Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 147 / Tuesday, July 31, 2018 / Notices 36971 

10See 48 CFR subpart 22.15. 

Register a notice of initial 

determination, which includes any 

proposed alteration to the E.O. List. The 

three Departments will consider all 

public comments prior to the 

publication of a final determination of a 

revised E.O. List. 

On January 18, 2001, pursuant to 

Section 3 of E.O. 13126, the Federal 

Acquisition Regulatory Council 

published a final rule to implement 

specific provisions of E.O. 13126 that 

require, among other things, that 

Federal contractors who supply 

products that appear on the list certify 

to the contracting officer that the 

contractor, or, in the case of an 

incorporated contractor, a responsible 

official of the contractor, has made a 

good faith effort to determine whether 

forced or indentured child labor was 

used to mine, produce, or manufacture 

any product furnished under the 

contract and that, on the basis of those 

efforts, the contractor is unaware of any 

such use of forced or indentured child 

labor.10

On September 11, 2009, the 

Department of Labor published an 

initial determination in the Federal 

Register proposing to revise the E.O. 

List to include 29 products from 21 

countries. The Notice requested public 

comments for a period of 90 days. 

Public comments were received and 

reviewed by all relevant agencies and a 

final determination was issued on July 

20, 2010. Following the same process, 

the E.O. List was revised again in 2011, 

2012, 2013, and 2014. The most recent 

E.O. List, finalized on December 1, 

2014, includes 35 products from 26 

countries. 

The current E.O. List and the 

Procedural Guidelines can be accessed 

at http://www.dol.gov/ilab/reports/ 

child-labor/list-of-products/ or can be 

obtained from: OCFT, Bureau of 

International Labor Affairs, Room 

S–5313, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 

Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, 

DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693–4843; 

fax (202) 693–4830. 

(Authority: E.O. 13126, 64 FR 32383) 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 24 day of 

July 2018. 

Martha E. Newton, 

Deputy Undersecretary for International 

Affairs. 

[FR Doc. 2018–16288 Filed 7–30–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–28–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2018–0152] 

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 30, 

2018 to July 16, 2018. The last biweekly 

notice was published on July 17, 2018. 

DATES: Comments must be filed by 

August 30, 2018. A request for a hearing 

must be filed by October 1, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by any of the following methods (unless 

this document describes a different 

method for submitting comments on a 

specific subject): 

• Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and search 

for Docket ID NRC–2018–0152. 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: 

Shirley Rohrer, Office of Nuclear 

Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 

20555–0001; telephone: 301–415–5411; 

email: Shirley.Rohrer@nrc.gov 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. 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. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
36972 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 147 / Tuesday, July 31, 2018 / Notices 

A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing 

and Petition for Leave To Intervene 

Within 60 days after the date of 

publication of this notice, any persons 

(petitioner) whose interest may be 

affected by this action may file a request 

for a hearing and petition for leave to 

intervene (petition) with respect to the 

action. Petitions shall be filed in 

accordance with the Commission’s 

‘‘Agency Rules of Practice and 

Procedure’’ in 10 CFR part 2. Interested 

persons should consult a current copy 

of 10 CFR 2.309. The NRC’s regulations 

are accessible electronically from the 

NRC Library on the NRC’s website at 

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

the regulations is available at the NRC’s 

Public Document Room, located at One 

White Flint North, Room O1–F21, 11555 

Rockville Pike (First Floor), Rockville, 

Maryland 20852. If a petition is filed, 

the Commission or a presiding officer 

will rule on the petition and, if 

appropriate, a notice of a hearing will be 

issued. 

As required by 10 CFR 2.309(d) the 

petition should specifically explain the 

reasons why intervention should be 

permitted with particular reference to 

the following general requirements for 

standing: (1) The name, address, and 

telephone number of the petitioner; (2) 

the nature of the petitioner’s right under 

the Act to be made a party to the 

proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of 

the petitioner’s property, financial, or 

other interest in the proceeding; and (4) 

the possible effect of any decision or 

order which may be entered in the 

proceeding on the petitioner’s interest. 

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f), 

the petition must also set forth the 

specific contentions which the 

petitioner seeks to have litigated in the 

proceeding. Each contention must 

consist of a specific statement of the 

issue of law or fact to be raised or 

controverted. In addition, the petitioner 

must provide a brief explanation of the 

bases for the contention and a concise 

statement of the alleged facts or expert 

opinion which support the contention 

and on which the petitioner intends to 

rely in proving the contention at the 

hearing. The petitioner must also 

provide references to the specific 

sources and documents on which the 

petitioner intends to rely to support its 

position on the issue. The petition must 

include sufficient information to show 

that a genuine dispute exists with the 

applicant or licensee on a material issue 

of law or fact. Contentions must be 

limited to matters within the scope of 

the proceeding. The contention must be 

one which, if proven, would entitle the 

petitioner to relief. A petitioner who 

fails to satisfy the requirements at 10 

CFR 2.309(f) with respect to at least one 

contention will not be permitted to 

participate as a party. 

Those permitted to intervene become 

parties to the proceeding, subject to any 

limitations in the order granting leave to 

intervene. Parties have the opportunity 

to participate fully in the conduct of the 

hearing with respect to resolution of 

that party’s admitted contentions, 

including the opportunity to present 

evidence, consistent with the NRC’s 

regulations, policies, and procedures. 

Petitions must be filed no later than 

60 days from the date of publication of 

this notice. Petitions and motions for 

leave to file new or amended 

contentions that are filed after the 

deadline will not be entertained absent 

a determination by the presiding officer 

that the filing demonstrates good cause 

by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 

2.309(c)(1)(i) through (iii). The petition 

must be filed in accordance with the 

filing instructions in the ‘‘Electronic 

Submissions (E-Filing)’’ section of this 

document. 

If a hearing is requested, and the 

Commission has not made a final 

determination on the issue of no 

significant hazards consideration, the 

Commission will make a final 

determination on the issue of no 

significant hazards consideration. The 

final determination will serve to 

establish when the hearing is held. If the 

final determination is that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration, the 

Commission may issue the amendment 

and make it immediately effective, 

notwithstanding the request for a 

hearing. Any hearing would take place 

after issuance of the amendment. If the 

final determination is that the 

amendment request involves a 

significant hazards consideration, then 

any hearing held would take place 

before the issuance of the amendment 

unless the Commission finds an 

imminent danger to the health or safety 

of the public, in which case it will issue 

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 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 147 / Tuesday, July 31, 2018 / Notices 36973 

hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by telephone 

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

identification (ID) certificate, which 

allows the participant (or its counsel or 

representative) to digitally sign 

submissions and access the E-Filing 

system for any proceeding in which it 

is participating; and (2) advise the 

Secretary that the participant will be 

submitting a petition or other 

adjudicatory document (even in 

instances in which the participant, or its 

counsel or representative, already holds 

an NRC-issued digital ID certificate). 

Based upon this information, the 

Secretary will establish an electronic 

docket for the hearing in this proceeding 

if the Secretary has not already 

established an electronic docket. 

Information about applying for a 

digital ID certificate is available on the 

NRC’s public website at http://

www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/ 

getting-started.html. Once a participant 

has obtained a digital ID certificate and 

a docket has been created, the 

participant can then submit 

adjudicatory documents. Submissions 

must be in Portable Document Format 

(PDF). Additional guidance on PDF 

submissions is available on the NRC’s 

public website at http://www.nrc.gov/ 

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

filing is considered complete at the time 

the document is submitted through the 

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

electronic filing must be submitted to 

the E-Filing system no later than 11:59 

p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. 

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

and sends the submitter an email notice 

confirming receipt of the document. The 

E-Filing system also distributes an email 

notice that provides access to the 

document to the NRC’s Office of the 

General Counsel and any others who 

have advised the Office of the Secretary 

that they wish to participate in the 

proceeding, so that the filer need not 

serve the document on those 

participants separately. Therefore, 

applicants and other participants (or 

their counsel or representative) must 

apply for and receive a digital ID 

certificate before adjudicatory 

documents are filed so that they can 

obtain access to the documents via the 

E-Filing system. 

A person filing electronically using 

the NRC’s adjudicatory E-Filing system 

may seek assistance by contacting the 

NRC’s Electronic Filing Help Desk 

through the ‘‘Contact Us’’ link located 

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

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

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

Electronic Filing Help Desk is available 

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

Time, Monday through Friday, 

excluding government holidays. 

Participants who believe that they 

have a good cause for not submitting 

documents electronically must file an 

exemption request, in accordance with 

10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper 

filing stating why there is good cause for 

not filing electronically and requesting 

authorization to continue to submit 

documents in paper format. Such filings 

must be submitted by: (1) First class 

mail addressed to the Office of the 

Secretary of the Commission, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001, Attention: 

Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or 

(2) courier, express mail, or expedited 

delivery service to the Office of the 

Secretary, 11555 Rockville Pike, 

Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: 

Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. 

Participants filing adjudicatory 

documents in this manner are 

responsible for serving the document on 

all other participants. Filing is 

considered complete by first-class mail 

as of the time of deposit in the mail, or 

by courier, express mail, or expedited 

delivery service upon depositing the 

document with the provider of the 

service. A presiding officer, having 

granted an exemption request from 

using E-Filing, may require a participant 

or party to use E-Filing if the presiding 

officer subsequently determines that the 

reason for granting the exemption from 

use of E-Filing no longer exists. 

Documents submitted in adjudicatory 

proceedings will appear in the NRC’s 

electronic hearing docket which is 

available to the public at https://

adams.nrc.gov/ehd, unless excluded 

pursuant to an order of the Commission 

or the presiding officer. If you do not 

have an NRC-issued digital ID certificate 

as described above, click cancel when 

the link requests certificates and you 

will be automatically directed to the 

NRC’s electronic hearing dockets where 

you will be able to access any publicly 

available documents in a particular 

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. 

Arizona Public Service Company (APS), 

et al., Docket Nos. STN 50–528, STN 

50–529, and STN 50–530, Palo Verde 

Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1, 

2, and 3, Maricopa County, Arizona 

Date of amendment request: May 25, 

2018. A publicly-available version is in 

ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML18145A303. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendments would revise the 

technical specification (TS) requirement 

regarding response time testing of 

pressure transmitters. 

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 change revises the Technical 

Specification (TS) Definition of Reactor 

Protective System (RPS) and Engineered 

Safety Features (ESF) system instrumentation 

response time to permit Arizona Public 

Service Company (APS) to evaluate using an 

NRC-approved methodology and apply a 

bounding response time for pressure 

transmitters in lieu of measurement. The 

requirement for the instrumentation to 

actuate within the response time assumed in 

the accident analysis is unaffected. 

The response time associated with the RPS 

and ESF instrumentation is not an initiator 

of any accident. Therefore, the proposed 

change has no significant effect on the 

probability of any accident previously 

evaluated. 

The affected RPS and ESF instrumentation 

are assumed to actuate their respective 

components within the required response 

time to mitigate accidents previously 

evaluated. Revising the TS definition for RPS 

and ESF instrumentation response times to 

allow an NRC-approved methodology for 

verifying response time for pressure 

transmitters does not alter the surveillance 

requirements that verify the RPS and ESF 

instrumentation response times are within 

the required limits. As such, the TS will 

continue to assure that the RPS and ESF 

instrumentation actuate their associated 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
36974 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 147 / Tuesday, July 31, 2018 / Notices 

components within the specified response 

time to accomplish the required safety 

functions assumed in the accident analyses. 

Therefore, the assumptions used in any 

accidents previously evaluated are 

unchanged and there is no significant 

increase in the consequences. 

Therefore, the proposed amendment does 

not involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed amendment create 

the possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change revises the TS 

Definition of RPS and ESF instrumentation 

response time to permit APS to evaluate 

using an NRC-approved methodology and 

apply a bounding response time for pressure 

transmitters in lieu of measurement. The 

proposed change does not involve a physical 

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

different type of equipment will be installed). 

The proposed change does not alter any 

assumptions made in the safety analyses. The 

proposed change does not alter the limiting 

conditions for operation for the RPS or ESF 

instrumentation, nor does it change the 

Surveillance Requirement to verify the RPS 

and ESF instrumentation response times are 

within the required limits. As such, the 

proposed change does not alter the 

operability requirements for the RPS and ESF 

instrumentation, and therefore, does not 

introduce any new failure modes. 

