40342 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 14, 2018 / Notices 

available documents online in the 

ADAMS Public Documents collection at 

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

adams.html. To begin the search, select 

‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and then 

select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS 

Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS, 

please contact the NRC’s Public 

Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 

1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by 

email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. A copy 

of the collection of information and 

related instructions may be obtained 

without charge by accessing ADAMS 

Accession No. ML18151B019. The 

supporting statement is available in 

ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML18151B018. 

• 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. 

• NRC’s Clearance Officer: A copy of 

the collection of information and related 

instructions may be obtained without 

charge by contacting NRC’s Clearance 

Officer, David Cullison, Office of the 

Chief Information Officer, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, 

DC 20555–0001; telephone: 301–415– 

2084; email: Infocollects.Resource@

nrc.gov. 

B. Submitting Comments 

Please include Docket ID NRC–2018– 

0094 in the subject line of your 

comment submission, in order to ensure 

that the NRC is able to make your 

comment submission available to the 

public in this docket. 

The NRC cautions you not to include 

identifying or contact information in 

comment submissions 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, 

and the NRC does not routinely edit 

comment submissions to remove 

identifying or contact information. 

If you are requesting or aggregating 

comments from other persons for 

submission to the NRC, then you should 

inform those persons not to include 

identifying or contact information that 

they do not want to be publicly 

disclosed in their comment submission. 

Your request should state that the NRC 

does not routinely edit comment 

submissions to remove such information 

before making the comment 

submissions available to the public or 

entering the comment into ADAMS. 

II. Background 

In accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 

Chapter 35), the NRC is requesting 

public comment on its intention to 

request the OMB’s approval for the 

information collection summarized 

below. 

1. The title of the information 

collection: NRC Form 171, ‘‘Duplication 

Request.’’ 

2. OMB approval number: 3150–0066. 

3. Type of submission: Revision. 

4. The form number, if applicable: 

NRC Form 171. 

5. How often the collection is required 

or requested: As needed (determined by 

the public ordering documents.) 

6. Who will be required or asked to 

respond: Individuals, companies, or 

organizations requesting document 

duplication. 

7. The estimated number of annual 

responses: 74. 

8. The estimated number of annual 

respondents: 74. 

9. The estimated number of hours 

needed annually to comply with the 

information collection requirement or 

request: 6. 

10. Abstract: NRC Form 171 is used 

by the Public Document Room (PDR) 

staff members who collect information 

from the public requesting reproduction 

of publicly available documents in NRC 

Headquarters’ PDR. The information 

collected on the form is necessary for 

the reproduction contractor to process 

and fulfill reproduction service orders 

from members of the public. Copies of 

the form are used by the reproduction 

contractor to accompany the orders. One 

copy of the form is kept by the 

contractor for their records, one copy is 

sent to the public requesting the 

documents, and the third copy (with no 

credit card data) is kept by the PDR staff 

for 90 calendar days, and then securely 

discarded. 

III. Specific Requests for Comments 

The NRC is seeking comments that 

address the following questions: 

1. Is the proposed collection of 

information necessary for the NRC to 

properly perform its functions? Does the 

information have practical utility? 

2. Is the estimate of the burden of the 

information collection accurate? 

3. Is there a way to enhance the 

quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information to be collected? 

4. How can the burden of the 

information collection on respondents 

be minimized, including the use of 

automated collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology? 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day 

of August, 2018. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

David C. Cullison, 

NRC Clearance Officer, Office of the Chief 

Information Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2018–17455 Filed 8–13–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2018–0164] 

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 July 17, 

2018, to July 30, 2018. The last biweekly 

notice was published on July 31, 2018. 

DATES: Comments must be filed by 

September 13, 2018. A request for a 

hearing must be filed by October 15, 

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–2018–0164. 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, 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 14, 2018 / Notices 40343 

see ‘‘Obtaining Information and 

Submitting Comments’’ in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Paula Blechman, Office of Nuclear 

Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 

20555–0001; telephone: 301–415–2242; 

email Paula.Blechman@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Obtaining Information and 

Submitting Comments 

A. Obtaining Information 

Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2018– 

0164, 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–2018–0164. 

• 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– 

0164, facility name, unit number(s), 

plant docket number, application date, 

and subject in your comment 

submission. 

The NRC cautions you not to include 

identifying or contact information that 

you do not want to be publicly 

disclosed in your comment submission. 

The NRC will post all comment 

submissions at http://

www.regulations.gov as well as enter the 

comment submissions into ADAMS. 

The NRC does not routinely edit 

comment submissions to remove 

identifying or contact information. 

If you are requesting or aggregating 

comments from other persons for 

submission to the NRC, then you should 

inform those persons not to include 

identifying or contact information that 

they do not want to be publicly 

disclosed in their comment submission. 

Your request should state that the NRC 

does not routinely edit comment 

submissions to remove such information 

before making the comment 

submissions available to the public or 

entering the comment into ADAMS. 

II. Notice of Consideration of Issuance 

of Amendments to Facility Operating 

Licenses and Combined Licenses and 

Proposed No Significant Hazards 

Consideration Determination 

The Commission has made a 

proposed determination that the 

following amendment requests involve 

no significant hazards consideration. 

Under the Commission’s regulations in 

section 50.92 of title 10 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (10 CFR), this 

means that operation of the facility in 

accordance with the proposed 

amendment would not (1) involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated, or (2) create the possibility of 

a new or different kind of accident from 

any accident previously evaluated; or 

(3) involve a significant reduction in a 

margin of safety. The basis for this 

proposed determination for each 

amendment request is shown below. 

The Commission is seeking public 

comments on this proposed 

determination. Any comments received 

within 30 days after the date of 

publication of this notice will be 

considered in making any final 

determination. 

Normally, the Commission will not 

issue the amendment until the 

expiration of 60 days after the date of 

publication of this notice. The 

Commission may issue the license 

amendment before expiration of the 60- 

day period provided that its final 

determination is that the amendment 

involves no significant hazards 

consideration. In addition, the 

Commission may issue the amendment 

prior to the expiration of the 30-day 

comment period if circumstances 

change during the 30-day comment 

period such that failure to act in a 

timely way would result, for example in 

derating or shutdown of the facility. If 

the Commission takes action prior to the 

expiration of either the comment period 

or the notice period, it will publish in 

the Federal Register a notice of 

issuance. If the Commission makes a 

final no significant hazards 

consideration determination, any 

hearing will take place after issuance. 

The Commission expects that the need 

to take this action will occur very 

infrequently. 

A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing 

and Petition for Leave To Intervene 

Within 60 days after the date of 

publication of this notice, any persons 

(petitioner) whose interest may be 

affected by this action may file a request 

for a hearing and petition for leave to 

intervene (petition) with respect to the 

action. Petitions shall be filed in 

accordance with the Commission’s 

‘‘Agency Rules of Practice and 

Procedure’’ in 10 CFR part 2. Interested 

persons should consult a current copy 

of 10 CFR 2.309. The NRC’s regulations 

are accessible electronically from the 

NRC Library on the NRC’s website at 

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

the regulations is available at the NRC’s 

Public Document Room, located at One 

White Flint North, Room O1–F21, 11555 

Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, 

Maryland 20852. If a petition is filed, 

the Commission or a presiding officer 

will rule on the petition and, if 

appropriate, a notice of a hearing will be 

issued. 

As required by 10 CFR 2.309(d) the 

petition should specifically explain the 

reasons why intervention should be 

permitted with particular reference to 

the following general requirements for 

standing: (1) The name, address, and 

telephone number of the petitioner; (2) 

the nature of the petitioner’s right under 

the Act to be made a party to the 

proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of 

the petitioner’s property, financial, or 

other interest in the proceeding; and (4) 

the possible effect of any decision or 

order which may be entered in the 

proceeding on the petitioner’s interest. 

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f), 

the petition must also set forth the 

specific contentions which the 

petitioner seeks to have litigated in the 

proceeding. Each contention must 

consist of a specific statement of the 

issue of law or fact to be raised or 

controverted. In addition, the petitioner 

must provide a brief explanation of the 

bases for the contention and a concise 

statement of the alleged facts or expert 

opinion which support the contention 

and on which the petitioner intends to 

rely in proving the contention at the 

hearing. The petitioner must also 

provide references to the specific 

sources and documents on which the 

petitioner intends to rely to support its 

position on the issue. The petition must 

include sufficient information to show 

that a genuine dispute exists with the 

applicant or licensee on a material issue 

of law or fact. Contentions must be 

limited to matters within the scope of 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
40344 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 14, 2018 / Notices 

the proceeding. The contention must be 

one which, if proven, would entitle the 

petitioner to relief. A petitioner who 

fails to satisfy the requirements at 10 

CFR 2.309(f) with respect to at least one 

contention will not be permitted to 

participate as a party. 

