Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 28, 2018 / Notices 43901 

Week of September 17, 2018—Tentative 

There are no meetings scheduled for 

the week of September 17, 2018. 

Week of September 24, 2018—Tentative 

Thursday, September 27, 2018 

10:00 a.m. Strategic Programmatic 

Overview of the Operating Reactors 

Business Line (Public), (Contact: Trent 

Wertz: 01–415–1568). 

This meeting will be webcast live at 

the web address—http://www.nrc.gov/. 

Week of October 1, 2018—Tentative 

There are no meetings scheduled for 

the week of October 1, 2018. 

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

For more information or to verify the 

status of meetings, contact Denise 

McGovern at 301–415–0681 or via email 

at Denise.McGovern@nrc.gov. The 

schedule for Commission meetings is 

subject to change on short notice. 

The NRC Commission Meeting 

Schedule can be found on the internet 

at: http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/ 

public-meetings/schedule.html. 

The NRC provides reasonable 

accommodation to individuals with 

disabilities where appropriate. If you 

need a reasonable accommodation to 

participate in these public meetings, or 

need this meeting notice or the 

transcript or other information from the 

public meetings in another format (e.g., 

braille, large print), please notify 

Kimberly Meyer-Chambers, NRC 

Disability Program Manager, at 301– 

287–0739, by videophone at 240–428– 

3217, or by email at Kimberly.MeyerChambers@nrc.gov. Determinations on 

requests for reasonable accommodation 

will be made on a case-by-case basis. 

Members of the public may request to 

receive this information electronically. 

If you would like to be added to the 

distribution, please contact the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Office of the 

Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301– 

415–1969), or you may email 

Patricia.Jimenez@nrc.gov or 

Wendy.Moore@nrc.gov. 

Dated: August 23, 2018. 

Denise L. McGovern, 

Policy Coordinator, Office of the Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2018–18660 Filed 8–24–18; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2018–0181] 

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 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 July 31, 

2018, to August 13, 2018. The last 

biweekly notice was published on 

August 14, 2018. 

DATES: Comments must be filed by 

September 27, 2018. A request for a 

hearing must be filed by October 29, 

2018. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by any of the following methods: 

• Federal Rulemaking website: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and search 

for Docket ID NRC–2018–0181. Address 

questions about NRC dockets to Jennifer 

Borges; telephone: 301–287–9127; 

email: Jennifer.Borges@nrc.gov. For 

technical questions, contact the 

individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

document. 

• Mail comments to: May Ma, Office 

of Administration, Mail Stop: TWFN–7– 

A60M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 

0001. 

For additional direction on obtaining 

information and submitting comments, 

see ‘‘Obtaining Information and 

Submitting Comments’’ in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Janet Burkhardt, Office of Nuclear 

Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, 

DC 20555–0001; telephone: 301–415– 

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Obtaining Information and 

Submitting Comments 

A. Obtaining Information 

Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2018– 

0181, facility name, unit number(s), 

plant docket number, application date, 

and subject when contacting the NRC 

about the availability of information for 

this action. You may obtain publiclyavailable information related to this 

action by any of the following methods: 

• Federal Rulemaking website: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and search 

for Docket ID NRC–2018–0181. 

• NRC’s Agencywide Documents 

Access and Management System 

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

ADAMS Public Documents collection at 

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

adams.html. To begin the search, select 

‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.’’ For 

problems with ADAMS, please contact 

the NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR) 

reference staff at 1–800–397–4209, 301– 

415–4737, or by email to pdr.resource@

nrc.gov. The ADAMS accession number 

for each document referenced (if it is 

available in ADAMS) is provided the 

first time that it is mentioned in this 

document. 

• NRC’s PDR: You may examine and 

purchase copies of public documents at 

the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One 

White Flint North, 11555 Rockville 

Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. 

B. Submitting Comments 

Please include Docket ID NRC–2018– 

0181, facility name, unit number(s), 

plant docket number, application date, 

and subject in your comment 

submission. 

The NRC cautions you not to include 

identifying or contact information that 

you do not want to be publicly 

disclosed in your comment submission. 

The NRC will post all comment 

submissions at http://

www.regulations.gov as well as enter the 

comment submissions into ADAMS. 

The NRC does not routinely edit 

comment submissions to remove 

identifying or contact information. 

If you are requesting or aggregating 

comments from other persons for 

submission to the NRC, then you should 

inform those persons not to include 

identifying or contact information that 

they do not want to be publicly 

disclosed in their comment submission. 

Your request should state that the NRC 

does not routinely edit comment 

submissions to remove such information 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
43902 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 28, 2018 / Notices 

before making the comment 

submissions available to the public or 

entering the comment into ADAMS. 

II. Notice of Consideration of Issuance 

of Amendments to Facility Operating 

Licenses and Combined Licenses and 

Proposed No Significant Hazards 

Consideration Determination 

The Commission has made a 

proposed determination that the 

following amendment requests involve 

no significant hazards consideration. 

Under the Commission’s regulations in 

§ 50.92 of title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (10 CFR), this means that 

operation of the facility in accordance 

with the proposed amendment would 

not (1) involve a significant increase in 

the probability or consequences of an 

accident previously evaluated, or (2) 

create the possibility of a new or 

different kind of accident from any 

accident previously evaluated; or (3) 

involve a significant reduction in a 

margin of safety. The basis for this 

proposed determination for each 

amendment request is shown below. 

The Commission is seeking public 

comments on this proposed 

determination. Any comments received 

within 30 days after the date of 

publication of this notice will be 

considered in making any final 

determination. 

Normally, the Commission will not 

issue the amendment until the 

expiration of 60 days after the date of 

publication of this notice. The 

Commission may issue the license 

amendment before expiration of the 60- 

day period provided that its final 

determination is that the amendment 

involves no significant hazards 

consideration. In addition, the 

Commission may issue the amendment 

prior to the expiration of the 30-day 

comment period if circumstances 

change during the 30-day comment 

period such that failure to act in a 

timely way would result, for example in 

derating or shutdown of the facility. If 

the Commission takes action prior to the 

expiration of either the comment period 

or the notice period, it will publish in 

the Federal Register a notice of 

issuance. If the Commission makes a 

final no significant hazards 

consideration determination, any 

hearing will take place after issuance. 

The Commission expects that the need 

to take this action will occur very 

infrequently. 

A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing 

and Petition for Leave To Intervene 

Within 60 days after the date of 

publication of this notice, any persons 

(petitioner) whose interest may be 

affected by this action may file a request 

for a hearing and petition for leave to 

intervene (petition) with respect to the 

action. Petitions shall be filed in 

accordance with the Commission’s 

‘‘Agency Rules of Practice and 

Procedure’’ in 10 CFR part 2. Interested 

persons should consult a current copy 

of 10 CFR 2.309. The NRC’s regulations 

are accessible electronically from the 

NRC Library on the NRC’s website at 

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

the regulations is available at the NRC’s 

Public Document Room, located at One 

White Flint North, Room O1–F21, 11555 

Rockville Pike (First Floor), Rockville, 

Maryland 20852. If a petition is filed, 

the Commission or a presiding officer 

will rule on the petition and, if 

appropriate, a notice of a hearing will be 

issued. 

As required by 10 CFR 2.309(d) the 

petition should specifically explain the 

reasons why intervention should be 

permitted with particular reference to 

the following general requirements for 

standing: (1) The name, address, and 

telephone number of the petitioner; (2) 

the nature of the petitioner’s right under 

the Act to be made a party to the 

proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of 

the petitioner’s property, financial, or 

other interest in the proceeding; and (4) 

the possible effect of any decision or 

order which may be entered in the 

proceeding on the petitioner’s interest. 

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f), 

the petition must also set forth the 

specific contentions which the 

petitioner seeks to have litigated in the 

proceeding. Each contention must 

consist of a specific statement of the 

issue of law or fact to be raised or 

controverted. In addition, the petitioner 

must provide a brief explanation of the 

bases for the contention and a concise 

statement of the alleged facts or expert 

opinion which support the contention 

and on which the petitioner intends to 

rely in proving the contention at the 

hearing. The petitioner must also 

provide references to the specific 

sources and documents on which the 

petitioner intends to rely to support its 

position on the issue. The petition must 

include sufficient information to show 

that a genuine dispute exists with the 

applicant or licensee on a material issue 

of law or fact. Contentions must be 

limited to matters within the scope of 

the proceeding. The contention must be 

one which, if proven, would entitle the 

petitioner to relief. A petitioner who 

fails to satisfy the requirements at 10 

CFR 2.309(f) with respect to at least one 

contention will not be permitted to 

participate as a party. 

Those permitted to intervene become 

parties to the proceeding, subject to any 

limitations in the order granting leave to 

intervene. Parties have the opportunity 

to participate fully in the conduct of the 

hearing with respect to resolution of 

that party’s admitted contentions, 

including the opportunity to present 

evidence, consistent with the NRC’s 

regulations, policies, and procedures. 

Petitions must be filed no later than 

60 days from the date of publication of 

this notice. Petitions and motions for 

leave to file new or amended 

contentions that are filed after the 

deadline will not be entertained absent 

a determination by the presiding officer 

that the filing demonstrates good cause 

by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 

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

must be filed in accordance with the 

filing instructions in the ‘‘Electronic 

Submissions (E-Filing)’’ section of this 

document. 

If a hearing is requested, and the 

Commission has not made a final 

determination on the issue of no 

significant hazards consideration, the 

Commission will make a final 

determination on the issue of no 

significant hazards consideration. The 

final determination will serve to 

establish when the hearing is held. If the 

final determination is that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration, the 

Commission may issue the amendment 

and make it immediately effective, 

notwithstanding the request for a 

hearing. Any hearing would take place 

after issuance of the amendment. If the 

final determination is that the 

amendment request involves a 

significant hazards consideration, then 

any hearing held would take place 

before the issuance of the amendment 

unless the Commission finds an 

imminent danger to the health or safety 

of the public, in which case it will issue 

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 FederallyVerDate Sep<11>2014 20:00 Aug 27, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\28AUN1.SGM 28AUN1

daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 28, 2018 / Notices 43903 

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, Federallyrecognized Indian Tribe, or agency 

thereof may participate as a non-party 

under 10 CFR 2.315(c). 

If a hearing is granted, any person 

who is not a party to the proceeding and 

is not affiliated with or represented by 

a party may, at the discretion of the 

presiding officer, be permitted to make 

a limited appearance pursuant to the 

provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person 

making a limited appearance may make 

an oral or written statement of his or her 

position on the issues but may not 

otherwise participate in the proceeding. 

A limited appearance may be made at 

any session of the hearing or at any 

prehearing conference, subject to the 

limits and conditions as may be 

imposed by the presiding officer. Details 

regarding the opportunity to make a 

limited appearance will be provided by 

the presiding officer if such sessions are 

scheduled. 

B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing) 

All documents filed in NRC 

adjudicatory proceedings, including a 

request for hearing and petition for 

leave to intervene (petition), any motion 

or other document filed in the 

proceeding prior to the submission of a 

request for hearing or petition to 

intervene, and documents filed by 

interested governmental entities that 

request to participate under 10 CFR 

2.315(c), must be filed in accordance 

with the NRC’s E-Filing rule (72 FR 

49139; August 28, 2007, as amended at 

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

submit and serve all adjudicatory 

documents over the internet, or in some 

cases to mail copies on electronic 

storage media. Detailed guidance on 

making electronic submissions may be 

found in the Guidance for Electronic 

Submissions to the NRC and on the NRC 

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

e-submittals.html. Participants may not 

submit paper copies of their filings 

unless they seek an exemption in 

accordance with the procedures 

described below. 

To comply with the procedural 

requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 

days prior to the filing deadline, the 

participant should contact the Office of 

the Secretary by email at 

hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by telephone 

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

identification (ID) certificate, which 

allows the participant (or its counsel or 

representative) to digitally sign 

submissions and access the E-Filing 

system for any proceeding in which it 

is participating; and (2) advise the 

Secretary that the participant will be 

submitting a petition or other 

adjudicatory document (even in 

instances in which the participant, or its 

counsel or representative, already holds 

an NRC-issued digital ID certificate). 

Based upon this information, the 

Secretary will establish an electronic 

docket for the hearing in this proceeding 

if the Secretary has not already 

established an electronic docket. 

Information about applying for a 

digital ID certificate is available on the 

NRC’s public website at https://

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. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
43904 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 28, 2018 / Notices 

For further details with respect to 

these license amendment applications, 

see the application for amendment 

which is available for public inspection 

in ADAMS and at the NRC’s PDR. For 

additional direction on accessing 

information related to this document, 

see the ‘‘Obtaining Information and 

Submitting Comments’’ section of this 

document. 

