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 27, 2018 (83 
FR 8509).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in the Safety Evaluation dated July 19, 2018.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-
366, Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant (Hatch), Unit Nos. 1 and 2, City of 
Dalton, Georgia

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., (SNC) Docket Nos. 50-424, 50-
425, 52-025, 52-026, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (Vogtle), Unit 
Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4, Burke County, Georgia

    Date of amendment request: August 30, 2017.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments relocated the 
emergency operations facility for the eight units of the SNC nuclear 
fleet from the SNC corporate headquarters in Birmingham, Alabama, to a 
new location 1.3 miles away.
    Date of issuance: July 26, 2018.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
180 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 220 (Farley, Unit 1), 217 (Farley, Unit 2), 291 
(Hatch, Unit 1), 236 (Hatch, Unit 2), 195 (Vogtle, Unit 1), 178 
(Vogtle, Unit 2), 136 (Vogtle, Unit 3), and 135 (Vogtle, Unit 4). A 
publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18183A073; 
documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety 
Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-2. NPF-8, DPR-57, NPF-5, NPF-
68, NPF-81, NPF-91, and NPF-92: Amendments revised the Facility 
Operating Licenses.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 10, 2017 (82 FR 
47038).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 26, 2018.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

STP Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 50-498 and 50-499, South 
Texas Project, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Matagorda County, Texas

    Date of amendment request: July 31, 2017, as supplemented by letter 
dated February 12, 2018.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendments revised the South 
Texas Project Electric Generating Station Emergency Plan to change the 
emergency response organization (ERO) staffing composition and increase 
the staff augmentation times for certain ERO positions from the time of 
declaration of an Alert or higher emergency

[[Page 40355]]

classification level. The changes also include formatting, 
clarification, and editorial modifications.
    Date of issuance: July 19, 2018.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 9 months from the date of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 214 (Unit 1) and 200 (Unit 2). A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18159A212; documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with 
the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-76 and NPF-80: The 
amendments revised the Site Emergency Plan.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 12, 2017 (82 
FR 42855). The supplemental letter dated February 12, 2018, provided 
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand 
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change 
the NRC staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination as published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 19, 2018.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-338 and 50-339, 
North Anna Power Station, Units Nos. 1 and 2, Louisa County, Virginia

    Date of amendment request: May 2, 2017, as supplemented by letters 
dated July 19, 2017, and January 31, 2018.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised North Anna 
Power Station (NAPS) Technical Specification (TS) 3.7.18, ``Spent Fuel 
Pool Storage,'' and TS 4.3.1, ``Criticality,'' to allow the storage of 
fuel assemblies with a maximum enrichment of up to 5.0 weight percent 
uranium 235 in the NAPS spent fuel pool storage racks and the New Fuel 
Storage Area. The amendments further revised the allowable fuel 
assembly parameters and fuel storage patterns in the spent fuel pool.
    Date of issuance: July 27, 2018.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 180 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 279 (Unit 1) and 262 (Unit 2). A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18180A197; documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with 
the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-4 and NPF-7: Amendments 
revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and Technical 
Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 6, 2018 (83 FR 
9553). The supplemental letters dated July 19, 2017, and January 31, 
2018, provided additional information that clarified the application, 
did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and 
did not change the NRC staff's original proposed no significant hazards 
consideration determination as published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 27, 2018.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 7th day of August, 2018.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Kathryn M. Brock,
Deputy Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of 
Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2018-17132 Filed 8-13-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7590-01-P