```

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 147 (Tuesday, July 31, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36971-36980]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15682]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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: [email protected]. For technical questions, contact 
the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of 
this document.
     Mail Comments to: May Ma, Office of Administration, Mail 
Stop: TWFN-7-A60M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001.
    For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting 
comments, see ``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' in the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shirley Rohrer, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-5411; email: [email protected]

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.

[[Page 36972]]

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/doc-collections/cfr/. Alternatively, a copy of 
the regulations is available at the NRC's Public Document Room, located 
at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (First 
Floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. If a petition is filed, the 
Commission or a presiding officer will rule on the petition and, if 
appropriate, a notice of a hearing will be issued.
    As required by 10 CFR 2.309(d) the petition should specifically 
explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with 
particular reference to the following general requirements for 
standing: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the 
petitioner; (2) the nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to 
be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the 
petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; 
and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be 
entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest.
    In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f), the petition must also set 
forth the specific contentions which the petitioner seeks to have 
litigated in the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific 
statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In 
addition, the petitioner must provide a brief explanation of the bases 
for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or 
expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner 
intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The 
petitioner must also provide references to the specific sources and 
documents on which the petitioner intends to rely to support its 
position on the issue. The petition must include sufficient information 
to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant or licensee on 
a material issue of law or fact. Contentions must be limited to matters 
within the scope of the proceeding. The contention must be one which, 
if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner who 
fails to satisfy the requirements at 10 CFR 2.309(f) with respect to at 
least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
    Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, 
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene. 
Parties have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the 
hearing with respect to resolution of that party's admitted 
contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence, consistent 
with the NRC's regulations, policies, and procedures.
    Petitions must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of 
publication of this notice. Petitions and motions for leave to file new 
or amended contentions that are filed after the deadline will not be 
entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the 
filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 
CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i) through (iii). The petition must be filed in 
accordance with the filing instructions in the ``Electronic Submissions 
(E-Filing)'' section of this document.
    If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final 
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the 
Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no 
significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve 
to establish when the hearing is held. If the final determination is 
that the amendment request involves no significant hazards 
consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it 
immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any 
hearing would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final 
determination is that the amendment request involves a significant 
hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before 
the issuance of the amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent 
danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will 
issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.
    A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian 
Tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to 
participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition should 
state the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the 
proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission no later 
than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. The petition 
must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the 
``Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)'' section of this document, and 
should meet the requirements for petitions set forth in this section, 
except that under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(2) a State, local governmental body, 
or Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof does not need 
to address the standing requirements in 10 CFR 2.309(d) if the facility 
is located within its boundaries. Alternatively, a State, local 
governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof 
may participate as a non-party under 10 CFR 2.315(c).
    If a hearing is granted, any person who is not a party to the 
proceeding and is not affiliated with or represented by a party may, at 
the discretion of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited 
appearance pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person 
making a limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of 
his or her position on the issues but may not otherwise participate in 
the proceeding. A limited appearance may be made at any session of the 
hearing or at any prehearing conference, subject to the limits and 
conditions as may be imposed by the presiding officer. Details 
regarding the opportunity to make a limited appearance will be provided 
by the presiding officer if such sessions are scheduled.

B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)

    All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a 
request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition), any 
motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the 
submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and 
documents filed by interested governmental entities that request to 
participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the 
NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007, as amended at 77 FR 
46562; August 3, 2012). The E-Filing process requires participants to 
submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in 
some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Detailed 
guidance on making electronic submissions may be found in the Guidance 
for Electronic Submissions to the NRC and on the NRC website at 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

[[Page 36973]]

[email protected], or by telephone at 301-415-1677, to (1) request 
a digital identification (ID) certificate, which allows the participant 
(or its counsel or representative) to digitally sign submissions and 
access the E-Filing system for any proceeding in which it is 
participating; and (2) advise the Secretary that the participant will 
be submitting a petition or other adjudicatory document (even in 
instances in which the participant, or its counsel or representative, 
already holds an NRC-issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this 
information, the Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the 
hearing in this proceeding if the Secretary has not already established 
an electronic docket.
    Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is 
available on the NRC's public website at 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 E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends 
the submitter an email notice confirming receipt of the document. The 
E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access 
to the document to the NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any 
others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to 
participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the 
document on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and 
other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for 
and receive a digital ID certificate before adjudicatory documents are 
filed so that they can obtain access to the documents via the E-Filing 
system.
    A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-
Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC's Electronic 
Filing Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC's 
public website at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by 
email to [email protected], or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-
7640. The NRC Electronic Filing Help Desk is available between 9 a.m. 
and 6 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government 
holidays.
    Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not 
submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in 
accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing 
stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and 
requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper 
format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail 
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: 
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or 
expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and 
Adjudications Staff. Participants filing adjudicatory documents in this 
manner are responsible for serving the document on all other 
participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of 
the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or 
expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the 
provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an 
exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or 
party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines 
that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no 
longer exists.
    Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the 
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at 
https://adams.nrc.gov/ehd, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the 
Commission or the presiding officer. If you do not have an NRC-issued 
digital ID certificate as described above, click cancel when the link 
requests certificates and you will be automatically directed to the 
NRC's electronic hearing dockets where you will be able to access any 
publicly available documents in a particular hearing docket. 
Participants are requested not to include personal privacy information, 
such as social security numbers, home addresses, or personal phone 
numbers in their filings, unless an NRC regulation or other law 
requires submission of such information. For example, in some 
instances, individuals provide home addresses in order to demonstrate 
proximity to a facility or site. With respect to copyrighted works, 
except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory 
filings and would constitute a Fair Use application, participants are 
requested not to include copyrighted materials in their submission.
    For further details with respect to these license amendment 
applications, see the application for amendment which is available for 
public inspection in ADAMS and at the NRC's PDR. For additional 
direction on accessing 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

[[Page 36974]]

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 non-conservative 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.

[[Page 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 [Risk-Informed 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-Risk-Informed 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.

[[Page 36976]]

    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-of-
service 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

[[Page 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. Publicly-available 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.

[[Page 36978]]

    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

[[Page 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.

[[Page 36980]]

    Amendment No.: 304. A publicly-available 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
```