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket 

Nos. 50–369 and 50–370, McGuire 

Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, 

Mecklenburg County, North Carolina 

Date of amendment request: May 31, 

2018. A publicly-available version is in 

ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML18159A035. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendments would modify 

Technical Specification 3.1.7, ‘‘Rod 

Position Indication,’’ to add a new 

Condition for more than one inoperable 

digital rod position indication (DRPI) 

per rod group, and revise the Action 

Note and to clarify the wording of 

current Required Actions A.1 and B.1. 

This change is consistent with NRCapproved Technical Specification Task 

Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF–234–A, 

‘‘Add Action for More Than One [D]RPI 

Inoperable,’’ Revision 1. 

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 provides a 

Condition and Required Actions for more 

than one inoperable digital rod position 

indications (DRPI) per rod group. The DRPls 

are not an initiator of any accident previously 

evaluated. The DRPls are one indication used 

by operators to verify control rod insertion 

following an accident; however other 

indications are available. Therefore, allowing 

a finite period of time to correct more than 

one inoperable DRPI prior to requiring a 

plant shutdown will not result in an increase 

in the consequences of any accident 

previously evaluated. The proposed 

amendment does not involve an increase in 

the probability or 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 amendment does not involve 

a physical alteration to the plant (i.e., no new 

or different type of equipment will be 

installed) or a change to the methods 

governing normal plant operation. The 

changes do not alter the assumptions made 

in the safety analysis. 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 the margin of 

safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed amendment provides time to 

correct the condition of more than one DRPI 

inoperable in a rod group. Compensatory 

measures are required to verify that the rods 

monitored by the inoperable DRPls are not 

moved to ensure that there is no effect on 

core reactivity. Requiring a plant shutdown 

with inoperable rod position indications 

introduces plant risk and should not be 

initiated unless the rod position indication 

cannot be repaired in a reasonable period. As 

a result, the safety benefit provided by the 

proposed Condition offsets the small 

decrease in safety resulting from continued 

operation with more than one inoperable 

DRPI. Therefore, the proposed amendment 

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, 

M/C DEC45A, Charlotte, NC 28202– 

1802. 

NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. 

Markley. 

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket 

Nos. 50–269, 50–270, and 50–287, 

Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 

3, Oconee County, South Carolina 

Date of amendment request: May 17, 

2018. A publicly-available version is in 

ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML18144A788. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendments would revise 

Technical Specification (TS) 3.8.1, ‘‘AC 

[Alternating Current] Sources— 

Operating,’’ by adding a surveillance 

requirement that verifies the ability of 

the Keowee Hydroelectric Unit auxiliary 

power system to automatically transfer 

from its normal auxiliary power source 

to its alternate auxiliary power source. 

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? 

No. The proposed TS change, which adds 

a Surveillance Requirement to TS 3.8.1 to test 

the automatic Keowee auxiliary power 

transfer circuitry, will allow ONS [Oconee 

Nuclear Station] to credit an existing design 

feature to facilitate mitigation of a postulated 

single failure. The proposed change does not 

modify the reactor coolant system pressure 

boundary, nor make any physical changes to 

the facility design, material, or construction 

standards. The proposed change is needed to 

eliminate a previously unrecognized single 

failure concern that resulted in a nonconservative TS. The proposed change does 

not affect the safety analyses thus dose 

consequences will remain within analyzed 

and acceptable limits. The probability of any 

design basis accident (DBA) is not increased 

by this change, nor are the consequences of 

any DBA increased by this change. The 

proposed change does not involve changes to 

any structures, systems, or components 

(SSCs) that can alter the probability for 

initiating a DBA event. 

Therefore, the proposed TS change does 

not significantly increase 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? 

No. The proposed new Surveillance 

Requirement to test the automatic Keowee 

auxiliary power transfer circuitry will allow 

ONS to credit an existing design feature to 

facilitate mitigation of a postulated single 

failure. The proposed change does not alter 

the plant configuration (no new or different 

type of equipment will be installed) or make 

changes in methods governing normal plant 

operation. The automatic Keowee auxiliary 

power transfer circuitry is currently installed 

and in use but not credited for accident 

mitigation. No new failure modes are 

identified, nor are any SSCs required to be 

operated outside the design bases. Therefore, 

the possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any kind of accident 

previously evaluated is not created. 

3. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

No. The proposed new Surveillance 

Requirement to test the automatic Keowee 

auxiliary power transfer circuitry will allow 

ONS to credit an existing design feature to 

facilitate mitigation of a postulated single 

failure. The proposed change does not 

involve: (1) A physical alteration of the 

Oconee Units; (2) the installation of new or 

different equipment; (3) a change to any set 

points for parameters which initiate 

protective or mitigation action; or (4) any 

impact on the fission product barriers or 

safety limits. As long as the equipment 

continues to perform as expected and within 

the guidelines captured in the safety 

analyses, the change does not involve a 

significant reduction in the margin of safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 28, 2018 / Notices 43905 

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, 

M/C DEC45A, Charlotte, NC 28202– 

1802. 

NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. 

Markley. 

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: August 2, 

2018. A publicly-available version is in 

ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML18218A075. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendments would revise the 

Technical Specifications (TS) by 

deleting Figure 5.1–1, ‘‘Site Area Map,’’ 

removing references in the TS to Figure 

5.1–1, and adding a site description. 

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 does not modify any 

plant equipment or affect plant operation. 

The proposed change neither impacts any 

structures, systems, or components (SSCs), 

nor alters any plant processes or procedures. 

The proposed change is administrative in 

nature and cannot adversely impact safety. 

Therefore, the proposed changes do not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed amendment create 

the possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change has no impact on the 

design, function or operation of the plants. 

The proposed change is administrative in 

nature, and thereby cannot introduce new 

failure modes or unanticipated outcomes. 

Therefore, the proposed changes do not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any previously 

evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change does not affect plant 

safety margins or the reliability of the 

equipment assumed to operate in the safety 

analyses. The proposed change is 

administrative in nature, and thereby cannot 

affect any safety analysis assumptions, safety 

limits or limiting safety system settings. 

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: Debbie Hendell, 

Managing Attorney—Nuclear, Florida 

Power & Light Company, 700 Universe 

Blvd. MS LAW/JB, Juno Beach, FL 

33408–0420. 

NRC Acting Branch Chief: Booma 

Venkataraman. 

Indiana Michigan Power Company, 

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

C. Cook Nuclear Plant (CNP), Units Nos. 

1 and 2, Berrien County, Michigan 

Date of amendment request: June 11, 

2018. A publicly-available version is in 

ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML18164A033. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed change would allow for 

deviation from National Fire Protection 

Association (NFPA) 805 requirements, 

to allow for the use of flexible metallic 

conduit in configurations other than to 

connect components, and also in 

lengths greater than short lengths. 

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 use of flexible metallic conduit to be 

used other than to connect components or to 

be used in greater than short lengths does not 

impact fire prevention. Flexible metallic 

conduit has been in use since original plant 

construction, is allowed by the National 

Electrical Code and is not expected to 

increase the potential for a fire to start. 

The introduction of flexible metallic 

conduit does not create ignition sources and 

does not impact fire prevention. Cable 

installation procedures are utilized to ensure 

that the use of flexible metallic conduit is in 

accordance with the CNP design change 

process. Also, the use of flexible metallic 

conduit does not result in compromising 

automatic fire suppression functions, manual 

fire suppression functions, fire protection for 

systems and structures, or post-fire safe 

shutdown capability. 

Therefore, the proposed changes do not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed amendment create 

the possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed changes do allow future 

physical changes to the facility that deviate 

from NFPA 805 requirements. However, the 

proposed changes do not alter any 

assumptions made in the safety analyses, nor 

do they involve any changes to plant 

procedures for ensuring that the plant is 

operated within analyzed limits. As such, no 

new failure modes or mechanisms that could 

cause a new or different kind of accident 

from any previously evaluated are being 

introduced. 

Therefore, the proposed changes do not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any previously 

evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed changes do not alter the 

manner in which safety limits or limiting 

safety system settings are determined. No 

changes to instrument/system actuation 

setpoints are involved. The safety analysis 

acceptance criteria are not affected by this 

change and the proposed changes will not 

permit plant operation in a configuration 

outside the design basis. 

Therefore, the proposed changes do not 

involve a significant reduction in a margin of 

safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Robert B. 

Haemer, Senior Nuclear Counsel, One 

Cook Place, Bridgman, MI 49106. 

NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona. 

Nebraska Public Power District, Docket 

No. 50–298, Cooper Nuclear Station, 

Nemaha County, Nebraska 

Date of amendment request: June 11, 

2018. A publicly-available version is in 

ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML18169A147. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendment would revise Technical 

Specification (TS) 3.8.3, ‘‘Diesel Fuel 

Oil, Lube Oil, and Starting Air,’’ by 

relocating the current stored diesel fuel 

oil and lube oil numerical volume 

requirements from the TSs to the TS 

Bases. The proposed changes are 

consistent with Technical Specifications 

Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF–501, 

Revision 1, ‘‘Relocate Stored Fuel Oil 

and Lube Oil Volume Values to 

Licensee Control.’’ The amendment 

would also revise TS 3.8.1, ‘‘AC 

[Alternating Current] Sources— 

Operating,’’ by relocating the specific 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
43906 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 28, 2018 / Notices 

diesel fuel oil day tank numerical 

volume requirement to the TS Bases and 

replacing it with the day tank time 

requirement. The availability of this TS 

improvement was announced in the 

Federal Register on May 26, 2010 (75 

FR 29588), as part of the consolidated 

line item improvement process. 

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 removes the volume 

of diesel fuel oil and lube oil required to 

support 7-day operation of an onsite diesel 

generator, and the volume equivalent to a 6- 

day supply, to licensee control. The specific 

volume of fuel oil equivalent to a 7 and 6- 

day supply is calculated using the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission (NRC) approved 

methodology described in Regulatory Guide 

1.137, Revision 1, ‘‘Fuel-Oil Systems for 

Standby Diesel Generators’’ and ANSI 

[American National Standards Institute] 

N195 1976, ‘‘Fuel Oil [S]ystems for Standby 

Diesel-Generators.’’ The specific volume of 

lube oil equivalent to a 7-day and 6-day 

supply is based on a conservative 

consumption value of 3 gallons/hour for the 

run time of the diesel generator. Because the 

requirement to maintain a 7-day supply of 

diesel fuel oil and lube oil is not changed and 

is consistent with the assumptions in the 

accident analyses, and the actions taken 

when the volume of fuel oil and lube oil are 

less than a 6-day supply have not changed, 

neither the probability nor the consequences 

of any accident previously evaluated will be 

affected. 

The proposed change also relocates the 

volume of diesel fuel oil required to support 

3.9 hours of diesel generator operation at full 

load in the day tank. The specific volume 

and time is not changed and is consistent 

with the existing plant design basis to 

support the emergency diesel generator 

under accident loading conditions. 

Therefore, the proposed changes do not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed change create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The change does 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. The change does not alter 

assumptions made in the safety analysis but 

ensures that the diesel generator operates as 

assumed in the accident analysis. The 

proposed change is consistent with the safety 

analysis assumptions. 

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 relocates the volume 

of diesel fuel oil and lube oil required to 

support 7-day operation of an onsite diesel 

generator, the volume equivalent to a 6-day 

supply, and 3.9 hour day tank supply to 

licensee control. As the bases for the existing 

limits on diesel fuel oil, and lube oil are not 

changed, no change is made to the accident 

analysis assumptions and no margin of safety 

is reduced as part of this 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: Mr. John C. 

McClure, Nebraska Public Power 

District, Post Office Box 499, Columbus, 

NE 68602–0499. 

NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. 

Pascarelli. 

Northern States Power Company— 

Minnesota, Docket No. 50–263, 

Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant 

(MNGP), Wright County, Minnesota 

Date of amendment request: July 3, 

2018. A publicly-available version is in 

ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML18187A400. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendment would 

modify the MNGP technical 

specifications to adopt Technical 

Specification Task Force (TSTF) 

Traveler TSTF–551, Revision 3, ‘‘Revise 

Secondary Containment Surveillance 

Requirements.’’ 

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 addresses conditions 

during which the secondary containment SRs 

[surveillance requirements] are not met. The 

secondary containment is not an initiator of 

any accident previously evaluated. As a 

result, the probability of any accident 

previously evaluated is not increased. The 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated while utilizing the proposed 

changes are no different than the 

consequences of an accident while utilizing 

the existing four hour Completion Time for 

an inoperable secondary containment. In 

addition, the proposed Note for SR 3.6.4.1.1 

provides an alternative means to ensure the 

secondary containment safety function is 

met. As a result, the consequences of an 

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. 

The proposed change does not alter the 

protection system design, create new failure 

modes, or change any modes of operation. 

The proposed change does not involve a 

physical alteration of the plant and no new 

or different kind of equipment will be 

installed. Consequently, there are no new 

initiators that could result in a new or 

different kind of accident. 

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 addresses conditions 

during which the secondary containment SR 

is not met. Conditions in which the 

secondary containment vacuum is less than 

the required vacuum are acceptable provided 

the conditions do not affect the ability of the 

SGT [Standby Gas Treatment] System to 

establish the required secondary containment 

vacuum under post-accident conditions 

within the time assumed in the accident 

analysis. This condition is incorporated in 

the proposed change by requiring an analysis 

of actual environmental and secondary 

containment pressure conditions to confirm 

the capability of the SGT System is 

maintained within the assumptions of the 

accident analysis. Therefore, the safety 

function of the secondary containment is not 

affected. The allowance for both an inner and 

outer secondary containment door to be open 

simultaneously for entry and exit does not 

affect the safety function of the secondary 

containment as the doors are promptly closed 

after entry or exit, thereby restoring the 

secondary containment boundary. 

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: Peter M. Glass, 

Assistant General Counsel, Xcel Energy 

Services, Inc., 414 Nicollet Mall, 

Minneapolis, MN 55401. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 28, 2018 / Notices 43907 

NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona. 

PSEG Nuclear LLC, and Exelon 

Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 

50–272 and 50–311, Salem Nuclear 

Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, 

Salem County, New Jersey 

Date of amendment request: June 29, 

2018. A publicly-available version is in 

ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML18180A291. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendments would revise 

Technical Specification (TS) 3⁄4.3.1, 

‘‘Reactor Trip System Instrumentation’’; 

TS 3⁄4.3.2, ‘‘Engineered Safety Feature 

Actuation System Instrumentation’’; TS 

3⁄4.7.1.5, ‘‘Main Steam Isolation Valves’’; 

and add a new TS for feedwater 

isolation to better align the TS with the 

design basis analyses and the design of 

the instrumentation. 

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 changes to the TS will not 

alter the way any structure, system, or 

component (SSC) functions, and will not 

alter the manner in which the plant is 

operated. The proposed changes do not alter 

the design of any SSC. Therefore the 

probability of an accident previously 

evaluated is not significantly increased. 

The proposed changes more accurately 

align the TS with the design bases accident 

analysis for the main steam line break, 

feedwater line break and feedwater 

malfunction. Therefore, the consequences of 

an accident previously evaluated are not 

increased. 

Therefore, these proposed changes do not 

represent a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed change create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed changes do not involve a 

modification to the physical configuration of 

the plant or changes in the methods 

governing normal plant operation. The 

proposed changes do not impose any new or 

different requirement or introduce a new 

accident initiator, accident precursor, or 

malfunction mechanism. 

Therefore, the proposed changes do not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

3. Do[es] the proposed [change] involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed changes to the TS impose 

requirements that are consistent with 

assumptions in the safety analyses. The 

proposed changes will not result in changes 

to system design or setpoints that are 

intended to ensure timely identification of 

plant conditions that could be precursors to 

accidents or potential degradation of accident 

mitigation systems. 

The proposed amendment will not result 

in a design basis or safety limit being 

exceeded or altered. Therefore, since the 

proposed changes do not impact the response 

of the plant to a design basis accident, the 

proposed changes do not involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Ryan K. Lighty, 

Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, 1111 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, 

DC 20004–2541 

NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna. 

PSEG Nuclear LLC, and Exelon 

Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 

50–272 and 50–311, Salem Nuclear 

Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, 

Salem County, New Jersey. 

Date of amendment request: June 29, 

2018. A publicly-available version is in 

ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML18183A025. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendments would delete 

duplicative Technical Specification (TS) 

requirements to the refueling water 

storage tank (RWST) in TS 3.1.2.6, 

‘‘Borated Water Sources—Operating,’’ 

and would revise TS 3.5.5, ‘‘Refueling 

Water Storage Tank,’’ to ensure 

compliance with assumptions used in 

the design basis accident and 

containment response analyses and to 

make Salem TS requirements for the 

RWST consistent with NUREG–1431, 

Revision 4, ‘‘Standard Technical 

Specifications—Westinghouse Plants.’’ 

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 changes do not adversely 

affect accident initiators or precursors or alter 

the design assumptions, conditions, or 

configuration of the facility or the manner in 

which the plant is operated and maintained. 

The proposed changes do not alter or prevent 

the ability of structures, systems, and 

components (SSCs) to perform their intended 

function to mitigate the consequences of an 

initiating event within the acceptance limits. 

The proposed changes do not affect the 

source term, containment isolation, or 

radiological release assumptions used in 

evaluating the radiological consequences of 

an accident previously evaluated. The 

proposed change is consistent with and 

continues to support the safety analysis 

assumptions and resultant consequences. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed change create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed changes do not alter or 

involve any design basis accident initiators. 

The changes to the Technical Specifications 

regarding RWST operational limits are 

primarily administrative in nature and do not 

affect the design or operation of the plant. 

Increasing the allowable out of service time 

(AOT) for the RWST does not cause any plant 

systems to become initiators of a new or 

different type of accident. Systems and 

equipment will be operated in the same 

configuration and manner that is currently 

allowed and for which the systems were 

designed. 

Therefore, the proposed changes do not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any previously 

evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change does not alter the 

permanent plant design, including 

instrument set points, nor does it change the 

assumptions contained in the safety analyses. 

The RWST continues to meet the design 

requirements relative to core and 

containment cooling and reactivity control; 

there is no reduction in capability or change 

in design configuration. Increasing the RWST 

AOT for reasons directly related to boron 

concentration or temperature does not affect 

any accident analysis assumptions, initial 

conditions, or results. Adding an upper 

temperature limit to the LCO [limiting 

condition for operation] for TS 3.5.5 ensures 

the RWST remains within temperature ranges 

assumed in the plant’s safety analyses. 

Removing the upper limit on RWST volume 

does not alter the RWST design and the limit 

is not used as an input or assumption in any 

plant safety analysis. The proposed changes 

do not alter a design basis or safety limit. 

Therefore, it is concluded that the 

proposed changes do not involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
43908 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 28, 2018 / Notices 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Ryan K. Lighty, 

Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, 1111 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, 

DC 20004–2541. 

NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna. 

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket 

Nos. 50–327 and 50–328, Sequoyah 

Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Hamilton 

County, Tennessee 

Date of amendment request: March 

16, 2018. A publicly-available version is 

in ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML18075A365. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendments would adopt 10 CFR 

50.69, ‘‘Risk-informed categorization 

and treatment of structures, systems and 

components for nuclear power 

reactors.’’ The provisions of 50.69 allow 

improved focus on equipment that has 

safety significance, resulting in 

improved plant safety. 

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 

consequence of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change will permit the use 

of a risk-informed categorization process to 

modify the scope of structures, systems, and 

components (SSCs) subject to Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission (NRC) special 

treatment requirements and to implement 

alternative treatments per the regulations. 

The process used to evaluate SSCs for 

changes to NRC special treatment 

requirements and the use of alternative 

requirements ensures the ability of the SSCs 

to perform their design function. The 

potential change to special treatment 

requirements does not change the design and 

operation of the SSCs. As a result, the 

proposed change does not significantly affect 

any initiators to accidents previously 

evaluated or the ability to mitigate any 

accidents previously evaluated. The 

consequences of the accidents previously 

evaluated are not affected because the 

mitigation functions performed by the SSCs 

assumed in the safety analysis are not being 

modified. The SSCs required to safely shut 

down the reactor and maintain it in a safe 

shutdown condition following an accident 

will continue to perform their design 

functions. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed change create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change will permit the use 

of a risk-informed categorization process to 

modify the scope of SSCs subject to NRC 

special treatment requirements and to 

implement alternative treatments per the 

regulations. The proposed change does not 

change the functional requirements, 

configuration, or method of operation of any 

SSC. Under the proposed change, no 

additional plant equipment will be installed. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change will permit the use 

of a risk-informed categorization process to 

modify the scope of SSCs subject to NRC 

special treatment requirements and to 

implement alternative treatments per the 

regulations. The proposed change does not 

affect any safety limits or operating 

parameters used to establish the safety 

margin. The safety margins included in 

analyses of accidents are not affected by the 

proposed change. The regulation requires 

that there be no significant effect on plant 

risk due to any change to the special 

treatment requirements for SSCs and that the 

SSCs continue to be capable of performing 

their design basis functions, as well as to 

perform any beyond design basis functions 

consistent with the categorization process 

and results. 

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: General 

Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 

400 West Summit Hill Drive, 6A West 

Tower, Knoxville, TN 37902. 

NRC Acting Branch Chief: Booma 

Venkataraman. 

III. 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 notice was previously 

published as a separate individual 

notice. The notice content was the same 

as above. It was published as an 

individual notice either because time 

did not allow the Commission to wait 

for this biweekly notice or because the 

action involved exigent circumstances. 

It is 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. 

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 

50–390, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 1, 

Rhea County, Tennessee 

Date of amendment request: July 8, 

2018. A publicly-available version is in 

ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML18189A001. 

Brief description of amendment 

request: The proposed amendment 

would modify the Watts Bar Nuclear 

Plant, Unit 1, Technical Specifications 

to extend Surveillance Requirements 

3.3.1.5, 3.3.2.2, and 3.3.6.2. 

Date of publication of individual 

notice in Federal Register: July 16, 

2018 (83 FR 32912). 

Expiration date of individual notice: 

August 15, 2018 (public comments); 

September 14, 2018 (hearing requests). 

IV. Notice of Issuance of Amendments 

to Facility Operating Licenses and 

Combined Licenses 

During the period since publication of 

the last biweekly notice, the 

Commission has issued the following 

amendments. The Commission has 

determined for each of these 

amendments that the application 

complies with the standards and 

requirements of the Atomic Energy Act 

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

Commission’s rules and regulations. 

The Commission has made appropriate 

findings as required by the Act and the 

Commission’s rules and regulations in 

10 CFR chapter I, which are set forth in 

the license amendment. 

A notice of consideration of issuance 

of amendment to facility operating 

license or combined license, as 

applicable, proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination, 

and opportunity for a hearing in 

connection with these actions, was 

published in the Federal Register as 

indicated. 

Unless otherwise indicated, the 

Commission has determined that these 

amendments satisfy the criteria for 

categorical exclusion in accordance 

with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant 

to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental 

impact statement or environmental 

assessment need be prepared for these 

amendments. If the Commission has 

prepared an environmental assessment 

under the special circumstances 

provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has 

made a determination based on that 

assessment, it is so indicated. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 28, 2018 / Notices 43909 

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. 

Entergy Louisiana, LLC, and Entergy 

Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50–458, 

River Bend Station, Unit 1 (RBS), West 

Feliciana Parish, Louisiana 

Date of amendment request: 

September 8, 2017, as supplemented by 

letter dated March 28, 2018. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revised the RBS technical 

specifications (TSs) by adding a new TS 

3.7.7, ‘‘Control Building Air 

Conditioning (CBAC) System.’’ This 

new TS specifically addresses the air 

conditioning function for switchgear 

and other electrical equipment located 

in the RBS control building. A TS 

Surveillance Requirement 3.7.7.1 was 

added to verify that each CBAC 

subsystem has the capability to remove 

the assumed heat load. The amendment 

also corrected the RBS operating license 

Antitrust Conditions, Appendix C, due 

to an administrative error. 

Date of issuance: July 31, 2018. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 90 days from the date of 

issuance. 

Amendment No.: 192. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML18177A387; 

documents related to this amendment 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendment. 

Facility Operating License No. NPF– 

47: The amendment revised the Facility 

Operating License and Technical 

Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: January 30, 2018 (83 FR 

4291). The supplement dated March 28, 

2018, provided additional information 

that clarified the application, did not 

expand the scope of the application as 

originally noticed, and did not change 

the NRC staff’s original proposed no 

significant hazards consideration 

determination as published in the 

Federal Register. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated July 31, 2018. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 

Docket No. 50–271, Vermont Yankee 

Nuclear Power Station (VY), Windham 

County, Vermont 

Date of amendment request: March 

29, 2017, as supplemented by letters 

dated June 28 and September 14, 2017, 

and January 18, 2018. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendment replaces the VY Physical 

Security Plan with an Independent 

Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) 

Only Security Plan. The NRC staff 

determined that the proposed VY ISFSIOnly Security Plan continues to meet 

the standards in 10 CFR 72.212, 

‘‘Conditions of general license issued 

under § 72.210,’’ paragraph (b)(9). As 

such, the VY ISFSI-Only Security Plan 

provides reasonable assurance that 

adequate protective measures can and 

will be taken in the event of a design 

basis threat of radiological sabotage 

related to the spent fuel. These changes 

more fully reflect the status of the 

facility, as well as the reduced scope of 

potential physical security challenges at 

the site once all spent fuel has been 

moved to dry cask storage within the 

onsite ISFSI, an activity which is 

currently scheduled for completion in 

2018. 

Date of issuance: July 25, 2018. 

Effective date: As of its date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 90 days following VY’s submittal 

of a written certification to the NRC that 

all spent nuclear fuel assemblies have 

been transferred out of the spent fuel 

pool and placed in storage within the 

onsite ISFSI. 

Amendment No.: 269: A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML18165A423; the 

Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 

amendment includes safeguards 

information that is withheld from public 

disclosure. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. DPR–28: The amendment revised 

the Renewed Facility Operating License. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: September 26, 2017 (82 FR 

44847). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated July 25, 2018. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket Nos. 50–352 and 50–353, 

Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 

and 2, Montgomery County, 

Pennsylvania 

Date of amendment request: June 28, 

2017, as supplemented by letters dated 

August 14, 2017, and January 19, April 

23, and July 27, 2018. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments added a new license 

condition to the Renewed Facility 

Operating Licenses to allow the 

implementation of risk-informed 

categorization and treatment of 

structures, systems, and components for 

nuclear power reactors in accordance 

with 10 CFR 50.69. 

Date of issuance: July 31, 2018. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 60 days. 

Amendment Nos.: 230 (Unit 1) and 

193 (Unit 2). A publicly-available 

version is in ADAMS under Accession 

No. ML18165A162; documents related 

to these amendments are listed in the 

Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 

amendments. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. NPF–39 and NPF–85: The 

amendments revised the Renewed 

Facility Operating Licenses. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: September 26, 2017 (82 FR 

44854). The supplemental letters dated 

letters dated August 14, 2017, and 

January 19, April 23, and July 27, 2018, 

provided additional information that 

clarified the application, did not expand 

the scope of the application as originally 

noticed, and did not change the NRC 

staff’s original proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination as 

published in the Federal Register. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated July 31, 2018. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket Nos. STN 50–456 and STN 50– 

457, Braidwood Station (Braidwood), 

Units 1 and 2, Will County, Illinois 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket Nos. STN 50–454 and STN 50– 

455, Byron Station (Byron), Unit Nos. 1 

and 2, Ogle County, Illinois 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

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

Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant (Calvert 

Cliffs), Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Calvert 

County, Maryland 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket No. 50–461, Clinton Power 

Station (Clinton), Unit No. 1, DeWitt 

County, Illinois 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket Nos. 50–237 and 50–249, 

Dresden Nuclear Power Station 

(Dresden), Units 2 and 3, Grundy 

County, Illinois 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
43910 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 28, 2018 / Notices 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC and 

Exelon FitzPatrick, LLC, Docket No. 50– 

333, James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power 

Plant (FitzPatrick), Oswego County, New 

York 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket Nos. 50–373 and 50–374, LaSalle 

County Station (LaSalle), Units 1 and 2, 

LaSalle County, Illinois 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket Nos. 50–352 and 50–353, 

Limerick Generating Station (Limerick), 

Units 1 and 2, Montgomery County, 

Pennsylvania 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket Nos. 50–220 and 50–410, Nine 

Mile Point Nuclear Station (Nine Mile), 

Units 1 and 2, Oswego County, New 

York 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and 

PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50–277 

and 50–278, Peach Bottom Atomic 

Power Station (Peach Bottom), Units 2 

and 3, York and Lancaster Counties, 

Pennsylvania 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket Nos. 50–254 and 50–265, Quad 

Cities Nuclear Power Station (Quad 

Cities), Units 1 and 2, Rock Island 

County, Illinois 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

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

Power Plant (Ginna), Wayne County, 

New York 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket No. 50–289, Three Mile Island 

Nuclear Station (TMI), Unit 1, Dauphin 

County, Pennsylvania 

Date of amendment request: March 1, 

2018. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments revised the technical 

specifications for each facility to 

relocate the staff qualification 

requirements to the Exelon Generation 

Company, LLC quality assurance topical 

report. 

Date of issuance: August 2, 2018. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 60 days from the date of 

issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: 197/197 

(Braidwood Units 1 and 2); 203/203 

(Byron Units 1 and 2); 325/303 (Calvert 

Cliffs Units 1 and 2); 219 (Clinton); 258/ 

251 Dresden Units 2 and 3); 320 

(FitzPatrick); 229/215 (LaSalle, Units 1 

and 2); 231/194 (Limerick Units 1 and 

2); 231/172 (Nine Mile Units 1 and 2); 

319/322 (Peach Bottom Units 2 and 3); 

270/265 (Quad Cities Units 1 and 2); 

129 (Ginna); and 294 (TMI). A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML18206A282. 

Documents related to these amendments 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendments. 

Facility Operating License Nos. NPF– 

72, NPF–77, NPF–37, NPF–66, DPR–53, 

DPR–69, NPF–62, DPR–19, DPR–25, 

DPR–59, NPF–11, NPF–18, NPF–39, 

NPF–85, DPR–63, NPF–69, DPR–44, 

DPR–56, DPR–29, DPR–30, DPR–18, and 

DPR–50: Amendments revised the 

Facility Operating Licenses and 

Technical Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: April 24, 2018 (83 FR 17862). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

safety evaluations dated August 2, 2018. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Nebraska Public Power District, Docket 

No. 50–298, Cooper Nuclear Station, 

Nemaha County, Nebraska 

Date of amendment request: August 7, 

2017, as supplemented by letter dated 

January 31, 2018. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment replaced the existing 

technical specification (TS) 

requirements related to ‘‘operations 

with a potential for draining the reactor 

vessel’’ (OPDRVs) with new 

requirements on reactor pressure vessel 

(RPV) water inventory control to protect 

Safety Limit 2.1.1.3. Safety Limit 2.1.1.3 

requires RPV water level to be greater 

than the top of active irradiated fuel. 

The changes are based on NRCapproved Technical Specifications Task 

Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF–542, 

Revision 2, ‘‘Reactor Pressure Vessel 

Water Inventory Control.’’ 

Date of issuance: August 1, 2018. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

prior to the fall 2018 refueling outage 

(RE30). 

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

Accession No. ML18186A549; 

documents related to this amendment 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendment. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. DPR–46: Amendment revised the 

Renewed Facility Operating License and 

TS. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: October 24, 2017 (82 FR 

49238). The supplemental letter dated 

January 31, 2018, provided additional 

information that clarified the 

application, did not expand the scope of 

the application as originally noticed, 

and did not change the NRC staff’s 

original proposed no significant hazards 

consideration determination as 

published in the Federal Register. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated August 1, 2018. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC, Docket 

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

1, Rockingham County, New Hampshire 

Date of amendment request: July 28, 

2017. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revised the Technical 

Specifications (TS) such that a direct 

current (DC) electrical train is operable 

with one 100 percent capacity battery 

aligned to both DC buses in the 

associated electrical train. 

Date of issuance: August 7, 2018. 

Effective date: As of its date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 90 days of the date of issuance. 

Amendment No.: 157. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML18199A609; 

documents related to this amendment 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendment. 

Facility Operating License No. NPF– 

86: Amendment revised the Facility 

Operating License and TS. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: October 10, 2017 (82 FR 

47038). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated August 7, 2018. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 

Inc., Docket Nos. 50–424 and 50–425, 

Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 

and 2, Burke County, Georgia 

Date of amendment request: June 22, 

2017, as supplemented by letters dated 

February 6, February 21, April 26, and 

August 6, 2018. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments incorporate the use of the 

peer-reviewed plant-specific seismic 

probabilistic risk assessment into the 

previously approved 10 CFR 50.69 

categorization process. 

Date of issuance: August 10, 2018. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 90 days of issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: Unit 1—196; Unit 

2—179. A publicly-available version is 

in ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML18180A062; documents related to 

these amendments are listed in the 

Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 

amendments. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. NPF–68 and NPF–81: Amendments 

revised the Renewed Facility Operating 

Licenses. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 28, 2018 / Notices 43911 

1Under section 4041A(f)(2) of ERISA, PBGC may 

prescribe reporting requirements for terminated 

multiemployer pension plans, which PBGC 

considers appropriate to protect the interests of 

plan participants and beneficiaries or to prevent 

unreasonable loss to the corporation. 

2Under section 4261(b)(1) of ERISA, PBGC 

provides financial assistance under such conditions 

as the corporation determines are equitable and are 

appropriate to prevent unreasonable loss to the 

corporation with respect to the plan. 

3Section 4008 of ERISA requires the corporation, 

as soon as practicable after the close of each fiscal 

year, to transmit a report to the President and the 

Congress, including financial statements setting 

forth the finances of the corporation at the end of 

the fiscal year and the result of its operations 

(including the source and application of its funds) 

for the fiscal year. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: August 29, 2017 (82 FR 

41072). The supplemental letters dated 

February 6, February 21, April 26, and 

August 6, 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 August 10, 

2018. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket 

Nos. 50–327 and 50–328, Sequoyah 

Nuclear Plant (SQN), Units 1 and 2, 

Hamilton County, Tennessee 

Date of amendment request: 

September 29, 2017, as supplemented 

by letter dated March 14, 2018. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments revised the SQN 

Emergency Plan to change staff 

composition and to extend staff 

augmentation times for Emergency 

Response Organization functions. 

Date of issuance: August 6, 2018. 

Effective date: As of its date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 180 days from the date of 

issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: 342—Unit 1 and 

335—Unit 2. A publicly-available 

version is in ADAMS under Accession 

No. ML18159A461; documents related 

to these amendments are listed in the 

Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 

amendments. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. DPR–77 and DPR–79. Amendments 

revised the Renewed Facility Operating 

Licenses. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: February 27, 2018 (83 FR 

8520). The supplemental letter dated 

March 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 August 6, 2018. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 16th day 

of August 2018. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Gregory F. Suber, 

Deputy Director, Division of Operating 

Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation. 

[FR Doc. 2018–18028 Filed 8–27–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY 

CORPORATION 

Submission of Information Collection 

for OMB Review; Comment Request; 

Survey of Multiemployer Pension Plan 

Withdrawal Liability Information 

AGENCY: Pension Benefit Guaranty 

Corporation. 

ACTION: Notice of request for OMB 

approval. 

SUMMARY: The Pension Benefit Guaranty 

Corporation (PBGC) is requesting that 

OMB approve, under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act, a survey of terminated 

and insolvent multiemployer pension 

plans to obtain withdrawal liability 

information. PBGC needs the 

withdrawal liability information to 

estimate its multiemployer program 

liabilities for purposes of its financial 

statements. This notice informs the 

public of PBGC’s request and solicits 

public comment on the collection of 

information. 

DATES: Comments must be submitted by 

September 27, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to 

the Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs, Office of Management and 

Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for 

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 

via electronic mail at OIRA_DOCKET@

omb.eop.gov or by fax to (202) 395– 

6974. 

A copy of the request will be posted 

on PBGC’s website at https://

www.pbgc.gov/prac/laws-andregulations/information-collectionsunder-omb-review. It may also be 

obtained without charge by writing to 

the Disclosure Division of the Office of 

the General Counsel, 1200 K Street NW, 

Washington, DC 20005–4026, faxing a 

request to 202–326–4042, or calling 

202–326–4040 during normal business 

hours (TTY users may call the Federal 

relay service toll-free at 1–800–877– 

8339 and ask to be connected to 202– 

326–4040). The Disclosure Division will 

email, fax, or mail the information to 

you, as you request. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Hilary Duke (duke.hilary@pbgc.gov), 

Assistant General Counsel for 

Regulatory Affairs, Office of the General 

Counsel, Pension Benefit Guaranty 

Corporation, 1200 K Street NW, 

Washington, DC 20005–4026, 202–326– 

4400, extension 3839. (TTY users may 

call the Federal relay service toll-free at 

1–800–877–8339 and ask to be 

connected to 202–326–4400, extension 

3839.) 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: When a 

contributing employer withdraws from 

an underfunded multiemployer pension 

plan, the plan sponsor assesses 

withdrawal liability against the 

employer. The plan sponsor is required 

to determine and collect withdrawal 

liability in accordance with section 

4219 of the Employee Retirement 

Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). 

The plan sponsor assesses withdrawal 

liability by issuing a notice to an 

employer, including the amount of the 

employer’s liability and a schedule of 

payments. PBGC’s regulation on Notice, 

Collection, and Redetermination of 

Withdrawal Liability (29 CFR part 4219) 

requires the plan sponsor to file with 

PBGC a certification that notices have 

been provided to employers. 

PBGC is proposing to collect 

information about withdrawal liability 

that is owed by withdrawn employers of 

terminated 1 and insolvent 2

multiemployer pension plans. PBGC 

would distribute a survey that insolvent 

plans receiving financial assistance and 

terminated plans not yet receiving 

financial assistance would be required 

to complete and return to PBGC. 

Smaller plans with less than 500 

participants would not be required to 

complete the survey. PBGC needs the 

information from the survey about 

withdrawal liability payments and 

settlements, and whether employers 

have withdrawn from the plan but have 

not yet been assessed withdrawal 

liability, to estimate with more 

precision PBGC’s multiemployer 

program liabilities for purposes of its 

financial statements.3 PBGC would also 

use the information for its 

Multiemployer Pension Insurance 

Modelling System assumptions on 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES