Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Notices 33263 

Article VII 

The Commission and the State agree that 

it is desirable to provide reciprocal 

recognition of licenses for the materials listed 

in Article I licensed by the other party or by 

any other Agreement State. 

Accordingly, the Commission and the State 

agree to develop appropriate rules, 

regulations, and procedures by which 

reciprocity will be accorded. 

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 longterm 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. 2018–14176 Filed 7–16–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2018–0140] 

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 18, 

2018, to June 29, 2018. The last 

biweekly notice was published on July 

3, 2018. 

DATES: Comments must be filed by 

August 16, 2018. A request for a hearing 

must be filed by September 17, 2018. 

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–2018–0140. 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: 

Janet C. Burkhardt, Office of Nuclear 

Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, 

DC 20555–0001; telephone: 301–415– 

1384, email: Janet.Burkhardt@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Obtaining Information and 

Submitting Comments 

A. Obtaining Information 

Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2018– 

0140, 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–2018–0140. 

• 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. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
33264 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Notices 

B. Submitting Comments 

Please include Docket ID NRC–2018– 

0140, facility name, unit number(s), 

plant docket number, application date, 

and subject in your comment 

submission. 

The NRC cautions you not to include 

identifying or contact information that 

you do not want to be publicly 

disclosed in your comment submission. 

The NRC will post all comment 

submissions at 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 

section 50.92 of title 10 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (10 CFR), this 

means that operation of the facility in 

accordance with the proposed 

amendment would not (1) involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated, or (2) create the possibility of 

a new or different kind of accident from 

any accident previously evaluated; or 

(3) involve a significant reduction in a 

margin of safety. The basis for this 

proposed determination for each 

amendment request is shown below. 

The Commission is seeking public 

comments on this proposed 

determination. Any comments received 

within 30 days after the date of 

publication of this notice will be 

considered in making any final 

determination. 

Normally, the Commission will not 

issue the amendment until the 

expiration of 60 days after the date of 

publication of this notice. The 

Commission may issue the license 

amendment before expiration of the 60- 

day period provided that its final 

determination is that the amendment 

involves no significant hazards 

consideration. In addition, the 

Commission may issue the amendment 

prior to the expiration of the 30-day 

comment period if circumstances 

change during the 30-day comment 

period such that failure to act in a 

timely way would result, for example in 

derating or shutdown of the facility. If 

the Commission takes action prior to the 

expiration of either the comment period 

or the notice period, it will publish in 

the Federal Register a notice of 

issuance. If the Commission makes a 

final no significant hazards 

consideration determination, any 

hearing will take place after issuance. 

The Commission expects that the need 

to take this action will occur very 

infrequently. 

A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing 

and Petition for Leave To Intervene 

Within 60 days after the date of 

publication of this notice, any persons 

(petitioner) whose interest may be 

affected by this action may file a request 

for a hearing and petition for leave to 

intervene (petition) with respect to the 

action. Petitions shall be filed in 

accordance with the Commission’s 

‘‘Agency Rules of Practice and 

Procedure’’ in 10 CFR part 2. Interested 

persons should consult a current copy 

of 10 CFR 2.309. The NRC’s regulations 

are accessible electronically from the 

NRC Library on the NRC’s website at 

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 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Notices 33265 

amendment request involves a 

significant hazards consideration, then 

any hearing held would take place 

before the issuance of the amendment 

unless the Commission finds an 

imminent danger to the health or safety 

of the public, in which case it will issue 

an appropriate order or rule under 10 

CFR part 2. 

A State, local governmental body, 

Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or 

agency thereof, may submit a petition to 

the Commission to participate as a party 

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

should state the nature and extent of the 

petitioner’s interest in the proceeding. 

The petition should be submitted to the 

Commission no later than 60 days from 

the date of publication of this notice. 

The petition must be filed in accordance 

with the filing instructions in the 

‘‘Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)’’ 

section of this document, and should 

meet the requirements for petitions set 

forth in this section, except that under 

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

governmental body, or 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 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
33266 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Notices 

have an NRC-issued digital ID certificate 

as described above, click cancel when 

the link requests certificates and you 

will be automatically directed to the 

NRC’s electronic hearing dockets where 

you will be able to access any publicly 

available documents in a particular 

hearing docket. Participants are 

requested not to include personal 

privacy information, such as social 

security numbers, home addresses, or 

personal phone numbers in their filings, 

unless an NRC regulation or other law 

requires submission of such 

information. For example, in some 

instances, individuals provide home 

addresses in order to demonstrate 

proximity to a facility or site. With 

respect to copyrighted works, except for 

limited excerpts that serve the purpose 

of the adjudicatory filings and would 

constitute a Fair Use application, 

participants are requested not to include 

copyrighted materials in their 

submission. 

For further details with respect to 

these license amendment applications, 

see the application for amendment 

which is available for public inspection 

in ADAMS and at the NRC’s PDR. For 

additional direction on accessing 

information related to this document, 

see the ‘‘Obtaining Information and 

Submitting Comments’’ section of this 

document. 

Dominion Energy Nuclear Connecticut, 

Inc. (DENC), Docket No. 50–423, 

Millstone Power Station, Unit No. 3 

(MPS3), New London County, 

Connecticut 

Date of amendment request: April 4, 

2018. A publicly-available version is in 

ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML18100A055. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendment would revise the MPS3 

Technical Specifications (TSs). 

Specifically, with one Control Building 

Inlet Ventilation Radiation monitor 

channel inoperable for greater than 7 

days, or if both radiation monitor 

channels are inoperable, DENC proposes 

to revise and reformat Action 18 in TS 

Table 3.3–3, Functional Unit 7.e, 

‘‘Control Building Inlet Ventilation 

Radiation,’’ to allow control room 

operators to manually place one train of 

the Control Room Emergency 

Ventilation System (CREVS) in the 

emergency mode of operation to provide 

additional time to restore one channel of 

Control Building Inlet Ventilation 

Radiation monitoring to OPERABLE 

status. 

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. 

Operation of MPS3 in accordance with the 

proposed change does not involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated. The proposed change removes an 

overly restrictive requirement and adds a 

conservative requirement for actions to be 

taken when there is a loss of operability of 

the CREVS actuation instrumentation. This 

does not increase the probability of an 

accident previously evaluated since the 

CREVS actuation itself is not an accident 

initiator. The proposed change is consistent 

with standard TSs for Westinghouse plants 

(NUREG–1431) and provides assurance that 

the CREVS is in the conservative mode of 

operation for a response to an accident. 

Analysis demonstrates that with one train of 

the CREVS in the emergency mode of 

operation, control room operators are 

adequately protected from the radiological 

consequences of design basis accident events. 

Therefore, the probability or consequences of 

an accident previously evaluated is not 

significantly increased. 

Based on the above, the proposed change 

does not involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed change create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

Operation of MPS3 in accordance with the 

proposed change does not create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated. The proposed change does not 

involve a physical alteration of the plant or 

change in the methods governing normal 

plant operation. The proposed change 

replaces the overly restrictive shutdown 

requirement with a conservative action to be 

taken upon loss of CREVS actuation 

instrumentation operability, thereby avoiding 

the risk associated with an immediate 

controlled shutdown. Therefore, the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated is not created. 

With one train of CREVS in the emergency 

mode of operation, DENC has confirmed that 

MPS3 is in compliance with the current 

radiological analyses of record for design 

basis accidents with dose consequences to 

the control room. Therefore, the proposed 

change does not affect the design basis 

analyses and does not alter the assumptions 

made in the MPS3 accident analysis. 

Based on the above, the proposed 

amendment does not create the possibility of 

a new or different kind of accident 

previously evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant reduction in the margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

Operation of MPS3 in accordance with the 

proposed change does not involve a 

significant reduction in the margin of safety. 

The proposed change revises and reformats 

the Control Building lnlet Ventilation 

Radiation TS to place the CREVS in the 

conservative mode of operation for a 

response to an accident. The proposed 

change provides additional time to restore an 

inoperable radiation monitor channel instead 

of requiring an immediate controlled plant 

shutdown and suspension of movement of 

recently irradiated fuel assemblies, if 

applicable. A plant shutdown is a transient 

that may be avoided by providing a limited 

time to make repairs. In addition, the control 

room operators are adequately protected from 

the radiological consequences of design basis 

accident events with one train of the CREVS 

in the emergency mode of operation. The 

potential to avoid a plant transient in 

conjunction with protecting control room 

operators offsets any risk associated with the 

proposed change. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant reduction in a margin of 

safety. 

Based on the above, the proposed 

amendment does not involve a significant 

reduction in the margin of safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Lillian M. 

Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion 

Energy, Inc., 120 Tredegar Street, RS–2, 

Richmond, VA 23219. 

NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna. 

Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Docket Nos. 

50–325 and 50–324, Brunswick Steam 

Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2 (Brunswick 

or BSEP), Brunswick County, North 

Carolina 

Date of amendment request: April 4, 

2018, as supplemented by letter dated 

May 29, 2018. Publicly-available 

versions are in ADAMS under 

Accession Nos. ML18094B058 and 

ML18149A487, respectively. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendments would modify the 

BSEP Technical Specifications (TSs) to 

relocate the pressure-temperature limit 

curves to a licensee-controlled Pressure 

and Temperature Limits Report (PTLR). 

The amendment request was submitted 

in accordance with guidance provided 

in NRC Generic Letter 96–03, 

‘‘Relocation of the Pressure Temperature 

Limit Curves and Low Temperature 

Overpressure Protections System 

Limits,’’ dated January 31, 1996. 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Notices 33267 

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 license amendment adopts 

the NRC approved methodology described in 

Boiling Water Reactor Owner’s Group 

(BWROG) Licensing Topical Report (LTR) 

(BWROG–TP–11–022–A, SIR–05–044, 

Revision 1–A), ‘‘Pressure Temperature Limits 

Report Methodology for Boiling Water 

Reactors.’’ The BSEP PTLR was developed 

based on the methodology and template 

provided in the BWROG LTR. 

10 CFR 50, Appendix G, establishes 

requirements to protect the integrity of the 

reactor coolant pressure boundary (RCPB) in 

nuclear power plants. 

Implementing this NRC approved 

methodology does not reduce the ability to 

protect the reactor coolant pressure boundary 

as specified in Appendix G, nor will this 

change increase the probability of 

malfunction of plant equipment, or the 

failure of plant structures, systems, or 

components. Incorporation of the new 

methodology for calculating pressure and 

temperature limit curves, and the relocation 

of the pressure and temperature limit curves 

from the TS to the PTLR provides an 

equivalent level of assurance that the reactor 

coolant pressure boundary is capable of 

performing its intended safety functions. 

The proposed changes do not adversely 

affect accident initiators or precursors, and 

do not alter the design assumptions, 

conditions, or configuration of the plant or 

the manner in which the plant is operated 

and maintained. The ability of structures, 

systems, and components to perform their 

intended safety functions is not altered or 

prevented by the proposed changes, and the 

assumptions used in determining the 

radiological consequences of previously 

evaluated accidents are not affected. 

Therefore, the proposed amendment 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. 

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 change in methodology for calculating 

pressure and temperature limits and the 

relocation of those limits to the PTLR do not 

alter or involve any design basis accident 

initiators. Reactor coolant pressure boundary 

integrity will continue to be maintained in 

accordance with 10 CFR part 50, Appendix 

G, and the assumed accident performance of 

plant structures, systems and components 

will not be affected. The proposed changes 

do not involve a physical alteration of the 

plant (i.e., no new or different type of 

equipment will be installed), and the 

installed equipment is not being operated in 

a new or different manner. 

Therefore, the proposed amendment does 

not create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed changes do not affect the 

function of the reactor coolant pressure 

boundary or its response during plant 

transients. Calculating the Brunswick 

pressure temperature limits using the NRC 

approved structural integrity methodology 

ensures adequate margins of safety relating to 

reactor coolant pressure boundary integrity 

are maintained. The proposed changes do not 

alter the manner in which the Limiting 

Conditions for Operation pressure and 

temperature limits for the reactor coolant 

pressure boundary are determined. There are 

no changes to the setpoints at which 

protective actions are initiated, and the 

operability requirements for equipment 

assumed to operate for accident mitigation 

are not affected. 

Therefore, the proposed amendment does 

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: Booma 

Venkataraman. 

Exelon FitzPatrick, LLC and Exelon 

Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 

50–333, James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear 

Power Plant (FitzPatrick), Oswego 

County, New York 

Date of amendment request: January 

31, 2018. A publicly-available version is 

in ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML18037A782. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendment would revise 

FitzPatrick’s emergency plan by 

changing the emergency action level 

(EAL) schemes. The proposed changes 

are based on the Nuclear Energy 

Institute’s (NEI’s) guidance in NEI 99– 

01, Revision 6, ‘‘Development of 

Emergency Action Levels for NonPassive Reactors,’’ which was endorsed 

by the NRC in a letter dated March 28, 

2013 (ADAMS Accession No. 

ML12346A463). 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is presented 

below: 

1. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed changes to FitzPatrick’s EAL 

schemes to adopt the NRC-endorsed 

guidance in NEI 99–01, Revision 6 do not 

reduce the capability to meet the emergency 

planning requirements established in 10 CFR 

50.47 and 10 CFR part 50, Appendix E. The 

proposed changes do not reduce the 

functionality, performance, or capability of 

FitzPatrick’s ERO [emergency response 

organization] to respond in mitigating the 

consequences of any design basis accident. 

The probability of a reactor accident 

requiring implementation of Emergency Plan 

EALs has no relevance in determining 

whether the proposed changes to the EALs 

reduce the effectiveness of the Emergency 

Plans. As discussed in Section D, ‘‘Planning 

Basis,’’ of NUREG–0654, Revision 1, ‘‘Criteria 

for Preparation and Evaluation of 

Radiological Emergency Response Plants and 

Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power 

Plants:’’ 

‘‘. . . The overall objective of emergency 

response plans is to provide dose savings 

(and in some cases immediate life saving) for 

a spectrum of accidents that could produce 

offsite doses in excess of Protective Action 

Guides (PAGs). No single specific accident 

sequence should be isolated as the one for 

which to plan because each accident could 

have different consequences, both in nature 

and degree. Further, the range of possible 

selection for a planning basis is very large, 

starting with a zero point of requiring no 

planning at all because significant offsite 

radiological accident consequences are 

unlikely to occur, to planning for the worst 

possible accident, regardless of its extremely 

low likelihood. . . .’’ 

Therefore, Exelon did not consider the risk 

insights regarding any specific accident 

initiation or progression in evaluating the 

proposed changes. 

The proposed changes do not involve any 

physical changes to plant equipment or 

systems, nor do they alter the assumptions of 

any accident analyses. The proposed changes 

do not adversely affect accident initiators or 

precursors nor do they alter the design 

assumptions, conditions, and configuration 

or the manner in which the plants are 

operated and maintained. The proposed 

changes do not adversely affect the ability of 

Structures, Systems, or Components (SSCs) 

to perform their intended safety functions in 

mitigating the consequences of an initiating 

event within the assumed acceptance limits. 

Therefore, the proposed changes do not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed amendment create 

the possibility of a new or different kind of 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
33268 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Notices 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed changes to FitzPatrick’s EAL 

schemes to adopt the NRC-endorsed 

guidance in NEI 99–01, Revision 6 do not 

involve any physical changes to plant 

systems or equipment. The proposed changes 

do not involve the addition of any new plant 

equipment. The proposed changes will not 

alter the design configuration, or method of 

operation of plant equipment beyond its 

normal functional capabilities. All 

FitzPatrick ERO functions will continue to be 

performed as required. The proposed changes 

do not create any new credible failure 

mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident 

initiators. 

Therefore, the proposed changes do not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from those that have been 

previously evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed changes to FitzPatrick’s EAL 

schemes to adopt the NRC-endorsed 

guidance in NEI 99–01, Revision 6 do not 

alter or exceed a design basis or safety limit. 

There is no change being made to safety 

analysis assumptions, safety limits, or 

limiting safety system settings that would 

adversely affect plant safety as a result of the 

proposed changes. There are no changes to 

setpoints or environmental conditions of any 

SSC or the manner in which any SSC is 

operated. Margins of safety are unaffected by 

the proposed changes to adopt the NEI 99– 

01, Revision 6 EAL scheme guidance. The 

applicable requirements of 10 CFR 50.47 and 

10 CFR part 50, Appendix E will continue to 

be met. 

Therefore, the proposed changes do not 

involve any 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: Donald P. 

Ferraro, Assistant General Counsel, 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 200 

Exelon Way, Suite 305, Kennett Square, 

PA 19348. 

NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket No. 50–289 and 50–320, Three 

Mile Island Nuclear Station (TMI), Unit 

Nos. 1 and 2, Dauphin County, 

Pennsylvania 

Date of amendment request: March 

19, 2018. A publicly-available version is 

in ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML18078A578. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendment would revise the TMI 

Site Emergency Plan (SEP) on-shift and 

emergency response organization (ERO) 

staffing to support the planned 

permanent cessation of operations and 

permanent defueling of TMI, Unit 1. 

Specifically, the proposed changes 

would eliminate the on-shift positions 

not needed for the safe storage of spent 

fuel in the spent fuel pool during the 

initial decommissioning period and 

eliminate the ERO positions not 

necessary to effectively respond to 

credible accidents for a permanently 

shutdown and defueled power reactor 

facility. The proposed changes will also 

relocate full augmentation position 

requirements from the SEP to the 

Emergency Preparedness Implementing 

Procedures. 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is presented 

below: 

1. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed changes to the TMI 

Emergency Plan do not impact the function 

of plant Structures, Systems, or Components 

(SSCs). The proposed changes do not involve 

the modification of any plant equipment or 

affect plant operation. The proposed changes 

do not affect accident initiators or precursors, 

nor do the proposed changes alter design 

assumptions. The proposed changes do not 

prevent the ability of the on-shift staff and 

ERO to perform their intended functions to 

mitigate the consequences of any accident or 

event that will be credible in the 

permanently defueled condition. The 

proposed changes only remove positions that 

will no longer be needed or credited in the 

Emergency Plan in the permanently defueled 

condition. 

Therefore, the proposed changes do not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed amendment create 

the possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed changes reduce the number 

of on-shift and ERO positions commensurate 

with the hazards associated with a 

permanently shutdown and defueled facility. 

The proposed changes do not involve 

installation of new equipment or 

modification of existing equipment, so that 

no new equipment failure modes are 

introduced. Also, the proposed changes do 

not result in a change to the way that the 

equipment or facility is operated so that no 

new accident initiators are created. 

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 associated with 

confidence in the ability of the fission 

product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, reactor 

coolant system pressure boundary, and 

containment structure) to limit the level of 

radiation dose to the public. The proposed 

changes do not adversely affect existing plant 

safety margins or the reliability of the 

equipment assumed to operate in the safety 

analyses. There are no changes being made 

to safety analysis assumptions, safety limits, 

or limiting safety system settings that would 

adversely affect plant safety as a result of the 

proposed changes. The proposed changes are 

associated with the Emergency Plan and 

staffing and do not impact operation of the 

plant or its response to transients or 

accidents. The proposed changes do not 

affect the Technical Specifications. The 

proposed changes do not involve a change in 

the method of plant operation, and no 

accident analyses will be affected by the 

proposed changes. Safety analysis acceptance 

criteria are not affected by the proposed 

changes and margins of safety are 

maintained. The revised Emergency Plan will 

continue to provide the necessary response 

staff with the proposed changes. 

Therefore, the proposed changes do not 

involve a significant reduction in a margin of 

safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer, 

Associate General Counsel, Exelon 

Generation Company, LLC, 4300 

Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555. 

NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket Nos. 50–352 and 50–353, 

Limerick Generating Station, Unit Nos. 

1 and 2, Montgomery County, 

Pennsylvania 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and 

PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50–171, 

50–277, and 50–278, Peach Bottom 

Atomic Power Station, Unit Nos. 1, 2, 

and 3, York and Lancaster Counties, 

Pennsylvania 

Date of amendment request: May 10, 

2018. Publicly-available version is in 

ADAMS under Package Accession No. 

ML18149A290. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendments would revise the 

emergency response organization (ERO) 

positions identified in the emergency 

plan for each site. 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Notices 33269 

consideration for each site, which is 

presented below: 

1. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed changes to the [site] 

Emergency Plan do not increase the 

probability or consequences of an accident. 

The proposed changes do not impact the 

function of plant Structures, Systems, or 

Components (SSCs). The proposed changes 

do not affect accident initiators or accident 

precursors, nor do the changes alter design 

assumptions. The proposed changes do not 

alter or prevent the ability of the onsite ERO 

to perform their intended functions to 

mitigate the consequences of an accident or 

event. The proposed changes remove ERO 

positions no longer credited or considered 

necessary in support of Emergency Plan 

implementation. 

Therefore, the proposed changes to the 

[site] Emergency Plan do not involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed amendment create 

the possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed changes have no impact on 

the design, function, or operation of any 

plant SSCs. The proposed changes do not 

affect plant equipment or accident analyses. 

The proposed changes do not involve a 

physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new 

or different type of equipment will be 

installed), a change in the method of plant 

operation, or new operator actions. The 

proposed changes do not introduce failure 

modes that could result in a new accident, 

and the proposed changes do not alter 

assumptions made in the safety analysis. The 

proposed changes remove ERO positions no 

longer credited or considered necessary in 

support of Emergency Plan implementation. 

Therefore, the proposed changes to the 

[site] Emergency Plan do not create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

Margin of safety is associated with 

confidence in the ability of the fission 

product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, reactor 

coolant system pressure boundary, and 

containment structure) to limit the level of 

radiation dose to the public. 

The proposed changes do not adversely 

affect existing plant safety margins or the 

reliability of the equipment assumed to 

operate in the safety analyses. There are no 

changes being made to safety analysis 

assumptions, safety limits, or limiting safety 

system settings that would adversely affect 

plant safety as a result of the proposed 

changes. Margins of safety are unaffected by 

the proposed changes to the ERO staffing. 

The proposed changes are associated with 

the [site] Emergency Plan staffing and do not 

impact operation of the plant or its response 

to transients or accidents. The proposed 

changes do not affect the Technical 

Specifications. The proposed changes do not 

involve a change in the method of plant 

operation, and no accident analyses will be 

affected by the proposed changes. Safety 

analysis acceptance criteria are not affected 

by these proposed changes. The proposed 

changes to the Emergency Plan will continue 

to provide the necessary onsite ERO response 

staff. 

Therefore, the proposed changes to the 

[site] Emergency Plan do not involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis for each site and, 

based on this review, it appears that the 

three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

requested amendments involve no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer, 

Associate General Counsel, Exelon 

Generation Company, LLC, 4300 

Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555. 

NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona. 

Indiana Michigan Power Company, 

Docket Nos. 50–315 and 50–316, Donald 

C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 

2, Berrien County, Michigan 

Date of amendment request: May 4, 

2018. A publicly-available version is in 

ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML18129A219. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed change would modify 

technical specification (TS) 

requirements regarding Limiting 

Condition for Operation (LCO) and 

Surveillance Requirement (SR) usage, in 

accordance with NRC-approved 

Technical Specifications Task Force 

(TSTF) Traveler TSTF–529, Revision 4, 

‘‘Clarify Use and Application Rules.’’ 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is presented 

below: 

1. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed changes to Section 1.3 and 

LCO 3.0.4 have no effect on the requirement 

for systems to be Operable and have no effect 

on the application of TS actions. The 

proposed change to SR 3.0.3 states that the 

allowance may only be used when there is 

a reasonable expectation the surveillance will 

be met when performed. Since the proposed 

change does not significantly affect system 

Operability, the proposed change will have 

no effect on the initiating events for accidents 

previously evaluated and will have no 

significant effect on the ability of the systems 

to mitigate accidents previously evaluated. 

Therefore, it is concluded that this change 

does not involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed change create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change to the TS usage rules 

does not affect the design or function of any 

plant systems. The proposed change does not 

change the Operability requirements for plant 

systems or the actions taken when plant 

systems are not operable. 

Therefore, it is concluded that this change 

does not create the possibility of a new or 

different kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change clarifies the 

application of Section 1.3 and LCO 3.0.4 and 

does not result in changes in plant operation. 

SR 3.0.3 is revised to allow application of SR 

3.0.3 when an SR has not been previously 

performed if there is reasonable expectation 

that the SR will be met when performed. This 

expands the use of SR 3.0.3 while ensuring 

the affected system is capable of performing 

its safety function. As a result, plant safety 

is either improved or unaffected. 

Therefore, it is concluded that this change 

does not involve a significant reduction in a 

margin of safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Robert B. 

Haemer, Senior Nuclear Counsel, One 

Cook Place, Bridgman, MI 49106. 

NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 

Inc., Docket Nos. 52–025 and 52–026, 

Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Unit 

Nos. 3 and 4, Burke County, Georgia 

Date of amendment request: May 18, 

2018. A publicly-available version is in 

ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML18138A396. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendment request proposes to 

change Technical Specifications 

Limiting Condition for Operation 3.3.8, 

Engineered Safety Feature Actuation 

System (ESFAS) Instrumentation, 

related to Safeguard Actuation 

Functions. Various ESFAS Functions 

require applicability and corresponding 

actions changes to more accurately 

reflect their operation and related safety 

analysis assumptions. This submittal 

requests approval of the license 

amendment necessary to implement 

these changes. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
33270 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Notices 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is presented 

below: 

1. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed changes do not involve 

changes to current plant design or safety 

analysis assumptions. These changes provide 

Technical Specifications consistency with 

the approved plant design and safety analysis 

assumptions. The changes do not affect the 

operation of any systems or equipment that 

initiate an analyzed accident or alter any 

structures, systems, and components (SSCs) 

accident initiator or initiating sequence of 

events. The proposed changes do not result 

in any increase in the probability of an 

analyzed accident occurring. Therefore, the 

requested amendment does not involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed amendment create 

the possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed changes do not involve 

changes to current plant design or safety 

analysis assumptions. These changes provide 

Technical Specifications consistency with 

the approved plant design and safety analysis 

assumptions. The proposed changes do not 

affect plant protection instrumentation 

systems, and do not affect the design 

function, support, design, or operation of 

mechanical and fluid systems. The proposed 

changes do not result in a new failure 

mechanism or introduce any new accident 

precursors. No design function described in 

the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report 

(UFSAR) is affected by the proposed changes. 

Therefore, the requested amendment does 

not create the possibility of a new or different 

kind accident from any accident previously 

evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed changes do not involve 

changes to current plant design or safety 

analysis assumptions. These changes provide 

Technical Specifications consistency with 

the approved plant design and safety analysis 

assumptions. No safety analysis or design 

basis acceptance limit/criterion is involved. 

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: M. Stanford 

Blanton, Balch & Bingham LLP, 1710 

Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 

35203–2015. 

NRC Branch Chief: Jennifer DixonHerrity. 

Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), 

Docket Nos. 50–259, 50–260, and 50– 

296, Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN), 

Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3, Limestone County, 

Alabama 

Date of amendment request: May 3, 

2018. A publicly-available version is in 

ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML18124A053. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendments would revise the BFN 

Units 1, 2, and 3 renewed facility 

operating licenses (RFOLs) to provide a 

correction to previously submitted 

information in relation to their 

approved fire protection program under 

10 CFR 50.48(c), ‘‘National Fire 

Protection Association Standard NFPA 

805.’’ Specifically, TVA requested to 

modify the BFN licenses to reflect 

changes to Item 3.3.4 in Table B–1, 

‘‘Transition of Fundamental Fire 

Protection Program & Design Elements,’’ 

of Attachment A in its NFPA 805 

license amendment request dated March 

27, 2013 (ADAMS Accession No. 

ML13092A393). 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is presented 

below. 

1. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed amendment adds the 

reference to this letter to the BFN RFOL 

License Condition paragraphs 2.C.(13), 

2.C.(14), and 2.C.(7) for BFN Units 1, 2, and 

3, respectively. The change encompassed by 

the proposed amendment is to correct the 

entry in Attachment A Table B–1 of the BFN 

Transition Report. 

The proposed change does not adversely 

affect accident initiators or precursors nor 

alter the design assumptions, conditions, and 

configuration of the facility or the manner in 

which the plant is operated and maintained. 

The proposed change does not affect the 

ability of structures, systems and components 

(SSCs) to perform their intended safety 

function to mitigate the consequences of an 

initiating event within the assumed 

acceptance limits. 

Therefore, these proposed changes do not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability of consequences of an accident 

previously identified. 

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 adds the 

reference to this letter to the BFN RFOL 

License Condition paragraphs 2.C.(13), 

2.C.(14), and 2.C.(7) for BFN Units 1, 2, and 

3, respectively. The change encompassed by 

the proposed amendment is to correct the 

entry in Attachment A Table B–1 of the BFN 

Transition Report. 

There is no risk impact to Core Damage 

Frequency (CDF) or Large Early Release 

Frequency (LERF) because this is an 

administrative change. Plant secondary 

combustibles, including insulating materials, 

are considered in the fire modeling input to 

the Fire PRA [Probabilistic Risk Assessment]. 

The proposed change does not result in 

any new or different kinds of accident from 

that previously evaluated because it does not 

change any precursors or equipment that is 

previously credited for accident mitigation. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed amendment adds the 

reference to this letter to the BFN RFOL 

License Condition paragraphs 2.C.(13), 

2.C.(14), and 2.C.(7) for BFN Units 1, 2, and 

3, respectively. The change encompassed by 

the proposed amendment are to correct the 

entry in Attachment A Table B–1 of the BFN 

Transition Report. 

This proposed change corrects erroneous 

information to previously approved 

information in the BFN Transition Report. 

This proposed change will have an 

insignificant impact on the accident analysis 

as it is a clarifying or administrative change. 

Plant secondary combustibles, including 

insulating materials, are considered in the 

fire modeling input to the Fire PRA. 

The proposed change will not result in any 

new or different kinds of accident from that 

previously evaluated because it does not 

change any precursors or equipment that is 

previously credited for accident mitigation. 

Therefore, based on the above discussion, 

these proposed changes do not involve a 

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: General 

Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 

400 West Summit Hill Drive, 6A West 

Tower, Knoxville, TN 37902. 

NRC Acting Branch Chief: Booma 

Venkataraman. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Notices 33271 

III. Notice of Issuance of Amendments 

to Facility Operating Licenses and 

Combined Licenses 

During the period since publication of 

the last biweekly notice, the 

Commission has issued the following 

amendments. The Commission has 

determined for each of these 

amendments that the application 

complies with the standards and 

requirements of the Atomic Energy Act 

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

Commission’s rules and regulations. 

The Commission has made appropriate 

findings as required by the Act and the 

Commission’s rules and regulations in 

10 CFR chapter I, which are set forth in 

the license amendment. 

A notice of consideration of issuance 

of amendment to facility operating 

license or combined license, as 

applicable, proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination, 

and opportunity for a hearing in 

connection with these actions, was 

published in the Federal Register as 

indicated. 

Unless otherwise indicated, the 

Commission has determined that these 

amendments satisfy the criteria for 

categorical exclusion in accordance 

with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant 

to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental 

impact statement or environmental 

assessment need be prepared for these 

amendments. If the Commission has 

prepared an environmental assessment 

under the special circumstances 

provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has 

made a determination based on that 

assessment, it is so indicated. 

For further details with respect to the 

action see (1) the applications for 

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

the Commission’s related letter, Safety 

Evaluation and/or Environmental 

Assessment as indicated. All of these 

items can be accessed as described in 

the ‘‘Obtaining Information and 

Submitting Comments’’ section of this 

document. 

Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Docket No. 

50–400, Shearon Harris Nuclear Power 

Plant, Unit No. 1, Wake and Chatham 

Counties, North Carolina 

Date of amendment request: June 5, 

2017, as supplemented by letters dated 

October 30, 2017, November 27, 2017, 

and January 28, 2018. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revised the Technical 

Specifications (TSs) to restrict the 

steady-state voltage and frequency 

limits for emergency diesel generator 

(EDG) operation to ensure that accident 

mitigation equipment can perform as 

designed. In addition, the amendment 

revised a TS to increase the voltage limit 

for the EDG full load rejection test to 

provide additional operating margin to 

test acceptance criteria. 

Date of issuance: June 20, 2018. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 60 days. 

Amendment No.: 165. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML18130A270; 

documents related to this amendment 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendment. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. NPF–63: The amendment revised 

the Renewed Facility Operating License 

and TSs. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: September 26, 2017 (82 FR 

44851). The supplemental letters dated 

October 30, 2017, November 27, 2017, 

and January 28, 2018, provided 

additional information that clarified the 

application, did not expand the scope of 

the application as originally noticed, 

and did not change the NRC staff’s 

original proposed no significant hazards 

consideration determination as 

published in the Federal Register. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated June 20, 2018. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 

Docket No. 50–271, Vermont Yankee 

Nuclear Power Station, Vernon, 

Vermont 

Date of amendment request: July 13, 

2017. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment approved the removal of the 

existing cyber security license condition 

from the facility operating license. 

Date of issuance: June 27, 2018. 

Effective date: As of the date the 

licensee notifies the NRC in writing that 

all spent nuclear fuel assemblies have 

been transferred out of the spent fuel 

pool and have been placed in dry 

storage within the independent spent 

fuel storage installation, and shall be 

implemented within 60 days of the 

effective date. 

Amendment No.: 268. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML18145A208; 

documents related to this amendment 

are referenced in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendment. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. DPR–28: This amendment revised 

the License. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: September 26, 2017 (82 FR 

44852). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated June 27, 2018. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50– 

313, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1 

(ANO–1), Pope County, Arkansas 

Date of amendment request: July 17, 

2017. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revised the Technical 

Specifications (TSs) for ANO–1 and 

established a new Completion Time in 

ANO–1 TS 3.7.5, ‘‘Emergency 

Feedwater (EFW) System,’’ where one 

steam supply to the turbine-driven EFW 

pump is inoperable concurrent with an 

inoperable motor-driven EFW train. The 

amendment is consistent with NRCapproved Technical Specifications Task 

Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF–412, 

Revision 3, ‘‘Provide Actions for One 

Steam Supply to Turbine Driven AFW 

[Auxiliary Feedwater]/EFW Pump 

Inoperable,’’ with certain plant-specific 

deviations. 

Date of issuance: June 19, 2018. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 90 days from the date of 

issuance. 

Amendment No.: 260. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML18115A282; 

documents related to this amendment 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendment. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. DPR–51: Amendment revised the 

Renewed Facility Operating License and 

Technical Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: October 10, 2017 (82 FR 

47036). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated June 19, 2018. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50– 

368, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit No. 2 

(ANO–2), Pope County, Arkansas 

Date of amendment request: July 17, 

2017. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revised the Technical 

Specifications (TSs) for ANO–2 and 

established Actions and Allowable 

Outage Times in ANO–2 TS 3.7.1.2, 

‘‘Emergency Feedwater System,’’ for 

several combinations of inoperable 

Emergency Feedwater (EFW) trains 

consistent with NUREG–1432, 

‘‘Standard Technical Specifications— 

Combustion Engineering Plants,’’ 

Revision 4. The amendment includes 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
33272 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Notices 

changes incorporated by Technical 

Specifications Task Force (TSTF)-340, 

‘‘Allow 7 Day Completion Time for a 

Turbine-Driven AFW [Auxiliary 

Feedwater] Pump Inoperable,’’ Revision 

3 and TSTF–412, ‘‘Provide Actions for 

One Steam Supply to Turbine Driven 

AFW/EFW Pump Inoperable,’’ Revision 

3. 

Date of issuance: June 19, 2018. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 90 days from the date of 

issuance. 

Amendment No.: 310. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML18134A253; 

documents related to this amendment 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendment. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. NPF–6: Amendment revised the 

Renewed Facility Operating License and 

TSs. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: October 10, 2017 (82 FR 

47036). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated June 19, 2018. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

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

Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 

and 2, Calvert County, Maryland, 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket Nos. 50–220 and 50–410, Nine 

Mile, Point, Nuclear Station, Unit Nos. 

1 and 2, Oswego County, New York, 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket No. 50–244, R.E. Ginna Nuclear 

Power Plant, Wayne County, New York 

Date of amendment request: May 31, 

2017. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments revised the emergency 

plans for each facility by changing the 

emergency action level schemes. The 

changes are based on the Nuclear 

Energy Institute’s (NEI’s) guidance in 

NEI 99–01, Revision 6, ‘‘Development of 

Emergency Action Levels for NonPassive Reactors,’’ which was endorsed 

by the NRC by letter dated March 28, 

2013 (ADAMS Package Accession No. 

ML13091A209). 

Date of issuance: June 26, 2018. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented on 

or before June 28, 2019. 

Amendment Nos.: Calvert Cliffs—324/ 

302; Nine Mile Point—230/171; and, 

Ginna—128. A publicly-available 

version is in ADAMS under Accession 

No. ML18137A614; documents related 

to these amendments are listed in the 

Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 

amendments. 

Facility Operating License Nos. DPR– 

53, DPR–69, DPR–63, NPF–69, and 

DPR–18: Amendments revised the 

emergency plans. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: August 1, 2017 (82 FR 35838). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated June 26, 2018. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket Nos. 50–237 and 50–249, 

Dresden Nuclear Power Station (DNPS), 

Unit Nos. 2 and 3, Grundy County, 

Illinois 

Date of amendment request: May 3, 

2017, as supplemented by letter dated 

February 14, 2018. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments revised the DNPS 

Technical Specification (TS) 5.5.12, 

‘‘Primary Containment Leakage Rate 

Testing Program,’’ to allow for the 

permanent extension of the Type A 

integrated leak rate testing and the Type 

C leak rate testing frequencies. 

Date of issuance: June 29, 2018. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 30 days of issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: 257 (Unit 2) and 

250 (Unit 3). A publicly-available 

version is in ADAMS under Accession 

No. ML18137A271; documents related 

to these amendments are listed in the 

Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 

amendments. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. DPR–19 and DPR–25: Amendments 

revised the Renewed Facility Operating 

Licenses and TS. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: August 1, 2017 (82 FR 35838). 

The supplemental letter dated February 

14, 2018, provided additional 

information that clarified the 

application, did not expand the scope of 

the application as originally noticed, 

and did not change the staff’s original 

proposed no significant hazards 

consideration determination as 

published in the Federal Register. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated June 29, 2018. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket No. 50–244, R. E. Ginna Nuclear 

Power Plant (Ginna), Wayne County, 

New York 

Date of amendment request: June 30, 

2017, as supplemented by letters dated 

October 25, 2017, and June 5, 2018. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revised the license to delete 

the modification to install overcurrent 

protection on its emergency diesel 

generators which was required as part of 

Ginna’s implementation of its riskinformed, performance-based fire 

protection program in accordance with 

10 CFR 50.48(c). 

Date of issuance: June 25, 2018. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 60 days of issuance. 

Amendment No.: 127. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML18114A025; 

documents related to this amendment 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendment. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. DPR–18: Amendment revised the 

Renewed Facility Operating License. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: October 3, 2017 (82 FR 

46097). The supplemental letters dated 

October 25, 2017, and June 5, 2018, 

provided additional information that 

clarified the application, did not expand 

the scope of the application as originally 

noticed, and did not change the NRC 

staff’s original proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination as 

published in the Federal Register. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated June 25, 2018. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket Nos. STN 50–456 and STN 50– 

457, Braidwood Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 

2, Will County, Illinois and Docket Nos. 

STN 50–454 and STN 50–455, Byron 

Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Ogle County, 

Illinois 

Date of amendment request: June 30, 

2017, as supplemented by letters dated 

October 25, 2017, and May 29, 2018. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments revised Technical 

Specification (TS) 3.1.4, ‘‘Rod Group 

Alignment Limits,’’ TS 3.1.5, 

‘‘Shutdown Bank Insertion Limits,’’ TS 

3.1.6, ‘‘Control Bank Insertion Limits,’’ 

and TS 3.1.7, ‘‘Rod Position Indication.’’ 

Date of issuance: June 27, 2018. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 60 days from the date of 

issuance. 

Amendment Nos: 196 (Braidwood, 

Unit 1) and 196 (Braidwood, Unit 2); 

202 (Bryon, Unit 1) and 202 (Bryon, 

Unit 2). A publicly-available version is 

in ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML18065A529; documents related to 

these amendments are listed in the 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Notices 33273 

related Safety Evaluation enclosed with 

the amendments. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. NPF–72, NPF–77, NPF–37, and 

NPF–66: The amendments revised the 

Renewed Facility Operating Licenses 

and TSs. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: August 29, 2017 (82 FR 

41069). The supplemental letters dated 

October 25, 2017, and May 29, 2018, 

provided additional information that 

clarified the application, did not expand 

the scope of the application as originally 

noticed, and did not change the NRC 

staff’s original proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination as 

published in the Federal Register. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated June 27, 2018. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating 

Company, Docket No. 50–440, Perry 

Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No. 1, Lake 

County, Ohio 

Date of amendment request: 

September 11, 2017. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revised the requirements in 

Technical Specification (TS) 3.3.6.1, 

‘‘Primary Containment and Drywell 

Isolation Instrumentation,’’ by adding 

an ACTIONS note to Limiting Condition 

of Operation 3.3.6.1 to allow 

intermittent opening, under 

administrative control, of containment 

and drywell penetration flow paths that 

are isolated. 

Date of issuance: June 25, 2018. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 60 days of issuance. 

Amendment No.: 181. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML18157A084; 

documents related to this amendment 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendment. 

Facility Operating License No. NPF– 

58: Amendment revised the Facility 

Operating License and TS. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: November 7, 2017 (82 FR 

51652). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated June 25, 2018. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, 

South Carolina Public Service 

Authority, Docket No. 50–395, Virgil C. 

Summer Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1, 

Fairfield County, South Carolina 

Date of amendment request: October 

6, 2017, as supplemented by letter dated 

April 19, 2018. 

Brief description of amendment: This 

amendment increased the Integrated 

Leak Rate Test Peak Calculated 

Containment Internal Pressure, Pa, 

listed in Technical Specification (TS) 

6.8.4.g, ‘‘Containment Leakage Rate 

Testing Program,’’ from 45.1 pounds per 

square inch gauge (psig) to 46.0 psig. It 

also removed the reference to 

Regulatory Guide 1.163, ‘‘PerformanceBased Containment Leak Test Program,’’ 

and American National Standards 

Institute/American Nuclear Society 

(ANSI/ANS)-56.8–2002, ‘‘Containment 

System Leakage Testing Requirements,’’ 

and replaced the reference of Nuclear 

Energy Institute (NEI) 94–01, Revision 

3–A, ‘‘Industry Guideline for 

Implementing Performance-Based 

Option of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix J,’’ 

with NEI 94–01, Revision 2–A. 

Date of issuance: June 28, 2018. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 60 days of issuance. 

Amendment No.: 210. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML18141A668, 

documents related to this amendment 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendment. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. NPF–12: Amendment revised the 

Renewed Facility Operating License and 

the TS. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: November 21, 2017 (82 FR 

55409). The supplemental letter dated 

April 19, 2018, provided additional 

information that clarified the 

application, did not expand the scope of 

the application as originally noticed, 

and did not change the staff’s original 

proposed no significant hazards 

consideration determination as 

published in the Federal Register. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated June 28, 2018. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 

Docket Nos. 50–348 and 50–364, Joseph 

M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 

and 2, Houston County, Alabama 

Date of amendment request: 

December 21, 2017. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments modified Technical 

Specification (TS) 3.7.5, ‘‘Auxiliary 

Feedwater (AFW) System,’’ to establish 

a new Completion Time for the 

Condition where one steam supply to 

the turbine driven AFW pump is 

inoperable concurrent with an 

inoperable motor driven AFW train. In 

addition, the amendments added 

specific Conditions and Action 

requirements: (1) For when two motor 

driven AFW trains are inoperable at the 

same time and; (2) for when the turbine 

driven AFW train is inoperable either 

(a) due solely to one inoperable steam 

supply, or (b) due to reasons other than 

one inoperable steam supply. The 

proposed changes are consistent with 

NRC-approved Technical Specification 

Task Force (TSTF) Traveler, TSTF–412, 

Revision 3, ‘‘Provide Actions for One 

Steam Supply to Turbine Driven AFW/ 

EFW [Emergency Feedwater] Pump 

Inoperable’’ dated January 10, 2007. 

Date of issuance: June 27, 2018. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 90 days of issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: 219 (Unit 1) and 

216 (Unit 2). A publicly-available 

version is in ADAMS under Accession 

No. ML18151A174. Documents related 

to these amendments are listed in the 

Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 

amendments. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. NPF–2 and NPF–8: The 

amendments revised the Renewed 

Facility Operating Licenses and TS. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: February 13, 2018 (83 FR 

6234). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated June 27, 2018. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Susquehanna Nuclear, LLC, Docket Nos. 

50–387 and 50–388, Susquehanna 

Steam Electric Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 

2, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania 

Date of amendment request: 

December 14, 2017. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments revised Technical 

Specification (TS) 3.6.4.1, ‘‘Secondary 

Containment,’’ Surveillance 

Requirement (SR) 3.6.4.1.1. The SR was 

revised to address conditions during 

which the secondary containment 

pressure may not meet the SR pressure 

requirements. The changes are based on 

Technical Specification Task Force 

(TSTF) Traveler TSTF–551, Revision 3, 

‘‘Revise Secondary Containment 

Surveillance Requirements.’’ 

Date of issuance: June 26, 2018. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
33274 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Notices 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 60 days. 

