31180 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2018 / Notices 

ARTICLE VIII 

A. The Commission, upon its own 

initiative after reasonable notice and 

opportunity for hearing to the State or upon 

request of the Governor of the State, may 

terminate or suspend all or part of this 

agreement and reassert the licensing and 

regulatory authority vested in it under the 

Act if the Commission finds that (1) such 

termination or suspension is required to 

protect public health and safety, or (2) the 

State has not complied with one or more of 

the requirements of Section 274 of the Act. 

1. This Agreement will terminate without 

further NRC action if the State does not 

amend Wyoming Statute Section 35–11– 

2004(c) to be compatible with Section 

83b.(1)(A) of the Act by the end of the 2019 

Wyoming legislative session. Upon passage 

of a revised Wyoming Statute Section 35–11– 

2004(c) that the NRC finds compatible with 

Section 83b.(1)(A) of the Act, this paragraph 

expires and is no longer part of the 

Agreement. 

B. The Commission may also, pursuant to 

Section 274j. of the Act, temporarily suspend 

all or part of this agreement if, in the 

judgment of the Commission, an emergency 

situation exists requiring immediate action to 

protect public health and safety and the State 

has failed to take necessary steps. The 

Commission shall periodically review actions 

taken by the State under this Agreement to 

ensure compliance with Section 274 of the 

Act, which requires a State program to be 

adequate to protect public health and safety 

with respect to the materials covered by this 

Agreement and to be compatible with the 

Commission’s program. 

ARTICLE IX 

In the licensing and regulation of byproduct 

material as defined in Section 11e.(2) of the 

Act, or of any activity that results in 

production of such material, the State shall 

comply with the provisions of Section 274o. 

of the Act, if in such licensing and 

regulation, the State requires financial surety 

arrangements for reclamation or long-term 

surveillance and maintenance of such 

material. 

A. The total amount of funds the State 

collects for such purposes shall be 

transferred to the United States if custody of 

such material and its disposal site is 

transferred to the United States upon 

termination of the State license for such 

material or any activity that results in the 

production of such material. Such funds 

include, but are not limited to, sums 

collected for long-term surveillance or 

maintenance. 

Such funds do not, however, include 

monies held as surety where no default has 

occurred and the reclamation or other 

bonded activity has been performed; and, 

B. Such surety or other financial 

requirements must be sufficient to ensure 

compliance with those standards established 

by the Commission pertaining to bonds, 

sureties, and financial arrangements to 

ensure adequate reclamation and long-term 

management of such byproduct material and 

its disposal site. 

ARTICLE X 

This Agreement shall become effective on 

[date], and shall remain in effect unless and 

until such time as it is terminated pursuant 

to Article VIII. 

Done at [location] this [date] day of 

[month], 2018. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Kristine L. Svinicki, Chairman. 

Done at [location] this [date] day of 

[month], 2018. 

For the State of Wyoming. 

Matthew H. Mead, Governor. 

[FR Doc. 2018–14174 Filed 7–2–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2018–0124] 

Biweekly Notice; Applications and 

Amendments to Facility Operating 

Licenses and Combined Licenses 

Involving No Significant Hazards 

Considerations 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Biweekly notice. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 189a.(2) 

of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 

amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission (NRC) is 

publishing this regular biweekly notice. 

The Act requires the Commission to 

publish notice of any amendments 

issued, or proposed to be issued, and 

grants the Commission the authority to 

issue and make immediately effective 

any amendment to an operating license 

or combined license, as applicable, 

upon a determination by the 

Commission that such amendment 

involves no significant hazards 

consideration, notwithstanding the 

pendency before the Commission of a 

request for a hearing from any person. 

This biweekly notice includes all 

notices of amendments issued, or 

proposed to be issued, from June 5, 

2018, to June 18, 2018. The last 

biweekly notice was published on June 

19, 2018. 

DATES: Comments must be filed by 

August 2, 2018. A request for a hearing 

must be filed by September 3, 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 

http://www.regulations.gov and search 

for Docket ID NRC–2018–0124. Address 

questions about NRC dockets to Jennifer 

Borges; telephone: 301–287–9127; 

email: Jennifer.Borges@nrc.gov. For 

technical questions, contact the 

individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

document. 

• Mail comments to: May Ma, Office 

of Administration, Mail Stop: TWFN–7– 

A60M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 

0001. 

For additional direction on obtaining 

information and submitting comments, 

see ‘‘Obtaining Information and 

Submitting Comments’’ in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

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: Paula.Blechman@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Obtaining Information and 

Submitting Comments 

A. Obtaining Information 

Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2018– 

0124, facility name, unit number(s), 

plant docket number, application date, 

and subject when contacting the NRC 

about the availability of information for 

this action. You may obtain publiclyavailable information related to this 

action by any of the following methods: 

• Federal Rulemaking website: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and search 

for Docket ID NRC–2018–0124. 

• NRC’s Agencywide Documents 

Access and Management System 

(ADAMS): You may obtain publiclyavailable documents online in the 

ADAMS Public Documents collection at 

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ 

adams.html. To begin the search, select 

‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and then 

select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS 

Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS, 

please contact the NRC’s Public 

Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 

1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by 

email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The 

ADAMS accession number for each 

document referenced (if it is available in 

ADAMS) is provided the first time that 

it is mentioned in this document. 

• NRC’s PDR: You may examine and 

purchase copies of public documents at 

the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One 

White Flint North, 11555 Rockville 

Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. 

B. Submitting Comments 

Please include Docket ID NRC–2018– 

0124, facility name, unit number(s), 

plant docket number, application date, 

and subject in your comment 

submission. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2018 / Notices 31181 

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 http://

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 

§ 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 

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/cfr/. Alternatively, a copy of 

the regulations is available at the NRC’s 

Public Document Room, located at One 

White Flint North, Room O1–F21, 11555 

Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, 

Maryland 20852. If a petition is filed, 

the Commission or a presiding officer 

will rule on the petition and, if 

appropriate, a notice of a hearing will be 

issued. 

As required by 10 CFR 2.309(d) the 

petition should specifically explain the 

reasons why intervention should be 

permitted with particular reference to 

the following general requirements for 

standing: (1) The name, address, and 

telephone number of the petitioner; (2) 

the nature of the petitioner’s right under 

the Act to be made a party to the 

proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of 

the petitioner’s property, financial, or 

other interest in the proceeding; and (4) 

the possible effect of any decision or 

order which may be entered in the 

proceeding on the petitioner’s interest. 

