Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations, 45981-45992 [2018-19419]

Agencies

• NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 176 (Tuesday, September 11, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45981-45992]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-19419]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2018-0188]


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 August 14 to August 27, 2018. The last 
biweekly notice was published on August 28, 2018.

DATES: Comments must be filed by October 11, 2018. A request for a 
hearing must be filed by November 13, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods 
(unless this document describes a different method for submitting 
comments on a specific subject):
     Federal Rulemaking website: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2018-0188. Address 
questions about NRC dockets to Jennifer Borges; telephone: 301-287-
9127; email: [email protected]. For technical questions, contact 
the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of 
this document.
     Mail comments to: May Ma, Office of Administration, Mail 
Stop: TWFN-7-A60M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001.
    For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting 
comments, see ``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' in the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

[[Page 45982]]


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beverly Clayton, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-3475, email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments

A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2018-0188 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-2018-0188.
     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-2018-0188 facility name, unit 
number(s), plant docket number, application date, and subject in your 
comment submission.
    The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact 
information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your 
comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at https://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into 
ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove 
identifying or contact information.
    If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons 
for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to 
include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be 
publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should 
state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to 
remove such information before making the comment submissions available 
to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.

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

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

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

    Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any 
persons (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by this action may 
file a request for a hearing and petition for leave to intervene 
(petition) with respect to the action. Petitions shall be filed in 
accordance with the Commission's ``Agency Rules of Practice and 
Procedure'' in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult a 
current copy of 10 CFR 2.309. The NRC's regulations are accessible 
electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's website at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. Alternatively, a copy of 
the regulations is available at the NRC's Public Document Room, located 
at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first 
floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. If a petition is filed, the 
Commission or a presiding officer will rule on the petition and, if 
appropriate, a notice of a hearing will be issued.
    As required by 10 CFR 2.309(d) the petition should specifically 
explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with 
particular reference to the following general requirements for 
standing: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the 
petitioner; (2) the nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to 
be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the 
petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; 
and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be 
entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest.
    In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f), the petition must also set 
forth the specific contentions which the petitioner seeks to have 
litigated in the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific 
statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In 
addition, the petitioner must provide a brief explanation of the bases 
for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or 
expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner 
intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The 
petitioner must also provide references to the specific sources and 
documents on which the petitioner intends to rely to support its 
position on the issue. The petition must include sufficient information 
to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant or licensee on 
a material issue of law or fact. Contentions must be limited to matters 
within the scope of the proceeding. The contention must be one which, 
if proven, would entitle the

[[Page 45983]]

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 [email protected], or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-
7640. The NRC

[[Page 45984]]

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.
Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50-397, Columbia Generating Station, 
Benton County, Washington
    Date of amendment request: June 12, 2018, as supplemented by letter 
dated August 7, 2018. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS under 
Accession Nos. ML18163A351 and ML18219C797, respectively.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment proposes to clean-
up the operating license and the technical specifications, including 
editorial changes and the removal of obsolete information.
    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 impacts of these administrative changes do not affect how 
plant equipment is operated or maintained. The proposed changes do 
not impact the intent or substance of the Operating License (OL) or 
Technical Specifications (TS). There are no changes to the physical 
plant or analytical methods.
    The proposed amendment involves administrative and editorial 
changes only. The proposed amendment does not impact any accident 
initiators, analyzed events, or assumed mitigation of accident or 
transient events. The proposed changes do not involve the addition 
or removal of any equipment or any design changes to the facility. 
The proposed changes do not affect any plant operations, design 
functions, or analyses that verify the capability of structures, 
systems, and components (SSCs) to perform a design function. The 
proposed changes do not change any of the accidents previously 
evaluated in the updated Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR). The 
proposed changes do not affect SSCs, operating procedures, and 
administrative controls that have the function of preventing or 
mitigating any of these accidents.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not represent a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment only involves administrative and 
editorial changes. No actual plant equipment or accident analyses 
will be affected by the proposed changes. The proposed changes will 
not change the design function or operation of any SSCs. The 
proposed changes will not result in any new failure mechanisms, 
malfunctions, or accident initiators not considered in the design 
and licensing bases. The proposed amendment does not impact any 
accident initiators, analyzed events, or assumed mitigation of 
accident or transient events.
    Therefore, this proposed changes do not create the possibility 
of an accident of a new or different kind than previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment only involves administrative and 
editorial changes. The proposed changes do not involve any physical 
changes to the plant or alter the manner in which plant systems are 
operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed 
changes do 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 these changes. The proposed changes will not result in plant 
operation in a configuration outside the design basis. The proposed 
changes do not adversely affect systems that respond to safely 
shutdown the plant and to maintain the plant in a safe shutdown 
condition.
    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: William A. Horin, Esq., Winston & Strawn, 
1700 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20006-3817.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, 
Inc., Docket Nos. 50-003 and 50-247, Indian Point Nuclear Generating 
Unit Nos. 1 and 2 (IP1 and IP2), Westchester County, New York
    Date of amendment request: June 20, 2018. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Package Accession No. ML18179A173.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would delete 
specific

[[Page 45985]]

license conditions from the Indian Point Unit Nos. 1 and 2 (IP1 and 
IP2) facility operating licenses related to the terms and conditions of 
the decommissioning trust fund agreement. Specifically, the amendment 
would allow the provisions of 10 CFR 50.75(h), which specify the 
regulatory requirements for decommissioning trust funds, to apply to 
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
    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. Do the proposed amendments involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The requested changes delete License Conditions 6.(a) and 7 of 
the IP1 OL [Operating License] and License Conditions 3.(a) and 4 of 
the IP2 OL, which pertain to the decommissioning trust agreements.
    This request involves changes that are administrative in nature. 
No actual plant equipment or accident analyses will be affected by 
the proposed changes. Therefore, the proposed change does not 
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of 
an accident previously evaluated.
    2. Do the proposed amendments create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    This request involves administrative changes to the IP1 and IP2 
OLs relating to the terms and conditions of the decommissioning 
trust agreements. The proposed changes will be consistent with the 
NRC's regulations at 10 CFR 50.75(h).
    No actual plant equipment or accident analyses will be affected 
by the proposed changes and no failure modes not bounded by 
previously evaluated accidents will be created.
    Therefore, the proposed amendments do not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. Do the proposed amendments involve a significant reduction in 
a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    This request involves administrative changes to the IP1 and IP2 
OLs that will be consistent with the NRC's regulations at 10 CFR 
50.75(h).
    Margin of safety is associated with confidence in the ability of 
the fission product barriers to limit the level of radiation doses 
to the public. No actual plant equipment or accident analyses will 
be affected by the proposed change. Additionally, the proposed 
changes will not relax any criteria used to establish safety limits, 
will not relax any safety systems settings, or will not relax the 
bases for any limiting conditions of operation.
    Therefore, the proposed amendments do not involve a significant 
reduction in the margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Bill Glew, Associate General Counsel, 
Entergy Services, Inc., 639 Loyola Avenue, 22nd Floor, New Orleans, LA 
70113.
    NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna.
NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC, Docket No. 50-443, Seabrook Station, Unit 
No. 1 (Seabrook), Rockingham County, New Hampshire
Florida Power & Light Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389, 
St. Lucie Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, St. Lucie County, Florida
Florida Power & Light Company, Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251, Turkey 
Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 3 and 4 (Turkey Point), Miami-Dade 
County, Florida
    Date of amendment request: May 29, 2018. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18151A472.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the 
technical specifications (TS) to include the provisions of Limit 
Conditioning for Operation (LCO) 3.0.6 in the standard TS. In support 
of this change, the licensee is also proposing to add a new Safety 
Function Determination Program to the administrative section of the TS, 
Notes and Actions that direct entering the Actions for the appropriate 
supported systems, and changes to LCO 3.0.2 for all three facilities; 
as well as changes to LCO 3.0.1 for Seabrook and Turkey Point.
    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.
    This change is associated with the administrative requirements 
for implementing the TS, which are not initiators of any accidents 
previously evaluated, so the probability of accidents previously 
evaluated is unaffected by the proposed change. The proposed change 
does not alter the design, function, or operation of any plant 
structure, system, or component (SSC). The capability of any 
operable TS-required SSC to perform its specified safety function is 
not impacted by the proposed change. As a result, the outcomes of 
accidents previously evaluated are unaffected. Therefore, the 
proposed change does not result in a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not challenge the integrity or 
performance of any safety-related systems. No plant equipment is 
installed or removed, and the changes do not alter the design, 
physical configuration, or method of operation of any plant SSC. No 
physical changes are made to the plant, so no new causal mechanisms 
are introduced. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    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 ability of any operable SSC to perform its designated safety 
function is unaffected by the proposed changes. The proposed change 
does not alter any safety analyses assumptions, safety limits, 
limiting safety system settings, or method of operating the plant. 
The change does not adversely affect plant operating margins or the 
reliability of equipment credited in the safety analyses.
    The proposed change allows not entering the Actions for 
supported systems that are inoperable solely due to a support system 
LCO not being met. However, the change also requires implementing a 
Safety Function Determination Program (SFDP) to determine if a loss 
of safety function exists. If the SFDP determines that a loss of 
safety function exists, the appropriate actions of the LCO in which 
the loss of safety function exists are required to be entered.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in the margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Debbie Hendell, Managing Attorney--Nuclear, 
Florida Power & Light Company, P.O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, FL 33408-
0420.
    NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna.

[[Page 45986]]

Northern States Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-282 and 50-306, Prairie 
Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 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 modify the PINGP licensing basis by the addition of a License 
Condition to allow for the implementation of the provisions of 10 CFR 
50.69, ``Risk-Informed Categorization and Treatment of Structures, 
Systems, and Components for 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 change will permit the use of a risk-informed 
categorization process to modify the scope of Structures, Systems 
and Components (SSCs) subject to NRC special treatment requirements 
and to implement alternative treatments per the regulation. The 
process used to evaluate SSCs for changes to NRC special treatment 
requirements and the use of alternative requirements ensure the 
ability of the SSCs to perform their design function. The potential 
change to special treatment requirements does not change the design 
and operation of the SSCs. As a result, the proposed change does not 
significantly affect any initiators to accidents previously 
evaluated or the ability to mitigate any accidents previously 
evaluated. The consequences of the accidents previously evaluated 
are not affected because the mitigation functions performed by the 
SSCs assumed in the safety analysis are not being modified. The SSCs 
required to safely shut down the reactor and maintain it in a safe 
shutdown condition following an accident will continue to perform 
their design functions.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change will permit the use of a risk-informed 
categorization process to modify the scope of SSCs subject to NRC 
special treatment requirements and to implement alternative 
treatments per the regulation. The proposed change does not change 
the functional requirements, configuration, or method of operation 
of any SSC. Under the proposed change, no additional plant equipment 
will be installed.
    Therefore, the proposed 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 will permit the use of a risk-informed 
categorization process to modify the scope of SSCs subject to NRC 
special treatment requirements and to implement alternative 
treatments per the regulation. The proposed change does not affect 
any Safety Limits or operating parameters used to establish the 
safety margin. The safety margins included in analyses of accidents 
are not affected by the proposed change. The regulation requires 
that there be no significant effect on plant risk due to any change 
to the special treatment requirements for SSCs and that the SSCs 
continue to be capable of performing their design basis functions, 
as well as to perform any beyond design basis functions consistent 
with the categorization process and results.
    Therefore, the proposed 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 requests involve 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.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026, 
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4, Burke County, Georgia
    Date of amendment request: July 20, 2018. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18201A610.
    Description of amendment request: The requested amendment proposes 
to change Technical Specifications (TS) regarding operability 
requirements for the Engineered Safety Features Actuation System Spent 
Fuel Pool Level--Low 2 and In-Containment Refueling Water Storage Tank 
(Wide Range Level--Low instrumentation functions for Refueling Cavity 
and Spent Fuel Pool Cooling System (SFS) Isolation. Additional changes 
are proposed to add TS operability requirements for the SFS containment 
isolation valves in MODES 5 and 6.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes do not affect the safety limits as 
described in the plant-specific Technical Specifications. In 
addition, the limiting safety system settings and limiting control 
settings continue to be met with the proposed changes to the plant-
specific Technical Specifications limiting conditions for operation, 
applicability, actions, and surveillance requirements. The proposed 
changes do not adversely affect the operation of any systems or 
equipment that initiate an analyzed accident or alter any 
structures, systems, and components (SSCs) accident initiator or 
initiating sequence of events. The proposed changes do not result in 
any increase in probability of an analyzed accident occurring, and 
maintain the initial conditions and operating limits required by the 
accident analysis, and the analyses of normal operation and 
anticipated operational occurrences, so that the consequences of 
postulated accidents are not changed. The proposed changes do not 
adversely affect the ability of the Refueling Cavity and SFS 
Isolation function, and the SFS containment isolation valves, to 
perform the required safety functions, and do not adversely affect 
the probability of inadvertent operation or failure of the required 
safety functions.
    Therefore, the requested amendment does not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes do not affect the safety limits as 
described in the plant-specific Technical Specifications. In 
addition, the limiting safety system settings and limiting control 
settings continue to be met with the proposed changes to the plant-
specific Technical Specifications limiting conditions for operation, 
applicability, actions, and surveillance requirements. The proposed 
changes do not affect the operation of any systems or equipment that 
may initiate a new or different kind of accident, or alter any SSC 
such that a new accident initiator or initiating sequence of events 
is created.
    These proposed changes do not adversely affect any other SSC 
design functions or methods of operation in a manner that results in 
a new failure mode, malfunction, or sequence of events that affect 
safety-related or nonsafety-related equipment. Therefore, this 
activity does not allow for a new fission product release path, 
result in a new fission product barrier failure mode, or create a 
new sequence of events that results in significant fuel cladding 
failures.
    Therefore, the requested amendment does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.

[[Page 45987]]

    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes do not affect the safety limits as 
described in the plant-specific Technical Specifications. In 
addition, the limiting safety system settings and limiting control 
settings continue to be met with the proposed changes to the plant-
specific Technical Specifications limiting conditions for operation, 
applicability, actions, and surveillance requirements. The proposed 
changes do not affect the initial conditions and operating limits 
required by the accident analysis, and the analyses of normal 
operation and anticipated operational occurrences, so that the 
acceptance limits specified in the UFSAR [Updated Final Safety 
Analysis Report] are not exceeded. The proposed changes satisfy the 
same safety functions in accordance with the same requirements as 
stated in the UFSAR. These changes do not adversely affect any 
design code, function, design analysis, safety analysis input or 
result, or design/safety margin.
    No safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is 
challenged or exceeded by the proposed changes, and no margin of 
safety is reduced.
    Therefore, the requested amendment does not involve a 
significant reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: M. Stanford Blanton, Balch & Bingham LLP, 
1710 Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 35203-2015.
    NRC Branch Chief: Jennifer Dixon-Herrity.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC), Georgia Power Company, 
Oglethorpe Power Corporation, Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, 
City of Dalton, Georgia, Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366, Edwin I. Hatch 
Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Appling County, Georgia
    Date of amendment request: March 9, 2018. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18071A363.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the 
Technical Specifications (TS) requirements for the Hatch Nuclear Plant, 
Unit Nos. 1 and 2. Specifically, TS 3.3.8.1, ``Loss of Power (LOP) 
Instrumentation,'' for Unit Nos. 1 and 2 would be revised to modify the 
instrument allowable values (AVs) for the 4.16 kilovolt (kV) emergency 
bus degraded voltage instrumentation and delete the annunciation 
requirements for the 4.16 kV emergency bus undervoltage instrumentation 
associated with the Unit 2 emergency buses. In addition, the proposed 
amendments would revise Unit 2 License Condition 2.C(3)(i) to clarify 
its intent.
    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 incorporates concomitant changes to the LOP 
instrumentation requirements to reflect an electrical power system 
modification by deleting the unnecessary loss of voltage 
annunciation requirements and increasing the AVs for the degraded 
voltage protection instrumentation.
    The proposed license change does not involve a physical change 
to the LOP instrumentation, nor does it change the safety function 
of the LOP instrumentation or the equipment supported by the LOP 
instrumentation. Automatic starting of the [diesel generators] DGs 
is assumed in the mitigation of a design basis event upon a loss of 
offsite power. This includes transferring the normal offsite power 
source to an alternate or emergency power source in the event of a 
sustained degraded voltage condition. The LOP instrumentation 
continues to provide this capability and is not altered by the 
proposed license change. The proposed change does not adversely 
affect accident initiators or precursors including a loss of offsite 
power or station blackout. The revised LOP degraded instrumentation 
setpoints ensure that the Class 1E electrical distribution system is 
separated from the offsite power system prior to damaging the safety 
related loads during sustained degraded voltage conditions while 
avoiding an inadvertent separation of safety-related buses from the 
offsite power system. Additionally, the degraded voltage 
instrumentation time delay will isolate the Class 1E electrical 
distribution system from offsite power before the diesel generators 
are ready to assume the emergency loads, which is the limiting time 
basis for mitigating system responses to design basis accidents. As 
a result, the proposed change does not significantly alter 
assumptions relative to the mitigation of an accident or transient 
event and the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    With respect to a new or different kind of accident, the 
proposed license change does not alter the design or performance of 
the LOP instrumentation or electrical power system; nor are there 
any changes in the method by which safety related plant structures, 
systems, and components (SSCs) perform their specified safety 
functions as a result of the proposed license amendment. The 
proposed change deletes the loss of voltage annunciation 
requirements and increases the AVs for the degraded voltage 
protection instrumentation as a result of an electrical power system 
modification, which SNC has evaluated independently of this proposed 
license amendment. The proposed license amendment will not affect 
the normal method of plant operation or revise any operating 
parameters. Additionally, there is no detrimental impact on the 
manner in which plant equipment operates or responds to an actuation 
signal as a result of the proposed license change. No new accident 
scenarios, transient precursor, failure mechanisms, or limiting 
single failures will be introduced as a result of this proposed 
change and the failure modes and effects analyses of SSCs important 
to safety are not altered as a result of this proposed change.
    The process of operating and testing the LOP instrumentation 
uses current procedures, methods, and processes already established 
and currently in use and is not being altered by the proposed 
license amendment. Therefore, the proposed change does not 
constitute a new type of test.
    Accordingly, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    Margin of safety is provided by the performance capability of 
plant equipment in preventing or mitigating challenges to fission 
product barriers under postulated operational transient and accident 
conditions. The proposed license change deletes the loss of voltage 
annunciation requirements and increases the AVs for the degraded 
voltage protection instrumentation as a result of an electrical 
power system modification, which SNC has evaluated independently of 
this proposed license amendment. The proposed deletion of the loss 
of voltage annunciation requirements is offset by the more 
restrictive degraded voltage instrumentation AVs thereby providing 
an automatic emergency bus transfer to the alternate or emergency 
power supply in the event of a sustained degraded voltage condition.
    Therefore, the margin[s] associated with a design basis or 
safety limit parameter are not adversely impacted by the proposed 
amendment and, thus the proposed change does not involve a 
significant reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Jennifer M. Buettner, Associate General 
Counsel,

[[Page 45988]]

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 40 Inverness Center Parkway, 
Birmingham, AL 35242.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-338 and 50-339, 
North Anna Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Louisa County, Virginia 
and Docket Nos. 50-280 and 50-281, Surry Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 
2, Surry County, Virginia
    Date of amendment request: January 16, 2018, as supplemented by 
letter dated June 13, 2018. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS 
under Accession Nos. ML18025B468 and ML18169A224, respectively.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would authorize 
changes to the North Anna Power Station (NAPS) and Surry Power station 
(SPS) emergency plans and would allow the consolidation of both sites' 
current emergency operations facilities (EOF) into a central EOF. As 
the location of the consolidated EOF would be greater than 25 miles 
from either site, this action requires the approval of the NRC itself.
    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. Do the proposed amendments involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendments affect the NAPS and SPS emergency plans, 
including relocation of [Consolidated Emergency Response Plan] CERP 
content, but do not alter any of the requirements of the Operating 
Licenses or the Technical Specifications. The proposed amendments do 
not modify any plant equipment and [do] not impact any failure modes 
that could lead to an accident. Additionally, the proposed 
amendments have no effect on the consequences of any analyzed 
accident since the amendments do not affect any equipment related to 
accident mitigation. Therefore, the proposed amendments do not 
involve a significant increase [in] the probability or consequences 
of an accident previously evaluated.
    2. Do the proposed amendments create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendments affect the NAPS and SPS emergency plans, 
including relocation of CERP content, but do not alter any of the 
requirements of the Operating Licenses or the Technical 
Specifications. [They do] not modify any plant equipment and there 
are no impacts on the capability of existing equipment to perform 
its intended functions. No system setpoints are being modified and 
no new failure modes are introduced. The proposed amendments do not 
introduce new accident initiator[s] or malfunctions that would cause 
a new or different kind of accident. Therefore, the proposed 
amendments do not create the possibility of a new or different kind 
of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
    3. Do the proposed amendments involve a significant reduction in 
a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendments affect the NAPS and SPS emergency plans, 
including relocation of CERP content, but do not alter any of the 
requirements of the Operating Licenses or the Technical 
Specifications. The proposed amendments do not affect any of the 
assumptions used in the accident analyses, or any operability 
requirements for equipment important to plant safety. Therefore, the 
proposed amendments do not involve a significant reduction in the 
margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion 
Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar Street, RS-2, Richmond, VA 
23219.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-338 and 50-339, 
North Anna Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Louisa County, Virginia
    Date of amendment request: January 22, 2018, as supplemented by 
letter dated March 26, 2018. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS 
under Accession Nos. ML18029A118, and ML18092A081, respectively.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the 
North Anna Technical Specification (TS) requirements regarding 
ventilation system testing in accordance with the Technical 
Specifications Task Force traveler, TSTF-522, ``Revise Ventilation 
System Surveillance Requirements to Operate for 10 Hours per Month.''
    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 replaces existing [Surveillance 
Requirements] SRs to operate the [Main Control Room/Emergency 
Switchgear Room Emergency Ventilation System] MCR/ESGR EVS and 
[Emergency Core Cooling System Pump Room Exhaust Air Cleanup System] 
ECCS PREACS Systems equipped with electric heaters for a continuous 
10 hour period every 31 days with a requirement to operate the 
systems for 15 continuous minutes every 31 days with heaters 
operating, if needed. In addition, the electrical heater output test 
in the [Ventilation Filter Testing Program] VFTP (TS 5.5.10.e) is 
proposed to be removed and a corresponding change in the charcoal 
filter testing (TS 5.5.10.c) be made to require testing be conducted 
at a humidity of at least 95% [relative humidity] RH, which is more 
stringent than the current testing requirement of 70% RH.
    These systems are not accident initiators and therefore, these 
changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability of 
an accident. The proposed system and filter testing changes are 
consistent with current regulatory guidance for these systems and 
will continue to assure that these systems perform their design 
function which may include mitigating accidents. Thus, the change 
does not involve a significant increase in the consequences of an 
accident.
    The change to the [Environmental Protection Plan] EPP is 
administrative in nature to reflect approved NRC references (codes).
    Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change replaces existing SRs to operate the MCR/
ESGR EVS and ECCS PREACS Systems equipped with electric heaters for 
a continuous 10 hour period every 31 days with a requirement to 
operate the systems for 15 continuous minutes every 31 days with 
heaters operating, if needed. In addition, the electrical heater 
output test in the VFTP (TS 5.5.10.e) is proposed to be removed and 
a corresponding change in the charcoal filter testing (TS 5.5.10.c) 
be made to require testing be conducted at a humidity of at least 
95% RH, which is more stringent than the current testing requirement 
of 70% RH.
    The change proposed for these ventilation systems does not 
change any system operations or maintenance activities. Testing 
requirements will be revised and will continue to demonstrate that 
the Limiting Conditions for Operation are met and the system 
components are capable of performing their intended safety 
functions. The change does not create new failure modes or 
mechanisms and no new accident precursors are generated.
    The change to the EPP is administrative in nature to reflect 
approved NRC references (codes).
    Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not create the 
possibility of a new or

[[Page 45989]]

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 replaces existing SRs to operate the MCR/
ESGR EVS and ECCS PREACS Systems equipped with electric heaters for 
a continuous 10 hour period every 31 days with a requirement to 
operate the systems for 15 continuous minutes every 31 days with 
heaters operating, if needed. In addition, the electrical heater 
output test in the VFTP (TS 5.5.10.e) is proposed to be removed and 
a corresponding change in the charcoal filter testing (TS 5.5.10.c) 
be made to require testing be conducted at a humidity of at least 
95% RH, which is more stringent than the current testing requirement 
of 70% RH.
    The proposed increase to 95% RH in the required testing of the 
MCR/ESGR EVS charcoal filters compensates for the function of the 
heaters, which was to reduce the humidity of the incoming air to 
below the currently-specified value of 70% RH for the charcoal. The 
proposed change is consistent with regulatory guidance and continues 
to ensure that the performance of the charcoal filters is 
acceptable.
    The change to the EPP is administrative in nature to reflect 
approved NRC references (codes).
    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: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion 
Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar Street, RS-2, Richmond, VA 
23219.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-338 and 50-339, 
North Anna Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Louisa County, Virginia
    Date of amendment request: April 30, 2018. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18127A073.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the 
Technical Specification (TS) requirements to add operability 
requirements, required actions, and surveillance requirements for the 
new 4160 volt emergency bus voltage unbalance protection system at the 
North Anna Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the change involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change adds operability requirements, required 
actions, and surveillance requirements for the voltage unbalance 
(open phase) protection function associated with the 4kV emergency 
buses. This system provides an additional level of undervoltage 
protection for Class 1E electrical equipment. The proposed change 
will promote reliability of the voltage unbalance (open phase) 
protection circuitry in the performance of its design function of 
detecting and mitigating a voltage unbalance condition on a required 
off-site primary power source and initiating transfer to the onsite 
emergency power source.
    The new voltage unbalance (open phase) protection function will 
further ensure the normally operating Class 1E motors/equipment, 
which are powered from the Class 1E buses, are appropriately 
isolated from a primary off-site power source experiencing a 
consequential voltage unbalance and will not be damaged. The 
addition of the voltage unbalance (open phase) protection function 
will continue to allow the existing undervoltage protection 
circuitry to function as originally designed (i.e., degraded and 
loss of voltage protection will remain in place and be unaffected by 
this change). The proposed change does not affect the probability of 
any accident resulting in a loss of voltage or degraded voltage 
condition on the Class 1E electrical buses and will enhance station 
response to mitigating the consequences of accidents previously 
evaluated as this change further ensures continued operation of 
Class 1E equipment throughout accident scenarios.
    Specific models and analyses were performed and demonstrated 
that the proposed voltage unbalance (open phase) protection 
function, with the specified operability requirements, required 
actions, and surveillance requirements, will ensure the Class 1E 
system will be isolated from the off-site power source should a 
consequential voltage unbalance condition occur. The Class 1E motors 
will be subsequently sequenced back onto the Class 1E buses powered 
by the [emergency diesel generators] EDGs and will therefore not be 
damaged in the event of a consequential voltage unbalance under both 
accident and non-accident conditions. Therefore, the Class 1E loads 
will be available to perform their design basis functions should a 
loss of coolant accident (LOCA) occur concurrent with a loss of 
offsite power (LOOP) following a voltage unbalance condition. The 
loading sequence (i.e., timing) of Class 1E equipment back onto the 
ESF bus, powered by the EDG, is within the existing degraded voltage 
time delay.
    The addition of the new voltage unbalance (open phase) 
protection function will have no impact on accident initiators or 
precursors and does not alter the accident analysis assumptions.
    Based on the above, the proposed change does not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the change create the possibility of a new or different 
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not alter the requirements for the 
availability of the 4kV emergency buses during accident conditions. 
The proposed change does not alter assumptions made in the safety 
analysis and is consistent with those assumptions. The addition of 
the voltage unbalance (open phase) protection function TS enhances 
the ability of plant operators to identify and respond to a voltage 
unbalance condition in an off-site, primary power source, thereby 
ensuring the station electric distribution system will perform its 
intended safety function as designed. The proposed TS change will 
promote voltage unbalance (open phase) protection function 
performance reliability in a manner similar to the existing loss of 
voltage and degraded voltage protective circuitry.
    The proposed change does not result in the creation of any new 
accident precursors; does not result in changes to any existing 
accident scenarios; and does not introduce any operational changes 
or mechanisms that would create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident. A failure mode and effects review was 
completed for postulated failure mechanisms of the new voltage 
unbalance protection function and concluded that the addition of 
this protection function would not: (1) Affect the existing loss of 
voltage and degraded voltage protection schemes, (2) affect the 
number of occurrences of degraded voltage conditions that would 
cause the actuation of the existing Loss of Voltage, Degraded 
Voltage or negative sequence voltage protection relays, (3) would 
not affect the failure rate of the existing protection relays, and 
(4) would not impact the assumptions in any existing accident 
scenario.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does this change involve a significant reduction in a margin 
of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change enhances the ability of the plant to 
identify and isolate a voltage unbalance in an off-site, primary 
power source and transfer the power source for the 4kV emergency 
buses to the onsite emergency power system. The proposed change does 
not affect the dose analysis acceptance criteria, does not result in 
plant operation in a configuration outside the analyses or design 
basis, and does not adversely affect systems that respond to safely 
shutdown the plant and to maintain the plant in a safe shutdown 
condition.
    With the addition of the new voltage unbalance (open phase) 
protection function, the capability of Class 1E equipment to perform 
its safety function will be further assured and the equipment will 
remain capable of mitigating the consequences of previously analyzed 
accidents while

[[Page 45990]]

maintaining the existing margin to safety currently assumed in the 
accident analyses.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion 
Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar Street, RS-2, Richmond, VA 
23219.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Date of amendment request: November 7, 2017.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the 
technical specifications (TSs) based on Technical Specification Task 
Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-545, Revision 3, ``TS Inservice Testing 
[IST] Program Removal & Clarify SR [Surveillance Requirement] Usage 
Rule Application to Section 5.5 Testing,'' with some variations. For 
each plant, the changes included deleting the current TS for the IST 
Program, adding a new defined term, ``Inservice Testing Program,'' to 
the TSs, and revising other TSs to reference this new defined term 
instead of the deleted TS.
    Date of issuance: August 15, 2018.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 120 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: Catawba (Unit 1--299, Unit 2--295); McGuire (Unit 
1--309, Unit 2--288); Oconee (Unit 1--409, Unit 2--411, Unit 3--410); 
Harris (Unit 1--166); and Robinson (Unit 2--259). A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18172A172; documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with 
the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-35, NPF-52, NPF-9, NPF-
17, DPR-38, DPR-47, DPR-55, NPF-63, and DPR-23: Amendments revised the 
Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 16, 2018 (83 FR 
2227).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated August 15, 2018.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: February 7, 2018.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical 
Specification (TS) Section 3.4.3 ``RCS [Reactor Coolant System] 
Pressure and Temperature (P/T) Limits,'' to reduce the applicability 
terms from 50 effective full-power years (EFPY) to 46.3 EFPY in Figures 
3.4.3-1 and 3.4.3-2, as a result of the removal of part length fuel 
assemblies and the migration to 24-month fuel cycles.
    Date of issuance: August 16, 2018.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 120 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 260. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML18200A042; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-23: Amendment revised 
the Renewed Facility Operating License and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 10, 2018 (83 FR 
15415).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated August 16, 2018.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-271, Vermont Yankee 
Nuclear Power Station, Vernon, Vermont

    Date of amendment request: July 20, 2017.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment is for a revision to 
the Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications to reflect 
the removal of all spent nuclear fuel from the Vermont Yankee Nuclear 
Power Station spent fuel pool and its transfer to dry cask storage 
within an onsite independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) 
once all of the spent nuclear fuel is placed in the ISFSI.
    Date of issuance: August 15, 2018.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 270. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML18156A179;

[[Page 45991]]

documents related to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation 
enclosed with the amendment.
    Facility Operating License No. DPR-28: The amendment revised the 
Facility Operating License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 26, 2017 (82 
FR 44847).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated August 15, 2018.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: October 2, 2017, as supplemented by 
letters dated January 22 and April 19, 2018.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised existing 
JAFNPP technical specification (TS) requirements related to 
``operations with a potential for draining the reactor vessel'' with 
new requirements on reactor pressure vessel water inventory control to 
protect TS 2.1.1.3 Safety Limit.
    Date of issuance: August 24, 2018.
    Effective date: As of its date of issuance, and shall be 
implemented within 180 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 321. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML18194A882; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-59: The amendment 
revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and TS.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 21, 2017 (82 
FR 55406). The supplemental letters dated January 22 and April 19, 
2018, provided additional information that clarified the application, 
did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and 
did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards 
consideration determination as published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated August 24, 2018.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: February 14, 2018.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Surveillance 
Requirement 3.3.1.1.2 of TS 3.3.1.1, ``Reactor Protection System (RPS) 
Instrumentation,'' to require adjustment of the average power range 
monitor (APRM) channels only if the calculated power exceeds the APRM 
output by more than 2 percent rated thermal power. The change is based 
on Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) traveler TSTF-546, 
``Revise APRM Channel Adjustment Surveillance Requirement.''
    Date of issuance: August 23, 2018.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 183. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML18199A280; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-58: Amendment revised the 
Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 24, 2018 (83 FR 
17863).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated August 23, 2018.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

NextEra Energy Duane Arnold, LLC, Docket No. 50-331, Duane Arnold 
Energy Center, Linn County, Iowa

    Date of amendment request: September 5, 2017, as supplemented by 
letter dated March 1, 2018.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised TS 3.5.1, 
``ECCS--Operating'' to decrease the nitrogen supply requirement for the 
Automatic Depressurization System in Surveillance Requirement 3.5.1.3 
from 100 days to 30 days.
    Date of issuance: August 16, 2018.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 306. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML18179A184; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-49: The amendment 
revised the Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 21, 2017 (82 
FR 55407). The supplemental letter dated March 1, 2018, provided 
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand 
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change 
the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination as published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated August 16, 2018.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: April 13, 2018.
    Description of amendment: The amendment requested changes to the 
plant-specific Appendix A, Technical Specifications (TS) as 
incorporated into the VEGP Combined License (COL), and changes to the 
approved AP1000 Design Control Document Tier 2 information as 
incorporated into the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). 
Specifically, the amendment includes changes to the COL Appendix A, TS 
related to the statuses of the remotely operated containment isolation 
valves. There are two changes to the licensing basis documents that are 
proposed in this License Amendment Request. The first change is to 
clarify the post-accident monitoring (PAM) category designation for 
containment isolation valves statuses by explicitly stating it in the 
licensing basis. This change will help the operators avoid confusion 
and a potential human factor error and will allow operators to quickly 
verify that the nonessential containment flow paths are isolated and 
then focus on the availability of the essential flow paths for their 
defense-in-depth capabilities. The second change is to add PAM 
requirements to the UFSAR for the Normal Residual Heat Removal System, 
the Component Cooling Water System, and the Chemical and Volume Control 
System containment isolation valve statues to capture PAM requirements 
for their valve status which is not currently required for PAM in UFSAR 
Table 7.5-1, ``Post-Accident Monitoring System''.
    Date of issuance: August 7, 2018.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 137 (Unit 3) and 136 (Unit 4). A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession

[[Page 45992]]

No. ML18191B091; documents related to this amendment are listed in the 
Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Facility Combined Licenses No. NPF-91 and NPF-92: Amendment revised 
the Facility Combined Licenses.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 22, 2018 (83 FR 
23728).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in the Safety Evaluation dated August 7, 2018.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: January 31, 2018, as supplemented by 
letter dated May 2, 2018.
    Description of amendment: The amendment revises the VEGP Units 3 
and 4 combined license (COL) Appendix A, Technical Specification (TS) 
related to Pressurizer Safety Valve (PSV) operability. The amendment 
changes TS 3.4.6, ``PSV Applicability'' to require the PSV to be 
operable when the TS 3.4.14, ``Low Temperature Overpressure 
Protection,'' is not required to be operable. A conforming change is 
made to the TS 3.4.6 Actions. Additional TS changes necessary to 
support PSV operability are made for consistency with the TS 3.4.6. The 
amendment also approves moving TS Limiting Condition for Operation 
Notes regarding reactor coolant pump starts from TS 3.4.4, ``Reactor 
Coolant System (RCS) Loops, 3.4.8, ``Minimum RCS Flow,'' and 3.4.14 to 
TS 3.4.3, ``RCS Pressure/Temperature Limits.''
    Date of issuance: July 12, 2018.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 133 (Unit 3) and 132 (Unit 4). A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18159A437; documents related 
to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 
amendment.
    Facility Combined Licenses Nos. NPF-91 and NPF-92: Amendment 
revised the Facility COL.
    Date of Initial Notice in Federal Register: March 13, 2018 (83 FR 
10922). The supplement dated May 2, 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.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in the Safety Evaluation dated July 12, 2018.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: July 8, 2018, as supplemented by letters 
dated July 24 and July 30, 2018.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment extended Technical 
Specification (TS) Surveillance Requirements (SRs) 3.3.1.5, 3.3.2.2, 
and 3.3.6.2 by revising the WBN, Unit 1, TS SR 3.0.2 and certain SRs in 
Table SR 3.0.2-1.
    Date of issuance: August 16, 2018.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
immediately.
    Amendment No.: 121. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML18204A252; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-90: The amendment revised the 
Facility Operating License and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 16, 2018 (83 FR 
32912). The supplemental letters dated July 24 and July 30, 2018, 
provided additional information that clarified the application, did not 
expand the scope of the application as originally notified, and did not 
change the NRC staff's proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination as published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment and final 
determination of no significant hazards consideration is contained in a 
Safety Evaluation dated August 16, 2018.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 31st 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. 2018-19419 Filed 9-10-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7590-01-P