Amendment Nos.: 270 (Unit 1) and 

252 (Unit 2). A publicly-available 

version is in ADAMS under Accession 

No. ML18150A281. Documents related 

to these amendments are listed in the 

Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 

amendments. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. NPF–14 and NPF–22: The 

amendments revised the Renewed 

Facility Operating Licenses and TS. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: February 27, 2018 (83 FR 

8520). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated June 26, 2018. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket 

Nos. 50–390 and 50–391, Watts Bar 

Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Rhea 

County, Tennessee 

Date of amendment request: 

November 23, 2016, as supplemented by 

letters dated September 29, November 

16, and December 27, 2017, and May 11, 

2018. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments revised the Technical 

Specification (TS) requirements on 

control and shutdown rods, and rod and 

bank position indication in the Units 1 

and 2, TS 3.1.5, ‘‘Rod Group Alignment 

Limits,’’ TS 3.1.6, ‘‘Shutdown Bank 

Insertion Limits,’’ TS 3.1.7, ‘‘Control 

Bank Insertion Limits,’’ and TS 3.1.8, 

‘‘Rod Position Indication.’’ 

Date of issuance: June 26, 2018. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 60 days of issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: 120 (Unit 1) and 20 

(Unit 2). A publicly-available version is 

in ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML18079A029; documents related to 

these amendments are listed in the 

Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 

amendments. 

Facility Operating License Nos. NPF– 

90 and NPF–96: Amendments revised 

the Facility Operating Licenses and TSs. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: March 14, 2017 (82 FR 

13672). The supplemental letters dated 

September 29, November 16, and 

December 27, 2017, expanded the scope 

of the amendment request as originally 

noticed in the Federal Register. A 

second notice was published in the 

Federal Register on February 21, 2018 

(83 FR 7500), which superseded the 

original notice in its entirety. The 

supplemental letter dated May 11, 2018, 

provided additional information that 

clarified the application, did not expand 

the scope of the application as renoticed, and did not change the NRC 

staff’s proposed no significant hazards 

consideration determination as 

published in the Federal Register. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated June 26, 2018. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

IV. Notice of Issuance of Amendments 

to Facility Operating Licenses and 

Combined Licenses and Final 

Determination of No Significant 

Hazards Consideration and 

Opportunity for a Hearing (Exigent 

Public Announcement or Emergency 

Circumstances) 

During the period since publication of 

the last biweekly notice, the 

Commission has issued the following 

amendment. The Commission has 

determined for this amendment that the 

application for the amendment 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. 

Because of exigent or emergency 

circumstances associated with the date 

the amendment was needed, there was 

not time for the Commission to publish, 

for public comment before issuance, its 

usual notice of consideration of 

issuance of amendment, proposed no 

significant hazards consideration 

determination, and opportunity for a 

hearing. 

For exigent circumstances, the 

Commission has either issued a Federal 

Register notice providing opportunity 

for public comment or has used local 

media to provide notice to the public in 

the area surrounding a licensee’s facility 

of the licensee’s application and of the 

Commission’s proposed determination 

of no significant hazards consideration. 

The Commission has provided a 

reasonable opportunity for the public to 

comment, using its best efforts to make 

available to the public means of 

communication for the public to 

respond quickly, and in the case of 

telephone comments, the comments 

have been recorded or transcribed as 

appropriate and the licensee has been 

informed of the public comments. 

In circumstances where failure to act 

in a timely way would have resulted, for 

example, in derating or shutdown of a 

nuclear power plant or in prevention of 

either resumption of operation or of 

increase in power output up to the 

plant’s licensed power level, the 

Commission may not have had an 

opportunity to provide for public 

comment on its no significant hazards 

consideration determination. In such 

case, the license amendment has been 

issued without opportunity for 

comment. If there has been some time 

for public comment but less than 30 

days, the Commission may provide an 

opportunity for public comment. If 

comments have been requested, it is so 

stated. In either event, the State has 

been consulted by telephone whenever 

possible. 

Under its regulations, the Commission 

may issue and make an amendment 

immediately effective, notwithstanding 

the pendency before it of a request for 

a hearing from any person, in advance 

of the holding and completion of any 

required hearing, where it has 

determined that no significant hazards 

consideration is involved. 

The Commission has applied the 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92 and has made 

a final determination that the 

amendment involves no significant 

hazards consideration. The basis for this 

determination is contained in the 

documents related to this action. 

Accordingly, the amendment has been 

issued and made effective as indicated. 

Unless otherwise indicated, the 

Commission has determined that this 

amendment satisfies 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 this 

amendment. If the Commission has 

prepared an environmental assessment 

under the special circumstances 

provision in 10 CFR 51.12(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 application for 

amendment, (2) the amendment to 

Facility Operating License or Combined 

License, as applicable, 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. 

A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing 

and Petition for Leave To Intervene 

The Commission is also offering an 

opportunity for a hearing with respect to 

the issuance of the amendment. Within 

60 days after the date of publication of 

this notice, any persons (petitioner) 

whose interest may be affected by this 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Notices 33275 

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 

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 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
33276 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Notices 

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 

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. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket Nos. 50–277 and 50–278, Peach 

Bottom Atomic Power Station, Unit Nos. 

2 and 3 (Peach Bottom), York County, 

Pennsylvania 

Date of amendment request: June 21, 

2018. 

Description of amendments: The 

amendments revised the Peach Bottom 

Technical Specifications (TSs) for a onetime suspension of the emergency diesel 

generator (EDG) No. 4 (E–4) surveillance 

requirements. Specifically, the 

amendments revised TS Surveillance 

Requirements 3.8.1.2, 3.8.1.3, 3.8.1.6, 

and 3.8.3.4 to suspend performing 

required monthly surveillance testing 

on the E–4 EDG until the E–3 EDG is 

returned to operable status, not to 

exceed 2205 hours Eastern Time on June 

27, 2018. 

Date of issuance: June 23, 2018. 

Effective date: June 23, 2018. 

Amendment Nos.: 318 (Unit 1) and 

321 (Unit 2). A publicly-available 

version is in ADAMS under Accession 

No. ML18173A042. Documents related 

to these amendments are listed in the 

Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 

amendments. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. DPR–44 and DPR–56: The 

amendments revised the Renewed 

Facility Operating Licenses and TSs. 

Public comments requested as to 

proposed no significant hazards 

consideration: No. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments, finding of 

emergency circumstances, State 

consultation, and final no significant 

hazards consideration determination are 

contained in a Safety Evaluation dated 

June 23, 2018. 

Attorney for licensee: J. Bradley 

Fewell, Vice President and Deputy 

General Counsel, Exelon Generation 

Company, LLC, 200 Exelon Way, 

Kennett Square, PA 19348. 

NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 5th day 

of July 2018. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Gregory F. Suber, 

Deputy Director, Division of Operating 

Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation. 

[FR Doc. 2018–14779 Filed 7–16–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

Sunshine Act Meetings 

TIME AND DATE: 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, 

July 19, 2018. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES