Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations, 55568-55578 [2018-23782]

Agencies

• NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 215 (Tuesday, November 6, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55568-55578]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-23782]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2018-0246]


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 October 6, 2018, to October 22, 2018. The 
last biweekly notice was published on October 23, 2018.

DATES: Comments must be filed by December 6, 2018. A request for a 
hearing must be filed by January 7, 2019.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2018-0246. Address 
questions about Docket IDs in Regulations.gov to Jennifer Borges; 
telephone: 301-287-9127; email: [email protected]. For technical 
questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT section of this document.
     Mail comments to: May Ma, Office of Administration, Mail 
Stop: TWFN-7-A60M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001.
    For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting 
comments, see ``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' in the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments

A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2018-0246 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-2018-0246.
     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-2018-0246 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.

[[Page 55569]]

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

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

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

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

[[Page 55570]]

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

B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)

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

[[Page 55571]]

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

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 30, 2018. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18242A395.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would add 
new Required Actions (RAs) and Completion Times (CTs) for three 
inoperable Control Room air conditioning (AC) subsystems to Technical 
Specification (TS) 3.7.4, ``Control Room Air Conditioning (AC) 
System.''
    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 does not involve a physical alteration of 
the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be 
installed). The proposed change adds new RAs and CTs for three 
inoperable Control Room AC subsystems. The equipment qualification 
temperature of the control room equipment is not affected. Future 
changes to the Bases or licensee-controlled document will be 
evaluated pursuant to the requirements of 10 CFR 50.59, Changes, 
tests and experiments, to ensure that such changes do not result in 
more than a minimal increase in the probability or consequences of 
an accident previously evaluated.
    The proposed change does not adversely affect accident 
initiators or precursors nor alter the design assumptions, 
conditions, and configuration of the facility or the way the plant 
is operated and maintained. The proposed change does not adversely 
affect the ability of structures, systems and components (SSCs) to 
perform their intended safety function to mitigate the consequences 
of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits. The 
proposed change does not affect the source term, containment 
isolation, or radiological consequences of any accident previously 
evaluated. Further, the proposed change does not increase the types 
and the amounts of radioactive effluent that may be released, nor 
significantly increase individual or cumulative occupation/public 
radiation exposures.
    Therefore, the proposed amendments do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change adds new RAs and CTs for three inoperable 
Control Room AC subsystems. The change does not involve a physical 
altering of the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment 
will be installed) or a change in methods governing normal plant 
operation. The proposed TSs continue to require maintaining the 
control room temperature within the design limits.
    Therefore, the proposed amendments do not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change adds new RAs and CTs for three inoperable 
Control Room AC subsystems. Instituting the proposed change will 
continue to maintain the control room temperature within design 
limits. Changes to the Bases or licensee-controlled document are 
performed in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59. This approach provides an 
effective level of regulatory control and ensures that the control 
room temperature will be maintained within design limits.
    Therefore, the proposed amendments do not result in a 
significant reduction in the margin of safety.

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

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

    Date of amendment request: August 13, 2018. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18226A022.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the 
Emergency Plan Emergency Action Level (EAL) scheme for HNP associated 
with the fission product barrier degradation EAL thresholds, and the 
cold shutdown/refueling system malfunction EAL thresholds.
    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 affect the HNP Emergency Plan EAL scheme 
and do not alter any of the requirements of the Operating License or 
the Technical Specifications. The proposed changes do not reduce the 
effectiveness of the HNP Emergency Plan or the HNP Emergency 
Response Organization. The proposed changes do not modify any plant 
equipment and do not impact any failure modes that could lead to an 
accident. Additionally, the proposed changes do not impact the 
consequence of any analyzed accident since the changes do not affect 
any equipment related to accident mitigation. Based on this 
discussion, the proposed amendment does not increase 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 affect the HNP Emergency Plan EAL scheme 
and do not alter any of the requirements of the Operating License or 
the Technical Specifications. These changes do not modify any plant 
equipment and there is no impact on the capability of the existing 
equipment to perform their intended functions. No new failure modes 
are introduced by the proposed changes. The proposed amendment does 
not introduce any accident initiator or malfunctions that would 
cause a new or different kind of accident. 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.
    These changes affect the HNP Emergency Plan EAL scheme and do 
not alter any of the requirements of the Operating License or the 
Technical Specifications. The proposed changes do not affect any of 
the assumptions used in the accident analysis, nor do they affect 
any operability requirements for equipment important to plant 
safety. Therefore, the proposed changes will not result in a 
significant reduction in the margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: David Cummings, Associate General Counsel, 
Duke Energy Corporation, 550 South Tryon St., M/C DEC45A, Charlotte, NC 
28202.
    NRC Branch Chief: Undine Shoop.

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-293, Pilgrim Nuclear

[[Page 55572]]

Power Station (PNPS), Plymouth County, Massachusetts

    Date of amendment request: August 1, 2018. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18218A184.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the 
PNPS Emergency Plan and Emergency Action Level (EAL) scheme to support 
a permanently shutdown and defueled condition at PNPS.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes to the PNPS Emergency Plan and EAL scheme 
do not impact the function of facility structures, systems, or 
components. The proposed changes do not affect accident initiators 
or precursors, nor do they alter design assumptions that could 
increase the probability or consequences of previously evaluated 
accidents. The proposed changes do not prevent the ability of the 
on-shift staff and emergency response organization to perform their 
intended functions to mitigate the consequences of any accident or 
event that will be credible in the permanently defueled condition.
    The probability of occurrence of previously evaluated accidents 
is not increased because most previously analyzed accidents can no 
longer occur and the probability of the few remaining credible 
accidents are unaffected by the proposed amendment.
    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 reduce the scope of the PNPS Emergency Plan 
and EAL scheme commensurate with the hazards associated with a 
permanently shut down and defueled facility. The proposed changes do 
not involve installation of new equipment or modification of 
existing equipment that could create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident. Also, the proposed changes do not result 
in a change to the way that the equipment or facility is operated so 
that no new or different kinds of accident initiators are created.
    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.
    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 are 
associated with the PNPS Emergency Plan and EAL scheme and do not 
impact operation of the facility or its response to transients or 
accidents. The change does not affect the Technical Specifications. 
The proposed changes do not involve a change in the method of 
facility operation, and no accident analyses will be affected by the 
proposed changes. Safety analysis acceptance criteria are not 
affected by the proposed changes. The revised Emergency Plan will 
continue to provide the necessary response staff commensurate with 
the reduction in consequences of radiological events that will be 
possible at PNPS when the facility is in the permanently defueled 
condition and therefore, there is no reduction in the margin of 
safety.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
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: Susan H. Raimo, Senior Counsel, Entergy 
Services, Inc., 101 Constitution Avenue NW, Suite 200 East, Washington, 
DC 20001.
    NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-293, Pilgrim Nuclear 
Power Station (PNPS), Plymouth County, Massachusetts
    Date of amendment request: September 13, 2018. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18260A085.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the 
Renewed Facility Operating License (RFOL) and the associated Technical 
Specifications (TSs) to Permanently Defueled Technical Specifications 
consistent for a facility in a permanently shutdown and defueled 
condition. The amendment would revise certain requirements contained 
within the RFOL and TS and remove the requirements that would no longer 
be applicable upon docketing the certification of permanent fuel 
removal from the reactor vessel at PNPS. The amendment would also make 
administrative and editorial changes, such as renumbering of pages, 
where appropriate, and condense and reduce the number of pages.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment would not take effect until PNPS has 
permanently ceased operation, entered a permanently defueled 
condition, and met the decay requirements established in the 
analysis of the Fuel Handling Accident (FHA). The proposed amendment 
would modify the PNPS [RF]OL and TS by deleting the portions of the 
OL and TS that are no longer applicable to a permanently defueled 
facility, while modifying the other sections to correspond to the 
permanently defueled condition. This change is consistent with the 
criteria set forth in 10 CFR 50.36 for the contents of TS.
    Section 14 of the PNPS Updated Final Safety Analysis Report 
(UFSAR) describes the design basis accident (DBA) and transient 
scenarios applicable to PNPS during power operations. After the 
reactor is in a permanently defueled condition, the spent fuel pool 
(SFP) and its cooling systems will be dedicated only to spent fuel 
storage. In this condition, the spectrum of credible accidents will 
be much smaller than for an operational plant. After the 
certifications are docketed for PNPS in accordance with 10 CFR 
50.82(a)(1), and the consequent removal of authorization to operate 
the reactor or to [em]place or retain fuel in the reactor vessel in 
accordance with 10 CFR 50.82(a)(2), the majority of the accident 
scenarios previously postulated in the UFSAR will no longer be 
possible and will be removed from the UFSAR under the provisions of 
10 CFR 50.59.
    The deletion of TS definitions and rules of usage and 
application requirements that will not be applicable in a defueled 
condition has no impact on facility structures, systems, and 
components (SSCs) or the methods of operation of such SSCs. The 
deletion of design features and safety limits not applicable to the 
permanently shut down and defueled status of PNPS has no impact on 
the remaining applicable DBAs, i.e., the FHA and the radioactive 
waste handling accident (High Integrity Container (HIC) Drop Event).
    The removal of LCOs [limiting conditions of operations] or SRs 
[surveillance requirements] that are related only to the operation 
of the nuclear reactor or only to the prevention, diagnosis, or 
mitigation of reactor-related transients or accidents do not affect 
the applicable DBAs previously evaluated since these DBAs are no 
longer applicable in the permanently defueled condition. The safety 
functions involving core reactivity control, reactor heat removal, 
reactor coolant system inventory control, and containment integrity 
are no longer applicable at PNPS as a permanently shut down and 
defueled facility. The analyzed accidents involving damage to the 
reactor