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f), 

the petition must also set forth the 

specific contentions which the 

petitioner seeks to have litigated in the 

proceeding. Each contention must 

consist of a specific statement of the 

issue of law or fact to be raised or 

controverted. In addition, the petitioner 

must provide a brief explanation of the 

bases for the contention and a concise 

statement of the alleged facts or expert 

opinion which support the contention 

and on which the petitioner intends to 

rely in proving the contention at the 

hearing. The petitioner must also 

provide references to the specific 

sources and documents on which the 

petitioner intends to rely to support its 

position on the issue. The petition must 

include sufficient information to show 

that a genuine dispute exists with the 

applicant or licensee on a material issue 

of law or fact. Contentions must be 

limited to matters within the scope of 

the proceeding. The contention must be 

one which, if proven, would entitle the 

petitioner to relief. A petitioner who 

fails to satisfy the requirements at 10 

CFR 2.309(f) with respect to at least one 

contention will not be permitted to 

participate as a party. 

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 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
31182 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2018 / Notices 

an appropriate order or rule under 10 

CFR part 2. 

A State, local governmental body, 

Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or 

agency thereof, may submit a petition to 

the Commission to participate as a party 

under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition 

should state the nature and extent of the 

petitioner’s interest in the proceeding. 

The petition should be submitted to the 

Commission no later than 60 days from 

the date of publication of this notice. 

The petition must be filed in accordance 

with the filing instructions in the 

‘‘Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)’’ 

section of this document, and should 

meet the requirements for petitions set 

forth in this section, except that under 

10 CFR 2.309(h)(2) a State, local 

governmental body, or Federallyrecognized Indian Tribe, or agency 

thereof does not need to address the 

standing requirements in 10 CFR 

2.309(d) if the facility is located within 

its boundaries. Alternatively, a State, 

local governmental body, Federallyrecognized Indian Tribe, or agency 

thereof may participate as a non-party 

under 10 CFR 2.315(c). 

If a hearing is granted, any person 

who is not a party to the proceeding and 

is not affiliated with or represented by 

a party may, at the discretion of the 

presiding officer, be permitted to make 

a limited appearance pursuant to the 

provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person 

making a limited appearance may make 

an oral or written statement of his or her 

position on the issues but may not 

otherwise participate in the proceeding. 

A limited appearance may be made at 

any session of the hearing or at any 

prehearing conference, subject to the 

limits and conditions as may be 

imposed by the presiding officer. Details 

regarding the opportunity to make a 

limited appearance will be provided by 

the presiding officer if such sessions are 

scheduled. 

B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing) 

All documents filed in NRC 

adjudicatory proceedings, including a 

request for hearing and petition for 

leave to intervene (petition), any motion 

or other document filed in the 

proceeding prior to the submission of a 

request for hearing or petition to 

intervene, and documents filed by 

interested governmental entities that 

request to participate under 10 CFR 

2.315(c), must be filed in accordance 

with the NRC’s E-Filing rule (72 FR 

49139; August 28, 2007, as amended at 

77 FR 46562; August 3, 2012). The EFiling process requires participants to 

submit and serve all adjudicatory 

documents over the internet, or in some 

cases to mail copies on electronic 

storage media. Detailed guidance on 

making electronic submissions may be 

found in the Guidance for Electronic 

Submissions to the NRC and on the NRC 

website at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/ 

e-submittals.html. Participants may not 

submit paper copies of their filings 

unless they seek an exemption in 

accordance with the procedures 

described below. 

To comply with the procedural 

requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 

days prior to the filing deadline, the 

participant should contact the Office of 

the Secretary by email at 

hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by telephone 

at 301–415–1677, to (1) request a digital 

identification (ID) certificate, which 

allows the participant (or its counsel or 

representative) to digitally sign 

submissions and access the E-Filing 

system for any proceeding in which it 

is participating; and (2) advise the 

Secretary that the participant will be 

submitting a petition or other 

adjudicatory document (even in 

instances in which the participant, or its 

counsel or representative, already holds 

an NRC-issued digital ID certificate). 

Based upon this information, the 

Secretary will establish an electronic 

docket for the hearing in this proceeding 

if the Secretary has not already 

established an electronic docket. 

Information about applying for a 

digital ID certificate is available on the 

NRC’s public website at http://

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 http://www.nrc.gov/ 

site-help/electronic-sub-ref-mat.html. A 

filing is considered complete at the time 

the document is submitted through the 

NRC’s E-Filing system. To be timely, an 

electronic filing must be submitted to 

the E-Filing system no later than 11:59 

p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. 

Upon receipt of a transmission, the EFiling system time-stamps the document 

and sends the submitter an email notice 

confirming receipt of the document. The 

E-Filing system also distributes an email 

notice that provides access to the 

document to the NRC’s Office of the 

General Counsel and any others who 

have advised the Office of the Secretary 

that they wish to participate in the 

proceeding, so that the filer need not 

serve the document on those 

participants separately. Therefore, 

applicants and other participants (or 

their counsel or representative) must 

apply for and receive a digital ID 

certificate before adjudicatory 

documents are filed so that they can 

obtain access to the documents via the 

E-Filing system. 

A person filing electronically using 

the NRC’s adjudicatory E-Filing system 

may seek assistance by contacting the 

NRC’s Electronic Filing Help Desk 

through the ‘‘Contact Us’’ link located 

on the NRC’s public website at http://

www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html, by email to 

MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a tollfree call at 1–866–672–7640. The NRC 

Electronic Filing Help Desk is available 

between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m., Eastern 

Time, Monday through Friday, 

excluding government holidays. 

Participants who believe that they 

have a good cause for not submitting 

documents electronically must file an 

exemption request, in accordance with 

10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper 

filing stating why there is good cause for 

not filing electronically and requesting 

authorization to continue to submit 

documents in paper format. Such filings 

must be submitted by: (1) First class 

mail addressed to the Office of the 

Secretary of the Commission, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001, Attention: 

Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or 

(2) courier, express mail, or expedited 

delivery service to the Office of the 

Secretary, 11555 Rockville Pike, 

Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: 

Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. 

Participants filing adjudicatory 

documents in this manner are 

responsible for serving the document on 

all other participants. Filing is 

considered complete by first-class mail 

as of the time of deposit in the mail, or 

by courier, express mail, or expedited 

delivery service upon depositing the 

document with the provider of the 

service. A presiding officer, having 

granted an exemption request from 

using E-Filing, may require a participant 

or party to use E-Filing if the presiding 

officer subsequently determines that the 

reason for granting the exemption from 

use of E-Filing no longer exists. 

Documents submitted in adjudicatory 

proceedings will appear in the NRC’s 

electronic hearing docket which is 

available to the public at https://

adams.nrc.gov/ehd, unless excluded 

pursuant to an order of the Commission 

or the presiding officer. If you do not 

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 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2018 / Notices 31183 

hearing docket. Participants are 

requested not to include personal 

privacy information, such as social 

security numbers, home addresses, or 

personal phone numbers in their filings, 

unless an NRC regulation or other law 

requires submission of such 

information. For example, in some 

instances, individuals provide home 

addresses in order to demonstrate 

proximity to a facility or site. With 

respect to copyrighted works, except for 

limited excerpts that serve the purpose 

of the adjudicatory filings and would 

constitute a Fair Use application, 

participants are requested not to include 

copyrighted materials in their 

submission. 

For further details with respect to 

these license amendment applications, 

see the application for amendment 

which is available for public inspection 

in ADAMS and at the NRC’s PDR. For 

additional direction on accessing 

information related to this document, 

see the ‘‘Obtaining Information and 

Submitting Comments’’ section of this 

document. 

Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Docket Nos. 

50–325 and 50–324, Brunswick Steam 

Electric Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, 

Brunswick County, North Carolina 

Date of amendment request: April 25, 

2018. A publicly-available version is in 

ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML18121A366. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendments would revise an 

existing Note for Technical 

Specification (TS) 3.8.3, ‘‘Diesel Fuel 

Oil,’’ to allow, on a one-time basis, the 

main fuel oil storage tank to be 

inoperable for up to 14 days for the 

purpose of performing required 

inspection, cleaning, and any necessary 

repair activities. 

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 alter the 

assumption of the accident analyses or the 

Technical Specification Bases. The Diesel 

Fuel Oil system supplies each Emergency 

Diesel Generator (EDG) with fuel oil capacity 

sufficient to operate that EDG for a period of 

approximately seven days while the EDG is 

operating at rated load. The one-time 

allowance to permit internal inspection of 

the main fuel oil storage tank during plant 

operation does not impact the availability of 

the EDGs to perform their intended safety 

function. Furthermore, while the main fuel 

oil storage tank is out of service, the 

availability of onsite and offsite fuel oil 

sources ensures that an adequate supply of 

fuel oil remains available. 

In addition to supplying the four EDGs, the 

main fuel oil storage tank also supplies the 

Standby Diesel Fire Pump fuel oil tank. With 

the main fuel oil storage tank out of service, 

operator actions necessary to refill this tank 

are similar in nature to existing operator 

actions. As such, this change does not 

adversely impact fire protection capabilities. 

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. 

Creation of the possibility of a new or 

different kind of accident requires creating 

one or more new accident precursors. New 

accident precursors may be created by 

modifications of plant configuration, 

including changes in allowable modes of 

operation. The proposed change does not 

involve a physical change to the design of the 

Diesel Fuel Oil system, nor does it alter the 

assumptions of the accident analyses. The 

one-time allowance to permit internal 

inspection of the main fuel oil storage tank 

during plant operation does not introduce 

any new failure modes. 

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 alters the method of 

operation of the Diesel Fuel Oil system. 

However the availability of the EDGs to 

perform their intended safety function is not 

impacted and the assumptions of the 

accident analyses are not altered. 

Additionally, this change does not adversely 

impact fire protection capabilities. 

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 Acting Branch Chief: Brian W. 

Tindell. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket Nos. 50–317 and 50–318, Calvert 

Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 

and 2 (CCNPP), Calvert County, 

Maryland 

Date of amendment request: April 20, 

2018. A publicly-available version is in 

ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML18113A090. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendments would change (TS) 

5.2.2, ‘‘Unit Staff,’’ by deleting TS 

5.2.2.g.3 related to specific requirements 

for shift technical advisor (STA) 

personnel education and training. This 

change is needed to remove a previously 

accepted means of filling the STA role 

that no longer applies to CCNPP. 

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 any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed amendment removes one of 

three permissible means for filling the STA 

position. TS 5.2.2.g defines the education 

and experience requirements for personnel 

filling the STA position during operation of 

either Unit in Modes 1, 2, 3, or 4. It provides 

three permissible means to fill the STA 

position. One of those means (TS 5.2.2.g.3) is 

unique to CCNPP and is no longer needed. 

The remaining requirements (TS 5.2.2.g.1 

and TS 5.2.2.g.2) for filling the STA position 

meet the guidance provided in Generic Letter 

86–04, Policy Statement on Engineering 

Expertise on Shift. This is an administrative 

change. 

This change does not involve any change 

to the design basis of the plant or of any 

structure, system or component. As a result, 

there is no change to the probability or 

consequences of any previously evaluated 

accident. 

Therefore, the operation of the facility in 

accordance with 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 form any previously evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed amendment removes one of 

three permissible means for filling the STA 

position. TS 5.2.2.g defines the education 

and experience requirements for personnel 

filling the STA position during operation of 

either Unit in Modes 1, 2, 3, or 4. It provides 

three permissible means to fill the STA 

position. One of those means (TS 5.2.2.g.3) is 

unique to CCNPP and is no longer needed. 

The remaining requirements (TS 5.2.2.g.1 

and TS 5.2.2.g.2) for filling the STA position 

meet the guidance provided in Generic Letter 

86–04, Policy Statement on Engineering 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
31184 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2018 / Notices 

Expertise on Shift. This is an administrative 

change. 

This change does not involve any change 

to the design basis of the plant or of any 

structure, system or component. The 

proposed amendment does not impose any 

new or different requirements. The change 

does not alter assumptions made in the safety 

analyses. The proposed change is consistent 

with the safety analyses assumptions and 

current plant operating practice. 

Therefore, the operation of the facility in 

accordance with 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. 

The proposed amendment removes one of 

three permissible means for filling the STA 

position. TS 5.2.2.g defines the education 

and experience requirements for personnel 

filling the STA position during operation of 

either Unit in Modes 1, 2, 3, or 4. It provides 

three permissible means to fill the STA 

position. One of those means (TS 5.2.2.g.3) is 

unique to CCNPP and is no longer needed. 

The remaining requirements (TS 5.2.2.g.1 

and TS 5.2.2.g.2) for filling the STA position 

meet the guidance provided in Generic Letter 

86–04, Policy Statement on Engineering 

Expertise on Shift. This is an administrative 

change. 

This change does not involve any change 

to the design basis of the plant or of any 

structure, system or component. As a result, 

there is no decrease in any margin of safety 

due to this proposed change. 

Therefore, operation of the facility in 

accordance with the proposed amendment 

does not involve a significant reduction in a 

margin of safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer, 

Associate General Counsel, Exelon 

Generation Company, LLC, 4300 

Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555. 

NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket No. 50–220, Nine Mile Point 

Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1 (NMP1), 

Oswego County, New York 

Date of amendment request: March 

13, 2018. A publicly-available version is 

in ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML18072A182. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendment would modify NMP1, 

Technical Specifications Surveillance 

Requirement (SR) 4.2.7.d for reactor 

coolant system isolation valves and SR 

4.2.7.1.a for reactor coolant system 

pressure isolation valve leakage to 

relocate the specific surveillance 

frequency to the NMP1 Inservice 

Testing Program. 

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. 

Performance of lnservice Testing is not an 

initiator to any accident previously 

evaluated. As a result, the probability of 

occurrence of an accident is not significantly 

affected by the proposed change. The 

availability of the affected components, as 

well as their ability to mitigate the 

consequences of accidents previously 

evaluated, is not affected. 

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 alter the 

design or configuration of the plant. The 

proposed change does not involve a physical 

alteration of the plant; no new or different 

kind of equipment will be installed. The 

proposed change does not alter the types of 

lnservice Testing performed. The frequency 

of lnservice Testing is unchanged. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change eliminates 

[surveillance] requirements from the TS in 

lieu of requirements in the ASME [American 

Society of Mechanical Engineers] Code. 

Compliance with the ASME Code is required 

by 10 CFR 50.55a. Should the component be 

inoperable, the Technical Specifications 

provide actions to ensure that the margin of 

safety is protected. 

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: Tamra Domeyer, 

Associate General Counsel, Exelon 

Generation Company, LLC, 4300 

Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555. 

NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket No. 50–220, Nine Mile Point 

Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1, Oswego 

County, New York 

Date of amendment request: February 

9, 2018. A publicly-available version is 

in ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML18040A636. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendment would remove the 

Boraflex credit from the two remaining 

Boraflex storage racks located in the 

spent fuel pool. The licensee plans to 

install permanent cell blockers in predetermined spent fuel pool rack cells 

thus eliminating reliance on Boraflex for 

spent fuel pool reactivity control. 

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 make any 

change to the systems, structures or 

components in the Nine Mile Point Unit 1 

(NMP1) Spent Fuel Pool (SFP) except for the 

installation of cell blockers in predetermined Boraflex rack cells. The change is 

necessary to ensure that, with continued 

Boraflex degradation over time, the effective 

neutron multiplication factor, keff, is less than 

0.95, if the SFP is fully flooded with 

unborated water. The proposed change does 

not change the manner in which spent fuel 

is handled, moved or stored in the storage 

rack cells. The installation of the cell 

blockers does not impact the fuel source 

terms, therefore, there is no adverse 

radiological impact. The installation of the 

cell blockers does not change the decay heat 

and the cell blockers meet the criterion to 

allow for continued water flow through the 

storage cell; thus, there is no adverse 

thermal-hydraulic impact. 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. 

Onsite storage of spent fuel assemblies in 

the NMP1 SFP is a normal activity for which 

NMP1 has been designed and licensed. As 

part of assuring that this normal activity can 

be performed without endangering public 

health and safety, the ability to safely 

accommodate different possible accidents in 

the SFP, such as dropping a fuel bundle or 

misleading a fuel bundle, have been 

analyzed. The proposed SFP storage 

configuration using cell blockers does not 

change the methods of fuel movement or 

spent fuel storage. The proposed change of 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2018 / Notices 31185 

using cell blockers in pre-determined 

Boraflex rack cells allows for continued use 

of SFP storage rack cells with degraded 

Boraflex while assuring the effective neutron 

multiplication factor, keff, is less than 0.95. 

The proposed use of cell blockers in the 

pre-determined Boraflex rack cells does not 

create a possible new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated. The displacement of the SFP 

water by the cell blockers is small and hence 

has an insignificant impact on the heat 

transfer from fuel assemblies to the SFP 

water, the time-to-boil and boil-off rate in the 

SFP. The stresses in the storage rack under 

the loaded weight of fuel assemblies and the 

cell blockers will remain within the 

allowable limits and will be bounded by the 

rack seismic analysis. The accident 

condition, where a fuel assembly is dropped 

onto the cell blocker, will not cause loss of 

the cell blocker function. Therefore, the 

proposed change does not create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change will maintain, per 

Attachment 3, the keff to be less than 0.95 and 

thus preserve the required safety margin of 

5%. The installation of the cell blockers does 

not impact the fuel source terms and decay 

heat and hence has no adverse radiological 

impact. In addition, the radiological 

consequences of a dropped fuel bundle are 

unchanged because the event involving a 

dropped fuel bundle onto a spent fuel storage 

rack cell containing a cell blocker is bounded 

by the radiological consequences of a 

dropped fuel bundle onto a spent fuel storage 

rack cell containing a stored fuel bundle. 

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: Tamra Domeyer, 

Associate General Counsel, Exelon 

Generation Company, LLC, 4300 

Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555. 

NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna. 

Florida Power and Light Company, 

Docket Nos. 50–250 and 50–251, Turkey 

Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 3 

and 4 (Turkey Point), Miami-Dade 

County, Florida 

Date of amendment request: May 14, 

2018. A publicly-available version is in 

ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML18134A264. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendments would revise the 

technical specifications to increase the 

minimum load required for the 

Emergency Diesel Generator (EDG) 

partial-load rejection surveillance 

requirement (SR). Additionally, the 

amendments would modify the EDG 

voltage and frequency limits for the SR 

and establish a recovery period for the 

EDG(s) to return to steady-state 

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 amendment involve 

a significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed changes modify an EDG 

surveillance test by aligning the voltage and 

frequency limits with the current licensing 

basis and the Westinghouse STS [Standard 

Technical Specification]. As such, the 

proposed changes cannot be an initiator of 

any previously evaluated accident, increase 

its likelihood or increase the likelihood of an 

EDG malfunction or supported equipment. 

The proposed changes to the voltage and 

frequency limits for the immediate aftermath 

of a partial-load rejection and the proposed 

recovery period will not affect the manner in 

which EDGs are designed or operated. The 

EDGs have no time-dependent failure modes 

as a result of the proposed changes and will 

continue to operate within the parameters 

assumed in applicable accident analyses. 

Hence no impact on the consequences of any 

previously evaluated accident will result 

from the proposed changes. 

Therefore, facility operation in accordance 

with the proposed changes would 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 an EDG 

surveillance test by aligning the voltage and 

frequency limits with the current licensing 

basis and the Westinghouse STS. The 

proposed changes do not modify the manner 

in which the EDGs are designed or operated 

and thereby cannot introduce new failure 

modes, impact existing plant equipment in a 

manner not previously evaluated or initiate 

a new type of malfunction or accident. The 

proposed changes serve to enhance EDG 

reliability and availability and as such, 

cannot adversely affect the EDGs’ ability to 

perform as originally designed, including 

their capability to withstand a worst case 

single failure. 

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. 

The proposed changes modify an EDG 

surveillance test by aligning the voltage and 

frequency limits with the current licensing 

basis and the Westinghouse STS. The 

proposed changes do not modify any 

setpoints for which protective actions 

associated with accident detection or 

mitigation are initiated. The proposed change 

neither affects the design of plant equipment 

nor the manner in which the plant is 

operated. The proposed changes increase the 

reliability and the availability of the EDGs 

and as such, cannot adversely impact any 

Turkey Point safety limits or limiting safety 

settings. 

Therefore, operation of the facility in 

accordance with the proposed change will 

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. 

Florida Power and 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: May 3, 

2018. A publicly-available version is in 

ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML18127B714. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendments would revise the 

Technical Specifications by revising 

Safety Limit 2.1.1.b, to reflect the peak 

fuel centerline temperature specified in 

WCAP–17642–P–A, Revision 1, 

‘‘Westinghouse Performance Analysis 

and Design Model (PAD5).’’ A nonproprietary version (WCAP–17642–NP– 

A, Revision (1) can be found in ADAMS 

under Accession No. ML17338A396. 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is presented 

below: 

1. Do the proposed amendments involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

There are no design changes associated 

with the proposed amendments. All design, 

material, and construction standards that 

were applicable prior to this amendment 

request will continue to be applicable. The 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
31186 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2018 / Notices 

proposed amendments will not affect 

accident initiators or precursors or alter the 

design, conditions, and configuration of the 

facility, or the manner in which the plant is 

operated and maintained, with respect to 

such initiators or precursors. Compliance 

with Safety Limit 2.1.1.b is required to 

confirm that fuel cladding failure does not 

occur as a result of fuel centerline melting. 

The fuel centerline melt temperature limit is 

established to preclude centerline melting. 

The proposed change to the fuel centerline 

melt temperature limit has been reviewed by 

the NRC and found to be appropriately 

conservative with respect to the fuel material 

properties in the Final Safety Evaluation for 

WCAP–17642–P–A, Revision 1 Accident 

analysis acceptance criteria will continue to 

be met with the proposed amendments. 

Hence, the proposed amendments will not 

affect the source term, containment isolation, 

or radiological release assumptions used in 

evaluating the radiological consequences of 

any accident previously evaluated. The 

proposed amendments will not alter any 

assumptions or change any mitigation actions 

in the radiological consequence evaluations 

in the Turkey Point Updated Final Safety 

Analysis Report (UFSAR). Consequently, the 

applicable radiological dose acceptance 

criteria will continue to be met. 

Therefore, the proposed amendments do 

not involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Do the proposed amendments create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

There are no proposed design changes nor 

are there any changes in the method by 

which any safety-related plant structures, 

systems, and components perform their 

specified safety functions. The proposed 

amendments will not affect the normal 

method of plant operation or change any 

operating parameters. No equipment 

performance requirements will be affected. 

The proposed amendments will not alter any 

assumptions made in the safety analyses. The 

proposed amendments revise Reactor Core 

Safety Limit 2.1.1.b; however, the change 

does not involve a physical modification of 

the plant. No new accident scenarios, 

transient precursors, failure mechanisms, or 

limiting single failures will result from this 

amendment. Hence, there will be no adverse 

effect or challenges imposed on any safetyrelated system as a result of these 

amendments. 

Therefore, the proposed amendments do 

not create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any previously 

evaluated. 

3. Do the proposed amendments involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The revised Safety Limit 2.1.1.b has been 

calculated based on the NRC-approved 

methods which ensure that the plant operates 

in compliance with all regulatory criteria. 

There will be no effect on those plant 

systems necessary to effect the 

accomplishment of protection functions. No 

instrument setpoints or system response 

times are affected and none of the acceptance 

criteria for any accident analysis will be 

changed. Consequently, the proposed 

amendments will have no impact on the 

radiological consequences of a design basis 

accident. 

Therefore, the proposed amendments 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: 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. 

NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC, Docket 

No. 50–443, Seabrook Station, Unit No. 

1, Rockingham County, New Hampshire 

Date of amendment request: March 

16, 2018. A publicly-available version is 

in ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML18079A058. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendment would revise the 

frequencies for performing the relative 

pressure measurement and the 

assessment of the control room envelope 

boundary required by (TS) 6.7.6.l, 

Control Room Envelope Habitability 

Program, from 18 months to 36 months. 

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 TS administrative controls associated 

with the proposed change to the TS are not 

initiators of any accidents previously 

evaluated, so the probability of accidents 

previously evaluated is unaffected by the 

proposed changes. The proposed change does 

not alter the design, function, or operation of 

any plant structure, system, or component 

(SSC). The capability of any operable TSrequired SSC to perform its specified safety 

function is not impacted by the proposed 

change. As a result, the outcomes of 

accidents previously evaluated are 

unaffected. Therefore, the proposed changes 

do not result in a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed change create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any previously evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change does not challenge 

the integrity or performance of any safetyrelated systems. No plant equipment is 

installed or removed, and the changes do not 

alter the design, physical configuration, or 

method of operation of any plant SSC. No 

physical changes are made to the plant, so no 

new causal mechanisms are introduced. 

Therefore, the proposed changes to the TS 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 the margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The ability of any operable SSC to perform 

its designated safety function is unaffected by 

the proposed changes. The proposed changes 

do not alter any safety analyses assumptions, 

safety limits, limiting safety system settings, 

or method of operating the plant. The 

changes do not adversely affect plant 

operating margins or the reliability of 

equipment credited in the safety analyses. 

With the proposed change, the control room 

envelope remains capable of performing its 

safety function. 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 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Debbie Hendell, 

Managing Attorney, Florida Power & 

Light Company, P.O. Box 14000, Juno 

Beach, FL 33408–0420. 

NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna. 

PSEG Nuclear LLC and Exelon 

Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 

50–272 and 50–311, Salem Nuclear 

Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, 

Salem County, New Jersey 

Date of amendment request: May 16, 

2018. A publicly-available versions is in 

ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML18136A866. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendments would revise (TS) 

3.8.2.1, ‘‘A.C. [Alternating Current] 

Distribution—Operating,’’ to increase 

the Vital Instrument Bus Inverters 

allowed outage time (AOT) from 24 

hours for the A, B and C inverters to 7 

days and from 72 hours for the D 

inverter to 7 days. The proposed 

extended AOT is based on application 

of the Salem Generating Station 

Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) in 

support of a risk-informed extension, 

and on additional considerations and 

compensatory actions. 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2018 / Notices 31187 

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 TS amendment does not 

affect the design of the vital A.C. inverters, 

the operational characteristics or function of 

the inverters, the interfaces between the 

inverters and other plant systems, or the 

reliability of the inverters. An inoperable 

vital A.C. inverter is not considered an 

initiator of an analyzed event. In addition, TS 

Actions and the associated Allowed Outage 

Times are not initiators of previously 

evaluated accidents. Extending the Allowed 

Outage Time for an inoperable vital A.C. 

inverter would not have a significant impact 

on the frequency of occurrence of an accident 

previously evaluated. The proposed 

amendment will not result in modifications 

to plant activities associated with inverter 

maintenance, but rather, provides operational 

flexibility by allowing additional time to 

perform inverter troubleshooting, corrective 

maintenance, and post-maintenance testing 

on-line. 

The proposed extension of the Allowed 

Outage Time for an inoperable vital A.C. 

inverter will not significantly affect the 

capability of the inverters to perform their 

safety function, which is to ensure an 

uninterruptible supply of 115-volt A.C. 

electrical power to the associated power 

distribution subsystems. An evaluation, 

using PRA methods, confirmed that the 

increase in plant risk associated with 

implementation of the proposed Allowed 

Outage Time extension is consistent with the 

NRC’s Safety Goal Policy Statement, as 

further described in RG [Regulatory Guide] 

1.174 and RG 1.177. In addition, a 

deterministic evaluation concluded that 

plant defense-in-depth philosophy will be 

maintained with the proposed Allowed 

Outage Time extension. 

There will be no impact on the source term 

or pathways assumed in accidents previously 

evaluated. No analysis assumptions will be 

changed and there will be no adverse effects 

on onsite or offsite doses as the result of an 

accident. 

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 amendment does not involve 

physical alteration of the Salem Generating 

Station. No new equipment is being 

introduced, and installed equipment is not 

being operated in a new or different manner. 

There is no change being made to the 

parameters within which Salem is operated. 

There are no setpoints at which protective or 

mitigating actions are initiated that are 

affected by this proposed action. The use of 

the alternate Class 1E power source for the 

vital A.C. instrument bus is consistent with 

the Salem plant design. The change does not 

alter assumptions made in the safety 

analysis. This proposed action will not alter 

the manner in which equipment operation is 

initiated, nor will the functional demands on 

credited equipment be changed. No alteration 

is proposed to the procedures that ensure 

Salem remains within analyzed limits, and 

no change is being made to procedures relied 

upon to respond to an off-normal event. As 

such, no new failure modes are being 

introduced. 

Therefore, the proposed changes do not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any previously 

evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

Margin of safety is related to the 

confidence in the ability of the fission 

product barriers to perform their design 

functions during and following an accident. 

These barriers include the fuel cladding, the 

reactor coolant system, and the containment 

system. The proposed change, which would 

increase the AOT from 24/72 hours to 7 days 

for one inoperable inverter, does not exceed 

or alter a setpoint, design basis or safety 

limit. 

Therefore, the proposed amendment does 

not involve a significant reduction in a 

margin of safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Jeffrie J. Keenan, 

PSEG Nuclear LLC—N21, P.O. Box 236, 

Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038. 

NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna. 

Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating 

Corporation (WCNOC), Docket No. 50– 

482, Wolf Creek Generating Station 

(WCGS), Unit No. 1, Coffey County, 

Kansas 

Date of amendment request: May 9, 

2018. A publicly-available version is in 

ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML18135A172. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendment would revise the 

Emergency Plan for WCGS to (1) reduce 

the number of required Emergency 

Response Organization positions; (2) 

standardize Technical Support Center 

activation time to 75 minutes; (3) 

replace the current normal full-time 

work hours licensed medical 

practitioner position with First Aid 

Responders; and (4) remove reference to 

performing dose assessment using 

containment pressure indication. 

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 to the WCNOC 

Emergency Plan is administrative in nature. 

This proposed change does not alter accident 

analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or 

affect the function of plant systems or the 

manner in which systems are operated, 

maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. 

The proposed change does not require any 

plant modifications which affect the 

performance capability of the structures, 

systems, and components (SSCs) relied upon 

to mitigate the consequences of postulated 

accidents, and has no impact on the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

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 change to the WCNOC 

Emergency Plan is administrative in nature. 

This proposed change does not alter accident 

analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or 

affect the function of plant systems or the 

manner in which systems are operated, 

maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. 

The proposed change does not require any 

plant modifications which affect the 

performance capability of the SSCs relied 

upon to mitigate the consequences of 

postulated accidents, and does not create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated. 

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 change involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

Plant safety margins are established 

through limiting conditions for operation, 

limiting safety systems settings, and safety 

limits specified in the technical 

specifications. The proposed change to the 

WCNOC Emergency Plan is administrative in 

nature. Since the proposed change is 

administrative in nature, there are no 

changes to these established safety margins. 

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 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
31188 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2018 / Notices 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Jay E. Silberg, 

Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman 

LLP, 2300 N Street NW, Washington, DC 

20037. 

NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. 

Pascarelli. 

III. Notice of Issuance of Amendments 

to Facility Operating Licenses and 

Combined Licenses 

During the period since publication of 

the last biweekly notice, the 

Commission has issued the following 

amendments. The Commission has 

determined for each of these 

amendments that the application 

complies with the standards and 

requirements of the Atomic Energy Act 

of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the 

Commission’s rules and regulations. 

The Commission has made appropriate 

findings as required by the Act and the 

Commission’s rules and regulations in 

10 CFR chapter I, which are set forth in 

the license amendment. 

A notice of consideration of issuance 

of amendment to facility operating 

license or combined license, as 

applicable, proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination, 

and opportunity for a hearing in 

connection with these actions, was 

published in the Federal Register as 

indicated. 

Unless otherwise indicated, the 

Commission has determined that these 

amendments satisfy the criteria for 

categorical exclusion in accordance 

with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant 

to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental 

impact statement or environmental 

assessment need be prepared for these 

amendments. If the Commission has 

prepared an environmental assessment 

under the special circumstances 

provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has 

made a determination based on that 

assessment, it is so indicated. 

For further details with respect to the 

action see (1) the applications for 

amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) 

the Commission’s related letter, Safety 

Evaluation and/or Environmental 

Assessment as indicated. All of these 

items can be accessed as described in 

the ‘‘Obtaining Information and 

Submitting Comments’’ section of this 

document. 

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 (PVNGS), Maricopa County, Arizona 

Date of amendment request: June 22, 

2017. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments revised the technical 

specifications to eliminate TS 5.5.8, 

‘‘Inservice Testing Program.’’ A new 

defined term, ‘‘INSERVICE TESTING 

PROGRAM,’’ was added to the TS 

definitions section. This is consistent 

with Technical Specifications Task 

Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF–545, 

Revision 3, ‘‘TS Inservice Testing 

Program Removal & Clarify SR 

[Surveillance Requirement] Usage Rule 

Application to Section 5.5 Testing.’’ The 

amendments eliminated the PVNGS TS 

5.5.8 to remove requirements duplicated 

in American Society of Mechanical 

Engineers Code for Operations and 

Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants, 

Code Case OMN–20, ‘‘Inservice Test 

Frequency.’’ 

Date of issuance: June 7, 2018. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 120 days from the date of 

issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: 206 (Unit 1), 206 

(Unit 2), and 206 (Unit 3). A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML18120A283; 

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 and TSs. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: August 15, 2017 (82 FR 

38716). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated June 7, 2018. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 

Docket No. 50–255, Palisades Nuclear 

Plant, Van Buren County, Michigan 

Date of amendment request: July 27, 

2017, as supplemented by letter dated 

December 19, 2017. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revised certain staffing and 

training requirements, reports, 

programs, and editorial changes in the 

Technical Specifications Table of 

Contents; Section 1.0, ‘‘Use and 

Application’’; and Section 5.0, 

‘‘Administrative Controls,’’ that will no 

longer be applicable once Palisades 

Nuclear Plant is permanently defueled. 

Date of issuance: June 4, 2018. 

Effective date: Upon the licensee’s 

submittal of the certifications required 

by 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1) and shall be 

implemented within 60 days from the 

amendment effective date. 

Amendment No.: 266. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML18114A410; 

documents related to this amendment 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendment. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. DPR–20: The amendment revised 

the Renewed Facility Operating License 

and Technical Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: September 12, 2017 (82 FR 

42847). The supplemental letter dated 

December 19, 2017, provided additional 

information that clarified the 

application, did not expand the scope of 

the application as originally noticed, 

and did not change the NRC staff’s 

original proposed no significant hazards 

consideration determination as 

published in the Federal Register. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated June 4, 2018. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket No. 50–410, Nine Mile Point 

Nuclear Station, Unit No. 2 (Nine Mile 

Point 2), Oswego County, New York 

Date of amendment request: August 

22, 2017. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revised the Nine Mile Point 

2 Technical Specifications by removing 

a note associated with Surveillance 

Requirement 3.5.1.2 that allowed low 

pressure coolant injection subsystems to 

be considered operable in MODE 3 

under certain conditions. 

Date of issuance: June 8, 2018. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 60 days of issuance. 

Amendment No.: 170. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML18131A291; 

documents related to this amendment 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendment. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. NPF–69: The amendment revised 

the Renewed Facility Operating License 

and Technical Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: December 19, 2017 (82 FR 

60227). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated June 8, 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: June 28, 

2017, as supplemented by letter dated 

February 28, 2018. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2018 / Notices 31189 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments revised the technical 

specifications to relocate to licenseecontrolled documents; select acceptance 

criteria specified in TS surveillance 

requirements credited for satisfying the 

Inservice Testing (IST) Program and 

Inservice Inspection Program 

requirements; to delete the SRs for the 

ASME Code Class 1, 2, and 3 

components; to replace references to the 

Surveillance Frequency Control 

Program with reference to the Turkey 

Point IST Program where appropriate; to 

establish a Reactor Coolant Pump 

Flywheel Inspection Program; and to 

make related editorial changes. 

Additionally, the amendments deleted a 

redundant SR for Accumulator check 

valve testing and added a footnote to the 

SR for Pressure Isolation Valve testing. 

Date of issuance: June 12, 2018. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 120 days of issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: 281 and 275. A 

publicly-available version is in ADAMS 

under Accession No. ML18130A466; 

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: August 29, 2017 (82 FR 

41069). The supplemental letter dated 

February 28, 2018, expanded the scope 

of its request as originally noticed; 

therefore, the NRC published another 

notice in the Federal Register on April 

10, 2018 (83 FR 15417), which replaced 

the original notice in its entirety. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated June 12, 2018. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

NextEra Energy Duane Arnold, LLC, 

Docket No. 50–331, Duane Arnold 

Energy Center (DAEC), Linn County, 

Iowa 

Date of amendment request: June 9, 

2017, as supplemented by letters dated 

November 1, 2017, February 8, 2018, 

and March 28, 2018. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revised existing DAEC 

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 

TS 2.1.1.3 Safety Limit. 

Date of issuance: June 18, 2018. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 90 days of the date of issuance. 

Amendment No.: 305. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML18089A160; 

documents related to this amendment 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendment. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. DPR–49: The amendment revised 

the Renewed Facility Operating License 

and Technical Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: January 16, 2018 (83 FR 

2230). The supplemental letters dated 

February 8, 2018, and March 28, 2018, 

provided additional information that 

clarified the application, did not expand 

the scope of the application as originally 

noticed, and they did not change the 

NRC staff’s original proposed no 

significant hazards consideration 

determination as published in the 

Federal Register. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated June 18, 2018. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

NextEra Energy, Point Beach, LLC, 

Docket Nos. 50–266 and 50–301, Point 

Beach Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, 

Town of Two Creeks, Manitowoc 

County, Wisconsin 

Date of amendment request: June 23, 

2017, as supplemented by letters dated 

August 21, 2017, and December 21, 

2017. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments revised the current 

emergency action level (EAL) scheme to 

one based on the Nuclear Energy 

Institute (NEI) guidance in NEI 99–01, 

Revision 6, ‘‘Development of Emergency 

Action Levels for Non-Passive 

Reactors,’’ dated November 2012. 

Revision 6 to NEI 99–01 was endorsed 

by the NRC by letter dated March 28, 

2013. 

Date of issuance: June 13, 2018. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 365 days of issuance to allow 

consideration of outage schedules and 

required training cycles. 

Amendment Nos.: 261 and 264. A 

publicly-available version is in ADAMS 

under Accession No. ML18079A045; 

documents related to these amendments 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendments. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. DPR–24 and DPR–27: The 

amendments revised the Facility 

Operating License. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: November 21, 2017 (82 FR 

55408). The supplemental letter dated 

December 21, 2017, provided additional 

information that clarified the 

application, did not expand the scope of 

the application as originally noticed, 

and did not change the NRC staff’s 

original proposed no significant hazards 

consideration determination as 

published in the Federal Register. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated June 13, 2018. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 

Docket Nos. 52–025 and 52–026, Vogtle 

Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), Unit 

Nos. 3 and 4, Burke County, Georgia 

Date of amendment request: October 

6, 2017, as supplemented by letter dated 

February 28, 2018. 

Description of amendments: The 

amendments consisted of changes to the 

Updated Final Safety Analysis Report 

(UFSAR) in the form of departures from 

the incorporated plant-specific Design 

Control Document Tier 2 information. 

Further, the amendments revised a 

Combined License (COL) License 

Condition which references an UFSAR 

Section impacted by the proposed 

changes. Specifically, the amendments 

consisted of changes to revise the 

methodology and acceptance criteria for 

the in-containment refueling water 

storage tank heatup preoperational test 

described in UFSAR Subsection 

14.2.9.1.3, item h and the passive 

residual heat removal heat exchanger 

preoperational test described in UFSAR 

Subsection 14.2.9.1.3, item g. These 

changes involves material which is 

specifically referenced in Section 2.D.(2) 

of the COLs for VEGP Units 3 and 4. The 

amendments also revised the reference 

to the In-containment Refueling Water 

Storage Tank Heatup Test in the COL 

license condition, consistent with the 

changes to the UFSAR. 

Date of issuance: April 11, 2018. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 30 days of issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: 120 (Unit 3) and 

119 (Unit 4). A publicly-available 

version is in ADAMS under Accession 

No. ML18085A045; documents related 

to these amendments are listed in the 

Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 

amendments. 

Facility Combined Licenses Nos. NPF– 

91 and NPF–92: The amendments 

revised the Facility Combined Licenses. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: February 2, 2018 (83 FR 

8509). The supplemental letter dated 

February 28, 2018, provided additional 

information that clarified the 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
31190 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2018 / Notices 

application, did not expand the scope of 

the application as originally noticed, 

and did not change the staff’s original 

proposed no significant hazards 

consideration determination as 

published in the Federal Register. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in the 

Safety Evaluation dated April 11, 2018. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 

Docket Nos. 52–025 and 52–026, Vogtle 

Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), Unit 

Nos. 3 and 4, Burke County, Georgia 

Date of amendment request: February 

2, 2018. 

Description of amendments: The 

amendments authorized the Southern 

Nuclear Operating Company to depart 

from the VEGP Units 3 and 4 plantspecific Appendix A, technical 

specifications as incorporated into the 

VEGP Unit Nos. 3 and 4 COLs, and 

changed to the approved AP1000 Design 

Control Document Tier 2 information as 

incorporated into the Updated Final 

Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). 

Specifically, the changes to the COLs 

Appendix A, included TS 5.6.3 for the 

core operating limits report 

documentation to remove certain reactor 

trip instrumentation from the list of core 

operating limits and include analytical 

methods mentioned elsewhere in the TS 

and UFSAR and to TS 5.7.2 to correct 

a typographical error in a description of 

a radiation monitoring device that may 

be used in a high radiation area. The 

changes to the UFSAR Tier 2 Table 1.6– 

1, ‘‘Material Referenced,’’ and Section 

4.3.5, ‘‘References,’’ updated the list of 

references as described in the 

application. 

Date of issuance: May 31, 2018. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 30 days of issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: 124 (Unit 3) and 

123 (Unit 4). A publicly-available 

version is in ADAMS under Accession 

No. ML18123A511; documents related 

to these amendments are listed in the 

Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 

amendments. 

Facility Combined Licenses Nos. NPF– 

91 and NPF–92: The amendments 

revised the Facility Combined Licenses. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: March 13, 2018 (83 FR 

10911). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in the 

Safety Evaluation dated May 31, 2018. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

STP Nuclear Operating Company, 

Docket Nos. 50–498 and 50–499, South 

Texas Project (STP), Units 1 and 2, 

Matagorda County, Texas 

Date of amendment request: 

September 18, 2017. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments relocated the defined core 

plane regions where the radial peaking 

factor limits are not applicable, called 

radial peaking factor exclusion zones, 

from TS 4.2.2.2.f to the Core Operating 

Limits Reports (COLRs) for STP, Unit 

Nos. 1 and 2. The amendment also 

revised the COLR Administrative 

Controls TS to add exclusion zones to 

the list of limits found in the COLRs, 

and revised the description of the 

methodology used to determine the 

values for the radial peaking factor 

exclusion zones. In addition, the 

amendment corrected two 

administrative errors. 

Date of issuance: June 7, 2018. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 90 days from the date of 

issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: 213 (Unit 1) and 

199 (Unit 2). A publicly-available 

version is in ADAMS under Accession 

No. ML18128A342; documents related 

to these amendments are listed in the 

Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 

amendments. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. NPF–76 and NPF–80: The 

amendments revised the Renewed 

Facility Operating Licenses and 

Technical Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: December 5, 2017 (82 FR 

57475). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated June 7, 2018. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

United States Maritime Administration 

(MARAD), Docket No. 50–238, Nuclear 

Ship SAVANNAH (NSS), Baltimore, 

Maryland 

Date of amendment request: March 

30, 2018. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revised the Technical 

Specifications to establish controls for 

all accesses to the Containment Vessel 

in support of two structural 

modifications. 

Date of issuance: June 12, 2018. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 60 days. 

Amendment No.: 16. A publicallyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML18109A578. 

Facility Operating License No. NS–1: 

The amendment revised the License. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: May 8, 2018 (83 FR 20863). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated June 12, 2017. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 21st day 

of June 2018. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Tara Inverso, 

Acting Deputy Director, Division of Operating 

Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation. 

[FR Doc. 2018–13758 Filed 7–2–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2018–0116] 

Applications and Amendments to 

Facility Operating Licenses and 

Combined Licenses Involving 

Proposed No Significant Hazards 

Considerations and Containing 

Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards 

Information and Order Imposing 

Procedures for Access to Sensitive 

Unclassified Non-Safeguards 

Information 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: License amendment request; 

notice of opportunity to comment, 

request a hearing, and petition for leave 

to intervene; order imposing 

procedures. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) received and is 

considering approval of three 

amendment requests. The amendment 

requests are for Oconee Nuclear Station, 

Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3; Duane Arnold 

Energy Center; and Callaway Plant, Unit 

No. 1. For each amendment request, the 

NRC proposes to determine that they 

involve no significant hazards 

consideration. Because each amendment 

request contains sensitive unclassified 

non-safeguards information (SUNSI), an 

order imposes procedures to obtain 

access to SUNSI for contention 

preparation. 

DATES: Comments must be filed by 

August 2, 2018. A request for a hearing 

must be filed by September 3, 2018. Any 

potential party as defined in § 2.4 of title 

10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 

(10 CFR) who believes access to SUNSI 

is necessary to respond to this notice 

must request document access by July 

13, 2018. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES