Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 129 / Thursday, July 5, 2018 / Notices 31425 

Address written submissions to Renee 

Crain, Office of Polar Programs, 

National Science Foundation, 2415 

Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 

22314. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: For further 

information contact Renee Crain at 703– 

292–4482 or rcrain@nsf.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: All 

researchers working in the North have 

an ethical responsibility toward Arctic 

communities, their cultures, and the 

environment. The IARPC developed the 

Principles for the Conduct of Research 

in the Arctic to provide guidance for 

researchers in the physical, biological, 

behavioral, health, economic, political, 

and social sciences and in the 

humanities. The Social Science Task 

Force of the IARPC prepared the current 

Principles, with approval by the IARPC 

on June 28, 1990, and published by 

IARPC in volume 9, (Spring, 1995, pp. 

56–57) of the journal ‘‘Arctic Research 

of the United States’’ (https://

www.arctic.gov/publications/related/ 

arotus.html). 

In June 2017, the IARPC Staff Group 

formed the Principles Review Working 

Group to look into revising and 

updating the current Principles to 

reflect advances in theory and in 

practice of community engagement in 

Arctic research. The revised Principles, 

entitled ‘‘Principles for Conducting 

Research in the Arctic (2018)’’ aim to (a) 

establish five core principles for 

conducting responsible and ethical 

research in the Arctic, (b) identify ways 

to strengthen community-researcher 

engagement across all stages of research 

design, data collection, analysis, and 

reporting, and (c) promote wide 

implementation and practice of the 

revised Principles. The audience for the 

Principles includes academic, federal, 

state, local, and tribal researchers and 

all other entities conducting research in 

the Arctic. The revised Principles 

encourage mutual respect and 

communication between scientists and 

Arctic residents. These principles may 

be applied to any interactions in the 

Arctic, from interactions with Arctic 

residents while travelling or transacting 

with local businesses, to developing 

deeper, longer-lasting research 

collaborations. Adhering to the 

Principles for Conducting Research in 

the Arctic is recommended for any 

person pursuing research in the Arctic. 

IARPC requests comments from the 

public on the revised Principles for 

Conducting Research in the Arctic 

(2018). IARPC is interested in all 

comments pertaining to the Principles 

and including the core principles that 

researchers are encouraged to adopt 

across all stages of research. The core 

Principles for Conducting Research in 

the Arctic are: 

• Be Accountable 

• Establish Effective Two-way 

Communication 

• Respect Local Culture and Knowledge 

• Build and Sustain Relationships 

• Pursue Responsible Environmental 

Stewardship 

Dated: June 29, 2018. 

Suzanne H. Plimpton, 

Reports Clearance Officer, National Science 

Foundation. 

[FR Doc. 2018–14388 Filed 7–3–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7555–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket No. 50–219; NRC–2018–0136] 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC; 

Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating 

Station 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Exemption; issuance. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) issued a partial 

exemption in response to an April 12, 

2018, request from Exelon Generation 

Company, LLC (the licensee or Exelon). 

The issuance of the exemption grants 

Exelon a partial exemption from 

regulations that require the retention of 

records for certain systems, structures, 

and components associated with the 

Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station 

(Oyster Creek) until the termination of 

the Oyster Creek operating license. 

DATES: The exemption was issued on 

June 26, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID 

NRC–2018–0136 when contacting the 

NRC about the availability of 

information regarding this document. 

You may obtain publicly-available 

information related to this document 

using any of the following methods: 

• Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and search 

for Docket ID NRC–2018–0136. 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. 

• 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. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

G. Lamb, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation; U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 

0001; telephone: 301–415–3100, email: 

John.Lamb@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The text of 

the exemption is attached. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th day 

of June, 2018. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

John G. Lamb, 

Senior Project Manager, Special Projects and 

Process Branch, Division of Operating Reactor 

Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation. 

ATTACHMENT—Exemption. 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION [Docket No. 50–219] 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC 

Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating 

Station Exemption 

I. Background. 

The Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating 

Station (Oyster Creek) site is a single 

unit facility located in Lacey Township, 

New Jersey. The site is near the Atlantic 

Ocean situated on approximately 152 

acres in Ocean County, New Jersey. The 

Oyster Creek facility employs a General 

Electric boiling water reactor nuclear 

steam supply system licensed to 

generate 1,930 megawatts-thermal. The 

boiling water reactor and supporting 

facilities are owned and operated by 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC 

(Exelon, the licensee). Exelon is the 

holder of the Oyster Creek Renewed 

Facility Operating License No. DPR–16. 

The license provides, among other 

things, that the facility is subject to all 

rules, regulations, and orders of the U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) 

now or hereafter in effect. 

By letter dated February 14, 2018 

(Agencywide Documents Access and 

Management System (ADAMS) 

Accession No. ML18045A084), Exelon 

submitted a notification to the NRC 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
31426 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 129 / Thursday, July 5, 2018 / Notices 

indicating that it would permanently 

shut down Oyster Creek no later than 

October 31, 2018. Once Exelon certifies 

that it has permanently defueled the 

Oyster Creek reactor vessel and placed 

the fuel in the spent fuel pool (SFP), 

accordingly, pursuant to § 50.82(a)(2) of 

Title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (10 CFR), the Oyster Creek 

renewed facility operating license 

would no longer authorize operation of 

the reactor or emplacement or retention 

of fuel in the reactor vessel. However, 

the licensee would still be authorized to 

possess and store irradiated nuclear 

fuel. Irradiated fuel is currently being 

stored onsite in a SFP and in 

independent spent fuel storage 

installation (ISFSI) dry casks. The 

irradiated fuel will be stored in the 

ISFSI until it is shipped off site. With 

the reactor emptied of fuel, the reactor, 

reactor coolant system, and secondary 

system will no longer be in operation 

and will have no function related to the 

safe storage and management of 

irradiated fuel. 

II. Request/Action. 

By letter dated April 12, 2018 

(ADAMS Accession No. ML18102A763), 

Exelon submitted an exemption request 

for NRC approval from the record 

retention requirements of: (1) 10 CFR 

part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVII, 

‘‘Quality Assurance Records,’’ which 

requires certain records (e.g., results of 

inspections, tests, and materials 

analyses) be maintained consistent with 

applicable regulatory requirements; (2) 

10 CFR 50.59(d)(3), which requires that 

records of changes in the facility must 

be maintained until termination of a 

license issued pursuant to 10 CFR part 

50; and (3) 10 CFR 50.71(c), which 

requires certain records to be retained 

for the period specified by the 

appropriate regulation, license 

condition, or technical specification, or 

until termination of the license if not 

otherwise specified. 

The licensee requested the 

exemptions because it wants to 

eliminate: (1) records associated with 

structures, systems, and components 

(SSCs) and activities that were 

applicable to the nuclear unit, which are 

no longer required by the 10 CFR part 

50 licensing basis (i.e., removed from 

the updated final safety analysis report 

and/or technical specifications by 

appropriate change mechanisms; and (2) 

records associated with the storage of 

spent nuclear fuel in the SFP once all 

fuel has been removed from the SFP and 

the Oyster Creek license no longer 

allows storage of fuel in the SFP. The 

licensee cites record retention 

exemptions granted to Millstone Power 

Station, Unit 1 (ADAMS Accession No. 

ML070110567), Zion Nuclear Power 

Station, Units 1 and 2 (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML111260277), Vermont 

Yankee Nuclear Power Station (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML15344A243), and San 

Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, 

Units 1, 2, and 3 (ADAMS Accession 

No. ML15355A055), and Kewaunee 

Power Station (ADAMS Accession No. 

ML17069A394) as examples of the NRC 

granting similar requests. 

Records associated with residual 

radiological activity and with 

programmatic controls necessary to 

support decommissioning, such as 

security and quality assurance, are not 

affected by the exemption request 

because they will be retained as 

decommissioning records, as required 

by 10 CFR part 50, until the termination 

of the Oyster Creek license. In addition, 

the licensee did not request an 

exemption associated with any other 

recordkeeping requirements for the 

storage of spent fuel at its ISFSI under 

10 CFR part 50 or the general license 

requirements of 10 CFR part 72. No 

exemption was requested from the 

decommissioning records retention 

requirements of 10 CFR 50.75, or any 

other requirements of 10 CFR part 50 

applicable to decommissioning and 

dismantlement. 

III. Discussion. 

Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, the 

Commission may, upon application by 

any interested person or upon its own 

initiative, grant exemptions from the 

requirements of 10 CFR part 50 when 

the exemptions are authorized by law, 

will not present an undue risk to public 

health or safety, and are consistent with 

the common defense and security. 

However, the Commission will not 

consider granting an exemption unless 

special circumstances are present. 

Special circumstances are described in 

10 CFR 50.12(a)(2). 

Many of the Oyster Creek reactor 

facility SSCs are planned to be 

abandoned in place pending 

dismantlement. Abandoned SSCs will 

no longer be operable or maintained. 

Following permanent removal of fuel 

from the SFP, those SSCs required to 

support safe storage of spent fuel in the 

SFP will also be abandoned. In its April 

12, 2018, exemption request, the 

licensee stated that the basis for 

eliminating records associated with 

reactor facility SSCs and activities is 

that these SSCs have been (or will be) 

removed from service per regulatory 

change processes, dismantled or 

demolished, and no longer have any 

function regulated by the NRC. 

The licensee recognizes that some 

records related to the nuclear unit will 

continue to be under NRC regulation 

primarily due to residual radioactivity. 

The radiological and other necessary 

programmatic controls (such as security, 

quality assurance, etc.) for the facility 

and the implementation of controls for 

the defueled condition and the 

decommissioning activities are and will 

continue to be appropriately addressed 

through the license and current plant 

documents such as the updated final 

safety analysis report (UFSAR) and 

technical specifications (TSs). Except 

for future changes made through the 

applicable change process defined in 

the regulations (e.g., 10 CFR 50.48(f), 10 

CFR 50.59, 10 CFR 50.90, 10 CFR 

50.54(a), 10 CFR 50.54(p), 10 CFR 

50.54(q), etc.), these programmatic 

elements and their associated records 

are unaffected by the requested 

exemption. 

Records necessary for SFP SSCs and 

activities will continue to be retained 

through the period that the SFP is 

needed for safe storage of irradiated 

fuel. Analogous to other plant records, 

once the SFP is permanently emptied of 

fuel, there will be no need for retaining 

SFP related records. 

Exelon’s general justification for 

eliminating records associated with 

Oyster Creek SSCs that have been or 

will be removed from service under the 

NRC license, dismantled, or 

demolished, is that these SSCs will not 

in the future serve any Oyster Creek 

functions regulated by the NRC. The 

licensee’s dismantlement plans involve 

evaluating SSCs with respect to the 

current facility safety analysis; 

progressively removing them from the 

licensing basis where necessary through 

appropriate change mechanisms (e.g., 10 

CFR 50.59 or via NRC-approved TS 

changes, as applicable); revising the 

defueled safety analysis report and/or 

UFSAR as necessary; and then 

proceeding with an orderly 

dismantlement. Dismantlement of the 

plant structures will also include 

dismantling existing records storage 

facilities. 

Exelon intends to retain the records 

required by its license as the facility’s 

decommissioning transitions. However, 

equipment abandonment will obviate 

the regulatory and business needs for 

maintenance of most records. As the 

SSCs are removed from the licensing 

basis, Exelon asserts that the need for 

their records is, on a practical basis, 

eliminated. Therefore, Exelon is 

requesting to be exempted from the 

associated records retention 

requirements for SSCs and historical 

activities that are no longer relevant. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 129 / Thursday, July 5, 2018 / Notices 31427 

Approval of the exemption request 

would eliminate the associated burden 

of creating alternative record storage 

locations, and relocating records to, and 

retaining records in the alternative 

locations for those records relevant only 

to past power operations. Exelon is not 

requesting to be exempted from any 

recordkeeping requirements for storage 

of spent fuel at an ISFSI under 10 CFR 

part 50 or the general license 

requirements of 10 CFR part 72. 

A. Authorized by Law. 

As stated above, 10 CFR 50.12 allows 

the NRC to grant exemptions from 10 

CFR part 50 requirements if it makes 

certain findings. As described here and 

in the sections below, the NRC staff has 

determined that special circumstances 

exist to grant the exemption. In 

addition, granting the licensee’s 

proposed exemption will not result in a 

violation of the Atomic Energy Act of 

1954, as amended, other laws, or the 

Commission’s regulations. Therefore, 

the granting of the exemption request 

from the recordkeeping requirements of 

10 CFR 50.71(c); 10 CFR part 50, 

Appendix B, Criterion XVII; and 10 CFR 

50.59(d)(3) is authorized by law. 

B. No Undue Risk to Public Health and 

Safety. 

As SSCs are prepared for SAFSTOR 

and eventual decommissioning and 

dismantlement, they will be removed 

from NRC licensing basis documents 

through appropriate change 

mechanisms, such as through the 10 

CFR 50.59 process or through a license 

amendment request approved by the 

NRC. These change processes involve a 

determination by the licensee or an 

approval by the NRC that the affected 

SSC no longer serves any safety purpose 

regulated by the NRC. Therefore, the 

removal of the SSC would not present 

an undue risk to public health and 

safety. In turn, elimination of records 

associated with these removed SSCs 

would not cause any additional impact 

to public health and safety. 

The granting of the exemption request 

from the recordkeeping requirements of 

10 CFR 50.71(c); 10 CFR part 50, 

Appendix B, Criterion XVII; and 10 CFR 

50.59(d)(3) for the records described is 

administrative in nature and will have 

no impact on any remaining 

decommissioning activities or on 

radiological effluents. The granting of 

the exemption request will only 

advance the schedule for disposition of 

the specified records. Because these 

records contain information about SSCs 

associated with reactor operation and 

contain no information needed to 

maintain the facility in a safe condition 

when the facility is permanently 

defueled and the SSCs are dismantled, 

the elimination of these records on an 

advanced timetable will have no 

reasonable possibility of presenting any 

undue risk to the public health and 

safety. 

C. Consistent with Common Defense 

and Security. 

The elimination of the recordkeeping 

requirements does not involve 

information or activities that could 

potentially impact the common defense 

and security of the United States. Upon 

dismantlement of the affected SSCs, the 

records have no functional purpose 

relative to maintaining the safe 

operation of the SSCs, maintaining 

conditions that would affect the ongoing 

health and safety of workers or the 

public, or informing decisions related to 

nuclear security. 

Rather, the exemptions requested are 

administrative in nature in that they 

would only advance the current 

schedule for disposition of the specified 

records. Therefore, the exemption 

request from the recordkeeping 

requirements of 10 CFR 50.71(c); 10 CFR 

part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVII; and 

10 CFR 50.59(d)(3) for the types of 

records described is consistent with the 

common defense and security. 

D. Special Circumstances. 

Paragraph 50.12(a)(2) states, in part: 

‘‘The Commission will not consider 

granting an exemption unless special 

circumstances are present. Special 

circumstances are present whenever— 

. . . (ii) Application of the regulation in 

the particular circumstances would not 

serve the underlying purpose of the rule 

or is not necessary to achieve the 

underlying purpose of the rule; or (iii) 

Compliance would result in undue 

hardship or other costs that are 

significantly in excess of those 

contemplated when the regulation was 

adopted. . . .’’ 

Criterion XVII of 10 CFR part 50, 

Appendix B, states, in part: ‘‘Sufficient 

records shall be maintained to furnish 

evidence of activities affecting quality.’’ 

Paragraph 50.59(d)(3) states, in part: 

‘‘The records of changes in the facility 

must be maintained until the 

termination of an operating license 

issued under this part . . .’’ 

Paragraph 50.71(c), states in part: 

‘‘Records that are required by the 

regulations in this part or part 52 of this 

chapter, by license condition, or by 

technical specifications must be 

retained for the period specified by the 

appropriate regulation, license 

condition, or technical specification. If 

a retention period is not otherwise 

specified, these records must be 

retained until the Commission 

terminates the facility license. . . .’’ 

In the statement of considerations 

(SOC) for the final rulemaking, 

‘‘Retention Periods for Records’’ (53 FR 

19240; May 27, 1988), in response to 

public comments received during the 

rulemaking process, the NRC stated that 

records must be retained ‘‘for NRC to 

ensure compliance with the safety and 

health aspects of the nuclear 

environment and for the NRC to 

accomplish its mission to protect the 

public health and safety.’’ In the SOC, 

the Commission also explained that 

requiring licensees to maintain adequate 

records assists the NRC ‘‘in judging 

compliance and noncompliance, to act 

on possible noncompliance, and to 

examine facts as necessary following 

any incident.’’ 

These regulations apply to licensees 

in decommissioning, during the 

decommissioning process, safety-related 

SSCs are retired or disabled and 

subsequently removed from NRC 

licensing basis documents by 

appropriate means. Appropriate 

removal of an SSC from the licensing 

basis requires either a determination by 

the licensee, or an approval from the 

NRC that concludes that the SSC no 

longer has the potential to cause an 

accident, event, or other problem which 

would adversely impact public health 

and safety. 

The records that would be subject to 

removal, if the exemption request is 

granted, are associated with SSCs that 

had been important to safety during 

power operation or operation of the SFP 

but are no longer capable of causing an 

event, incident, or condition that would 

adversely impact public health and 

safety, as evidenced by their appropriate 

removal from the licensing basis 

documents. If the SSCs no longer have 

the potential to cause these scenarios, 

then it is reasonable to conclude that the 

records associated with these SSCs 

would not reasonably be necessary to 

assist the NRC in determining 

compliance and noncompliance, taking 

action on possible noncompliance, or 

examining facts following an incident. 

Therefore, their retention would not 

serve the underlying purpose of the 

rule. 

In addition, once removed from the 

licensing basis documents (e.g., UFSAR 

or TSs), SSCs are no longer governed by 

the NRC’s regulations, and therefore are 

not subject to compliance with the 

safety and health aspects of the nuclear 

environment. As such, retention of 

records associated with SSCs that are no 

longer part of the facility serves no 

safety or regulatory purpose, nor does it 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
31428 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 129 / Thursday, July 5, 2018 / Notices 

serve the underlying purpose of the rule 

of maintaining compliance with the 

safety and health aspects of the nuclear 

environment in order to accomplish the 

NRC’s mission. Therefore, special 

circumstances are present which the 

NRC may consider, pursuant to 10 CFR 

50.12(a)(2)(ii), to grant the exemption 

request. 

Records which continue to serve the 

underlying purpose of the rule, that is, 

to maintain compliance and to protect 

public health and safety in support of 

the NRC’s mission, will continue to be 

retained pursuant to other regulations in 

10 CFR part 50 and 10 CFR part 72. 

Retained records that are not subject to 

the proposed exemption include those 

associated with programmatic controls, 

such as those pertaining to residual 

radioactivity, security, and quality 

assurance, as well as records associated 

with the ISFSI and spent fuel 

assemblies. 

The retention of records required by 

10 CFR 50.71(c); 10 CFR part 50, 

Appendix B, Criterion XVII; and 10 CFR 

50.59(d)(3) provides assurance that 

records associated with SSCs will be 

captured, indexed, and stored in an 

environmentally suitable and retrievable 

condition. Given the volume of records 

associated with the SSCs, compliance 

with the records retention rule results in 

a considerable cost to the licensee. 

Retention of the volume of records 

associated with the SSCs during the 

operational phase is appropriate to serve 

the underlying purpose of determining 

compliance and noncompliance, taking 

action on possible noncompliance, and 

examining facts following an incident, 

as discussed. 

However, the cost effect of retaining 

operational phase records beyond the 

operations phase until the termination 

of the license was not fully considered 

or understood when the records 

retention rule was put in place. For 

example, existing records storage 

facilities are eliminated as 

decommissioning progresses. Retaining 

records associated with SSCs and 

activities that no longer serve a safety or 

regulatory purpose could therefore 

necessitate the needless creation of new 

facilities and retention of administrative 

support personnel. As such, compliance 

with the rule would result in an undue 

cost in excess of that contemplated 

when the rule was adopted. Therefore, 

special circumstances are also present 

which the NRC may consider, pursuant 

to 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(iii), to grant the 

exemption request. 

E. Environmental Considerations. 

Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) and 

(c)(25), the granting of an exemption 

from the requirements of any regulation 

in Chapter I of 10 CFR meets the 

eligibility criteria for categorical 

exclusion provided that: (1) there is no 

significant hazards consideration; (2) 

there is no significant change in the 

types or significant increase in the 

amounts of any effluents that may be 

released offsite; (3) there is no 

significant increase in individual or 

cumulative public or occupational 

radiation exposure; (4) there is no 

significant construction impact; (5) 

there is no significant increase in the 

potential for or consequences from 

radiological accidents; and (6) the 

requirements from which an exemption 

is sought are among those identified in 

10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(vi). 

The exemption request is 

administrative in nature. The exemption 

request has no effect on SSCs and no 

effect on the capability of any plant SSC 

to perform its design function. The 

exemption request would not increase 

the likelihood of the malfunction of any 

plant SSC. 

The probability of occurrence of 

previously evaluated accidents is not 

increased, since most previously 

analyzed accidents will no longer be 

able to occur and the probability and 

consequences of the remaining Fuel 

Handling Accident are unaffected by the 

Exemption request. Therefore, the 

exemption request does not involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated. 

The exemption request does not 

involve a physical alteration of the 

plant. No new or different type of 

equipment will be installed and there 

are no physical modifications to existing 

equipment associated with the 

exemption request. Similarly, the 

exemption request will not physically 

change any SSCs involved in the 

mitigation of any accidents. Thus, no 

new initiators or precursors of a new or 

different kind of accident are created. 

Furthermore, the exemption request 

does not create the possibility of a new 

accident as a result of new failure 

modes associated with any equipment 

or personnel failures. No changes are 

being made to parameters within which 

the plant is normally operated, or in the 

setpoints which initiate protective or 

mitigative actions, and no new failure 

modes are being introduced. Therefore, 

the exemption request does not create 

the possibility of a new or different kind 

of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

The exemption request does not alter 

the design basis or any safety limits for 

the plant. The exemption request does 

not impact station operation or any 

plant SSC that is relied upon for 

accident mitigation. Therefore, the 

exemption request does not involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of 

safety. 

For these reasons, the NRC staff has 

determined that approval of the 

exemption request involves no 

significant hazards consideration 

because granting the licensee’s 

exemption request from the 

recordkeeping requirements of 10 CFR 

50.71(c); 10 CFR part 50, Appendix B, 

Criterion XVII; and 10 CFR 50.59(d)(3) 

at the decommissioning Oyster Creek 

does not: (1) involve a significant 

increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated; (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 (10 CFR 50.92(c)). 

Likewise, there is no significant change 

in the types or significant increase in 

the amounts of any effluents that may be 

released offsite, and no significant 

increase in individual or cumulative 

public or occupational radiation 

exposure. 

The exempted regulations are not 

associated with construction, so there is 

no significant construction impact. The 

exempted regulations do not concern 

the source term (i.e., potential amount 

of radiation involved an accident) or 

accident mitigation; therefore, there is 

no significant increase in the potential 

for, or consequences from, radiological 

accidents. Allowing the licensee partial 

exemption from the record retention 

requirements for which the exemption 

is sought involves recordkeeping 

requirements, as well as reporting 

requirements of an administrative, 

managerial, or organizational nature. 

Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 

51.22(b) and 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25), no 

environmental impact statement or 

environmental assessment need be 

prepared in connection with the 

approval of this exemption request. 

IV. Conclusions. 

The NRC staff has determined that the 

granting of the exemption request from 

the recordkeeping requirements of 10 

CFR 50.71(c); 10 CFR part 50, Appendix 

B, Criterion XVII; and 10 CFR 

50.59(d)(3) will not present an undue 

risk to the public health and safety. The 

destruction of the identified records will 

not impact remaining decommissioning 

activities; plant operations, 

configuration, and/or radiological 

effluents; operational and/or installed 

SSCs that are quality-related or 

important to safety; or nuclear security. 

The NRC staff has determined that the 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 129 / Thursday, July 5, 2018 / Notices 31429 

destruction of the identified records is 

administrative in nature and does not 

involve information or activities that 

could potentially impact the common 

defense and security of the United 

States. 

The purpose for the recordkeeping 

regulations is to assist the NRC in 

carrying out its mission to protect the 

public health and safety by ensuring 

that the licensing and design basis of the 

facility is understood, documented, 

preserved and retrievable in such a way 

that will aid the NRC in determining 

compliance and noncompliance, taking 

action on possible noncompliance, and 

examining facts following an incident. 

Since the Oyster Creek SSCs that were 

safety-related or important to safety 

have been or will be removed from the 

licensing basis and removed from the 

plant, the staff agrees that the records 

identified in the exemption request will 

no longer be required to achieve the 

underlying purpose of the records 

retention rule. 

Accordingly, the Commission has 

determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR 

50.12, the exemptions are authorized by 

law, will not present an undue risk to 

the public health and safety, and are 

consistent with the common defense 

and security. Also, special 

circumstances are present. Therefore, 

the Commission hereby grants the 

Exelon, a partial exemption from the 

recordkeeping requirements of 10 CFR 

50.71(c); 10 CFR part 50, Appendix B, 

Criterion XVII; and 10 CFR 50.59(d)(3) 

for Oyster Creek only to the extent 

necessary to allow the licensee to 

advance the schedule to remove records 

associated with SSCs that have been or 

will be removed from NRC licensing 

basis documents through appropriate 

change mechanism (e.g., 10 CFR 50.59 

or via NRC-approved license 

amendment request, as applicable. 

This exemption is effective upon 

submittal of the licensee’s certification 

of permanent fuel removal, under 

§ 50.82(a)(1). 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 

26th day of June, 2018. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

Joseph G. Giitter, Director, 

Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, 

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. 

[FR Doc. 2018–14391 Filed 7–3–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2018–0137] 

Dispositioning of Technical 

Specifications That Are Insufficient To 

Ensure Plant Safety 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Draft regulatory guide; request 

for comment. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is issuing for public 

comment draft regulatory guide (DG), 

DG–1351, ‘‘Dispositioning of Technical 

Specifications that are Insufficient to 

Ensure Plant Safety.’’ This DG proposes 

new guidance that describes methods 

and procedures that are acceptable to 

the (NRC) staff for dispositioning of 

technical specifications (TS) that are 

insufficient to ensure power plant 

safety. 

DATES: Submit comments by September 

4, 2018. Comments received after this 

date will be considered if it is practical 

to do so, but the NRC is able to ensure 

consideration only for comments 

received on or before this date. 

Although a time limit is given, 

comments and suggestions in 

connection with items for inclusion in 

guides currently being developed or 

improvements in all published guides 

are encouraged at any time. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by any of the following methods: 

• Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and search 

for Docket ID NRC–2018–0137. Address 

questions about NRC dockets to Jennifer 

Borges; telephone: 301–287–9127; 

email: Jennifer.Borges@nrc.gov. For 

technical questions, contact the 

individuals 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: 

Blake Purnell, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation; telephone: 301–415–1380, 

email: Blake.Purnell@nrc.gov or 

Stephen Burton, Office of Nuclear 

Regulatory Research; telephone: 301– 

415–7000, email: Stephen.Burton@

nrc.gov. Both are staff of the U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Obtaining Information and 

Submitting Comments 

A. Obtaining Information 

Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2018– 

0137 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–2018–0137. 

• 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. DG– 

1351, ‘‘Dispositioning of Technical 

Specifications that are Insufficient to 

Ensure Plant Safety,’’ is available in 

ADAMS under Accession 

ML18086A690. 

• 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– 

0137 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 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. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1