[[Page 55573]]

coolant system, main steam lines, reactor core, and the subsequent 
release of radioactive material will no longer be possible at PNPS.
    After PNPS permanently ceases operation, the future generation 
of fission products will cease and the remaining source term will 
decay. The radioactive decay of the irradiated fuel following shut 
down of the reactor will have reduced the consequences of the FHA 
below those previously analyzed.
    The SFP water level and fuel storage TSs are retained to 
preserve the current requirements for safe storage of irradiated 
fuel. SFP cooling and makeup related equipment and support equipment 
(e.g., electrical power systems) are not required to be continuously 
available since there will be sufficient time to effect repairs, 
establish alternate sources of makeup flow, or establish alternate 
sources of cooling in the event of a loss of cooling and makeup flow 
to the SFP.
    The deletion and modification of provisions of the 
administrative controls do not directly affect the design of SSCs 
necessary for safe storage of irradiated fuel or the methods used 
for handling and storage of such fuel in the fuel pool. The changes 
to the administrative controls do not affect any accidents 
applicable to the safe management of irradiated fuel or the 
permanently shut down and defueled condition of the reactor.
    The probability of occurrence of previously evaluated accidents 
is not increased, since extended operation in a defueled condition 
will be the only operation allowed, and therefore bounded by the 
existing analyses. Additionally, the occurrence of postulated 
accidents associated with reactor operation will no longer be 
credible in a permanently defueled reactor. This significantly 
reduces the scope of applicable accidents.
    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 to the PNPS OL and TSs have no impact on 
facility SSCs affecting the safe storage of irradiated fuel, or on 
the methods of operation of such SSCs, or on the handling and 
storage of irradiated fuel itself. The removal of TS that are 
related only to the operation of the nuclear reactor or only to the 
prevention, diagnosis, or mitigation of reactor-related transients 
or accidents, cannot result in different or more adverse failure 
modes or accidents than previously evaluated because the reactor 
will be permanently shut down and defueled and PNPS will no longer 
be authorized to operate the reactor.
    The proposed deletion of requirements of the PNPS OL and TS do 
not affect systems credited in the accident analyses for the FHA or 
the HIC Drop Event at PNPS. The proposed OL and TS will continue to 
require proper control and monitoring of safety significant 
parameters and activities.
    The TS regarding SFP water level and fuel storage required is 
retained to preserve the current requirements for safe storage of 
irradiated fuel. The restriction on the SFP water level is fulfilled 
by normal operating conditions and preserves initial conditions 
assumed in the analyses of the postulated DBA.
    The proposed amendment does not result in any new mechanisms 
that could initiate damage to the remaining relevant safety barriers 
for defueled plants (fuel cladding and spent fuel cooling). Since 
extended operation in a defueled condition will be the only 
operation allowed, and therefore bounded by the existing analyses, 
such a condition does not create the possibility of 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.
    Because the 10 CFR part 50 license for PNPS will no longer 
authorize operation of the reactor or emplacement or retention of 
fuel into the reactor vessel after the certifications required by 10 
CFR 50.82(a)(1) are docketed for PNPS as specified in 10 CFR 
50.82(a)(2), the occurrence of postulated accidents associated with 
reactor operation are no longer credible. The only remaining 
credible accidents are the FHA and a radioactive waste handling 
accident (HIC Drop Event). The proposed amendment does not adversely 
affect the inputs or assumptions of any of the design basis analyses 
that impact the remaining DBAs.
    The proposed changes are limited to those portions of the OL and 
TS that are not related to the safe storage of irradiated fuel. The 
requirements that are proposed to be revised or deleted from the 
PNPS OL and TS are not credited in the existing accident analyses 
for the remaining DBAs; and as such, do not contribute to the margin 
of safety associated with the accident analyses. Postulated design 
basis accidents involving the reactor will no longer be possible 
because the reactor will be permanently shut down and defueled and 
PNPS will no longer be authorized to operate the reactor.
    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: Susan H. Raimo, Senior Counsel, Entergy 
Services, Inc., 101 Constitution Avenue NW, Suite 200 East, Washington, 
DC 20001.
    NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. STN 50-455, Byron Station, 
Unit No. 2, Ogle County, Illinois