Those permitted to intervene become 

parties to the proceeding, subject to any 

limitations in the order granting leave to 

intervene. Parties have the opportunity 

to participate fully in the conduct of the 

hearing with respect to resolution of 

that party’s admitted contentions, 

including the opportunity to present 

evidence, consistent with the NRC’s 

regulations, policies, and procedures. 

Petitions must be filed no later than 

60 days from the date of publication of 

this notice. Petitions and motions for 

leave to file new or amended 

contentions that are filed after the 

deadline will not be entertained absent 

a determination by the presiding officer 

that the filing demonstrates good cause 

by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 

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

must be filed in accordance with the 

filing instructions in the ‘‘Electronic 

Submissions (E-Filing)’’ section of this 

document. 

If a hearing is requested, and the 

Commission has not made a final 

determination on the issue of no 

significant hazards consideration, the 

Commission will make a final 

determination on the issue of no 

significant hazards consideration. The 

final determination will serve to 

establish when the hearing is held. If the 

final determination is that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration, the 

Commission may issue the amendment 

and make it immediately effective, 

notwithstanding the request for a 

hearing. Any hearing would take place 

after issuance of the amendment. If the 

final determination is that the 

amendment request involves a 

significant hazards consideration, then 

any hearing held would take place 

before the issuance of the amendment 

unless the Commission finds an 

imminent danger to the health or safety 

of the public, in which case it will issue 

an appropriate order or rule under 10 

CFR part 2. 

A State, local governmental body, 

Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or 

agency thereof, may submit a petition to 

the Commission to participate as a party 

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

should state the nature and extent of the 

petitioner’s interest in the proceeding. 

The petition should be submitted to the 

Commission no later than 60 days from 

the date of publication of this notice. 

The petition must be filed in accordance 

with the filing instructions in the 

‘‘Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)’’ 

section of this document, and should 

meet the requirements for petitions set 

forth in this section, except that under 

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

governmental body, or Federallyrecognized Indian Tribe, or agency 

thereof does not need to address the 

standing requirements in 10 CFR 

2.309(d) if the facility is located within 

its boundaries. Alternatively, a State, 

local governmental body, Federallyrecognized Indian Tribe, or agency 

thereof may participate as a non-party 

under 10 CFR 2.315(c). 

If a hearing is granted, any person 

who is not a party to the proceeding and 

is not affiliated with or represented by 

a party may, at the discretion of the 

presiding officer, be permitted to make 

a limited appearance pursuant to the 

provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person 

making a limited appearance may make 

an oral or written statement of his or her 

position on the issues but may not 

otherwise participate in the proceeding. 

A limited appearance may be made at 

any session of the hearing or at any 

prehearing conference, subject to the 

limits and conditions as may be 

imposed by the presiding officer. Details 

regarding the opportunity to make a 

limited appearance will be provided by 

the presiding officer if such sessions are 

scheduled. 

B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing) 

All documents filed in NRC 

adjudicatory proceedings, including a 

request for hearing and petition for 

leave to intervene (petition), any motion 

or other document filed in the 

proceeding prior to the submission of a 

request for hearing or petition to 

intervene, and documents filed by 

interested governmental entities that 

request to participate under 10 CFR 

2.315(c), must be filed in accordance 

with the NRC’s E-Filing rule (72 FR 

49139; August 28, 2007, as amended at 

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

submit and serve all adjudicatory 

documents over the internet, or in some 

cases to mail copies on electronic 

storage media. Detailed guidance on 

making electronic submissions may be 

found in the Guidance for Electronic 

Submissions to the NRC and on the NRC 

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

e-submittals.html. Participants may not 

submit paper copies of their filings 

unless they seek an exemption in 

accordance with the procedures 

described below. 

To comply with the procedural 

requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 

days prior to the filing deadline, the 

participant should contact the Office of 

the Secretary by email at 

Hearing.Docket@nrc.gov, or by 

telephone at 301–415–1677, to (1) 

request a digital identification (ID) 

certificate, which allows the participant 

(or its counsel or representative) to 

digitally sign submissions and access 

the E-Filing system for any proceeding 

in which it is participating; and (2) 

advise the Secretary that the participant 

will be submitting a petition or other 

adjudicatory document (even in 

instances in which the participant, or its 

counsel or representative, already holds 

an NRC-issued digital ID certificate). 

Based upon this information, the 

Secretary will establish an electronic 

docket for the hearing in this proceeding 

if the Secretary has not already 

established an electronic docket. 

Information about applying for a 

digital ID certificate is available on the 

NRC’s public website at http://

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

getting-started.html. Once a participant 

has obtained a digital ID certificate and 

a docket has been created, the 

participant can then submit 

adjudicatory documents. Submissions 

must be in Portable Document Format 

(PDF). Additional guidance on PDF 

submissions is available on the NRC’s 

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

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

filing is considered complete at the time 

the document is submitted through the 

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

electronic filing must be submitted to 

the E-Filing system no later than 11:59 

p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. 

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

and sends the submitter an email notice 

confirming receipt of the document. The 

E-Filing system also distributes an email 

notice that provides access to the 

document to the NRC’s Office of the 

General Counsel and any others who 

have advised the Office of the Secretary 

that they wish to participate in the 

proceeding, so that the filer need not 

serve the document on those 

participants separately. Therefore, 

applicants and other participants (or 

their counsel or representative) must 

apply for and receive a digital ID 

certificate before adjudicatory 

documents are filed so that they can 

obtain access to the documents via the 

E-Filing system. 

A person filing electronically using 

the NRC’s adjudicatory E-Filing system 

may seek assistance by contacting the 

NRC’s Electronic Filing Help Desk 

through the ‘‘Contact Us’’ link located 

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

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


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 14, 2018 / Notices 40345 

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

Electronic Filing Help Desk is available 

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

Time, Monday through Friday, 

excluding government holidays. 

Participants who believe that they 

have a good cause for not submitting 

documents electronically must file an 

exemption request, in accordance with 

10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper 

filing stating why there is good cause for 

not filing electronically and requesting 

authorization to continue to submit 

documents in paper format. Such filings 

must be submitted by: (1) First class 

mail addressed to the Office of the 

Secretary of the Commission, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001, Attention: 

Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or 

(2) courier, express mail, or expedited 

delivery service to the Office of the 

Secretary, 11555 Rockville Pike, 

Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: 

Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. 

Participants filing adjudicatory 

documents in this manner are 

responsible for serving the document on 

all other participants. Filing is 

considered complete by first-class mail 

as of the time of deposit in the mail, or 

by courier, express mail, or expedited 

delivery service upon depositing the 

document with the provider of the 

service. A presiding officer, having 

granted an exemption request from 

using E-Filing, may require a participant 

or party to use E-Filing if the presiding 

officer subsequently determines that the 

reason for granting the exemption from 

use of E-Filing no longer exists. 

Documents submitted in adjudicatory 

proceedings will appear in the NRC’s 

electronic hearing docket which is 

available to the public at https://

adams.nrc.gov/ehd, unless excluded 

pursuant to an order of the Commission 

or the presiding officer. If you do not 

have an NRC-issued digital ID certificate 

as described above, click cancel when 

the link requests certificates and you 

will be automatically directed to the 

NRC’s electronic hearing dockets where 

you will be able to access any publicly 

available documents in a particular 

hearing docket. Participants are 

requested not to include personal 

privacy information, such as social 

security numbers, home addresses, or 

personal phone numbers in their filings, 

unless an NRC regulation or other law 

requires submission of such 

information. For example, in some 

instances, individuals provide home 

addresses in order to demonstrate 

proximity to a facility or site. With 

respect to copyrighted works, except for 

limited excerpts that serve the purpose 

of the adjudicatory filings and would 

constitute a Fair Use application, 

participants are requested not to include 

copyrighted materials in their 

submission. 

For further details with respect to 

these license amendment applications, 

see the application for amendment 

which is available for public inspection 

in ADAMS and at the NRC’s PDR. For 

additional direction on accessing 

information related to this document, 

see the ‘‘Obtaining Information and 

Submitting Comments’’ section of this 

document. 

Arizona Public Service Company, 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: July 31, 

2015, as supplemented by letters dated 

April 11, 2016; November 3, 2017; May 

18, 2018; and June 1, 2018. Publiclyavailable versions are in ADAMS under 

Accession Nos. ML15218A300, 

ML16102A463, ML17307A188, 

ML18138A480, and ML18152B874, 

respectively. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendments would modify the 

technical specification (TS) 

requirements related to Completion 

Times (CTs) for Required Actions to 

provide the option to calculate longer, 

risk-informed CTs. The methodology for 

using the Risk Informed Completion 

Time (RICT) Program is described in 

Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) topical 

report NEI 06–09, ‘‘Risk-Informed 

Technical Specifications Initiative 4b, 

Risk-Managed Technical Specifications 

(RMTS) Guidelines,’’ Revision 0–A 

(ADAMS Accession No. ML12286A322), 

which was approved by the NRC on 

May 17, 2007. The license amendment 

request (LAR) was originally noticed in 

the Federal Register on December 8, 

2015 (80 FR 76317). The licensee 

originally proposed to adopt, with 

plant-specific variations, Technical 

Specifications Task Force (TSTF) 

Traveler TSTF–505, Revision 1, 

‘‘Provide Risk-Informed Extended 

Completion Times—RITSTF [Risk 

Informed TSTF] Initiative 4b’’ (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML111650552). By letter 

dated November 15, 2016 (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML16281A021), the NRC 

staff informed the TSTF of its decision 

to suspend NRC approval of TSTF–505, 

Revision 1, because of concerns 

identified during the review of plantspecific LARs for adoption of the 

traveler. The NRC staff’s letter also 

stated that it would continue reviewing 

applications already received and sitespecific proposals to address the staff’s 

concerns. Although the scope of the 

amendment request has not changed, 

the basis for the amendments will no 

longer rely on TSTF–505. This notice is 

being reissued in its entirety to include 

the revised description of the 

amendment request. The proposed no 

significant hazards consideration 

determination is identical to the one 

published in the Federal Register on 

December 8, 2015. 

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 permits the use of 

RICTs provided the associated risk is 

assessed and managed in accordance with 

the NRC-accepted RICT Program. The 

proposed use of RICTs does not involve a 

significant increase in the probability of an 

accident previously evaluated because the 

change only affects TS Conditions, Required 

Actions and CTs associated with risk 

informed technical specifications and does 

not involve changes to the plant, its modes 

of operation, or TS mode applicability. The 

proposed license amendment references 

regulatory commitments to achieve the 

baseline PRA [probabilistic risk assessment] 

risk metrics specified in the NRC model 

evaluation. The changes proposed by 

regulatory commitments will be 

implemented under the requirements of 10 

CFR 50.59 without the need for prior NRC 

approval. The proposed change does not 

increase the consequences of an accident 

because the accident mitigation functions of 

the affected systems, structures, or 

components (SSCs) are not changed. 

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 or different kind of accident from 

any accident previously evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change permits the use of 

RICTs provided the associated risk is 

assessed and managed in accordance with 

the NRC-accepted RICT Program. The 

proposed use of RICTs does not create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated because the change only affects TS 

Conditions, Required Actions and CTs 

associated with risk informed technical 

specifications. The proposed change does not 

involve a physical alteration of the plant and 

does not involve installation of new or 

different kind of equipment. The proposed 

license amendment references regulatory 

commitments to achieve the baseline PRA 

risk metrics specified in the NRC model 

evaluation. The changes proposed by 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
40346 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 14, 2018 / Notices 

regulatory commitments will be 

implemented under the requirements of 10 

CFR 50.59 without the need for prior NRC 

approval. The proposed change does not alter 

the accident mitigation functions of the 

affected SSCs and does not introduce new or 

different SSC failure modes than already 

evaluated. 

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 permits the use of 

RICTs provided the risk levels associated 

with inoperable equipment within the scope 

of the RICT program are assessed and 

managed in accordance with the NRC 

approved RICT Program. The proposed 

change implements a risk-informed 

Configuration Risk Management Program 

(CRMP) to assure that adequate margins of 

safety are maintained. Application of these 

new specifications and the CRMP considers 

cumulative effects of multiple systems or 

components being out of service and does so 

more effectively than the current TS. In this 

regard, the implementation of the CRMP is 

considered an improvement in safety. 

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 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 

requested 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. 

DTE Electric Company, Docket No. 50– 

341, Fermi 2, Monroe County, Michigan 

Date of amendment request: March 

14, 2018. A publicly-available version is 

in ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML18073A137. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendment modifies the 

technical specification definition of 

‘‘Shutdown Margin’’ (SDM) to require 

calculation of the SDM at a reactor 

moderator temperature of 68 degrees 

Fahrenheit (°F) per hour or a higher 

temperature that represents the most 

reactive state throughout the operating 

cycle. This change is needed to address 

new boiling water reactor (BWR) fuel 

designs, which may be more reactive at 

shutdown temperatures above 68 °F. 

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 revises the definition 

of SDM. SDM is not an initiator to any 

accident previously evaluated. Accordingly, 

the proposed change to the definition of SDM 

has no effect on the probability of any 

accident previously evaluated. SDM is an 

assumption in the analysis of some 

previously evaluated accidents and 

inadequate SDM could lead to an increase in 

consequences for those accidents. However, 

the proposed change revises the SDM 

definition to ensure that the correct SDM is 

determined for all fuel types at all times 

during the fuel cycle. 

As a result, the proposed change does not 

adversely affect the consequences of any 

accident previously evaluated. 

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 revises the definition 

of SDM. 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 operations. The 

change does not alter assumptions made in 

the safety analysis regarding SDM. 

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 revises the definition 

of SDM. The proposed change does not alter 

the manner in which safety limits, limiting 

safety system settings or limiting conditions 

for operation are determined. The proposed 

change ensures that the SDM assumed in 

determining safety limits, limiting safety 

system settings or limiting conditions for 

operation is correct for all BWR fuel types at 

all times during the fuel cycle. 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: Jon P. 

Christinidis, DTE Energy, Expert 

Attorney—Regulatory, 688 WCB, One 

Energy Plaza, Detroit, MI 48226–1279. 

NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona. 

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket 

Nos. 50–413 and 50–414, Catawba 

Nuclear Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 

(CNS), York County, South Carolina 

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket 

Nos. 50–369 and 50–370, McGuire 

Nuclear Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 

(MNS), Mecklenburg County, North 

Carolina 

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket 

Nos. 50–269, 50–270, and 50–287, 

Oconee Nuclear Station, Unit Nos. 1, 2, 

and 3 (ONS), Oconee County, South 

Carolina 

Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Docket Nos. 

50–325 and 50–324, Brunswick Steam 

Electric Plant (BNP), Unit Nos. 1 and 2, 

Brunswick County, North Carolina 

Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Docket No. 

50–261, H. B. Robinson Steam Electric 

Plant, Unit No. 2 (RNP), Darlington 

County, South Carolina 

Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Docket No. 

50–400, Shearon Harris Nuclear Power 

Plant, Unit 1 (HNP), Wake County, 

North Carolina 

Date of amendment request: June 20, 

2018. A publicly-available version is in 

ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML18172A315. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendments would revise the 

Emergency Action Levels (EALs) for 

CNS, MNS, ONS, BNP, HNP, and RNP 

consistent with Emergency 

Preparedness Frequently Asked 

Questions (EPFAQs) 2015–013 (EAL 

HG1.1) and 2016–002 (EALs CA6.1 and 

SA9.1 (SA8.1 for BNP)). The 

amendments would revise the EALs for 

HNP and RNP consistent with EPFAQ 

2015–014 (EAL HS6.1). 

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 change involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed changes to EALs HG1.1, 

CA6.1, SA9.1 (SA8.1 for BNP), and HS6.1 do 

not reduce the capability to meet the 

emergency planning requirements 

established in 10 CFR 50.47 and 10 CFR 

[Part] 50, Appendix E. The proposed changes 

do not reduce the functionality, performance, 

or capability of Duke Energy’s Emergency 

Response Organization (ERO) to respond in 

mitigating the consequences of any design 

basis accident. The proposed changes do not 

involve any physical changes to plant 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 14, 2018 / Notices 40347 

equipment or systems, nor do they alter the 

assumptions of any accident analyses. The 

proposed changes do not adversely affect 

accident initiators or precursors nor do they 

alter the design assumptions, conditions, and 

configuration or the manner in which the 

plants are operated and maintained. The 

proposed changes do not adversely affect the 

ability of Structures, Systems, or Components 

(SSCs) to perform their intended safety 

functions in mitigating the consequences of 

an initiating event within the assumed 

acceptance limits. There is no impact on the 

source term or pathways assumed in 

accidents previously assumed. No analysis 

assumptions are violated and there are no 

adverse effects on the factors that contribute 

to offsite or onsite dose as the result of an 

accident. 

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 proposed changes to EALs HG1.1, 

CA6.1, SA9.1 (SA8.1 for BNP), and HS6.1 do 

not involve any physical changes to plant 

systems or equipment. The proposed changes 

do not involve the addition of any new plant 

equipment. The proposed changes will not 

alter the design configuration, or method of 

operation of plant equipment beyond its 

normal functional capabilities. All Duke 

Energy ERO functions will continue to be 

performed as required. The proposed changes 

do not create any new credible failure 

mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident 

initiators. 

Therefore, the proposed changes do not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

Margin of safety is related to the 

confidence in 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 

system. 

The proposed changes to EALs HG1.1, 

CA6.1, SA9.1 (SA8.1 for BNP), and HS6.1 do 

not alter or exceed a design basis or safety 

limit. There is no change being made to 

safety analysis assumptions, safety limits, or 

limiting safety system settings that would 

adversely affect plant safety as a result of the 

proposed changes. There are no changes to 

setpoints or environmental conditions of any 

SSC or the manner in which any SSC is 

operated. Margins of safety are unaffected by 

the proposed changes. The applicable 

requirements of 10 CFR 50.47 and 10 CFR 

[Part] 50, Appendix E will continue to be 

met. 

Therefore, the proposed changes do not 

involve 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: Kathryn B. 

Nolan, Deputy General Counsel, Duke 

Energy Corporation, 550 South Tryon 

Street, Mail Code DEC45A, Charlotte NC 

28202. 

NRC Acting Branch Chief: Booma 

Venkatamaraman. 

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 

Docket No. 50–255, Palisades Nuclear 

Plant (PNP), Van Buren County, 

Michigan 

Date of amendment request: May 30, 

2018. A publicly-available version is in 

ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML18152A922. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendment would revise 

the PNP Technical Specification (TS) 

3.3.5, ‘‘Diesel Generator (DG)— 

Undervoltage Start (UV Start),’’ 

Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.3.5.2a 

by adding a channel calibration 

requirement for the combined time 

delay setpoints for the degraded voltage 

sensing relay and the degraded voltage 

time delay relay. 

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 would revise a 

TS SR to include, for each degraded voltage 

channel, calibration of the time delay 

setpoint for the degraded voltage sensing 

relay in combination with the setpoint for the 

time delay relay. The minimum time delay 

setpoint in the revised TS SR would be long 

enough to override any brief voltage 

disturbances. The maximum time delay 

setpoint in the revised TS SR would be short 

enough to not exceed the maximum time 

delays assumed in the PNP Final Safety 

Analysis Report accident analyses for the 

operation of safety related equipment and to 

not result in failure of safety related 

equipment due to sustained degraded voltage 

conditions. Therefore, safety related loads 

would be available to perform their required 

safety functions under these conditions. 

The proposed change does not adversely 

affect accident initiators or precursors, and 

does not affect the design assumptions, 

conditions, or configuration of the plant, or 

the manner in which the plant is operated or 

maintained. 

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 amendment would revise a 

TS SR to include, for each degraded voltage 

channel, calibration of the time delay 

setpoint for the degraded voltage sensing 

relay in combination with the time delay 

setpoint for the time delay relay. The conduct 

of surveillance tests on safety related plant 

equipment is a means of assuring that the 

equipment is capable of performing its 

functions that are credited in the safety 

analyses for the facility. The proposed 

amendment would not affect the operation of 

safety related equipment assumed in accident 

analyses, and would not create any new 

failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or 

accident initiators not considered in the 

design and licensing bases. 

Therefore, the possibility of a new or 

different kind of accident from any 

previously evaluated has not been created. 

3. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed amendment would revise a 

TS SR to include, for each degraded voltage 

channel, calibration of the time delay 

setpoint for the degraded voltage sensing 

relay in combination with the time delay 

setpoint for the time delay relay. The conduct 

of surveillance tests on safety related plant 

equipment is a means of assuring that the 

equipment is capable of maintaining the 

margin of safety established in the safety 

analyses for the facility. The proposed 

amendment would not introduce changes to 

limits established in the accident analyses. 

The minimum time delay setpoint in the 

revised TS SR would be long enough to 

override any brief voltage disturbances. The 

maximum time delay setpoint in the revised 

TS SR would be short enough to not exceed 

the maximum time delays assumed in the 

PNP Final Safety Analysis Report accident 

analyses for the operation of safety related 

equipment and to not result in failure of 

safety related equipment due to sustained 

degraded voltage conditions. 

Therefore, the proposed amendment does 

not involve a significant reduction in a 

margin of safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Anna Jones, 

Senior Counsel, Entergy Services, Inc., 

101 Constitution Ave., NW, 

Washington, DC 20001. 

NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
40348 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 14, 2018 / Notices 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket No. 50–461, Clinton Power 

Station, Unit No. 1, DeWitt County, 

Illinois 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket Nos. 50–237 and 50–249, 

Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Unit 

Nos. 2 and 3, Grundy County, Illinois 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC and 

Exelon FitzPatrick, LLC, Docket No. 50– 

333, James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power 

Plant, Oswego County, New York 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

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

County Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, 

LaSalle County, Illinois 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket Nos. 50–352 and No. 50–353, 

Limerick Generating Station, Unit Nos. 

1 and 2, Montgomery County, 

Pennsylvania 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket Nos. 50–220 and 50–410, Nine 

Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit Nos. 1 

and 2, Oswego County, New York 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and 

PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50–277 

and 50–278, Peach Bottom Atomic 

Power Station, Unit Nos. 2 and 3, York 

and Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket Nos. 50–254 and 50–265, Quad 

Cities Nuclear Power Station, Unit Nos. 

1 and 2, Rock Island County, Illinois 

Date of amendment request: June 15, 

2018. A publicly-available version is in 

ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML18166A197. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendments would revise the 

technical specification (TS) 

requirements associated with the 

average power range monitors (APRMs). 

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 APRM system and the RPS [reactor 

protection system] are not initiators of any 

accidents previously evaluated. As a result, 

the proposed change does not affect the 

probability of any accident previously 

evaluated. The APRM system and the RPS 

functions act to mitigate the consequences of 

accidents previously evaluated. The 

reliability of the APRM system and the RPS 

is not significantly affected by removing the 

gain adjustment requirement on the APRM 

channels when the APRMs are calibrated 

conservatively with respect to the calculated 

heat balance. This is because the actual core 

thermal power at which the reactor will 

automatically trip is lower, thereby 

increasing the margin to the core thermal 

limits and the limiting safety system settings 

assumed in the safety analyses. The 

consequences of an accident during the 

adjustment of the APRM instrumentation are 

no different from those during the existing 

surveillance testing period or the existing 

time allowed to restore the instruments to 

operable status. As a result, the ability of the 

APRM system and the RPS to mitigate any 

accident previously evaluated is not 

significantly affected. 

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 proposed changes do not alter the 

protection system designs, create new failure 

modes, or change any modes of operation. 

The proposed change does not involve a 

physical alteration of the plant; 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 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 margin of safety provided by the 

APRM system and the RPS is to ensure that 

the reactor is shut down automatically when 

plant parameters exceed the setpoints for the 

system. Any reduction in the margin of safety 

resulting from the adjustment of the APRM 

channels while continuing operation is 

considered to be offset by delaying a plant 

shutdown (i.e., a transient) for a short time 

with the APRM system, the primary 

indication of core power and an input to the 

RPS, not calibrated. Additionally, the short 

time period required for adjustment is 

consistent with the time allowed by TS to 

restore the core power distribution 

parameters to within limits and is acceptable 

based on the low probability of a transient or 

design basis accident occurring 

simultaneously with inaccurate APRM 

channels. 

The proposed changes do not alter 

setpoints or limits established or assumed by 

the accident analyses. The TS continue to 

require operability of the RPS functions, 

which provide core protection for postulated 

reactivity insertion events occurring during 

power operating conditions consistent with 

the plant safety analyses. 

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 

requested amendments involve no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer, 

Associate General Counsel, Exelon 

Generation Company, LLC, 4300 

Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555. 

NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

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

County Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, 

LaSalle County, Illinois 

Date of amendment request: April 19, 

2018. A publicly-available version is in 

ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML18157A123. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendments would revise licenses 

and the technical specifications (TSs) as 

follows: 

• Division 3 Battery Surveillance 

Testing 

The proposed amendments would 

revise TS 3.8.4, ‘‘DC SourcesOperating,’’ and TS 3.8.6, ‘‘Battery 

Parameters,’’ by removing the Mode 

restrictions for performance of TS 

surveillance requirements (SRs) 3.8.4.3 

and 3.8.6.6 for the Division 3 direct 

current (DC) electrical power subsystem 

battery. The Division 3 DC electrical 

power subsystem feeds emergency DC 

loads associated with the high pressure 

core spray (HPCS) system. Surveillance 

Requirement 3.8.4.3 verifies that the 

battery capacity is adequate for the 

battery to perform its required 

functions. Surveillance Requirement 

3.8.6.6 verifies battery capacity is 

greater than or equal to (≥) 80 percent 

of the manufacturer’s rating when 

subjected to a performance discharge 

test (or a modified performance 

discharge test). The proposed 

amendments would remove these Mode 

restrictions for the Division 3 battery, 

allowing performance of SRs 3.8.4.3 and 

3.8.6.6 for the Division 3 battery during 

Mode 1 or 2, potentially minimizing 

impact on HPCS unavailability. 

Eliminating the requirement to perform 

SRs 3.8.4.3 and 3.8.6.6 only during 

Mode 3, 4, or 5 (hot shutdown, cold 

shutdown, or refueling conditions) will 

provide greater flexibility in scheduling 

Division 3 battery testing activities by 

allowing the testing to be performed 

during non-outage times. 

• High Pressure Core Spray Diesel 

Generator Surveillance Testing 

The proposed amendments would 

revise TS 3.8.1, ‘‘AC SourcesOperating,’’ by revising certain SRs 

pertaining to the Division 3 diesel 

generator (DG). The Division 3 DG is an 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 14, 2018 / Notices 40349 

independent source of onsite alternating 

current (AC) power dedicated to the 

HPCS system. The TSs currently 

prohibit performing the testing required 

by SRs 3.8.1.9, 3.8.1.10, 3.8.1.11, 

3.8.1.12, 3.8.1.13, 3.8.1.16, 3.8.1.17, and 

3.8.1.19, in Modes 1 or 2. The proposed 

amendments would remove these Mode 

restrictions and allow all eight of the 

identified SRs to be performed in any 

operating Mode for the Division 3 DG. 

The Mode restrictions will remain 

applicable to the other two safetyrelated (Division 1 and Division 2) DGs. 

The proposed change will provide 

greater flexibility in scheduling Division 

3 DG testing activities by allowing the 

testing to be performed during nonoutage times. Having a completely 

tested Division 3 DG available for the 

duration of a refueling outage will 

reduce the number of system realignments and operator workload 

during an outage. 

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 

analyzed? 

Response: No. 

The Division 3 HPCS DG electrical power 

subsystem and its associated emergency 

loads are accident mitigating features, not 

accident initiators. Therefore, the proposed 

TS changes to allow the performance of 

certain Division 3 AC Sources surveillance 

testing in any plant operating Mode will not 

significantly impact the probability of any 

previously evaluated accident. 

The design and function of plant 

equipment is not being modified by the 

proposed changes. Neither the battery test 

frequency nor the time that the TSs allow the 

HPCS system to be inoperable are being 

revised. Battery testing in accordance with 

the proposed TS changes will continue to 

verify that the Division 3 DC electrical power 

subsystem is capable of performing its 

required function of providing DC power to 

HPCS system equipment, consistent with the 

plant safety analyses. The battery testing will 

occur during a planned HPCS outage and 

therefore will not result in an increase in risk 

above the current work practices of planned 

HPCS system maintenance outages. Any risk 

associated with the testing of the Division 3 

battery will be bounded and addressed with 

the risk associated with the HPCS system 

outage. In addition, the HPCS system 

reliability and availability are monitored and 

evaluated in relationship to Maintenance 

Rule goals to ensure that total outage times 

do not degrade operational safety over time. 

Testing is limited to only one electrical 

division of equipment at a time to ensure that 

design basis requirements are met. Should a 

fault occur while testing the Division 3 

battery, there would be no significant impact 

on any accident consequences since the other 

two divisional DC electrical power 

subsystems and their associated emergency 

loads would be available to provide the 

minimum safety functions necessary to shut 

down the unit and maintain it in a safety 

shutdown condition. 

The Division 3 HPCS DG and its associated 

emergency loads are accident mitigating 

features, not accident initiators. Therefore, 

the proposed TS changes to allow the 

performance of Division 3 DG surveillance 

testing in any plant operating mode will not 

significantly impact the probability of any 

previously evaluated accident. 

The design of plant equipment is not being 

modified by the proposed changes. As such, 

the ability of the Division 3 DG to respond 

to a design basis accident will not be 

adversely impacted by the proposed changes. 

The proposed changes to the TS surveillance 

testing requirements for the Division 3 DG do 

not affect the operability requirements for the 

DG, as verification of such operability will 

continue to be performed as required. 

Continued verification of operability 

supports the capability of the Division 3 DG 

to perform its required function of providing 

emergency power to HPCS system 

equipment, consistent with the plant safety 

analyses. Limiting testing to only one DG at 

a time ensures that design basis requirements 

are met. Should a fault occur while testing 

the Division 3 DG, there would be no 

significant impact on any accident 

consequences since the other two divisional 

DGs and associated emergency loads would 

be available to provide the minimum safety 

functions necessary to shut down the unit 

and maintain it in a safe shutdown condition. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

result in 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. 

No changes are being made to the plant 

that would introduce any new accident 

causal mechanisms. Equipment will be 

operated in the same configuration with the 

exception of the plant operating mode in 

which the Division 3 battery and DG 

surveillance testing are conducted. 

Performance of these surveillance tests while 

online will continue to verify operability of 

the Division 3 battery and DG. The battery 

testing will potentially minimize the out-ofservice time for the HPCS system. The 

proposed amendments do not impact any 

plant systems that are accident initiators and 

do not adversely impact any accident 

mitigating systems. 

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 changes do not involve a 

significant reduction in the margin of safety. 

Margin of safety is related to confidence in 

the ability of the fission product barriers (i.e., 

fuel cladding, reactor coolant system, and 

primary containment) to perform their design 

functions during and following postulated 

accidents. The proposed changes to the TS 

surveillance testing requirements for the 

Division 3 AC Sources and DG do not affect 

the operability requirements, as verification 

of such operability will continue to be 

performed as required. Continued 

verification of operability supports the 

capability of the Division 3 AC Sources and 

DG to perform the required functions of 

providing emergency power to HPCS system 

equipment, consistent with the plant safety 

analyses. 

Consequently, the performance of the 

fission product barriers will not be adversely 

impacted by implementation of the proposed 

amendments. In addition, the proposed 

changes do not alter setpoints or limits 

established or assumed by the accident 

analysis. 

The additional online unavailability of the 

HPCS system does not constitute a significant 

reduction in a margin of safety. The battery 

testing will be performed when the HPCS 

system is already out of service for a planned 

system outage and therefore the testing will 

not result in an increase in risk above the 

current work practices of planned system 

maintenance outages, as currently allowed by 

the TS. 

Therefore, the proposed changes do not 

involve a significant reduction in a margin of 

safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer, 

Associate General Counsel, Exelon 

Generation Company, LLC, 4300 

Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555. 

NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona. 

Florida Power and 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: 

December 5, 2014; as supplemented by 

letters dated July 8 and July 22, 2016; 

February 25, 2017; and February 1, 

March 15, and June 7, 2018. Publiclyavailable versions are in ADAMS under 

Accession Nos. ML14353A016, 

ML16193A659, ML16208A061, 

ML17058A181, ML18032A614, 

ML18074A116, and ML18158A228, 

respectively. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendments would modify the 

Technical Specification (TS) 

requirements related to Completion 

Times for Required Actions to provide 

the option to calculate longer, riskVerDate Sep<11>2014 19:13 Aug 13, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00138 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14AUN1.SGM 14AUN1

amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
40350 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 14, 2018 / Notices 

informed Completion Times. The 

amendments would also add a new 

program, the Risk Informed Completion 

Time (RICT) Program, to TS Section 6.0, 

‘‘Administrative Controls.’’ The 

methodology for using the Risk 

Informed Completion Time Program is 

described in Nuclear Energy Institute 

(NEI) topical report NEI 06–09, ‘‘RiskInformed Technical Specifications 

Initiative 4b, Risk-Managed Technical 

Specifications (RMTS) Guidelines,’’ 

Revision 0–A (ADAMS Accession No. 

ML12286A322), which was approved by 

the NRC on May 17, 2007. The license 

amendment request was originally 

noticed in the Federal Register on 

March 17, 2015 (80 FR 13908). The 

licensee originally proposed to adopt, 

with plant specific variations, Technical 

Specifications Task Force (TSTF) 

Traveler TSTF–505, Revision 1, 

‘‘Provide Risk-Informed Extended 

Completion Times—RITSTF [Risk 

Informed TSTF] Initiative 4b’’ 

(Accession No. ML111650552). By letter 

dated November 15, 2016 (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML16281A021), the NRC 

staff informed the TSTF of its decision 

to suspend NRC approval of TSTF–505, 

Revision 1, because of concerns 

identified during the review of plantspecific license amendment requests for 

adoption of the traveler. The NRC staff’s 

letter also stated that it would continue 

reviewing applications already received 

and site-specific proposals to address 

the staff’s concerns. Although the scope 

of the amendment request has not 

changed, the basis for the amendments 

will no longer rely on TSTF–505. The 

notice is being reissued in its entirety to 

include the description of the 

amendment request and proposed no 

significant hazards consideration 

determination. 

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 permits the 

extension of Completion Times provided the 

associated risk is assessed and managed in 

accordance with the NRC[-]approved Risk 

Informed Completion Time Program. The 

proposed change does not involve a 

significant increase in the probability of an 

accident previously evaluated because the 

change involves no change to the plant or its 

modes of operation. The proposed change 

does not increase the consequences of an 

accident because the design-basis mitigation 

function of the affected systems is not 

changed and the consequences of an accident 

[occurring] during the extended Completion 

Time are no different from those [occurring] 

during the existing Completion Time. 

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 change the 

design, configuration, or method of operation 

of the plant. The proposed change does not 

involve a physical alteration of the plant (no 

new or different kind of 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 permits the 

extension of Completion Times provided risk 

is assessed and managed in accordance with 

the NRC[-]approved Risk Informed 

Completion Time Program. The proposed 

change implements a risk-informed 

configuration management program to assure 

that adequate margins of safety are 

maintained. Application of these new 

specifications and the configuration 

management program considers cumulative 

effects of multiple systems or components 

being out of service and does so more 

effectively than the current TS. 

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, Florida 

33408–0420. 

NRC Acting Branch Chief: Booma 

Venkataraman. 

Northern States Power Company 

(NSPM), Docket Nos. 50–282 and 50– 

306, Prairie Island Nuclear Generating 

Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, (PINGP) 

Goodhue County, Minnesota 

Date of amendment request: May 18, 

2018. A publicly-available version is in 

ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML18138A402. 

Brief description of amendment 

request: The proposed amendments 

would modify paragraph 2.C(4)(c) of the 

PINGP Renewed Facility Operating 

Licenses (RFOLs) which requires the 

implementation of modification to 

PINGP as described in Attachment S, 

Table S–2, of the PINGP license 

amendment request (LAR) dated 

December 14, 2016, to adopt the 

National Fire Protection Association 

Standard (NFPA) 805. Specifically, 

NSPM is requesting the deletion of five 

modifications from Table S–2 of the 

December 14, 2016, LAR. 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is presented 

below: 

1. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed amendment adds a reference 

to this letter to the PINGP, Units 1 and 2, 

RFOLs. The changes encompassed by this 

proposed amendment are to delete five 

modifications that are no longer needed from 

a risk perspective. The revision is based on 

five changes to Table S–2 proposed in this 

license amendment request (LAR). The 

proposed changes have been reviewed in the 

fire Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) 

model approved as part of PINGP’s transition 

to NFPA 805 and the results were found to 

be acceptable. Fire protection defense in 

depth and adequate safety margins are 

maintained with the changes proposed in 

this LAR. 

The proposed change does not adversely 

affect accident initiators or precursors, nor 

alter the design assumptions, conditions, and 

configuration of the facility or the manner in 

which the plant is operated and maintained. 

The proposed changes do not adversely affect 

the ability of structures, systems and 

components (SSCs) to perform their intended 

safety function to mitigate the consequences 

of an initiating event within the assumed 

acceptance limits. The proposed change does 

not increase the probability or consequences 

of an accident as verified by the risk analysis 

performed. 

Therefore, the proposed change 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 previously evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed amendment adds a reference 

to this letter to the PINGP, Units 1 and 2, 

RFOLs. The changes encompassed by this 

proposed amendment are to delete five 

modifications that are no longer needed from 

a risk perspective. The revision is based on 

five changes to Table S–2 proposed in this 

LAR. The proposed changes have been 

reviewed in the fire PRA model approved as 

part of PINGP’s transition to NFPA 805 and 

the results were found to be acceptable. Fire 

protection defense in depth and adequate 

safety margins are maintained with the 

changes proposed in this LAR. 

The proposed changes will not result in 

any new or different kinds of accident from 

that previously evaluated because it does not 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 14, 2018 / Notices 40351 

change any precursors or equipment that is 

previously credited for accident mitigation. 

Therefore, the proposed changes do not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed amendment adds a reference 

to this letter to the PINGP, Units 1 and 2, 

RFOLs. The changes encompassed by this 

proposed amendment are to delete five 

modifications that are no longer needed from 

a risk perspective. The revision is based on 

five changes to Table S–2 proposed in this 

LAR. The proposed changes have been 

reviewed in the fire PRA model approved as 

part of PINGP’s transition to NFPA 805 and 

the results were found to be acceptable. Fire 

protection defense in depth and adequate 

safety margins are maintained with the 

changes proposed in this LAR. 

The proposed change does not adversely 

affect any SSCs credited for accident 

mitigation. The margins of safety previously 

evaluated are not significantly affected. The 

change does not affect the design function or 

capabilities of any plant systems. 

Therefore, the proposed changes will not 

impact or reduce any margins of safety 

previously evaluated. 

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. 

NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona. 

Northern States Power Company, 

Docket Nos. 50–282 and 50–306, Prairie 

Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Unit 

Nos. 1 and 2, (PINGP) Goodhue County, 

Minnesota 

Date of amendment request: June 26, 

2018. A publicly-available version is in 

ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML18177A450. 

Brief description of amendment 

request: The proposed amendments 

would revise PINGP Technical 

Specifications (TSs) by eliminating 

second Completion Times limiting time 

from discovery of failure to meet a 

limiting condition for operation (LCO). 

These changes are consistent with NRCapproved Technical Specifications Task 

Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF–439, 

Revision 2, ‘‘Eliminate Second 

Completion Times Limiting Time from 

Discovery of Failure to Meet an LCO.’’ 

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 eliminates second 

Completion Times from the Technical 

Specifications. Completion Times are not an 

initiator to any accident previously 

evaluated. As a result, the probability of an 

accident previously evaluated is not affected. 

The consequences of an accident during the 

revised Completion Time are no different 

than the consequences of the same accident 

during the existing Completion Times. As a 

result, the consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated are not affected by this 

change. The proposed change does not alter 

or prevent the ability of SSCs [structures, 

systems, and components] from performing 

their intended function to mitigate the 

consequences of an initiating event within 

the assumed acceptance limits. The proposed 

change does not affect the source term, 

containment isolation, or radiological release 

assumptions used in evaluating the 

radiological consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. Further, the proposed 

change does not increase the types or 

amounts of radioactive effluent that may be 

released offsite nor significantly increase 

individual or cumulative occupational/ 

public radiation exposures. The proposed 

change is consistent with 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 amendment create 

the possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any 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) or a change in the methods 

governing normal plant operation. The 

proposed change does not alter any 

assumptions made in the safety analysis. 

Therefore, the proposed changes do not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change to delete the second 

Completion Time does not alter the manner 

in which safety limits, limiting safety system 

settings, or limiting conditions for operation 

are determined. The safety analysis 

acceptance criteria are not affected by this 

change. The proposed change will not result 

in plant operation in a configuration outside 

of 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: Peter M. Glass, 

Assistant General Counsel, Xcel Energy 

Services, Inc., 414 Nicollet Mall, 

Minneapolis, MN 55401. 

NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona. 

PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50–354, 

Hope Creek Generating Station, Salem 

County, New Jersey 

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. 

ML18183A343. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendments would revise technical 

specification (TS) requirements in 

Section 3/4.0, ‘‘Applicability,’’ 

regarding Limiting Condition for 

Operation (LCO) and Surveillance 

Requirement (SR) usage. These changes 

are consistent with NRC-approved 

Technical Specifications Task Force 

(TSTF) Traveler TSTF–529, ‘‘Clarify Use 

and Application Rules.’’ 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is presented 

below: 

1. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed changes to LCO 3.0.4 have 

no effect on the requirement for systems to 

be Operable and have no effect on the 

application of TS actions. The proposed 

change to SR 4.0.3 states that the allowance 

may only be used when there is a reasonable 

expectation the surveillance will be met 

when performed. Since the proposed changes 

do not significantly affect system Operability, 

the proposed changes will have no 

significant effect on the initiating events for 

accidents previously evaluated and will have 

no significant effect on the ability of the 

systems to mitigate accidents previously 

evaluated. 

Therefore, it is concluded that this change 

does not involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed change create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
40352 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 14, 2018 / Notices 

The proposed change to the TS usage rules 

does not affect the design or function of any 

plant systems. The proposed change does not 

change the Operability requirements for plant 

systems or the actions taken when plant 

systems are not operable. 

Therefore, it is concluded that this change 

does not create the possibility of a new or 

different kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change clarifies the 

application of LCO 3.0.4 and does not result 

in changes in plant operation. SR 4.0.3 is 

revised to allow application of SR 4.0.3 when 

an SR has not been previously performed and 

there is reasonable expectation that the SR 

will be met when performed. This expands 

the use of SR 4.0.3 while ensuring the 

affected system is capable of performing its 

safety function. As a result, plant safety is 

either improved or unaffected. 

Therefore, it is concluded that this change 

does not involve a significant reduction in a 

margin of safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Ryan K. Lighty, 

Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, 1111 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, 

DC 20004–2541. 

NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna. 

United States Maritime Administration 

(MARAD), Docket No. 50–238, Nuclear 

Ship SAVANNAH (NSS), Baltimore, 

Maryland 

Date of amendment request: June 19, 

2018. A publically-available version is 

in ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML18173A128. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendment would revise 

Technical Specification (TS) Section 

2.0, ‘‘Radioactive Releases,’’ from its 

original custom form to industry typical 

10 CFR 50.36a TSs for effluents from 

nuclear power reactors. 

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 is 

administrative and does not involve 

modification of any plant equipment or affect 

basic plant operation. The proposed 

amendment revises all of Technical 

Specification Section 2.0, Radioactive 

Releases from its original custom form to 

typical 10 CFR 50.36a, Technical 

Specifications on effluents from nuclear 

power reactors that are consistent with those 

of plants in advanced stages of 

decommissioning. The proposed amendment 

also deletes three Technical Specifications 

whose requirements are included in STS– 

005–020, Offsite Dose Calculation Manual 

and therefore, are no longer necessary as 

standalone Technical Specifications. These 

three Technical Specifications include one 

associated with the annual report, one 

associated with area monitoring 

thermoluminescent dosimeters and one 

associated with environmental monitoring. 

The NSS’s reactor is not operational and 

the level of radioactivity in the NSS has 

significantly decreased from the levels that 

existed when the final shutdown was 

completed on November 8, 1970. No aspect 

of any of the proposed changes is an initiator 

of any accident previously evaluated. 

Consequently, the probability of an accident 

previously evaluated is not significantly 

increased. 

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. 

All of the proposed changes are 

administrative and do not involve physical 

alteration of plant equipment that was not 

previously allowed by Technical 

Specifications. The proposed amendment 

revises all of Technical Specification Section 

2.0, Radioactive Releases from its original 

custom form to typical 10 CFR 50.36a, 

Technical Specifications on effluents from 

nuclear power reactors that are consistent 

with those of plants in advanced stages of 

decommissioning. The proposed amendment 

also deletes three Technical Specifications 

whose requirements are included in STS– 

005–020, Offsite Dose Calculation Manual 

and therefore, are no longer necessary as 

standalone Technical Specifications. These 

three Technical Specifications include one 

associated with the annual report, one 

associated with area monitoring 

thermoluminescent dosimeters and one 

associated with environmental monitoring. 

These proposed changes do not change the 

method by which any safety-related system 

performs its function given that all primary, 

auxiliary and secondary systems are 

deactivated, disabled and perform no active 

function. No new or different types of 

equipment will be installed, and the basic 

operation of installed equipment is 

unchanged. The methods governing plant 

operation and testing remain consistent with 

current safety analysis assumptions. 

Therefore, the proposed changes do not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any previously 

evaluated. 

3. Does the change involve a significant 

reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

All of the proposed changes are 

administrative in nature. The proposed 

amendment revises all of Technical 

Specification Section 2.0, Radioactive 

Releases from its original custom form to 

typical 10 CFR 50.36a, Technical 

Specifications on effluents from nuclear 

power reactors that are consistent with those 

of plants in advanced stages of 

decommissioning. The proposed amendment 

also deletes three Technical Specifications 

whose requirements are included in STS– 

005–020, Offsite Dose Calculation Manual 

and therefore, are no longer necessary as 

standalone Technical Specifications. These 

three Technical Specifications include one 

associated with the annual report, one 

associated with area monitoring 

thermoluminescent dosimeters and one 

associated with environmental monitoring. 

No margins of safety exist that are relevant 

to the ship’s defueled and partially 

dismantled reactor. As such, there are no 

changes being made to safety analysis 

assumptions, safety limits or safety system 

settings that would adversely affect plant 

safety as a result of the proposed changes. 

As such, there are no changes being made 

to safety analysis assumptions, safety limits 

or safety system settings that would 

adversely affect plant safety or are relevant to 

the ship’s defueled and partially dismantled 

reactor as a result of the proposed changes. 

Therefore, the proposed changes do not 

involve a significant reduction in a margin of 

safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Advisor for licensee: Erhard W. 

Koehler, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Maritime 

Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave. 

SE, Washington, DC 20590. 

NRC Branch Chief: Bruce Watson. 

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 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. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 14, 2018 / Notices 40353 

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. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC and 

Exelon FitzPatrick, LLC, Docket No. 50– 

333, James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power 

Plant, Oswego County, New York 

Date of amendment request: May 17, 

2018. A publicly-available version is in 

ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML18137A418. 

Brief description of amendment 

request: The proposed amendment 

would revise Technical Specifications 

2.1.1, ‘‘Reactor Core SLs [safety limits]’’ 

to change Cycle 24 Safety Limit 

Minimum Critical Power Ratio 

(SLMCPR) numeric values resulting 

from SLMCPR analyses performed. 

Date of publication of individual 

notice in Federal Register: July 13, 

2018 (83 FR 32691). 

Expiration date of individual notice: 

August 13, 2018 (public comments); 

September 11, 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. 

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. 

DTE Electric Company, Docket No. 50– 

341, Fermi 2, Monroe County, Michigan 

Date of amendment request: July 17, 

2017, as supplemented by letter dated 

January 8, 2018. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revised Fermi 2 Technical 

Specification (TS) 3.7.2, ‘‘Emergency 

Equipment Cooling Water (EECW)/ 

Emergency Equipment Service Water 

(EESW) System and Ultimate Heat Sink 

(UHS).’’ Specifically, the amendment 

revised TS 3.7.2 conditions and 

surveillance requirements to reflect a 

proposed change to the design of the 

two redundant cross-tie lines that are 

part of the UHS. 

Date of issuance: July 17, 2018. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 120 days of issuance. 

Amendment No.: 209. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML18144A064; 

documents related to this amendment 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendment. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. NPF–43: Amendment revised the 

Renewed Facility Operating License and 

Technical Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: September 26, 2017 (82 FR 

44850). The supplemental letter dated 

January 8, 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 17, 2018. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50– 

382, Waterford Steam Electric Station, 

Unit No. 3, St. Charles Parish, Louisiana 

Date of amendment request: 

November 28, 2017, as supplemented by 

letters dated December 7, 2017, and May 

8, 2018. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revised Section 4.3.3 of the 

Updated Final Safety Analysis Report to 

indicate that the RAPTOR–M3G code is 

used for reactor vessel fluence 

calculations. The use of the RAPTOR– 

M3G code meets the criteria present in 

Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.190, 

‘‘Calculational and Dosimetry Methods 

for Determining Pressure Vessel 

Neutron Fluence,’’ dated March 2001. 

Date of issuance: July 23, 2018. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 30 

days from the date of issuance. 

Amendment No.: 252. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML18180A298; 

documents related to this amendment 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendment. 

Facility Operating License No. NPF– 

38: The amendment revised the 

Updated Final Safety Analysis Report. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: January 16, 2018 (83 FR 

2228). The supplement dated May 8, 

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 23, 2018. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC and 

Exelon FitzPatrick, LLC, Docket No. 50– 

333, James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power 

Plant, Oswego County, New York 

Date of amendment request: 

September 14, 2017, as supplemented 

by letter dated March 15, 2018. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revised Technical 

Specification (TS) 3.6.4.1, ‘‘Secondary 

Containment,’’ Surveillance 

Requirement (SR) 3.6.4.1.3. The SR is 

revised to address conditions during 

which the secondary containment 

pressure may not meet the SR pressure 

requirements. 

Date of issuance: July 19, 2018. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance, and shall be implemented 

within 60 days. 

Amendment No.: 319. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML18180A372; 

documents related to this amendment 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendment. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. DPR–59: The amendment revised 

the Renewed Facility Operating License 

and TSs. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
40354 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 14, 2018 / Notices 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: November 7, 2017 (82 FR 

51650). The supplemental letter dated 

March 15, 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 19, 2018. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating 

Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50–334 

and 50–412, Beaver Valley Power 

Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Beaver 

County, Pennsylvania 

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating 

Company, et al., Docket No. 50–346, 

Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 

No. 1, Ottawa County, Ohio 

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating 

Company, et al., Docket No. 50–440, 

Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No. 1, 

Lake County, Ohio 

Date of amendment request: August 

11, 2017. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments changed the respective 

technical specifications (TSs) as follows: 

The changes revised Section 1.3, 

‘‘Completion Times,’’ and Section 3.0, 

‘‘LCO Applicability’’ of the TSs to 

clarify the use and application of the TS 

usage rules, as described below: 

• Section 1.3 is revised to clarify 

‘‘discovery’’ and to discuss exceptions 

to starting the Completion Time at 

condition entry. 

• Limiting Condition for Operation 

(LCO) 3.0.4.b is revised to clarify that 

LCO 3.0.4.a, LCO 3.0.4.b, and LCO 

3.0.4.c are independent options. 

• Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.0.3 

is revised to allow application of SR 

3.0.3 when an SR has not been 

previously performed and to clarify the 

application of SR 3.0.3. 

The changes to the TSs are consistent 

with Technical Specifications Task 

Force (TSTF–529), Revision 4, ‘‘Clarify 

Use and Application Rules.’’ The NRC 

staff-issued safety evaluation for TSTF– 

529 was provided to the Technical 

Specifications Task Force in a letter 

dated April 21, 2016. This review 

included a review of the NRC staff’s 

evaluation, as well as the information 

provided in TSTF–529. 

Date of issuance: July 30, 2018. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 90 days from the date of 

issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: 303/192 (Beaver 

Valley Unit Nos. 1 and 2); 297 (DavisBesse); and 182 (Perry). A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML18179A467; 

documents related to these amendments 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendments. 

Facility Operating License Nos. DPR– 

66, NPF–73, NPF–3, and NPF–58: The 

amendments revised the Licenses and 

Technical Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: November 7, 2017 (82 FR 

51651). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated July 30, 2018. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 

Docket Nos. 52–025 and 52–026, Vogtle 

Electric Generating Plant, Unit Nos. 3 

and 4, Burke County, Georgia 

Date of amendment request: January 

31, 2018. 

Description of amendment: The 

amendments included changes to 

Combined License Appendix A, 

Technical Specifications (TSs) related to 

fuel management. Specifically, the 

amendments proposed improvements to 

the TSs for the Rod Position Indication, 

the Control Rod Drive Mechanism, 

Power Range Neutron Flux Channels 

and the Mechanical Shim 

Augmentation. 

Date of issuance: July 19, 2018. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 30 days of issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: 134 (Unit 3) and 

133 (Unit 4). A publicly-available 

version is in ADAMS under Accession 

No. ML18082B374; documents related 

to this amendment are listed in the 

Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 

amendment. 

Facility Combined Licenses No. NPF– 

91 and NPF–92: Amendments revised 

the Facility Combined Licenses. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: February 27, 2018 (83 FR 

8509). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in the 

Safety Evaluation dated July 19, 2018. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 

Inc., Docket Nos. 50–348 and 50–364, 

Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant (Farley), 

Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Houston County, 

Alabama 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 

Inc., Docket Nos. 50–321 and 50–366, 

Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant (Hatch), 

Unit Nos. 1 and 2, City of Dalton, 

Georgia 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 

Inc., (SNC) Docket Nos. 50–424, 50–425, 

52–025, 52–026, Vogtle Electric 

Generating Plant (Vogtle), Unit Nos. 1, 

2, 3, and 4, Burke County, Georgia 

Date of amendment request: August 

30, 2017. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments relocated the emergency 

operations facility for the eight units of 

the SNC nuclear fleet from the SNC 

corporate headquarters in Birmingham, 

Alabama, to a new location 1.3 miles 

away. 

Date of issuance: July 26, 2018. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 180 

days of issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: 220 (Farley, Unit 

1), 217 (Farley, Unit 2), 291 (Hatch, Unit 

1), 236 (Hatch, Unit 2), 195 (Vogtle, Unit 

1), 178 (Vogtle, Unit 2), 136 (Vogtle, 

Unit 3), and 135 (Vogtle, Unit 4). A 

publicly-available version is in ADAMS 

under Accession No. ML18183A073; 

documents related to these amendments 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendments. 

Facility Operating License Nos. NPF– 

2. NPF–8, DPR–57, NPF–5, NPF–68, 

NPF–81, NPF–91, and NPF–92: 

Amendments revised the Facility 

Operating Licenses. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: October 10, 2017 (82 FR 

47038). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated July 26, 2018. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

STP Nuclear Operating Company, 

Docket Nos. 50–498 and 50–499, South 

Texas Project, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, 

Matagorda County, Texas 

Date of amendment request: July 31, 

2017, as supplemented by letter dated 

February 12, 2018. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendments revised the South Texas 

Project Electric Generating Station 

Emergency Plan to change the 

emergency response organization (ERO) 

staffing composition and increase the 

staff augmentation times for certain ERO 

positions from the time of declaration of 

an Alert or higher emergency 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 14, 2018 / Notices 40355 

classification level. The changes also 

include formatting, clarification, and 

editorial modifications. 

Date of issuance: July 19, 2018. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 9 months from the date of 

issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: 214 (Unit 1) and 

200 (Unit 2). A publicly-available 

version is in ADAMS under Accession 

No. ML18159A212; documents related 

to these amendments are listed in the 

Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 

amendments. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. NPF–76 and NPF–80: The 

amendments revised the Site Emergency 

Plan. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: September 12, 2017 (82 FR 

42855). The supplemental letter dated 

February 12, 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 19, 2018. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Virginia Electric and Power Company, 

Docket Nos. 50–338 and 50–339, North 

Anna Power Station, Units Nos. 1 and 

2, Louisa County, Virginia 

Date of amendment request: May 2, 

2017, as supplemented by letters dated 

July 19, 2017, and January 31, 2018. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments revised North Anna Power 

Station (NAPS) Technical Specification 

(TS) 3.7.18, ‘‘Spent Fuel Pool Storage,’’ 

and TS 4.3.1, ‘‘Criticality,’’ to allow the 

storage of fuel assemblies with a 

maximum enrichment of up to 5.0 

weight percent uranium 235 in the 

NAPS spent fuel pool storage racks and 

the New Fuel Storage Area. The 

amendments further revised the 

allowable fuel assembly parameters and 

fuel storage patterns in the spent fuel 

pool. 

Date of issuance: July 27, 2018. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 180 days of issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: 279 (Unit 1) and 

262 (Unit 2). A publicly-available 

version is in ADAMS under Accession 

No. ML18180A197; documents related 

to these amendments are listed in the 

Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 

amendments. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. NPF–4 and NPF–7: Amendments 

revised the Renewed Facility Operating 

Licenses and Technical Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: March 6, 2018 (83 FR 9553). 

The supplemental letters dated July 19, 

2017, and 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 July 27, 2018. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 7th day 

of August, 2018. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Kathryn M. Brock, 

Deputy Director, Division of Operating 

Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation. 

[FR Doc. 2018–17132 Filed 8–13–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket No. 50–57; NRC–2018–0166] 

Termination of Operating License for 

the Buffalo Materials Research Center 

Reactor 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: License termination; issuance. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is providing notice 

of the termination of Facility Operating 

License No. R–77 for the Buffalo 

Materials Research Center (BMRC). The 

NRC has terminated the license of the 

decommissioned BMRC at the State 

University of New York at Buffalo (UB 

or the licensee) facility in Buffalo, New 

York, and has released the site for 

unrestricted use. 

DATES: Notice of termination of Facility 

Operating License No. R–77 given on 

August 14, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID 

NRC–2018–0166 when contacting the 

NRC about the availability of 

information regarding this document. 

You may obtain publicly-available 

information related to this document 

using any of the following methods: 

• Federal Rulemaking website: Go to 

https://www.regulations.gov and search 

for Docket ID NRC–2018–0166. Address 

questions about NRC dockets to Jennifer 

Borges; telephone: 301–287–9127; 

email: Jennifer.Borges@nrc.gov. For 

technical questions, contact the 

individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

document. 

• NRC’s Agencywide Documents 

Access and Management System 

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

ADAMS Public Documents collection at 

https://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 in this 

document (if that document is available 

in ADAMS) is provided the first time 

that a document is referenced. 

• NRC’s PDR: You may examine and 

purchase copies of public documents at 

the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One 

White Flint North, 11555 Rockville 

Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kim 

Conway, Office of Nuclear Material 

Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington 

D.C. 20555–0001; telephone: 301–415– 

1335; email: Kimberly.Conway@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The BMRC reactor in Buffalo, New 

York, was located on the south campus 

of UB. The BMRC reactor began 

operation in 1961 and was shut down 

on June 23, 1994. On June 6, 1997, the 

license was amended to possession 

only. 

By letter dated February 17, 2012 

(ADAMS Package No. ML120540187), as 

supplemented by letters dated June 20, 

2012 (ADAMS Accession No. 

ML121870132), September 21, 2012 

(ADAMS Accession No. ML122780454), 

and October 15, 2012 (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML12297A237), the 

licensee submitted a request to the NRC 

to approve a license amendment and a 

revised decommissioning plan (DP) for 

the BMRC reactor. The NRC approved 

the UB revised DP by Amendment No. 

27, dated November 5, 2012 (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML12290A694). 

In the Safety Evaluation Report 

related to the DP approval (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML12286A352), the NRC 

staff determined that the revised Final 

Status Survey (FSS) Plan for the BMRC 

(ADAMS Accession No. ML12278A373) 

was consistent with the guidance and 

methodology in NUREG–1575, ‘‘MultiAgency Radiation Survey and Site 

Investigation Manual (MARSSIM),’’ and 

NUREG–1757, ‘‘Consolidated 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1