Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations, 50691-50700 [2018-21669]

Agencies

• NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 195 (Tuesday, October 9, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50691-50700]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-21669]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2018-0224]


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

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Biweekly notice.

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

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

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

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods 
(unless this document describes a different method for submitting 
comments on a specific subject):
     Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2018-0224. Address 
questions about Docket IDs in Regulations.gov to Jennifer Borges; 
telephone: 301-287-9127; email: [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-

[[Page 50692]]

A60M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.
    For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting 
comments, see ``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' in the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ikeda Betts, Office of Nuclear Reactor 
Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-
0001; telephone: 301-415-1959, email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments

A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2018-0224 facility name, unit 
number(s), plant docket number, application date, and subject when 
contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this 
action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this 
action by any of the following methods:
     Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2018-0224.
     NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the 
ADAMS Public Documents collection at 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]. For the convenience of the reader, 
instructions about obtaining materials referenced in this document are 
provided in the ``Availability of Documents'' section.
     NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public 
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

B. Submitting Comments

    Please include Docket ID NRC-2018-0224 facility name, unit 
number(s), plant docket number, application date, and subject> in your 
comment submission.
    The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact 
information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your 
comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at 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 Sec.  50.92 of title 10 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations (10 CFR), this means that operation of the facility 
in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated, or (2) create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or 
(3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis 
for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown 
below.
    The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed 
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of 
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final 
determination.
    Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the 
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The 
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment 
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the 
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period if circumstances change during the 30-day comment 
period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for 
example in derating or shutdown of the facility. If the Commission 
takes action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or 
the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a notice of 
issuance. If the Commission makes a final no significant hazards 
consideration determination, any hearing will take place after 
issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will 
occur very infrequently.

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

    Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any 
persons (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by this action may 
file a request for a hearing and petition for leave to intervene 
(petition) with respect to the action. Petitions shall be filed in 
accordance with the Commission's ``Agency Rules of Practice and 
Procedure'' in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult a 
current copy of 10 CFR 2.309. The NRC's regulations are accessible 
electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's website at 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

[[Page 50693]]

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

B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)

    All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a 
request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition), any 
motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the 
submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and 
documents filed by interested governmental entities that request to 
participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the 
NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007, as amended at 77 FR 
46562; August 3, 2012). The E-Filing process requires participants to 
submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in 
some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Detailed 
guidance on making electronic submissions may be found in the Guidance 
for Electronic Submissions to the NRC and on the NRC website at 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

[[Page 50694]]

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

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

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

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

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

    Date of amendment request: May 10, 2018. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18131A068.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the 
Technical Specifications (TSs) for Catawba and McGuire to remove 
ventilation system heaters. Specifically, ventilation system heaters 
would be removed from Catawba TSs 3.6.10, ``Annulus Ventilation System 
(AVS),'' 3.7.10, ``Control Room Area Ventilation System (CRAVS),'' 
3.7.12, ``Auxiliary Building Filtered Ventilation Exhaust System 
(ABFVES),'' 3.7.13, ``Fuel Handling Ventilation Exhaust System 
(FHVES),'' 3.9.3, ``Containment Penetrations,'' 5.5.11, ``Ventilation 
Filter Testing Program (VFTP),'' and 5.6.6, ``Ventilation Systems 
Heater Report,'' and McGuire TSs 3.6.10, ``Annulus Ventilation System 
(AVS),'' 3.7.9, ``Control Room Area Ventilation System (CRAVS),'' 
5.5.11, ``Ventilation Filter Testing Program (VFTP),'' and 5.6.6, 
``Ventilation Systems Heater Failure Report.'' The specified relative 
humidity (RH) for charcoal testing in the ventilation system 
Surveillance Requirement (for Harris) and Ventilation Filter Testing 
Program (for Robinson) is revised from 70% to 95% and the ventilation 
system heaters will be removed from the Harris TSs 3/4.7.6, ``Control 
Room Emergency Filtration System,'' 3/4.7.7, ``Reactor Auxiliary 
Building (RAB) Emergency Exhaust System,'' 3/4.9.12, ``Fuel Handling 
Building Emergency Exhaust System,'' TSs 3.7.11, ``Fuel Building Air 
Cleanup System (FBACS),'' and 5.5.11, ``Ventilation Filter Testing 
Program (VFTP).'' The proposed changes are consistent with Technical 
Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-522, ``Revise 
Ventilation System Surveillance Requirements to Operate for 10 Hours 
per Month,'' Revision 0. Additionally, an administrative error is being 
corrected in McGuire's TS 5.5.11, ``Ventilation Filter Testing Program 
(VFTP).''
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change affects various CNS [Catawba], MNS 
[McGuire], HNP [Harris], and RNP [Robinson] ventilation system TS. 
For both CNS and MNS, the proposed change removes the requirement to 
test the heaters in these systems, and removes the Conditions in the 
associated TS which provide Required Actions, including reporting 
requirements, for inoperable heaters. In addition, the proposed 
change revises the CNS Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.9.3.2 to 
operate for 15 continuous minutes without heaters running. For HNP 
and RNP, the proposed change removes the operability of the heaters 
from the SR. In addition, the electric heater output test is 
proposed to be deleted and a corresponding change in the charcoal 
filter testing to be made to require the testing be conducted at a 
humidity of at least 95% RH, which is more stringent than the 
current testing requirement of 70% RH.
    These systems are not accident initiators and therefore, these 
changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability of 
an accident. The proposed system and filter testing changes are 
consistent with current regulatory guidance for these systems and 
will continue to assure that these systems perform their design 
function, which may include mitigating accidents. Thus the change 
does not involve a significant increase in the consequences of an 
accident.
    Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of

[[Page 50695]]

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

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
requested amendments involve no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Kathryn B. Nolan, Deputy General Counsel, 
Duke Energy Corporation, 550 South Tryon Street, Mail Code DEC45A, 
Charlotte, NC 28202.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael Markley.

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

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

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change eliminates second Completion Times from the 
Technical Specifications. Completion Times are not an initiator to 
any accident previously evaluated. The consequences of an accident 
during the revised Completion Time are no different than the 
consequences of the same accident during the existing Completion 
Times. As a result, the probability and consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated are not affected by this change. The proposed 
change does not alter or prevent the ability of systems, structures, 
and components (SSCs) from performing their intended function to 
mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within the assumed 
acceptance limits. The proposed change does not affect the source 
term, containment isolation, or radiological release assumptions 
used in evaluating the radiological consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated. Further, the proposed change does not increase 
the types or amounts of radioactive effluent that may be released 
offsite nor significantly increase individual or cumulative 
occupational/public radiation exposures. The proposed change is 
consistent with the safety analysis assumptions and resultant 
consequences.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration to 
the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be 
installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant 
operation. The proposed change will not alter the design function, 
nor create new failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident 
initiators for the equipment related to the TS being altered.
    Thus, based on the above, this change does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from an accident 
previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change to delete the second Completion Time does 
not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system 
settings, or limited conditions for operation are determined. The 
safety analysis acceptance criteria are not affected by this change. 
The proposed change will not result in plant operation in a 
configuration outside of the design basis.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
requested amendments involve no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Kathryn B. Nolan, Deputy General Counsel, 
550 South Tryon Street, M/C DEC45A, Charlotte, NC 28202.
    NRC Acting Branch Chief: Booma Venkataraman.

[[Page 50696]]

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

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

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

    Date of amendment request: August 31, 2018. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18249A096.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the 
emergency response organization (ERO) positions identified in the 
emergency plan for each site.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration for each site, which is presented below:

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

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis for each site 
and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 
CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to 
determine that the requested amendments involve no significant hazards 
consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel, 
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 
60555.
    NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.

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

    Date of amendment request: June 29, 2018, as supplemented by letter 
dated August 17, 2018. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS under 
Accession Nos. ML18180A094 and ML18229A050, respectively.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the 
Technical Specifications (TSs) by reducing the total number of control 
element assemblies (CEAs) specified in the TSs from 91 to 87.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

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

[[Page 50697]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 50698]]

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis 
of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is 
presented below:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 50699]]

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

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

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

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

    Date of amendment request: August 24, 2017, as supplemented by 
letters dated October 18, 2017, February 21 and February 27, 2018.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment eliminated the main 
steam line radiation monitor (MSLRM) functions for initiating a reactor 
protection system automatic reactor trip and automatic closure of the 
main steam isolation valves and main steam line drain valves for the 
associated (Group 1) primary containment isolation system (PCIS). 
Specifically, it removed requirements for the MSLRM trip function from 
Technical Specification (TS) Table 3.3.1.1-1, ``Reactor Protection 
System Instrumentation.'' The amendment also removed requirements for 
PCIS Group 1 isolation from TS Table 3.3.6.1-1, ``Primary Containment 
Isolation Instrumentation,'' and the MSLRM isolation function is 
relocated and retained for the current existing PCIS Group 2 isolation 
of the reactor water sample line.
    Date of issuance: September 20, 2018.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
during the next refueling outage following approval.
    Amendment No.: 212. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML18250A163; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-43: The amendment 
revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 2, 2018 (83 FR 
164). The supplemental letters dated October 18, 2017, February 21 and 
February 27, 2018, provided additional information that clarified the 
application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally 
noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no 
significant hazards consideration determination as published in the 
Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 20, 2018.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: September 27, 2017, as supplemented by 
letters dated May 16, July 11, and August 1, 2018.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical 
Specifications to reflect the addition of a second qualified offsite 
power circuit. In addition, the amendment authorized changing the 
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report to allow for the use of automatic 
load tap changers on the new (230 kilovolt (kV)) and the replacement 
(115 kV) startup transformers.
    Date of issuance: September 10, 2018.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
by the end of the next refueling outage.
    Amendment No.: 261. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML18228A584; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-23: The amendment 
revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical 
Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 5, 2017 (82 FR 
57471). The supplemental letters dated May 16, July 11, and August 1, 
2018, provided additional information that clarified the application, 
did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and 
did not change the NRC staff's original proposed no significant hazards 
consideration determination as published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 10, 2018.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

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

[[Page 50700]]

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

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

    Date of amendment request: August 23, 2017, as supplemented by 
letters dated October 19, 2017, and March 27, 2018.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the 
Technical Specifications by relocating the explosive gas monitoring 
instrumentation, explosive gas mixture, and gas decay tanks system 
requirements to licensee-controlled documents and establishing a gas 
decay tank explosive gas and radioactivity monitoring program. The 
amendments also relocated the standby feedwater system requirements to 
licensee-controlled documents and modified related auxiliary feedwater 
system requirements.
    Date of issuance: September 11, 2018.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 282 (Unit No. 3) and 276 (Unit No. 4). A publicly-
available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18214A125; 
documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety 
Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-31 and DPR-41: The 
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and 
Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 21, 2017 (82 
FR 55406). The supplemental letter dated March 27, 2018, provided 
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand 
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change 
the NRC staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination as published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 11, 2018.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

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

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

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