    Date of amendment request: March 8, 2018. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18067A431.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would add a License 
Condition to the Byron Station, Unit No. 2, Renewed Facility Operating 
License, Appendix C, ``Additional Conditions,'' that authorizes use of 
two lead test assemblies (LTAs) containing a limited number of accident 
tolerant fuel (ATF) lead test rods (LTRs) during Byron, Unit No. 2, 
Refueling Cycles 22, 23, and 24.
    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 involves only a very small number of LTRs, 
which will be conservatively designed from a neutronic standpoint, 
and are thermal-hydraulically and mechanically compatible with all 
plant Systems, Structures and Components (SSCs). The fuel pellets 
and fuel rods themselves will have no impact on accident initiators 
or precursors. There will not be a significant impact on the 
operation of any plant SSC or on the progression of any operational 
transient or design basis accident. There will be no impact on any 
procedure or administrative control designed to prevent or mitigate 
any accident.
    The Westinghouse Encore[supreg] and ADOPTTM (with and 
without chromium-coated cladding) LTAs are of the same design as the 
co-resident fuel in the core, with the exception of containing a 
limited number of LTRs in place of the standard fuel rods. The LTAs 
will be placed in nonlimiting core locations. The Byron Station, 
Unit 2, [Refueling] Cycle, 22, 23 and 24 reload designs will meet 
all applicable design criteria. Evaluations of the LTAs will be 
performed as part of the [refueling] cycle specific reload safety 
analysis to confirm that the acceptance criteria of the existing 
safety analyses will continue to be met. Operation of the 
Westinghouse Encore[supreg] and ADOPTTM fuel will not 
significantly increase the predicted radiological consequences of 
accidents currently postulated in the Updated Final Safety Analysis 
Report.
    Based on the above discussion, the proposed changes do not 
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of 
an accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change involves the use of a very small number of 
LTRs in two LTAs which are very similar in all aspects to the co-
resident fuel, as noted in Question 1. The proposed change does not 
change the design function or operation of any SSC, and does

[[Page 55574]]

not introduce any new failure mechanism, malfunction, or accident 
initiator not considered in the current design and licensing bases.
    The Byron Station Unit 2 reactor cores will be designed to meet 
all applicable design and licensing basis criteria. Demonstrated 
adherence to these standards and criteria precludes new challenges 
to components and systems that could introduce a new type of 
accident. The reload core designs for the [refueling] cycles in 
which the Westinghouse LTAs will operate (i.e., [Refueling] Cycles 
22, 23 and 24) will demonstrate that the use of the LTAs in 
nonlimiting core locations is acceptable. The relevant design and 
performance criteria will continue to be met and no new single 
failure mechanisms will be created. The use of Westinghouse LTAs 
does not involve any alteration to plant equipment or procedures 
that would introduce any new or unique operational modes or accident 
precursors.
    Therefore, the proposed change will not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident than those previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    Operation of Byron Station Unit 2 with two Westinghouse LTAs 
containing a limited number of LTRs, placed in nonlimiting core 
locations, does not change the performance requirements on any 
system or component such that any design criteria will be exceeded. 
The current limits on core operation defined in the Byron Station 
Technical Specifications will remain applicable to the subject LTAs 
during [Refueling] Cycles 22, 23 and 24. Westinghouse analytical 
codes and methods will be used, and supplemented as necessary using 
conservative assumptions, to confirm that all applicable limits 
associated with the LTAs (e.g., fuel thermal mechanical limits, core 
thermal hydraulic limits, Emergency Core Cooling Systems limits, 
nuclear limits such as Shutdown Margin, transient analysis limits 
and accident analysis limits) remain bounded by the current analysis 
of record.
    To further assure no reduction in the margin of safety, the LTRs 
will be designed with reduced uranium enrichment and will be placed 
in non-limiting core locations as noted above. With respect to non-
fuel SSCs, there is no reduction in the margin of safety for any 
safety limit, limiting safety system setting, limiting condition of 
operation, instrument setpoint, or any other design parameter.
    Based on this evaluation, 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: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel, 
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 
60555.
    NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC and PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-277 
and 50-278, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station (PBAPS), Units 2 and 3, 
York and Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania

    Date of amendment request: September 28, 2018. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18275A023.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the 
PBAPS, Units 2 and 3, design and licensing basis described in the 
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) to reduce the design 
pressure rating of the High Pressure Service Water (HPSW) system. This 
change will provide additional corrosion margin in the HPSW system pipe 
wall thickness, increasing the margin of safety for the existing 
piping. This one-time change would be implemented starting in the fall 
of 2019 and would expire for both units on December 31, 2020.
    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 HPSW system does not initiate any accidents discussed in 
Chapter 14 of the PBAPS, Units 2 and 3 UFSAR. A shutdown cooling 
(RHR [residual heat removal] system) malfunction leading to a 
moderator temperature decrease could result from mis-operation of 
the cooling water controls for the RHR heat exchangers, as described 
in UFSAR Section 14.5.2.4. The resulting temperature decrease causes 
a slow insertion of positive reactivity into the core. However, the 
proposed change to the HPSW system design pressure will not affect 
the initiator for this accident. The proposed reduction of the HPSW 
system design pressure has been evaluated for effects on system 
piping and components using appropriate codes and standards. The 
proposed changes do not introduce any failure mechanisms that would 
initiate a previously analyzed accident. The HPSW and RHR systems 
remain capable of performing their UFSAR-described design functions 
for accident mitigation. Moreover, the design and operability 
requirements currently addressed by the PBAPS Technical 
Specifications (TS) are unaffected and the design basis radiological 
analysis of analyzed accidents is unchanged. Thus, the consequences 
of analyzed accidents are not increased.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes will reduce the design and operating 
pressure in a portion of the HPSW system. This change will not 
introduce a new mode of plant operation. The system flowrate and 
heat removal rate for design basis events are not changed. No new 
accident scenarios, failure mechanisms, or limiting single failures 
are introduced as a result of the proposed changes. All accident 
analysis criteria continue to be met and there are no adverse 
effects on any safety-related system.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The margin of safety is established through the design of the 
plant structures, systems, and components, the parameters within 
which the plant is operated and the setpoints for the actuation of 
equipment relied upon to respond to an event. The reduction in HPSW 
system design pressure permits continued operation of the HPSW and 
RHR systems in accordance with the plant safety analysis. The core 
and containment heat removal functions of the HPSW and RHR systems 
are not affected. The proposed change does not alter the safety 
limits or safety analysis assumptions associated with the operation 
of the plant.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel, 
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Rd., Warrenville, IL 
60555.
    NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna.

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

    Date of amendment request: September 5, 2018. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18250A185.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed change would modify 
technical specification (TS) Section 5.5.15, ``Battery Monitoring and 
Maintenance Program,'' to align with

[[Page 55575]]

the latest Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 
Standard.
    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 design of the protection systems will be unaffected. The 
reactor protection system and engineered safety feature actuation 
system will continue to function in a manner consistent with the 
plant design basis. All design, material and construction standards 
that were applicable prior to the request are maintained. The 
proposed amendment will not alter any assumptions or change any 
mitigation actions in the radiological consequence evaluations in 
the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR).
    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 previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    No new accident scenarios, failure mechanisms, or single 
failures are introduced as a result of the proposed change. All 
systems, structures, and components previously required for the 
mitigation of an event remain capable of fulfilling their intended 
design function. The proposed change has no adverse effects on any 
safety related systems or components and does not challenge the 
performance or integrity of any safety related system. Further, 
there are no changes in the method by which any safety-related plant 
system performs its safety function. This amendment will not affect 
the normal method of power operation or change any operating 
parameters.
    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 margin of safety is established through equipment design, 
operating parameters; and the setpoints at which automatic actions 
are initiated. The equipment margins will be maintained in 
accordance with the plant-specific design bases. 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. Sufficient Direct Current (DC) 
capacity to support operation of mitigation equipment is ensured. 
The changes associated with the Battery Maintenance and Monitoring 
Program will ensure that the station batteries are maintained in a 
highly reliable manner. The equipment fed by the DC electrical 
sources will continue to provide adequate power to safety-related 
loads in accordance with analysis assumptions.
    The TS changes maintain the same level of equipment performance 
stated in the UFSAR and the current TSs. Therefore, the proposed 
changes do not involve a significant reduction in the margin of 
safety.
    The proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in 
a margin of safety because the proposed changes do not reduce the 
margin of safety that exists in the present CNP TS or UFSAR. The 
operability requirements of the TS are consistent with the initial 
condition assumptions of the safety analyses.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Robert B. Haemer, Senior Nuclear Counsel, 
Indiana Michigan Power Company, One Cook Place, Bridgman, MI 49106.
    NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.

NextEra Energy, Point Beach, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-266 and 50-301, Point 
Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Town of Two Creeks, Manitowoc 
County, Wisconsin

    Date of amendment request: July 30, 2018. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18214A730.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the 
requirements on control and shutdown rods, and rod and bank position 
indication in Technical Specification (TS) 3.1.4, ``Rod Group Alignment 
Limits''; TS 3.1.5, ``Shutdown Bank Insertion Limits''; TS 3.1.6, 
``Control Bank Insertion Limits''; and TS 3.1.7, ``Rod Position 
Indication.'' The changes provide time to repair rod movement failures 
that do not affect rod operability, provide time for analog position 
indication instruments to read accurately after rod movement, correct 
conflicts between the TS, and increase consistency and improve the 
presentation.
    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.
    Control and shutdown rods are assumed to insert into the core to 
shut down the reactor in evaluated accidents. Rod insertion limits 
ensure that adequate negative reactivity is available to provide the 
assumed shutdown margin (SDM). Rod alignment and overlap limits 
maintain an appropriate power distribution and reactivity insertion 
profile.
    Control and shutdown rods are initiators to several accidents 
previously evaluated, such as rod ejection. The proposed change does 
not change the limiting conditions for operation for the rods or 
make any technical changes to the Surveillance Requirements (SRs) 
governing the rods. Therefore, the proposed change has no 
significant effect on the probability of any accident previously 
evaluated.
    Revising the TS Actions to provide a limited time to repair rod 
movement control has no effect on the SDM assumed in the accident 
analysis as the proposed Action require verification that SDM is 
maintained. The effects on power distribution will not cause a 
significant increase in the consequences of any accident previously 
evaluated as all TS requirements on power distribution continue to 
be applicable.
    Therefore, the assumptions used in any accidents previously 
evaluated are unchanged and there is no significant increase in the 
consequences.
    The consequences of an accident that might occur during the one-
hour period provided for the analog rod position indication to 
stabilize after rod movement are no different from the consequences 
of the accident under the existing actions with the rod declared 
inoperable.
    The proposed change to resolve the conflicts in the TS ensure 
that the intended Actions are followed when equipment is inoperable. 
Actions taken with inoperable equipment are not assumptions in the 
accidents previously evaluated and have no significant effect on the 
consequences.
    The proposed change to increase consistency within the TS has no 
effect on the consequences of accidents previously evaluated as the 
proposed change clarifies the application of the existing 
requirements and does not change the intent.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of 
the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be 
installed). The change does not alter assumptions made in the safety 
analyses. The proposed change does not alter the limiting conditions 
for operation for the rods or make any technical changes to the SRs 
governing the rods. The proposed change to actions maintains or 
improves safety when equipment is inoperable and does not introduce 
new failure modes.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.

[[Page 55576]]

    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change to allow time for rod position indication to 
stabilize after rod movement and to allow an alternative method of 
verifying rod position has no effect on the safety margin, as actual 
rod position is not affected. The proposed change to provide time to 
repair rods that are operable but immovable does not result in a 
significant reduction in the margin of safety because all rods must 
be verified to be operable, and all other banks must be within the 
insertion limits. The remaining proposed changes to make the 
requirements internally consistent and to eliminate unnecessary 
actions do not affect the margin of safety as the changes do not 
affect the ability of the rods to perform their specified safety 
function.
    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, Mail Stop: LAW/JB, 700 Universe 
Boulevard, Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420.
    NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 50-390, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant 
(WBN), Units 1 and 2, Rhea County, Tennessee

    Date of amendment request: July 23, 2018. A publicly available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18205A492.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the 
Units 1 and 2 Technical Specification (TS) 4.2.1, ``Fuel Assemblies,'' 
to allow the use of Optimized ZIRLOTM fuel rod cladding 
material. They would also revises Units 1 and 2 TS 5.9.5, ``Core 
Operating Limits Report (COLR),'' to add Westinghouse Electric Company 
Topical Reports WCAP-12610-P-A and CENPD-404-P-A, Addendum 1-A, 
``Optimized ZIRLOTM,'' to the list of analytical methods 
used to determine the core operating limits approved by the NRC. In 
addition, the amendments would correct the spelling of the word 
Zircaloy in WBN Unit 1 TS 4.2.1 only, add the word ``clad'' after the 
proposed phrase ``Optimized ZIRLOTM,'' capitalize the word 
``Zirlo,'' and add a registered trademark designator to the word 
``ZIRLO.''
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment will allow the use of Optimized ZIRLO 
clad nuclear fuel at WBN Units 1 and 2. The NRC approved topical 
report WCAP-12610-P-A and CENPD-404-P-A, Addendum 1-A, which 
addresses Optimized ZIRLO fuel rod cladding and demonstrates that 
Optimized ZIRLO fuel rod cladding has essentially the same 
properties as currently licensed ZIRLO[supreg] fuel rod cladding. 
The use of Optimized ZIRLO fuel rod cladding material will not 
result in adverse changes to the operation or configuration of the 
facility. The fuel cladding itself is not an accident initiator and 
does not affect accident probability. Use of Optimized ZIRLO meets 
the fuel design acceptance criteria and hence does not significantly 
affect the consequences of an accident.
    Therefore, the proposed TS change does not result in a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated within the WBN [Unit 1 and] Unit 2 
UFSAR [Updated Final Safety Analysis Report].
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The use of Optimized ZIRLO fuel rod cladding material will not 
result in adverse changes to the operation or configuration of the 
facility. WCAP-12610-P-A and CENPD-404-P-A, Addendum 1-A 
demonstrated that the material properties of Optimized ZIRLO fuel 
rod cladding are similar to those of ZIRLO fuel rod cladding. 
Therefore, Optimized ZIRLO fuel rod cladding will perform similarly 
to ZIRLO fuel rod cladding, thus precluding the possibility of the 
fuel rod cladding becoming an accident initiator and causing a new 
or different kind of accident.
    Therefore, the proposed TS change does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated is not created.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    WCAP-12610-P-A and CENPD-404-P-A, Addendum 1-A, demonstrated 
that the material properties of the Optimized ZIRLO fuel rod 
cladding are similar to those of ZIRLO fuel rod cladding. Optimized 
ZIRLO fuel rod cladding is expected to perform similarly to ZIRLO 
fuel rod cladding for normal operating and accident scenarios, 
including both loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) and non-LOCA 
scenarios. The use of Optimized ZIRLO fuel rod cladding will not 
result in adverse changes to the operation or configuration of the 
facility.
    Therefore, the proposed TS 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: General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 
400 West Summit Hill Drive, 6A West Tower, Knoxville, TN 37902.
    NRC Branch Chief: Undine Shoop.

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.

Vistra Operations Company LLC, Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446, Comanche 
Peak Nuclear Power Plant (CPNPP), Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Somervell County, 
Texas

    Date of amendment request: September 5, 2018, as supplemented by 
letters dated September 20 and October 3, 2018. Publicly-available 
versions are in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML18250A186, ML18267A059, 
and ML18277A207, respectively.
    Brief description of amendment request: The amendments would revise 
the CPNPP Technical Specification 3.8.4, ``DC [Direct Current] 
Sources--Operating,'' by adding a new REQUIRED ACTION to CONDITION B 
and an extended COMPLETION TIME, on a one-time basis to repair two 
affected battery cells on the CPNPP Unit 1, Train B safety-related 
batteries.
    Date of publication of individual notice in Federal Register: 
October 10, 2018 (83 FR 50971).
    Expiration date of individual notice: October 24, 2018 (public 
comments); December 10, 2018 (hearing requests).

[[Page 55577]]

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.

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

    Date of amendment request: July 19, 2017, as supplemented by 
letters dated May 9, July 13, and August 10, 2018.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments modified the 
licensing basis by the addition of a license condition to allow the 
implementation of the provisions of 10 CFR 50.69, ``Risk-informed 
categorization and treatment of structures, systems and components for 
nuclear power reactors,'' for Palo Verde. The provisions of 10 CFR 
50.69 allow adjustment of the scope of equipment subject to special 
treatment controls (e.g., quality assurance, testing, inspection, 
condition monitoring, assessment, and evaluation). For equipment 
determined to be of low safety significance, alternative treatment 
requirements can be implemented in accordance with this regulation. For 
equipment determined to be of high safety significance, requirements 
will not be changed or will be enhanced.
    Date of issuance: October 10, 2018.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 207 (Unit 1), 207 (Unit 2), and 207 (Unit 3). A 
publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18243A280; 
documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety 
Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-41, NPF-51, and NPF-74: 
The amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 26, 2017 (82 
FR 44850). The supplements dated May 9, July 13, and August 10, 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 October 10, 2018.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. STN 50-456 and STN 50-457, 
Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, Will County, Illinois and Docket Nos. 
STN 50-454 and STN 50-455, Byron Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Ogle 
County, Illinois

    Date of amendment request: September 1, 2017, as supplemented by 
letters dated April 4, 2018, June 13, 2018, and September 13, 2018.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the 
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.'' The provisions of 10 CFR 50.69 allow 
adjustment of the scope of equipment subject to special treatment 
controls (e.g., quality assurance, testing, inspection, condition 
monitoring, assessment, and evaluation). For equipment determined to be 
of low safety significance, alternative treatment requirements can be 
implemented in accordance with this regulation. For equipment 
determined to be of high safety significance, requirements will not be 
changed or will be enhanced.
    Date of issuance: October 22, 2018.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment Nos: Braidwood--198/198 and Byron--204/204. A publicly-
available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18264A092; 
documents related to these amendments are listed in the related Safety 
Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-72, NPF-77, NPF-37, and 
NPF-66: The amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 21, 2017 (82 
FR 55404).
    The supplements dated April 4, 2018, June 13, 2018, and September 
13, 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 October 22, 2018.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-374, LaSalle 
County Station (LSCS), Units 1 and 2, LaSalle County, Illinois

    Date of amendment request: December 13, 2017, as supplemented by 
letter dated June 18, 2018.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the LSCS, 
Units 1 and 2, Technical Specifications to adopt Technical 
Specifications Task Force (TSTF)-542, Reactor Pressure Vessel Water 
Inventory Control.
    Date of issuance: October 15, 2018.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
for LSCS, Units 1 and 2 prior to initial entry into Mode 4 during the 
LSCS Unit 2 refueling outage in 2019 (i.e., L2R17), which is currently 
scheduled to occur in February 2019.
    Amendment Nos.: 230 (Unit 1) and 216 (Unit 2). A publicly-available

[[Page 55578]]

version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18226A202; documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with 
the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-11 and NPF-18: The 
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and 
Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 13, 2018 (83 
FR 6223). The supplemental letter dated June 18, 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 October 15, 2018.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-219, Oyster Creek Nuclear 
Generating Station, Ocean County, New Jersey

    Date amendment request: August 29, 2017, as supplemented by letter 
dated February 13, 2018.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the site 
emergency plan and emergency action level scheme for the permanently 
shutdown and defueled condition.
    Date of issuance: October 17, 2018.
    Effective date: The amendment is effective 12 months (365 days) 
following the permanent cessation of power operations and shall be 
implemented within 60 days of the effective date, but no later than 
March 28, 2021.
    Amendment No.: 294. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML18221A400; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-16: Amendment revised 
the emergency plan and emergency action level scheme.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 24, 2017 (82 FR 
49238). The supplemental letter dated February 13, 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 October 17, 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: July 28, 2017, as supplemented by 
letters dated January 23, March 23, June 21, and August 9, 2018.
    Description of amendment: The amendment authorized the Southern 
Nuclear Operating Company to change the VEGP Units 3 and 4 plant-
specific Combined License (COL) Appendix A, Technical Specifications 
(TS) as incorporated into the VEGP Units 3 and 4 COLs. The amendment 
consisted of changes to the COL Appendix A TS related to reactivity 
controls and other miscellaneous changes. The amendment revised the COL 
Appendix A, plant-specific TS by modifying the TS to make them 
consistent with the design, licensing basis, and other related TS.
    Date of issuance: August 23, 2018.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 138 (Unit 3) and 137 (Unit 4). A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18100A110; documents related 
to the amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 
amendment.
    Facility Combined License Nos. NPF-91 and NPF-92: Amendment revised 
the Facility Combined Licenses.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 5, 2017 (82 FR 
57469). The supplemental letters dated January 23, March 23, June 21 
and August 9, 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 hazard determination as published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in the Safety Evaluation dated August 23, 2018.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-259, 50-260, and 50-296, 
Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (Browns Ferry), Units 1, 2, and 3, Limestone 
County, Alabama

    Date of amendment request: May 3, 2018.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendments revised the Browns 
Ferry, Units 1, 2, and 3, Renewed Facility Operating Licenses to 
provide a correction to previously submitted information in relation to 
their approved fire protection program under 10 CFR 50.48(c), 
``National Fire Protection Association Standard NFPA 805.'' 
Specifically, the amendments modified the Browns Ferry licenses to 
reflect changes to Item 3.3.4 in Table B-1, ``Transition of Fundamental 
Fire Protection Program & Design Elements,'' of Attachment A in the 
NRC-approved amendments regarding NFPA 805 dated March 27, 2013.
    Date of issuance: October 9, 2018.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
immediately.
    Amendment Nos.: 306 (Unit 1); 329 (Unit 2); and 289 (Unit 3). A 
publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18241A319; 
documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety 
Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-33, DPR-52, and DPR-68: 
The amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses.
    Date of initial notice in  Federal Register: July 17, 2018 (83 FR 
33270).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated October 9, 2018.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 25th day of October, 2018.
    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Craig G. Erlanger,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2018-23782 Filed 11-5-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7590-01-P