Therefore, the proposed amendment does 

not create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change revises the TS 

Definition of RPS and ESF instrumentation 

response time to permit APS to evaluate 

using an NRC-approved methodology and 

apply a bounding response time for pressure 

transmitters in lieu of measurement. The 

proposed change has no effect on the 

required RPS and ESF instrumentation 

response times or setpoints assumed in the 

safety analyses and the TS requirements to 

verify those response times and setpoints. 

The proposed change does not alter any 

Safety Limits or analytical limits in the safety 

analysis. The proposed change does not alter 

the TS operability requirements for the RPS 

and ESF instrumentation. The RPS and ESF 

instrumentation actuation of the required 

systems and components at the required 

setpoints and within the specified response 

times will continue to accomplish the design 

basis safety functions of the associated 

systems and components in the same manner 

as before. As such, the RPS and ESF 

instrumentation will continue to perform the 

required safety functions as assumed in the 

safety analyses for all previously evaluated 

accidents. 

Therefore, 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 that 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the request 

for amendments involves no significant 

hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Michael G. 

Green, Senior Regulatory Counsel, 

Pinnacle West Capital Corporation, P.O. 

Box 52034, Mail Station 8695, Phoenix, 

Arizona 85072–2034. 

NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. 

Pascarelli. 

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket 

Nos. 50–369 and 50–370, McGuire 

Nuclear Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, 

Mecklenburg County, North Carolina 

Date of amendment request: February 

26, 2018. A publicly-available version is 

in ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML18065A180. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendments would modify 

Technical Specification (TS) 3.4.11, 

‘‘Pressurizer Power Operated Relief 

Valves (PORVs),’’ to resolve nonconservative Required Actions. TS 

3.8.11, Condition B for one or two 

PORVs inoperable and not capable of 

being manually cycled is revised to split 

it into three separate Conditions: (1) 

One Train B PORV inoperable and not 

capable of being manually cycled, (2) 

one Train A PORV inoperable and not 

capable of being manually cycled, and 

(3) two Train B PORVs inoperable and 

not capable of being manually cycled. 

TS 3.8.11, Condition C for one block 

valve inoperable is revised to split it 

into two separate Conditions: (1) One 

Train B block valve inoperable and (2) 

one Train A block valve inoperable. TS 

3.8.11, Condition F for two block valves 

inoperable is revised to be new 

Condition I for two Train B block valves 

inoperable. A new Condition, Condition 

J, is added for one Train B PORV and 

the other Train B block valve 

inoperable. Current Condition G for 

three block valve inoperable is revised 

to be new Condition K. Current 

Condition D is revised and renamed as 

Condition E, current Condition E is 

revised and renamed as Condition F and 

current Condition H is revised and 

renamed as new Condition L. 

Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.4.11.1 

Note is revised to include additional 

Conditions when performing this SR is 

not required for inoperable block valves 

in these Conditions. 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is presented 

below: 

1. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change revises the TS for the 

purpose of correcting non-conservative TS 

Required Actions when PORVs and 

associated block valves are inoperable. By 

requiring inoperable PORVs and block valves 

be returned to operable status within 

specified completion times, the proposed 

change will increase the availability of 

equipment for performing safety-related 

functions. The proposed change ensures 

assumptions associated with accident 

analyses are met. The probability of an 

accident previously evaluated is not affected 

and there is no increase in the consequences 

of any accident previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed amendment create 

the possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change revises the TS for the 

purpose of correcting non-conservative TS 

Required Actions. The proposed change does 

not introduce new equipment or new 

equipment operating modes. The proposed 

change does not increase the likelihood of 

the malfunction of any system, structure, or 

component, or negatively impact any 

analyzed accident. The proposed change 

ensures assumptions made in the safety 

analyses are met. 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 the margin of 

safety? 

Response: No. 

Overall plant safety would be enhanced as 

a result of the additional restrictions placed 

on the PORVs and associated block valves. 

The proposed change does not alter the 

manner in which safety limits, limiting safety 

system settings, or limiting conditions for 

operation are determined. 

The safety analysis assumptions and 

acceptance criteria are not affected by this 

change. Therefore, the proposed change does 

not involve a 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: Kate B. Nolan, 

Deputy General Counsel, Duke Energy 

Carolinas, LLC, 550 South Tryon 

Street—DEC45A Charlotte, NC 28202– 

1802. 

NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. 

Markley. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 147 / Tuesday, July 31, 2018 / Notices 36975 

Entergy Louisiana, LLC, and Entergy 

Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50–458, 

River Bend Station, Unit No. 1 (RBS), 

West Feliciana Parish, Louisiana 

Date of amendment request: April 30, 

2018. A publicly-available version is in 

ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML18128A044. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed change would revise the 

Emergency Plan for RBS to adopt the 

revised Emergency Action Level (EAL) 

scheme described in Revision 6 to 

Nuclear Energy Institute’s (NEI’s), NEI 

99–01, ‘‘Development of Emergency 

Action Levels for Non-Passive 

Reactors.’’ Revision 6 to NEI 99–01 was 

endorsed by the NRC by 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. Do the proposed changes involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed changes to the RBS EALs do 

not involve any physical changes to plant 

equipment or systems and do not alter the 

assumptions of any accident analyses. The 

proposed changes do not adversely affect 

accident initiators or precursors and do not 

alter design assumptions, plant 

configuration, or the manner in which the 

plant is operated and maintained. The 

proposed changes do not adversely affect the 

ability of structures, systems or components 

(SSCs) to perform intended safety functions 

in mitigating the consequences of an 

initiating event within the assumed 

acceptance limits. 

Therefore, the changes do not involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated. 

2. Do the proposed changes create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

No new accident scenarios, failure 

mechanisms, or limiting single failures are 

introduced as a result of the proposed 

changes. The changes do not challenge the 

integrity or performance of any safety-related 

systems. No plant equipment is installed or 

removed, and the changes do not alter the 

design, physical configuration, or method of 

operation of any plant SSC. Because EALs are 

not accident initiators and no physical 

changes are made to the plant, no new causal 

mechanisms are introduced. 

Therefore, the changes do not create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from an accident previously 

evaluated. 

3. Do the proposed changes involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

Margin of safety is associated with 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 

impact operation of the plant and no accident 

analyses are affected by the proposed 

changes. The changes do not affect the 

Technical Specifications or the method of 

operating the plant. Additionally, the 

proposed changes will not relax any criteria 

used to establish safety limits and will not 

relax any safety system settings. The safety 

analysis acceptance criteria are not affected 

by these changes. The proposed changes will 

not result in plant operation in a 

configuration outside the design basis. The 

proposed changes do not adversely affect 

systems that respond to safely shut down the 

plant and to maintain the plant in a safe 

shutdown condition. 

Therefore, the 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: Anna Vinson 

Jones, Senior Counsel—Entergy 

Services, Inc., 101 Constitution Avenue 

NW, Suite 200 East, Washington DC 

20001. 

NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. 

Pascarelli. 

Entergy Operations, Inc. (Entergy), 

System Energy Resources, Inc., 

Cooperative Energy, A Mississippi 

Electric Cooperative, and Entergy 

Mississippi, Inc., Docket No. 50–416, 

Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1, 

Claiborne County, Mississippi 

Date of amendment request: April 12, 

2018, as supplemented by letter dated 

June 7, 2018. Publicly-available versions 

are in ADAMS under Accession Nos. 

ML18102B445 and ML18158A514, 

respectively. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendment would 

modify the technical specifications 

(TSs) by relocating specific surveillance 

frequencies to a licensee-controlled 

program with the adoption of Technical 

Specification Task Force (TSTF) 

Traveler TSTF–425, Revision 3, 

‘‘Relocate Surveillance Frequencies to 

Licensee Control-RITSTF [RiskInformed TSTF] Initiative 5b.’’ 

Additionally, the change would add a 

new program, the Surveillance 

Frequency Control Program (SFCP), to 

TS Chapter 5.0, ‘‘Administrative 

Controls.’’ 

The NRC staff issued a ‘‘Notice of 

Availability of Technical Specification 

Improvement to Relocate Surveillance 

Frequencies to Licensee Control-RiskInformed Technical Specification Task 

Force (RITSTF) Initiative 5b, Technical 

Specification Task Force-425, Revision 

3,’’ in the Federal Register on July 6, 

2009 (74 FR 31996). The notice 

included a model safety evaluation, a 

model no significant hazards 

consideration (NSHC) determination, 

and a model license amendment 

request. In its application dated April 

12, 2018, the licensee affirmed the 

applicability of the model NSHC 

determination, which is presented 

below. 

Basis for proposed NSHC 

determination: As required by 10 CFR 

50.91(a), an analysis of the issue of 

NSHC adopted by the licensee is 

presented below: 

1. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change relocates the 

specified frequencies for periodic 

surveillance requirements to licensee control 

under a new Surveillance Frequency Control 

Program. Surveillance frequencies are not an 

initiator to any accident previously 

evaluated. As a result, the probability of any 

accident previously evaluated is not 

significantly increased. The systems and 

components required by the technical 

specifications for which the surveillance 

frequencies are relocated are still required to 

be operable, meet the acceptance criteria for 

the surveillance requirements, and be 

capable of performing any mitigation 

function assumed in the accident analysis. 

As a result, the consequences of any accident 

previously evaluated are not significantly 

increased. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed change create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any previously evaluated? 

Response: No. 

No new or different accidents result from 

utilizing the proposed change. The changes 

do not involve a physical alteration of the 

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

equipment will be installed) or a change in 

the methods governing normal plant 

operation. In addition, the changes do not 

impose any new or different requirements. 

The changes do not alter assumptions made 

in the safety analysis. The proposed changes 

are consistent with the safety analysis 

assumptions and current plant operating 

practice. 

Therefore, the proposed changes do not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
36976 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 147 / Tuesday, July 31, 2018 / Notices 

3. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The design, operation, testing methods, 

and acceptance criteria for systems, 

structures, and components (SSCs), specified 

in applicable codes and standards (or 

alternatives approved for use by the NRC) 

will continue to be met as described in the 

plant licensing basis (including the final 

safety analysis report and bases to TS), since 

these are not affected by changes to the 

surveillance frequencies. Similarly, there is 

no impact to safety analysis acceptance 

criteria as described in the plant licensing 

basis. To evaluate a change in the relocated 

surveillance frequency, Entergy will perform 

a probabilistic risk evaluation using the 

guidance contained in NRC approved 

[Nuclear Energy Institute] NEI 04–10, Rev. 1 

in accordance with the TS SFCP. NEI 04–10, 

Rev. 1, methodology provides reasonable 

acceptance guidelines and methods for 

evaluating the risk increase of proposed 

changes to surveillance frequencies 

consistent with Regulatory Guide 1.177. 

Therefore, the proposed changes do not 

involve a significant reduction in a margin of 

safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

analysis adopted by the licensee 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 NSHC. 

Attorney for licensee: Anna Vinson 

Jones, Senior Counsel/Legal 

Department, Entergy Services, Inc., 101 

Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, 

DC 20001. 

NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. 

Pascarelli. 

Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50– 

382, Waterford Steam Electric Station, 

Unit No. 3 (Waterford 3), St. Charles 

Parish, Louisiana 

Date of amendment request: March 

26, 2018, as supplemented by letter 

dated May 17, 2018. Publicly-available 

versions are in ADAMS under 

Accession Nos. ML18085B196 and 

ML18137A494, respectively. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendment would revise 

Waterford 3 Technical Specifications 

(TS) Section 3/4.7.4, ‘‘Ultimate Heat 

Sink.’’ Specifically, the proposed 

amendment would correct the wet 

cooling tower basin level discrepancy, 

revise requirements for cooling fan 

operation described in TS 3.7.4 Action 

Statements a, c, and d, and revise TS 

Table 3.7–3, ‘‘Ultimate Heat Sink 

Minimum Fan Requirements Per Train.’’ 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is presented 

below: 

1. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change modifies Technical 

Specification 3/4.7.4 to be consistent with 

the revised design basis calculations. This 

change is necessary to preserve the 

assumptions and limits of the revised 

ultimate heat sink design basis calculation. 

The calculation determines the maximum 

number of cooling tower fans allowed out-ofservice for a given dry bulb temperature and 

establishes appropriate cooling tower fan 

operating requirements. The proposed 

change does not directly affect any material 

condition of the plant that could contribute 

to an accident or that could contribute to the 

consequences of an accident. The proposed 

change ensures that the mitigating effects of 

the ultimate heat sink will be consistent with 

the design basis analysis. Therefore, the 

proposed change will not involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of any 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 modifies Technical 

Specification 3/4.7.4 to be consistent with 

the revised design basis calculations. [The 

revised calculation modifies the dry and wet 

cooling tower fan operability requirements to 

account for increased recirculation impacts 

for different ambient conditions and heat 

loads.] The proposed change to Technical 

Specification 3/4.7.4 does not alter the 

operation of the plant or the manner in 

which the plant is operated such that it 

created credible new failure mechanisms, 

malfunctions, or accident initiators. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change modifies Technical 

Specification 3/4.7.4 to be consistent with 

the revised design basis calculations. The 

modified dry and wet cooling tower fan 

operability requirements result from placing 

lower limits on the dry bulb temperatures in 

the Technical Specification and limits on the 

number of wet cooling tower out-of-service 

fans per cell. The proposed change preserves 

the margin of safety by ensuring that the 

minimum number of operable fans for a 

given temperature are capable of removing 

the heat duty for the ultimate heat sink. The 

proposed change does not exceed or alter a 

design basis safety limit and maintains the 

ultimate heat sink capability of performing 

its safety function. Therefore, 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: Anna Vinson 

Jones, Senior Counsel, Entergy Services, 

Inc., 101 Constitution Avenue NW, 

Suite 200 East, Washington, DC 20001. 

NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. 

Pascarelli. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

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

Power Plant, Wayne County, New York 

Date of amendment request June 25, 

2018. A publicly-available version is in 

ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML18176A327. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendment would revise 

the requirements on control and 

shutdown rods, and rod and bank 

position indication in Technical 

Specification (TS) 3.1.4, ‘‘Rod Group 

Alignment Limits,’’ TS 3.1.5, 

‘‘Shutdown Bank Insertion Limit,’’ TS 

3.1.6, ‘‘Control Bank Insertion Limits,’’ 

and TS 3.1.7, ‘‘Rod Position Indication’’ 

consistent with NRC-approved 

Technical Specification Task Force 

Traveler (TSTF)-547, Revision 1, 

‘‘Clarification of Rod Position 

Requirements’’ dated March 4, 2016 

(ADAMS Accession Package No. 

ML16012A126). 

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. 

Control and shutdown rods are assumed to 

insert into the core to shut down the reactor 

in evaluated accidents. Rod insertion limits 

ensure that adequate negative reactivity is 

available to provide the assumed shutdown 

margin (SDM). Rod alignment and overlap 

limits maintain an appropriate power 

distribution and reactivity insertion profile. 

Control and shutdown rods are initiators to 

several accidents previously evaluated, such 

as rod ejection. The proposed change does 

not change the limiting conditions for 

operation for the rods or make any technical 

changes to the Technical Specifications (TS) 

Surveillance Requirements (SRs) governing 

the rods. Therefore, the proposed change has 

no effect on the probability of any accident 

previously evaluated. 

Revising the TS Required Actions to 

provide a limited time to repair rod 

movement control has no effect on the SDM 

assumed in the accident analysis as the 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 147 / Tuesday, July 31, 2018 / Notices 36977 

proposed Required Actions require 

verification that SDM is maintained. The 

effects on power distribution will not cause 

a significant increase in the consequences of 

any accident previously evaluated as all TS 

requirements on power distribution continue 

to be applicable. 

Revising the TS Required Actions to 

provide an alternative to frequent use of the 

moveable incore detector system to verify the 

position of rods with an inoperable rod 

position indicator does not change the 

requirements for the rods to be aligned and 

within the insertion limits. 

Therefore, the assumptions used in any 

accidents previously evaluated are 

unchanged and there is no significant 

increase in the consequences. 

The proposed change to resolve the 

differences in the TS ensure that the 

intended Actions are followed when 

equipment is inoperable. Actions taken with 

inoperable equipment are not assumptions in 

the accidents previously evaluated and have 

no significant effect on the consequences. 

The proposed change to eliminate an 

unnecessary action has no effect on the 

consequences of accidents previously 

evaluated as the analysis of those accidents 

did not consider the use of the actions. 

The proposed change to increase 

consistency within the TS has no effect on 

the consequences of accidents previously 

evaluated as the proposed change clarifies 

the application of the existing requirements 

and does not change the intent. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed change create the 

possibility of a new or different accident 

from any accident previously evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change does not involve a 

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

or different type of equipment will be 

installed). The change does not alter 

assumptions made in the safety analyses. The 

proposed change does not alter the limiting 

conditions for operation for the rods or make 

any technical changes to the Surveillance 

Requirements governing the rods. The 

proposed change [to actions] maintains or 

improves safety when equipment is 

inoperable and does not introduce new 

failure modes. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

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 to allow time for rod 

position indication to stabilize after rod 

movement and to allow an alternative 

method of verifying rod position has no effect 

on the safety margin as actual rod position 

is not affected.] The proposed change to 

provide time to repair rods that are operable 

but immovable does not result in a 

significant reduction in the margin of safety 

because all rods must be verified to be 

operable, and all other banks must be within 

the insertion limits. The remaining proposed 

changes to make the requirements internally 

consistent and to eliminate unnecessary 

actions do not affect the margin of safety as 

the changes do not affect the ability of the 

rods to perform their specified safety 

function. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant reduction in a margin of 

safety. 

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. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 

Inc., 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, as supplemented by 

letter dated June 7, 2018. Publiclyavailable versions are in ADAMS under 

Accession Nos. ML17355A516, and 

ML18158A579, respectively. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendment would revise 

TS 3.3.2, ‘‘Engineered Safety Feature 

Actuation System (ESFAS) 

Instrumentation,’’ by adding TS Actions 

that allow time to restore one high 

steam flow channel per steam line to 

Operable status before requiring a unit 

shutdown in the event two channels in 

one or more steam lines are discovered 

inoperable due to the trip setting not 

within Allowable Value. 

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 does not affect 

accident initiators or precursors nor 

adversely alter the design assumptions, 

conditions, and configuration of the facility. 

The proposed amendment does not alter any 

plant equipment or operating practices with 

respect to such initiators or precursors in a 

manner that the probability of an accident is 

increased. 

The proposed amendment does not involve 

a physical change to the ESFAS, nor does it 

change the safety function of the ESFAS 

instrumentation or the equipment supported 

by the ESFAS instrumentation. The ESFAS 

high steam flow channels are not assumed in 

the mitigation of any previously evaluated 

accident or transient. Automatic steam line 

isolation on high steam flow, containment 

high pressure, or low steam pressure is 

assumed in the mitigation of a major 

secondary system pipe rupture accident 

which bounds minor secondary system pipe 

breaks and the accidental opening of a 

secondary system steam dump, relief, or 

safety valve. Manual steam line isolation 

capability is also provided [assumed] in the 

mitigation of spectra of smaller secondary 

system pipe ruptures. During the time 

proposed to normalize the high steam flow 

channels, automatic ESFAS steam line 

isolation continues to be provided from 

either a containment high pressure signal or 

a low steam pressure signal, which are not 

impacted by the proposed license change. 

Additionally, manual steam line isolation 

continues to be provided by the ESFAS 

manual channels, which are not impacted by 

the proposed license change. As a result, the 

proposed amendment does not significantly 

alter assumptions relative to the mitigation of 

an accident or transient event and 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. 

With respect to a new or different kind of 

accident, there are no proposed design 

changes to the ESFAS; nor are there any 

changes in the method by which safety 

related plant structures, systems, and 

components perform their specified safety 

functions. The proposed amendment will not 

affect the normal method of plant operation 

or revise any operating parameters. No new 

accident scenarios, transient precursor, 

failure mechanisms, or limiting single 

failures will be introduced as a result of this 

proposed change and the failure modes and 

effects analyses of SSCs important to safety 

are not altered as a result of this proposed 

change. 

The proposed amendment does not alter 

the design or performance of the ESFAS, 

rather, it adds actions that allow time to 

normalize the high steam flow channels 

associated with the ESFAS steam line 

isolation before requiring a unit shutdown in 

the event multiple channels are discovered 

inoperable due to the trip settings not within 

the required accuracy. The process to 

normalize the high steam flow channels uses 

current procedures, methods, and processes 

already established and currently in use and, 

therefore, does not constitute a new type of 

test. 

No changes are being proposed to the 

procedures that operate the plant equipment 

and the change does not have a detrimental 

impact on the manner in which plant 

equipment operates or responds to an 

actuation signal. 

Therefore, the proposed change will not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

accident previously evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
36978 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 147 / Tuesday, July 31, 2018 / Notices 

The margin of safety is related to the ability 

of the fission product barriers to perform 

their design functions during and following 

an accident. These barriers include the fuel 

cladding, the reactor coolant system, and the 

containment. The performance of these 

fission product barriers will not be affected 

by the proposed change. 

Instrumentation safety margin is 

established by ensuring the limiting safety 

system settings (LSSSs) automatically actuate 

the applicable design function to correct an 

abnormal situation before a safety limit is 

exceeded. Safety analysis limits are 

established for reactor trip system and 

ESFAS instrumentation functions related to 

those variables having significant safety 

functions. Containment pressure and steam 

line pressure provide the limiting parameter 

values assumed in the safety and transient 

analyses for mitigation of previously 

evaluated accidents and transients, including 

steam line break accidents. The high steam 

flow in two steam lines instrument function 

is not used in the safety analysis and a safety 

analysis limit is not specified for this trip 

function. Therefore, the high steam flow in 

two steam lines instrument function does not 

represent an LSSS because this 

instrumentation does not monitor a plant 

variable on which a safety limit has been 

placed. 

The controlling parameters established to 

isolate the steam lines during an accident or 

transient are not affected by the proposed 

amendment and no design basis or safety 

limit is altered as a result of the proposed 

change. Therefore, the proposed change does 

not involve a significant reduction in a 

margin of safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Jennifer M. 

Buettner, Associate General Counsel, 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 

Inc., 40 Inverness Center Parkway, 

Birmingham, AL 35242. 

NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. 

Markley. 

STP Nuclear Operating Company 

(STPNOC), Docket Nos. 50–498 and 50– 

499, South Texas Project, Unit Nos. 1 

and 2, Matagorda County, Texas 

Date of amendment request: March 

27, 2018. A publicly-available version is 

in ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML18086B761. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendment would revise 

certain minimum voltage and frequency 

acceptance criteria for steady-state 

standby diesel generator (SBDG) 

surveillance requirement testing. 

Specifically, the licensee would revise 

several subsections of Technical 

Specification 3.8.1.1, ‘‘A.C. [Alternating 

Current] Sources, Operating,’’ to correct 

non-conservative acceptance criteria. 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is presented 

below: 

1. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The SBDGs are not initiators for any 

accidents evaluated in the Updated Final 

Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). The 

proposed change provides a more 

conservative range of acceptable SBDG 

voltage and frequency values. Thus, 

Technical Specification Surveillance 

Requirements will continue to demonstrate 

sufficient margin such that mitigation of 

accidents evaluated in the UFSAR is not 

impacted. The proposed change does not 

alter the design function of the SBDGs nor 

does it affect how the SBDGs are operated or 

physically tested. Therefore, the proposed 

change does not involve an increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed change create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change does not involve any 

physical alterations and no new or different 

types of equipment are being installed. 

Requiring a more conservative range of 

acceptable SBDG voltage and frequency 

values does not affect SBDG operation and 

does not affect the ability of the SBDGs to 

perform their design function. There are no 

new credible failure mechanisms, 

malfunctions, or accident initiators 

introduced as a result of the proposed 

change. Therefore, the proposed change does 

not create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

Since the proposed change provides a more 

conservative range of acceptable SBDG 

voltage and frequency values, the margin of 

safety is maintained. Where required, 

Technical Specification Surveillance 

Requirement acceptance criteria have been 

procedurally adjusted to ensure equipment 

performance meets accident analysis 

assumptions considering uncertainties in 

steady-state SBDG voltage and frequency. 

STPNOC has evaluated the effects of SBDG 

voltage and frequency variations on affected 

equipment and confirmed that the design 

basis analyses are not adversely affected. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant reduction in a margin of 

safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the standards of 

10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, 

the NRC staff proposes to determine that 

the request for amendments involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Kym Harshaw, 

Vice President and General Counsel, 

STP Nuclear Operating Company, P.O. 

Box 289, Wadsworth, TX 77483. 

NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. 

Pascarelli. 

II. Previously Published Notices of 

Consideration of Issuance of 

Amendments to Facility Operating 

Licenses and Combined Licenses, 

Proposed No Significant Hazards 

Consideration Determination, and 

Opportunity for a Hearing 

The following notices were previously 

published as separate individual 

notices. The notice content was the 

same as above. They were published as 

individual notices either because time 

did not allow the Commission to wait 

for this biweekly notice or because the 

action involved exigent circumstances. 

They are repeated here because the 

biweekly notice lists all amendments 

issued or proposed to be issued 

involving no significant hazards 

consideration. 

For details, see the individual notice 

in the Federal Register on the day and 

page cited. This notice does not extend 

the notice period of the original notice. 

Nebraska Public Power District, Docket 

No. 50–298, Cooper Nuclear Station 

(CNS), Nemaha County, Nebraska 

Date of amendment request: May 10, 

2018. A publicly-available version is in 

ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML18137A199. 

Brief description of amendment 

request: The proposed amendment 

would modify the CNS technical 

specifications by revising the two 

recirculation loop and single 

recirculation loop Safety Limit 

Minimum Critical Power Ratio values to 

reflect the results of a cycle specific 

calculation. 

Date of publication of individual 

notice in Federal Register: July 2, 

2018 (83 FR 30984). 

Expiration date of individual notice: 

August 1, 2018 (public comments); 

August 31, 2018 (hearing requests). 

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 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 147 / Tuesday, July 31, 2018 / Notices 36979 

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 Nos. 

50–325 and 50–324, Brunswick Steam 

Electric Plant (BSEP), Unit Nos. 1 and 

2, Brunswick County, North Carolina 

Date of amendment request: 

November 15, 2017, as supplemented by 

letter dated May 23, 2018. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments revised fire protection 

license condition 2.B.(6) to allow, as a 

performance-based method, certain 

currently-installed thermal insulation 

materials to be retained and allow future 

use of these insulation materials in 

limited applications subject to 

appropriate engineering reviews and 

controls, as a deviation from the 

National Fire Protection Association 

Standard 805, Chapter 3, Section 3.3, 

Prevention. 

Date of issuance: July 6, 2018. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 120 days. 

Amendment Nos.: 284 (Unit 1) and 

312 (Unit 2). A publicly-available 

version is in ADAMS under Accession 

No. ML18106B169; documents related 

to these amendments are listed in the 

Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 

amendments. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. DPR–71 and DPR–62: Amendments 

revised the Renewed Facility Operating 

Licenses. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: February 13, 2018 (83 FR 

6221). The supplemental letter dated 

May 23, 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 July 6, 2018. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Florida Power & Light Company, et al., 

Docket Nos. 50–335 and 50–389, St. 

Lucie Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, St. Lucie 

County, Florida 

Date of amendment request: 

September 14, 2017, as supplemented 

by letter dated February 14, 2018. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments revised the St. Lucie Plant, 

Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Technical 

Specifications related to inoperable 

Auxiliary Feedwater pump steam 

supply. 

Date of issuance: July 9, 2018. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 90 days of issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: 245 (Unit 1) and 

196 (Unit 2). A publicly-available 

version is in ADAMS under Accession 

No. ML18129A149; documents related 

to these amendments are listed in the 

Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 

amendments. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. DPR–67 and NPF–16: The 

amendments revised the Renewed 

Facility Operating Licenses and 

Technical Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: November 7, 2017 (82 FR 

51652). The supplement 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 July 9, 2018. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

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: 

November 7, 2017, as supplemented by 

letter dated May 4, 2018. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments allow for deviation from 

National Fire Protection Association 805 

requirements to allow for currently 

installed non-plenum listed cables 

routed above suspended ceilings and to 

allow for the use of thin wall electrical 

metallic tubing and embedded/buried 

plastic conduit. 

Date of issuance: July 6, 2018. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 90 days of issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: 340 (Unit 1) and 

322 (Unit 2). A publicly-available 

version is in ADAMS under Accession 

No. ML18131A253; documents related 

to these amendments are listed in the 

Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 

amendments. 

Facility Operating License Nos. DPR– 

58 and DPR–74: The amendments 

revised the Facility Operating Licenses. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: January 2, 2018 (83 FR 169). 

The supplemental letter dated May 4, 

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 July 6, 2018. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received. No. 

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 

50–259, Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, 

Unit No. 1, Limestone County, Alabama 

Date of amendment request: March 

16, 2018, as supplemented by letter 

dated April 19, 2018. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revised License Condition 

2.C(18)(a)3 for Unit No. 1 to alter the 

time for submittal of a revised 

replacement steam dryer analysis from 

at least 90 days prior to the start of the 

Unit No. 1 extended power uprate 

outage to 60 days prior to exceeding 

3458 megawatt thermal after the outage. 

Date of issuance: July 10, 2018. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

immediately. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
36980 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 147 / Tuesday, July 31, 2018 / Notices 

1 15 U.S.C.78s(b)(1). 

2 15 U.S.C. 78a. 

3 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

4The Exchange initially filed rule changes 

relating to its co-location services with the 

Commission in 2010. See Securities Exchange Act 

Release No. 63275 (November 8, 2010), 75 FR 70048 

(November 16, 2010) (SR–NYSEArca–2010–100). 

The Exchange operates a data center in Mahwah, 

New Jersey (the ‘‘data center’’) from which it 

provides co-location services to Users. 

5For purposes of the Exchange’s co-location 

services, a ‘‘User’’ means any market participant 

that requests to receive co-location services directly 

from the Exchange. See Securities Exchange Act 

Release No. 76010 (September 29, 2015), 80 FR 

60197 (October 5, 2015) (SR–NYSEArca–2015–82). 

As specified in the Fee Schedules, a User that 

incurs co-location fees for a particular co-location 

service pursuant thereto would not be subject to colocation fees for the same co-location service 

charged by the Exchange’s affiliates New York 

Stock Exchange LLC (‘‘NYSE LLC’’), NYSE 

National, Inc. (‘‘NYSE National’’), and NYSE 

American LLC (‘‘NYSE American and, together with 

NYSE LLC and NYSE National, the ‘‘Affiliate 

SROs’’). See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 

70173 (August 13, 2013), 78 FR 50459 (August 19, 

2013) (SR–NYSEArca–2013–80). 

6See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80310 

(March 24, 2017), 82 FR 15763 (March 30, 2017) 

(SR–NYSEArca–2016–89). 

7The Exchange currently provides connectivity to 

the OTC Markets Group data feed as a Third Party 

Data Feed. 

Amendment No.: 304. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML18171A337; 

documents related to this amendment 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendment. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. DPR–33: Amendment revised the 

Unit 1 operating license. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: The license amendment 

request was originally noticed in the 

Federal Register on April 10, 2018 (83 

FR 15418). The supplement dated April 

19, 2018, was noticed on May 8, 2018 

(83 FR 20862), which superseded the 

original notice in its entirety. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in the 

Safety Evaluation dated July 10, 2018. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 18th day 

of July 2018. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Tara Inverso, 

Acting Deputy Director, Division of Operating 

Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation. 

[FR Doc. 2018–15682 Filed 7–30–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–83708; File No. SR– 

NYSEARCA–2018–52] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE 

Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and 

Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed 

Rule Change To Amend the NYSE Arca 

Options Fees and Charges and the 

NYSE Arca Equities Fees and Charges 

July 25, 2018. 

Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) 1 of the 

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 

(‘‘Act’’) 2 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,3

notice is hereby given that, on July 13, 

2018, NYSE Arca, Inc. (‘‘Exchange’’ or 

‘‘NYSE Arca’’) filed with the Securities 

and Exchange Commission 

(‘‘Commission’’) the proposed rule 

change as described in Items I and II 

below, which Items have been prepared 

by the self-regulatory organization. The 

Commission is publishing this notice to 

solicit comments on the proposed rule 

change from interested persons. 

I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Terms of Substance of 

the Proposed Rule Change 

The Exchange proposes to amend the 

NYSE Arca Options Fees and Charges 

(the ‘‘Options Fee Schedule’’) and the 

NYSE Arca Equities Fees and Charges 

(the ‘‘Equities Fee Schedule’’ and, 

together with the Options Fee Schedule, 

the ‘‘Fee Schedules’’) related to 

colocation to provide Users with access 

to the systems, and connectivity to the 

data feeds, of various additional third 

parties. In addition, the Exchange 

proposes to amend its Fee Schedules to 

update the names of certain third parties 

to reflect their current names. The 

proposed rule change is available on the 

Exchange’s website at www.nyse.com, at 

the principal office of the Exchange, and 

at the Commission’s Public Reference 

Room. 

II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Purpose of, and 

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule 

Change 

In its filing with the Commission, the 

self-regulatory organization included 

statements concerning the purpose of, 

and basis for, the proposed rule change 

and discussed any comments it received 

on the proposed rule change. The text 

of those statements may be examined at 

the places specified in Item IV below. 

The Exchange has prepared summaries, 

set forth in sections A, B, and C below, 

of the most significant parts of such 

statements. 

A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement of the Purpose of, and the 

Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule 

Change 

1. Purpose 

The Exchange proposes to amend the 

co-location 4 services offered by the 

Exchange to provide Users 5 with access 

to the systems, and connectivity to the 

data feeds, of various additional third 

parties. In addition, the Exchange 

proposes to amend its Fee Schedules to 

update the names of certain third parties 

to reflect their current names. The 

Exchange proposes to make the 

corresponding amendments to the 

Exchange’s Fee Schedules related to 

these co-location services to reflect 

these proposed changes. 

As set forth in the Fee Schedules, the 

Exchange charges fees for connectivity 

to the execution systems of third party 

markets and other content service 

providers (‘‘Third Party Systems’’), and 

data feeds from third party markets and 

other content service providers (‘‘Third 

Party Data Feeds’’).6 The lists of Third 

Party Systems and Third Party Data 

Feeds are set forth in the Fee Schedules. 

The Exchange proposes to provide 

access to BM&F Bovespa, Canadian 

Securities Exchange (‘‘CSE’’), ITG 

TriAct MatchNow, NASDAQ Canada, 

Neo Aequitas, Omega, and OTC Markets 

Group as additional Third Party 

Systems (‘‘Proposed Third Party 

Systems’’). In addition, it proposes to 

provide connectivity to the same third 

parties’ data feeds, with the exception of 

the OTC Markets Group 7 (‘‘Proposed 

Third Party Data Feeds’’). 

BM&F Bovespa is a Brazilian national 

securities exchange. CSE and Neo 

Aequitas are Canadian national 

securities exchanges. NASDAQ Canada, 

also Canadian national securities 

exchange, operates three trading books 

for trading in Canadian securities: CXC, 

CXD, and CX2. ITG TriAct MatchNow 

and Omega are Canadian alternative 

markets that match customer orders in 

Canadian securities. OTC Markets 

Group operates trading platforms for 

over-the-counter securities. 

The Exchange would provide access 

to the Proposed Third Party Systems 

(‘‘Access’’), and connectivity to the 

Proposed Third Party Data Feeds 

(‘‘Connectivity’’), as conveniences to 

Users. Use of Access or Connectivity 

would be completely voluntary. The 

Exchange is not aware of any 

impediment to third parties offering 

Access or Connectivity. 

The Exchange does not have visibility 

into whether third parties currently 

offer, or intend to offer, Users access to 

the Proposed Third Party Systems and 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES