Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 11, 2018 / Notices 45981 

October 11, 2018. Comments received 

after this date will be considered, if it 

is practical to do so, but the 

Commission is able to ensure 

consideration only for comments 

received on or before this date. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by any of the following methods (unless 

this document describes a different 

method for submitting comments on a 

specified subject): 

• Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and search 

for Docket ID NRC–2018–0137. Address 

questions about NRC dockets to Jennifer 

Borges; telephone: 301–287–9127; 

email: Jennifer.Borges@nrc.gov. For 

technical questions, contact the 

individuals listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

document. 

• Mail comments to: May Ma, Office 

of Administration, Mail Stop: TWFN– 

7A–86, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 

0001. 

For additional direction on accessing 

information and submitting comments, 

see ‘‘Obtaining Information and 

Submitting Comments’’ in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Blake Purnell, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation, telephone: 301–415–1380, 

email: blake.purnell@nrc.gov and 

Stephen Burton, Office of Nuclear 

Regulatory Research, telephone: 301– 

415–7000, email: Stephen.Burton@

nrc.gov. Both are staff of the U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Obtaining Information and 

Submitting Comments 

A. Obtaining Information 

Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2018– 

0137 when contacting the NRC about 

the availability of information regarding 

this action. You may obtain publicallyavailable 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–2018–0137. 

• 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 draft regulatory guide is 

electronically available in ADAMS 

under Accession No. ML16124A200. 

• 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– 

0137 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 enters 

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 submissions into 

ADAMS. 

II. Discussion 

On July 5, 2018, the NRC solicited 

comments on draft regulatory guide 

(DG) DG–1351, ‘‘Dispositioning of 

Technical Specifications that are 

Insufficient to Ensure Plant Safety.’’ The 

public comment period was originally 

scheduled to close on September 4, 

2018. The NRC received a request from 

stakeholders to extend the public 

comment period by 30 days. The NRC 

has agreed to the request and decided to 

reopen the public comment period until 

October 11, 2018, to allow more time for 

members of the public to develop and 

submit their comments. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 6th day 

of September 2018. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Thomas H. Boyce, 

Chief, Regulatory Guidance and Generic 

Issues Branch, Division of Engineering, Office 

of Nuclear Regulatory Research. 

[FR Doc. 2018–19677 Filed 9–10–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2018–0188] 

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 August 14 

to August 27, 2018. The last biweekly 

notice was published on August 28, 

2018. 

DATES: Comments must be filed by 

October 11, 2018. A request for a 

hearing must be filed by November 13, 

2018. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by any of the following methods (unless 

this document describes a different 

method for submitting comments on a 

specific subject): 

• Federal Rulemaking website: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and search 

for Docket ID NRC–2018–0188. Address 

questions about NRC dockets to Jennifer 

Borges; telephone: 301–287–9127; 

email: Jennifer.Borges@nrc.gov. For 

technical questions, contact the 

individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

document. 

• Mail comments to: May Ma, Office 

of Administration, Mail Stop: TWFN–7– 

A60M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 

0001. 

For additional direction on obtaining 

information and submitting comments, 

see ‘‘Obtaining Information and 

Submitting Comments’’ in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
45982 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 11, 2018 / Notices 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Beverly Clayton, Office of Nuclear 

Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 

20555–0001; telephone: 301–415–3475, 

email: Beverly.Clayton@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Obtaining Information and 

Submitting Comments 

A. Obtaining Information 

Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2018– 

0188 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–2018–0188. 

• 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– 

0188 facility name, unit number(s), 

plant docket number, application date, 

and subject in your comment 

submission. 

The NRC cautions you not to include 

identifying or contact information that 

you do not want to be publicly 

disclosed in your comment submission. 

The NRC will post all comment 

submissions at http://

www.regulations.gov as well as enter the 

comment submissions into ADAMS. 

The NRC does not routinely edit 

comment submissions to remove 

identifying or contact information. 

If you are requesting or aggregating 

comments from other persons for 

submission to the NRC, then you should 

inform those persons not to include 

identifying or contact information that 

they do not want to be publicly 

disclosed in their comment submission. 

Your request should state that the NRC 

does not routinely edit comment 

submissions to remove such information 

before making the comment 

submissions available to the public or 

entering the comment into ADAMS. 

II. Notice of Consideration of Issuance 

of Amendments to Facility Operating 

Licenses and Combined Licenses and 

Proposed No Significant Hazards 

Consideration Determination 

The Commission has made a 

proposed determination that the 

following amendment requests involve 

no significant hazards consideration. 

Under the Commission’s regulations in 

section 50.92 of title 10 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (10 CFR), this 

means that operation of the facility in 

accordance with the proposed 

amendment would not (1) involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated, or (2) create the possibility of 

a new or different kind of accident from 

any accident previously evaluated; or 

(3) involve a significant reduction in a 

margin of safety. The basis for this 

proposed determination for each 

amendment request is shown below. 

The Commission is seeking public 

comments on this proposed 

determination. Any comments received 

within 30 days after the date of 

publication of this notice will be 

considered in making any final 

determination. 

Normally, the Commission will not 

issue the amendment until the 

expiration of 60 days after the date of 

publication of this notice. The 

Commission may issue the license 

amendment before expiration of the 60- 

day period provided that its final 

determination is that the amendment 

involves no significant hazards 

consideration. In addition, the 

Commission may issue the amendment 

prior to the expiration of the 30-day 

comment period if circumstances 

change during the 30-day comment 

period such that failure to act in a 

timely way would result, for example in 

derating or shutdown of the facility. If 

the Commission takes action prior to the 

expiration of either the comment period 

or the notice period, it will publish in 

the Federal Register a notice of 

issuance. If the Commission makes a 

final no significant hazards 

consideration determination, any 

hearing will take place after issuance. 

The Commission expects that the need 

to take this action will occur very 

infrequently. 

A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing 

and Petition for Leave To Intervene 

Within 60 days after the date of 

publication of this notice, any persons 

(petitioner) whose interest may be 

affected by this action may file a request 

for a hearing and petition for leave to 

intervene (petition) with respect to the 

action. Petitions shall be filed in 

accordance with the Commission’s 

‘‘Agency Rules of Practice and 

Procedure’’ in 10 CFR part 2. Interested 

persons should consult a current copy 

of 10 CFR 2.309. The NRC’s regulations 

are accessible electronically from the 

NRC Library on the NRC’s website at 

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

the regulations is available at the NRC’s 

Public Document Room, located at One 

White Flint North, Room O1–F21, 11555 

Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, 

Maryland 20852. If a petition is filed, 

the Commission or a presiding officer 

will rule on the petition and, if 

appropriate, a notice of a hearing will be 

issued. 

As required by 10 CFR 2.309(d) the 

petition should specifically explain the 

reasons why intervention should be 

permitted with particular reference to 

the following general requirements for 

standing: (1) The name, address, and 

telephone number of the petitioner; (2) 

the nature of the petitioner’s right under 

the Act to be made a party to the 

proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of 

the petitioner’s property, financial, or 

other interest in the proceeding; and (4) 

the possible effect of any decision or 

order which may be entered in the 

proceeding on the petitioner’s interest. 

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f), 

the petition must also set forth the 

specific contentions which the 

petitioner seeks to have litigated in the 

proceeding. Each contention must 

consist of a specific statement of the 

issue of law or fact to be raised or 

controverted. In addition, the petitioner 

must provide a brief explanation of the 

bases for the contention and a concise 

statement of the alleged facts or expert 

opinion which support the contention 

and on which the petitioner intends to 

rely in proving the contention at the 

hearing. The petitioner must also 

provide references to the specific 

sources and documents on which the 

petitioner intends to rely to support its 

position on the issue. The petition must 

include sufficient information to show 

that a genuine dispute exists with the 

applicant or licensee on a material issue 

of law or fact. Contentions must be 

limited to matters within the scope of 

the proceeding. The contention must be 

one which, if proven, would entitle the 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 11, 2018 / Notices 45983 

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 

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


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
45984 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 11, 2018 / Notices 

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. 

Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50–397, 

Columbia Generating Station, Benton 

County, Washington 

Date of amendment request: June 12, 

2018, as supplemented by letter dated 

August 7, 2018. Publicly-available 

versions are in ADAMS under 

Accession Nos. ML18163A351 and 

ML18219C797, respectively. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendment proposes to clean-up 

the operating license and the technical 

specifications, including editorial 

changes and the removal of obsolete 

information. 

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 impacts of these administrative 

changes do not affect how plant equipment 

is operated or maintained. The proposed 

changes do not impact the intent or 

substance of the Operating License (OL) or 

Technical Specifications (TS). There are no 

changes to the physical plant or analytical 

methods. 

The proposed amendment involves 

administrative and editorial changes only. 

The proposed amendment does not impact 

any accident initiators, analyzed events, or 

assumed mitigation of accident or transient 

events. The proposed changes do not involve 

the addition or removal of any equipment or 

any design changes to the facility. The 

proposed changes do not affect any plant 

operations, design functions, or analyses that 

verify the capability of structures, systems, 

and components (SSCs) to perform a design 

function. The proposed changes do not 

change any of the accidents previously 

evaluated in the updated Final Safety 

Analysis Report (FSAR). The proposed 

changes do not affect SSCs, operating 

procedures, and administrative controls that 

have the function of preventing or mitigating 

any of these accidents. 

Therefore, the proposed changes do not 

represent a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed change create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed amendment only involves 

administrative and editorial changes. No 

actual plant equipment or accident analyses 

will be affected by the proposed changes. The 

proposed changes will not change the design 

function or operation of any SSCs. The 

proposed changes will not result in any new 

failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or 

accident initiators not considered in the 

design and licensing bases. The proposed 

amendment does not impact any accident 

initiators, analyzed events, or assumed 

mitigation of accident or transient events. 

Therefore, this proposed changes do not 

create the possibility of an accident of a new 

or different kind than previously evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed amendment only involves 

administrative and editorial changes. The 

proposed changes do not involve any 

physical changes to the plant or alter the 

manner in which plant systems are operated, 

maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. 

The proposed changes do 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 these 

changes. The proposed changes will not 

result in plant operation in a configuration 

outside the design basis. The proposed 

changes do not adversely affect systems that 

respond to safely shutdown the plant and to 

maintain the plant in a safe shutdown 

condition. 

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: William A. 

Horin, Esq., Winston & Strawn, 1700 K 

Street NW, Washington, DC 20006– 

3817. 

NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. 

Pascarelli. 

Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC and 

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 

Docket Nos. 50–003 and 50–247, Indian 

Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 1 

and 2 (IP1 and IP2), Westchester 

County, New York 

Date of amendment request: June 20, 

2018. A publicly-available version is in 

ADAMS under Package Accession No. 

ML18179A173. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendment would delete specific 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 11, 2018 / Notices 45985 

license conditions from the Indian Point 

Unit Nos. 1 and 2 (IP1 and IP2) facility 

operating licenses related to the terms 

and conditions of the decommissioning 

trust fund agreement. Specifically, the 

amendment would allow the provisions 

of 10 CFR 50.75(h), which specify the 

regulatory requirements for 

decommissioning trust funds, to apply 

to Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is presented 

below: 

1. Do the proposed amendments involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The requested changes delete License 

Conditions 6.(a) and 7 of the IP1 OL 

[Operating License] and License Conditions 

3.(a) and 4 of the IP2 OL, which pertain to 

the decommissioning trust agreements. 

This request involves changes that are 

administrative in nature. No actual plant 

equipment or accident analyses will be 

affected by the proposed changes. Therefore, 

the proposed change does not involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated. 

2. Do the proposed amendments create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

This request involves administrative 

changes to the IP1 and IP2 OLs relating to the 

terms and conditions of the decommissioning 

trust agreements. The proposed changes will 

be consistent with the NRC’s regulations at 

10 CFR 50.75(h). 

No actual plant equipment or accident 

analyses will be affected by the proposed 

changes and no failure modes not bounded 

by previously evaluated accidents will be 

created. 

Therefore, the proposed amendments do 

not create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any previously 

evaluated. 

3. Do the proposed amendments involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

This request involves administrative 

changes to the IP1 and IP2 OLs that will be 

consistent with the NRC’s regulations at 10 

CFR 50.75(h). 

Margin of safety is associated with 

confidence in the ability of the fission 

product barriers to limit the level of radiation 

doses to the public. No actual plant 

equipment or accident analyses will be 

affected by the proposed change. 

Additionally, the proposed changes will not 

relax any criteria used to establish safety 

limits, will not relax any safety systems 

settings, or will not relax the bases for any 

limiting conditions of operation. 

Therefore, the proposed amendments do 

not involve a significant reduction in the 

margin of safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Bill Glew, 

Associate General Counsel, Entergy 

Services, Inc., 639 Loyola Avenue, 22nd 

Floor, New Orleans, LA 70113. 

NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna. 

NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC, Docket 

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

1 (Seabrook), Rockingham County, New 

Hampshire 

Florida Power & Light Company, et al., 

Docket Nos. 50–335 and 50–389, St. 

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

County, Florida 

Florida Power & Light Company, Docket 

Nos. 50–250 and 50–251, Turkey Point 

Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 3 and 4 

(Turkey Point), Miami-Dade County, 

Florida 

Date of amendment request: May 29, 

2018. A publicly-available version is in 

ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML18151A472. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendments would revise the 

technical specifications (TS) to include 

the provisions of Limit Conditioning for 

Operation (LCO) 3.0.6 in the standard 

TS. In support of this change, the 

licensee is also proposing to add a new 

Safety Function Determination Program 

to the administrative section of the TS, 

Notes and Actions that direct entering 

the Actions for the appropriate 

supported systems, and changes to LCO 

3.0.2 for all three facilities; as well as 

changes to LCO 3.0.1 for Seabrook and 

Turkey Point. 

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. 

This change is associated with the 

administrative requirements for 

implementing the TS, which are not 

initiators of any accidents previously 

evaluated, so the probability of accidents 

previously evaluated is unaffected by the 

proposed change. The proposed change does 

not alter the design, function, or operation of 

any plant structure, system, or component 

(SSC). The capability of any operable TSrequired SSC to perform its specified safety 

function is not impacted by the proposed 

change. As a result, the outcomes of 

accidents previously evaluated are 

unaffected. Therefore, the proposed change 

does not result in a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

Therefore, it is concluded that this change 

does not involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed change create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change does not challenge 

the integrity or performance of any safetyrelated systems. No plant equipment is 

installed or removed, and the changes do not 

alter the design, physical configuration, or 

method of operation of any plant SSC. No 

physical changes are made to the plant, so no 

new causal mechanisms are introduced. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

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 ability of any operable SSC to perform 

its designated safety function is unaffected by 

the proposed changes. The proposed change 

does not alter any safety analyses 

assumptions, safety limits, limiting safety 

system settings, or method of operating the 

plant. The change does not adversely affect 

plant operating margins or the reliability of 

equipment credited in the safety analyses. 

The proposed change allows not entering 

the Actions for supported systems that are 

inoperable solely due to a support system 

LCO not being met. However, the change also 

requires implementing a Safety Function 

Determination Program (SFDP) to determine 

if a loss of safety function exists. If the SFDP 

determines that a loss of safety function 

exists, the appropriate actions of the LCO in 

which the loss of safety function exists are 

required to be entered. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant reduction in the margin 

of safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

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, P.O. Box 

14000, Juno Beach, FL 33408–0420. 

NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
45986 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 11, 2018 / Notices 

Northern States Power Company, 

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

Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 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 modify the PINGP licensing basis 

by the addition of a License Condition 

to allow for the implementation of the 

provisions of 10 CFR 50.69, ‘‘RiskInformed Categorization and Treatment 

of Structures, Systems, and Components 

for 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 change will permit the use 

of a risk-informed categorization process to 

modify the scope of Structures, Systems and 

Components (SSCs) subject to NRC special 

treatment requirements and to implement 

alternative treatments per the regulation. The 

process used to evaluate SSCs for changes to 

NRC special treatment requirements and the 

use of alternative requirements ensure the 

ability of the SSCs to perform their design 

function. The potential change to special 

treatment requirements does not change the 

design and operation of the SSCs. As a result, 

the proposed change does not significantly 

affect any initiators to accidents previously 

evaluated or the ability to mitigate any 

accidents previously evaluated. The 

consequences of the accidents previously 

evaluated are not affected because the 

mitigation functions performed by the SSCs 

assumed in the safety analysis are not being 

modified. The SSCs required to safely shut 

down the reactor and maintain it in a safe 

shutdown condition following an accident 

will continue to perform their design 

functions. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed amendment create 

the possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any previously evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change will permit the use 

of a risk-informed categorization process to 

modify the scope of SSCs subject to NRC 

special treatment requirements and to 

implement alternative treatments per the 

regulation. The proposed change does not 

change the functional requirements, 

configuration, or method of operation of any 

SSC. Under the proposed change, no 

additional plant equipment will be installed. 

Therefore, the proposed 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 will permit the use 

of a risk-informed categorization process to 

modify the scope of SSCs subject to NRC 

special treatment requirements and to 

implement alternative treatments per the 

regulation. The proposed change does not 

affect any Safety Limits or operating 

parameters used to establish the safety 

margin. The safety margins included in 

analyses of accidents are not affected by the 

proposed change. The regulation requires 

that there be no significant effect on plant 

risk due to any change to the special 

treatment requirements for SSCs and that the 

SSCs continue to be capable of performing 

their design basis functions, as well as to 

perform any beyond design basis functions 

consistent with the categorization process 

and results. 

Therefore, the proposed 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 requests involve 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. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 

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

Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4, 

Burke County, Georgia 

Date of amendment request: July 20, 

2018. A publicly-available version is in 

ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML18201A610. 

Description of amendment request: 

The requested amendment proposes to 

change Technical Specifications (TS) 

regarding operability requirements for 

the Engineered Safety Features 

Actuation System Spent Fuel Pool 

Level—Low 2 and In-Containment 

Refueling Water Storage Tank (Wide 

Range Level—Low instrumentation 

functions for Refueling Cavity and 

Spent Fuel Pool Cooling System (SFS) 

Isolation. Additional changes are 

proposed to add TS operability 

requirements for the SFS containment 

isolation valves in MODES 5 and 6. 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is presented 

below: 

1. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed changes do not affect the 

safety limits as described in the plantspecific Technical Specifications. In 

addition, the limiting safety system settings 

and limiting control settings continue to be 

met with the proposed changes to the plantspecific Technical Specifications limiting 

conditions for operation, applicability, 

actions, and surveillance requirements. The 

proposed changes do not adversely affect the 

operation of any systems or equipment that 

initiate an analyzed accident or alter any 

structures, systems, and components (SSCs) 

accident initiator or initiating sequence of 

events. The proposed changes do not result 

in any increase in probability of an analyzed 

accident occurring, and maintain the initial 

conditions and operating limits required by 

the accident analysis, and the analyses of 

normal operation and anticipated operational 

occurrences, so that the consequences of 

postulated accidents are not changed. The 

proposed changes do not adversely affect the 

ability of the Refueling Cavity and SFS 

Isolation function, and the SFS containment 

isolation valves, to perform the required 

safety functions, and do not adversely affect 

the probability of inadvertent operation or 

failure of the required safety functions. 

Therefore, the requested amendment does 

not involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed amendment create 

the possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed changes do not affect the 

safety limits as described in the plantspecific Technical Specifications. In 

addition, the limiting safety system settings 

and limiting control settings continue to be 

met with the proposed changes to the plantspecific Technical Specifications limiting 

conditions for operation, applicability, 

actions, and surveillance requirements. The 

proposed changes do not affect the operation 

of any systems or equipment that may initiate 

a new or different kind of accident, or alter 

any SSC such that a new accident initiator 

or initiating sequence of events is created. 

These proposed changes do not adversely 

affect any other SSC design functions or 

methods of operation in a manner that results 

in a new failure mode, malfunction, or 

sequence of events that affect safety-related 

or nonsafety-related equipment. Therefore, 

this activity does not allow for a new fission 

product release path, result in a new fission 

product barrier failure mode, or create a new 

sequence of events that results in significant 

fuel cladding failures. 

Therefore, the requested amendment does 

not create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 11, 2018 / Notices 45987 

3. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed changes do not affect the 

safety limits as described in the plantspecific Technical Specifications. In 

addition, the limiting safety system settings 

and limiting control settings continue to be 

met with the proposed changes to the plantspecific Technical Specifications limiting 

conditions for operation, applicability, 

actions, and surveillance requirements. The 

proposed changes do not affect the initial 

conditions and operating limits required by 

the accident analysis, and the analyses of 

normal operation and anticipated operational 

occurrences, so that the acceptance limits 

specified in the UFSAR [Updated Final 

Safety Analysis Report] are not exceeded. 

The proposed changes satisfy the same safety 

functions in accordance with the same 

requirements as stated in the UFSAR. These 

changes do not adversely affect any design 

code, function, design analysis, safety 

analysis input or result, or design/safety 

margin. 

No safety analysis or design basis 

acceptance limit/criterion is challenged or 

exceeded by the proposed changes, and no 

margin of safety is reduced. 

Therefore, the requested amendment does 

not involve a significant reduction in a 

margin of safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: M. Stanford 

Blanton, Balch & Bingham LLP, 1710 

Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 

35203–2015. 

NRC Branch Chief: Jennifer DixonHerrity. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 

Inc. (SNC), Georgia Power Company, 

Oglethorpe Power Corporation, 

Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, 

City of Dalton, Georgia, Docket Nos. 50– 

321 and 50–366, Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear 

Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Appling 

County, Georgia 

Date of amendment request: March 9, 

2018. A publicly-available version is in 

ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML18071A363. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendments would revise the 

Technical Specifications (TS) 

requirements for the Hatch Nuclear 

Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2. Specifically, 

TS 3.3.8.1, ‘‘Loss of Power (LOP) 

Instrumentation,’’ for Unit Nos. 1 and 2 

would be revised to modify the 

instrument allowable values (AVs) for 

the 4.16 kilovolt (kV) emergency bus 

degraded voltage instrumentation and 

delete the annunciation requirements 

for the 4.16 kV emergency bus 

undervoltage instrumentation associated 

with the Unit 2 emergency buses. In 

addition, the proposed amendments 

would revise Unit 2 License Condition 

2.C(3)(i) to clarify its intent. 

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 incorporates 

concomitant changes to the LOP 

instrumentation requirements to reflect an 

electrical power system modification by 

deleting the unnecessary loss of voltage 

annunciation requirements and increasing 

the AVs for the degraded voltage protection 

instrumentation. 

The proposed license change does not 

involve a physical change to the LOP 

instrumentation, nor does it change the safety 

function of the LOP instrumentation or the 

equipment supported by the LOP 

instrumentation. Automatic starting of the 

[diesel generators] DGs is assumed in the 

mitigation of a design basis event upon a loss 

of offsite power. This includes transferring 

the normal offsite power source to an 

alternate or emergency power source in the 

event of a sustained degraded voltage 

condition. The LOP instrumentation 

continues to provide this capability and is 

not altered by the proposed license change. 

The proposed change does not adversely 

affect accident initiators or precursors 

including a loss of offsite power or station 

blackout. The revised LOP degraded 

instrumentation setpoints ensure that the 

Class 1E electrical distribution system is 

separated from the offsite power system prior 

to damaging the safety related loads during 

sustained degraded voltage conditions while 

avoiding an inadvertent separation of safetyrelated buses from the offsite power system. 

Additionally, the degraded voltage 

instrumentation time delay will isolate the 

Class 1E electrical distribution system from 

offsite power before the diesel generators are 

ready to assume the emergency loads, which 

is the limiting time basis for mitigating 

system responses to design basis accidents. 

As a result, the proposed change does not 

significantly alter assumptions relative to the 

mitigation of an accident or transient event 

and the proposed change does not involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed amendment create 

the possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

With respect to a new or different kind of 

accident, the proposed license change does 

not alter the design or performance of the 

LOP instrumentation or electrical power 

system; nor are there any changes in the 

method by which safety related plant 

structures, systems, and components (SSCs) 

perform their specified safety functions as a 

result of the proposed license amendment. 

The proposed change deletes the loss of 

voltage annunciation requirements and 

increases the AVs for the degraded voltage 

protection instrumentation as a result of an 

electrical power system modification, which 

SNC has evaluated independently of this 

proposed license amendment. The proposed 

license amendment will not affect the normal 

method of plant operation or revise any 

operating parameters. Additionally, there is 

no detrimental impact on the manner in 

which plant equipment operates or responds 

to an actuation signal as a result of the 

proposed license change. No new accident 

scenarios, transient precursor, failure 

mechanisms, or limiting single failures will 

be introduced as a result of this proposed 

change and the failure modes and effects 

analyses of SSCs important to safety are not 

altered as a result of this proposed change. 

The process of operating and testing the 

LOP instrumentation uses current 

procedures, methods, and processes already 

established and currently in use and is not 

being altered by the proposed license 

amendment. Therefore, the proposed change 

does not constitute a new type of test. 

Accordingly, the proposed change does not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any previously 

evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

Margin of safety is provided by the 

performance capability of plant equipment in 

preventing or mitigating challenges to fission 

product barriers under postulated operational 

transient and accident conditions. The 

proposed license change deletes the loss of 

voltage annunciation requirements and 

increases the AVs for the degraded voltage 

protection instrumentation as a result of an 

electrical power system modification, which 

SNC has evaluated independently of this 

proposed license amendment. The proposed 

deletion of the loss of voltage annunciation 

requirements is offset by the more restrictive 

degraded voltage instrumentation AVs 

thereby providing an automatic emergency 

bus transfer to the alternate or emergency 

power supply in the event of a sustained 

degraded voltage condition. 

Therefore, the margin[s] associated with a 

design basis or safety limit parameter are not 

adversely impacted by the proposed 

amendment and, thus the proposed change 

does not involve a significant reduction in a 

margin of safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Jennifer M. 

Buettner, Associate General Counsel, 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
45988 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 11, 2018 / Notices 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 

40 Inverness Center Parkway, 

Birmingham, AL 35242. 

NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. 

Markley. 

Virginia Electric and Power Company, 

Docket Nos. 50–338 and 50–339, North 

Anna Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, 

Louisa County, Virginia and Docket 

Nos. 50–280 and 50–281, Surry Power 

Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Surry 

County, Virginia 

Date of amendment request: January 

16, 2018, as supplemented by letter 

dated June 13, 2018. Publicly-available 

versions are in ADAMS under 

Accession Nos. ML18025B468 and 

ML18169A224, respectively. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendments would authorize 

changes to the North Anna Power 

Station (NAPS) and Surry Power station 

(SPS) emergency plans and would allow 

the consolidation of both sites’ current 

emergency operations facilities (EOF) 

into a central EOF. As the location of 

the consolidated EOF would be greater 

than 25 miles from either site, this 

action requires the approval of the NRC 

itself. 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is presented 

below: 

1. Do the proposed amendments involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed amendments affect the 

NAPS and SPS emergency plans, including 

relocation of [Consolidated Emergency 

Response Plan] CERP content, but do not 

alter any of the requirements of the Operating 

Licenses or the Technical Specifications. The 

proposed amendments do not modify any 

plant equipment and [do] not impact any 

failure modes that could lead to an accident. 

Additionally, the proposed amendments 

have no effect on the consequences of any 

analyzed accident since the amendments do 

not affect any equipment related to accident 

mitigation. Therefore, the proposed 

amendments do not involve a significant 

increase [in] the probability or consequences 

of an accident previously evaluated. 

2. Do the proposed amendments create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed amendments affect the 

NAPS and SPS emergency plans, including 

relocation of CERP content, but do not alter 

any of the requirements of the Operating 

Licenses or the Technical Specifications. 

[They do] not modify any plant equipment 

and there are no impacts on the capability of 

existing equipment to perform its intended 

functions. No system setpoints are being 

modified and no new failure modes are 

introduced. The proposed amendments do 

not introduce new accident initiator[s] or 

malfunctions that would cause a new or 

different kind of accident. Therefore, the 

proposed amendments do not create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated. 

3. Do the proposed amendments involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed amendments affect the 

NAPS and SPS emergency plans, including 

relocation of CERP content, but do not alter 

any of the requirements of the Operating 

Licenses or the Technical Specifications. The 

proposed amendments do not affect any of 

the assumptions used in the accident 

analyses, or any operability requirements for 

equipment important to plant safety. 

Therefore, the proposed amendments do not 

involve a significant reduction in the margin 

of safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Lillian M. 

Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion 

Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar 

Street, RS–2, Richmond, VA 23219. 

NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. 

Markley. 

Virginia Electric and Power Company, 

Docket Nos. 50–338 and 50–339, North 

Anna Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, 

Louisa County, Virginia 

Date of amendment request: January 

22, 2018, as supplemented by letter 

dated March 26, 2018. Publiclyavailable versions are in ADAMS under 

Accession Nos. ML18029A118, and 

ML18092A081, respectively. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendments would revise the 

North Anna Technical Specification 

(TS) requirements regarding ventilation 

system testing in accordance with the 

Technical Specifications Task Force 

traveler, TSTF–522, ‘‘Revise Ventilation 

System Surveillance Requirements to 

Operate for 10 Hours per Month.’’ 

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 replaces existing 

[Surveillance Requirements] SRs to operate 

the [Main Control Room/Emergency 

Switchgear Room Emergency Ventilation 

System] MCR/ESGR EVS and [Emergency 

Core Cooling System Pump Room Exhaust 

Air Cleanup System] ECCS PREACS Systems 

equipped with electric heaters for a 

continuous 10 hour period every 31 days 

with a requirement to operate the systems for 

15 continuous minutes every 31 days with 

heaters operating, if needed. In addition, the 

electrical heater output test in the 

[Ventilation Filter Testing Program] VFTP 

(TS 5.5.10.e) is proposed to be removed and 

a corresponding change in the charcoal filter 

testing (TS 5.5.10.c) be made to require 

testing be conducted at a humidity of at least 

95% [relative humidity] RH, which is more 

stringent than the current testing requirement 

of 70% RH. 

These systems are not accident initiators 

and therefore, these changes do not involve 

a significant increase in the probability of an 

accident. The proposed system and filter 

testing changes are consistent with current 

regulatory guidance for these systems and 

will continue to assure that these systems 

perform their design function which may 

include mitigating accidents. Thus, the 

change does not involve a significant 

increase in the consequences of an accident. 

The change to the [Environmental 

Protection Plan] EPP is administrative in 

nature to reflect approved NRC references 

(codes). 

Therefore, it is concluded that this change 

does not involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed change create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change replaces existing SRs 

to operate the MCR/ESGR EVS and ECCS 

PREACS Systems equipped with electric 

heaters for a continuous 10 hour period every 

31 days with a requirement to operate the 

systems for 15 continuous minutes every 31 

days with heaters operating, if needed. In 

addition, the electrical heater output test in 

the VFTP (TS 5.5.10.e) is proposed to be 

removed and a corresponding change in the 

charcoal filter testing (TS 5.5.10.c) be made 

to require testing be conducted at a humidity 

of at least 95% RH, which is more stringent 

than the current testing requirement of 70% 

RH. 

The change proposed for these ventilation 

systems does not change any system 

operations or maintenance activities. Testing 

requirements will be revised and will 

continue to demonstrate that the Limiting 

Conditions for Operation are met and the 

system components are capable of 

performing their intended safety functions. 

The change does not create new failure 

modes or mechanisms and no new accident 

precursors are generated. 

The change to the EPP is administrative in 

nature to reflect approved NRC references 

(codes). 

Therefore, it is concluded that this change 

does not create the possibility of a new or 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 11, 2018 / Notices 45989 

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 replaces existing SRs 

to operate the MCR/ESGR EVS and ECCS 

PREACS Systems equipped with electric 

heaters for a continuous 10 hour period every 

31 days with a requirement to operate the 

systems for 15 continuous minutes every 31 

days with heaters operating, if needed. In 

addition, the electrical heater output test in 

the VFTP (TS 5.5.10.e) is proposed to be 

removed and a corresponding change in the 

charcoal filter testing (TS 5.5.10.c) be made 

to require testing be conducted at a humidity 

of at least 95% RH, which is more stringent 

than the current testing requirement of 70% 

RH. 

The proposed increase to 95% RH in the 

required testing of the MCR/ESGR EVS 

charcoal filters compensates for the function 

of the heaters, which was to reduce the 

humidity of the incoming air to below the 

currently-specified value of 70% RH for the 

charcoal. The proposed change is consistent 

with regulatory guidance and continues to 

ensure that the performance of the charcoal 

filters is acceptable. 

The change to the EPP is administrative in 

nature to reflect approved NRC references 

(codes). 

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: Lillian M. 

Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion 

Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar 

Street, RS–2, Richmond, VA 23219. 

NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. 

Markley. 

Virginia Electric and Power Company, 

Docket Nos. 50–338 and 50–339, North 

Anna Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, 

Louisa County, Virginia 

Date of amendment request: April 30, 

2018. A publicly-available version is in 

ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML18127A073. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendments would revise the 

Technical Specification (TS) 

requirements to add operability 

requirements, required actions, and 

surveillance requirements for the new 

4160 volt emergency bus voltage 

unbalance protection system at the 

North Anna Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 

and 2. 

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 change involve a significant 

increase in the probability or consequences 

of an accident previously evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change adds operability 

requirements, required actions, and 

surveillance requirements for the voltage 

unbalance (open phase) protection function 

associated with the 4kV emergency buses. 

This system provides an additional level of 

undervoltage protection for Class 1E 

electrical equipment. The proposed change 

will promote reliability of the voltage 

unbalance (open phase) protection circuitry 

in the performance of its design function of 

detecting and mitigating a voltage unbalance 

condition on a required off-site primary 

power source and initiating transfer to the 

onsite emergency power source. 

The new voltage unbalance (open phase) 

protection function will further ensure the 

normally operating Class 1E motors/ 

equipment, which are powered from the 

Class 1E buses, are appropriately isolated 

from a primary off-site power source 

experiencing a consequential voltage 

unbalance and will not be damaged. The 

addition of the voltage unbalance (open 

phase) protection function will continue to 

allow the existing undervoltage protection 

circuitry to function as originally designed 

(i.e., degraded and loss of voltage protection 

will remain in place and be unaffected by 

this change). The proposed change does not 

affect the probability of any accident 

resulting in a loss of voltage or degraded 

voltage condition on the Class 1E electrical 

buses and will enhance station response to 

mitigating the consequences of accidents 

previously evaluated as this change further 

ensures continued operation of Class 1E 

equipment throughout accident scenarios. 

Specific models and analyses were 

performed and demonstrated that the 

proposed voltage unbalance (open phase) 

protection function, with the specified 

operability requirements, required actions, 

and surveillance requirements, will ensure 

the Class 1E system will be isolated from the 

off-site power source should a consequential 

voltage unbalance condition occur. The Class 

1E motors will be subsequently sequenced 

back onto the Class 1E buses powered by the 

[emergency diesel generators] EDGs and will 

therefore not be damaged in the event of a 

consequential voltage unbalance under both 

accident and non-accident conditions. 

Therefore, the Class 1E loads will be 

available to perform their design basis 

functions should a loss of coolant accident 

(LOCA) occur concurrent with a loss of 

offsite power (LOOP) following a voltage 

unbalance condition. The loading sequence 

(i.e., timing) of Class 1E equipment back onto 

the ESF bus, powered by the EDG, is within 

the existing degraded voltage time delay. 

The addition of the new voltage unbalance 

(open phase) protection function will have 

no impact on accident initiators or precursors 

and does not alter the accident analysis 

assumptions. 

Based on the above, the proposed change 

does not involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the change create the possibility of 

a new or different kind of accident from any 

accident previously evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change does not alter the 

requirements for the availability of the 4kV 

emergency buses during accident conditions. 

The proposed change does not alter 

assumptions made in the safety analysis and 

is consistent with those assumptions. The 

addition of the voltage unbalance (open 

phase) protection function TS enhances the 

ability of plant operators to identify and 

respond to a voltage unbalance condition in 

an off-site, primary power source, thereby 

ensuring the station electric distribution 

system will perform its intended safety 

function as designed. The proposed TS 

change will promote voltage unbalance (open 

phase) protection function performance 

reliability in a manner similar to the existing 

loss of voltage and degraded voltage 

protective circuitry. 

The proposed change does not result in the 

creation of any new accident precursors; does 

not result in changes to any existing accident 

scenarios; and does not introduce any 

operational changes or mechanisms that 

would create the possibility of a new or 

different kind of accident. A failure mode 

and effects review was completed for 

postulated failure mechanisms of the new 

voltage unbalance protection function and 

concluded that the addition of this protection 

function would not: (1) Affect the existing 

loss of voltage and degraded voltage 

protection schemes, (2) affect the number of 

occurrences of degraded voltage conditions 

that would cause the actuation of the existing 

Loss of Voltage, Degraded Voltage or negative 

sequence voltage protection relays, (3) would 

not affect the failure rate of the existing 

protection relays, and (4) would not impact 

the assumptions in any existing accident 

scenario. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

3. Does this change involve a significant 

reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change enhances the ability 

of the plant to identify and isolate a voltage 

unbalance in an off-site, primary power 

source and transfer the power source for the 

4kV emergency buses to the onsite 

emergency power system. The proposed 

change does not affect the dose analysis 

acceptance criteria, does not result in plant 

operation in a configuration outside the 

analyses or design basis, and does not 

adversely affect systems that respond to 

safely shutdown the plant and to maintain 

the plant in a safe shutdown condition. 

With the addition of the new voltage 

unbalance (open phase) protection function, 

the capability of Class 1E equipment to 

perform its safety function will be further 

assured and the equipment will remain 

capable of mitigating the consequences of 

previously analyzed accidents while 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
45990 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 11, 2018 / Notices 

maintaining the existing margin to safety 

currently assumed in the accident analyses. 

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: Lillian M. 

Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion 

Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar 

Street, RS–2, Richmond, VA 23219. 

NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. 

Markley. 

III. Notice of Issuance of Amendments 

to Facility Operating Licenses and 

Combined Licenses 

During the period since publication of 

the last biweekly notice, the 

Commission has issued the following 

amendments. The Commission has 

determined for each of these 

amendments that the application 

complies with the standards and 

requirements of the Atomic Energy Act 

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

Commission’s rules and regulations. 

The Commission has made appropriate 

findings as required by the Act and the 

Commission’s rules and regulations in 

10 CFR chapter I, which are set forth in 

the license amendment. 

A notice of consideration of issuance 

of amendment to facility operating 

license or combined license, as 

applicable, proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination, 

and opportunity for a hearing in 

connection with these actions, was 

published in the Federal Register as 

indicated. 

Unless otherwise indicated, the 

Commission has determined that these 

amendments satisfy the criteria for 

categorical exclusion in accordance 

with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant 

to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental 

impact statement or environmental 

assessment need be prepared for these 

amendments. If the Commission has 

prepared an environmental assessment 

under the special circumstances 

provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has 

made a determination based on that 

assessment, it is so indicated. 

For further details with respect to the 

action see (1) the applications for 

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

the Commission’s related letter, Safety 

Evaluation and/or Environmental 

Assessment as indicated. All of these 

items can be accessed as described in 

the ‘‘Obtaining Information and 

Submitting Comments’’ section of this 

document. 

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket 

Nos. 50–413 and 50–414, Catawba 

Nuclear Station (Catawba), Units 1 and 

2, York County, South Carolina 

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket 

Nos. 50–369 and 50–370, McGuire 

Nuclear Station (McGuire), Units 1 and 

2, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina 

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket 

Nos. 50–269, 50–270, and 50–287, 

Oconee Nuclear Station (Oconee), Units 

1, 2, and 3, Oconee County, South 

Carolina 

Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Docket No. 

50–400, Shearon Harris Nuclear Power 

Plant (Harris), Unit 1, Wake County, 

North Carolina 

Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Docket No. 

50–261, H. B. Robinson Steam Electric 

Plant (Robinson), Unit No. 2, Darlington 

County, South Carolina 

Date of amendment request: 

November 7, 2017. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments revised the technical 

specifications (TSs) based on Technical 

Specification Task Force (TSTF) 

Traveler TSTF–545, Revision 3, ‘‘TS 

Inservice Testing [IST] Program 

Removal & Clarify SR [Surveillance 

Requirement] Usage Rule Application to 

Section 5.5 Testing,’’ with some 

variations. For each plant, the changes 

included deleting the current TS for the 

IST Program, adding a new defined 

term, ‘‘Inservice Testing Program,’’ to 

the TSs, and revising other TSs to 

reference this new defined term instead 

of the deleted TS. 

Date of issuance: August 15, 2018. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 120 days of issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: Catawba (Unit 1— 

299, Unit 2—295); McGuire (Unit 1— 

309, Unit 2—288); Oconee (Unit 1—409, 

Unit 2—411, Unit 3—410); Harris (Unit 

1—166); and Robinson (Unit 2—259). A 

publicly-available version is in ADAMS 

under Accession No. ML18172A172; 

documents related to these amendments 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendments. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. NPF–35, NPF–52, NPF–9, NPF–17, 

DPR–38, DPR–47, DPR–55, NPF–63, and 

DPR–23: Amendments revised the 

Renewed Facility Operating Licenses 

and TSs. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: January 16, 2018 (83 FR 

2227). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated August 15, 

2018. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Docket No. 

50–261, H. B. Robinson Steam Electric 

Plant, Unit No. 2, Darlington County, 

South Carolina 

Date of amendment request: February 

7, 2018. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revised the Technical 

Specification (TS) Section 3.4.3 ‘‘RCS 

[Reactor Coolant System] Pressure and 

Temperature (P/T) Limits,’’ to reduce 

the applicability terms from 50 effective 

full-power years (EFPY) to 46.3 EFPY in 

Figures 3.4.3–1 and 3.4.3–2, as a result 

of the removal of part length fuel 

assemblies and the migration to 24- 

month fuel cycles. 

Date of issuance: August 16, 2018. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 120 days of issuance. 

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

Accession No. ML18200A042; 

documents related to this amendment 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendment. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. DPR–23: Amendment revised the 

Renewed Facility Operating License and 

TSs. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: April 10, 2018 (83 FR 15415). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated August 16, 

2018. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 

Docket No. 50–271, Vermont Yankee 

Nuclear Power Station, Vernon, 

Vermont 

Date of amendment request: July 20, 

2017. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment is for a revision to the 

Facility Operating License and 

Technical Specifications to reflect the 

removal of all spent nuclear fuel from 

the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power 

Station spent fuel pool and its transfer 

to dry cask storage within an onsite 

independent spent fuel storage 

installation (ISFSI) once all of the spent 

nuclear fuel is placed in the ISFSI. 

Date of issuance: August 15, 2018. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 60 days of issuance. 

Amendment No.: 270. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML18156A179; 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 11, 2018 / Notices 45991 

documents related to this amendment 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendment. 

Facility Operating License No. DPR– 

28: The amendment revised the Facility 

Operating License. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: September 26, 2017 (82 FR 

44847). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated August 15, 

2018. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Exelon FitzPatrick, LLC and Exelon 

Generation Company, LLC Docket No. 

50–333, James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear 

Power Plant (JAFNPP), Oswego County, 

New York 

Date of amendment request: October 

2, 2017, as supplemented by letters 

dated January 22 and April 19, 2018. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revised existing JAFNPP 

technical specification (TS) 

requirements related to ‘‘operations 

with a potential for draining the reactor 

vessel’’ with new requirements on 

reactor pressure vessel water inventory 

control to protect TS 2.1.1.3 Safety 

Limit. 

Date of issuance: August 24, 2018. 

Effective date: As of its date of 

issuance, and shall be implemented 

within 180 days of issuance. 

Amendment No.: 321. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML18194A882; 

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 TS. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: November 21, 2017 (82 FR 

55406). The supplemental letters dated 

January 22 and April 19, 2018, provided 

additional information that clarified the 

application, did not expand the scope of 

the application as originally noticed, 

and did not change the staff’s original 

proposed no significant hazards 

consideration determination as 

published in the Federal Register. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated August 24, 

2018. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating 

Company, Docket No. 50–440, Perry 

Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No. 1, Lake 

County, Ohio 

Date of amendment request: February 

14, 2018. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revised Surveillance 

Requirement 3.3.1.1.2 of TS 3.3.1.1, 

‘‘Reactor Protection System (RPS) 

Instrumentation,’’ to require adjustment 

of the average power range monitor 

(APRM) channels only if the calculated 

power exceeds the APRM output by 

more than 2 percent rated thermal 

power. The change is based on 

Technical Specifications Task Force 

(TSTF) traveler TSTF–546, ‘‘Revise 

APRM Channel Adjustment 

Surveillance Requirement.’’ 

Date of issuance: August 23, 2018. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 90 days of issuance. 

Amendment No.: 183. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML18199A280; 

documents related to this amendment 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendment. 

Facility Operating License No. NPF– 

58: Amendment revised the Facility 

Operating License and Technical 

Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: April 24, 2018 (83 FR 17863). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated August 23, 

2018. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

NextEra Energy Duane Arnold, LLC, 

Docket No. 50–331, Duane Arnold 

Energy Center, Linn County, Iowa 

Date of amendment request: 

September 5, 2017, as supplemented by 

letter dated March 1, 2018. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revised TS 3.5.1, ‘‘ECCS— 

Operating’’ to decrease the nitrogen 

supply requirement for the Automatic 

Depressurization System in Surveillance 

Requirement 3.5.1.3 from 100 days to 30 

days. 

Date of issuance: August 16, 2018. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 90 days of issuance. 

Amendment No.: 306. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML18179A184; 

documents related to this amendment 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendment. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. DPR–49: The amendment revised 

the Technical Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: November 21, 2017 (82 FR 

55407). The supplemental letter dated 

March 1, 2018, provided additional 

information that clarified the 

application, did not expand the scope of 

the application as originally noticed, 

and did not change the staff’s original 

proposed no significant hazards 

consideration determination as 

published in the Federal Register. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated August 16, 

2018. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 

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

Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), Units 

3 and 4, Burke County, Georgia 

Date of amendment request: April 13, 

2018. 

Description of amendment: The 

amendment requested changes to the 

plant-specific Appendix A, Technical 

Specifications (TS) as incorporated into 

the VEGP Combined License (COL), and 

changes to the approved AP1000 Design 

Control Document Tier 2 information as 

incorporated into the Updated Final 

Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). 

Specifically, the amendment includes 

changes to the COL Appendix A, TS 

related to the statuses of the remotely 

operated containment isolation valves. 

There are two changes to the licensing 

basis documents that are proposed in 

this License Amendment Request. The 

first change is to clarify the postaccident monitoring (PAM) category 

designation for containment isolation 

valves statuses by explicitly stating it in 

the licensing basis. This change will 

help the operators avoid confusion and 

a potential human factor error and will 

allow operators to quickly verify that 

the nonessential containment flow paths 

are isolated and then focus on the 

availability of the essential flow paths 

for their defense-in-depth capabilities. 

The second change is to add PAM 

requirements to the UFSAR for the 

Normal Residual Heat Removal System, 

the Component Cooling Water System, 

and the Chemical and Volume Control 

System containment isolation valve 

statues to capture PAM requirements for 

their valve status which is not currently 

required for PAM in UFSAR Table 7.5– 

1, ‘‘Post-Accident Monitoring System’’. 

Date of issuance: August 7, 2018. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 30 days of issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: 137 (Unit 3) and 

136 (Unit 4). A publicly-available 

version is in ADAMS under Accession 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
45992 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 11, 2018 / Notices 

No. ML18191B091; documents related 

to this amendment are listed in the 

Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 

amendment. 

Facility Combined Licenses No. NPF– 

91 and NPF–92: Amendment revised the 

Facility Combined Licenses. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: May 22, 2018 (83 FR 23728). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in the 

Safety Evaluation dated August 7, 2018. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 

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

Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), Units 

3 and 4, Burke County, Georgia 

Date of amendment request: January 

31, 2018, as supplemented by letter 

dated May 2, 2018. 

Description of amendment: The 

amendment revises the VEGP Units 3 

and 4 combined license (COL) 

Appendix A, Technical Specification 

(TS) related to Pressurizer Safety Valve 

(PSV) operability. The amendment 

changes TS 3.4.6, ‘‘PSV Applicability’’ 

to require the PSV to be operable when 

the TS 3.4.14, ‘‘Low Temperature 

Overpressure Protection,’’ is not 

required to be operable. A conforming 

change is made to the TS 3.4.6 Actions. 

Additional TS changes necessary to 

support PSV operability are made for 

consistency with the TS 3.4.6. The 

amendment also approves moving TS 

Limiting Condition for Operation Notes 

regarding reactor coolant pump starts 

from TS 3.4.4, ‘‘Reactor Coolant System 

(RCS) Loops, 3.4.8, ‘‘Minimum RCS 

Flow,’’ and 3.4.14 to TS 3.4.3, ‘‘RCS 

Pressure/Temperature Limits.’’ 

Date of issuance: July 12, 2018. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 30 days of issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: 133 (Unit 3) and 

132 (Unit 4). A publicly-available 

version is in ADAMS under Accession 

No. ML18159A437; documents related 

to this amendment are listed in the 

Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 

amendment. 

Facility Combined Licenses Nos. NPF– 

91 and NPF–92: Amendment revised the 

Facility COL. 

Date of Initial Notice in Federal 

Register: March 13, 2018 (83 FR 

10922). The supplement dated May 2, 

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. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in the 

Safety Evaluation dated July 12, 2018. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 

50–390, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant (WBN), 

Unit 1, Rhea County, Tennessee 

Date of amendment request: July 8, 

2018, as supplemented by letters dated 

July 24 and July 30, 2018. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment extended Technical 

Specification (TS) Surveillance 

Requirements (SRs) 3.3.1.5, 3.3.2.2, and 

3.3.6.2 by revising the WBN, Unit 1, TS 

SR 3.0.2 and certain SRs in Table SR 

3.0.2–1. 

Date of issuance: August 16, 2018. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

immediately. 

Amendment No.: 121. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML18204A252; 

documents related to this amendment 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendment. 

Facility Operating License No. NPF– 

90: The amendment revised the Facility 

Operating License and TSs. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: July 16, 2018 (83 FR 32912). 

The supplemental letters dated July 24 

and July 30, 2018, provided additional 

information that clarified the 

application, did not expand the scope of 

the application as originally notified, 

and did not change the NRC staff’s 

proposed no significant hazards 

consideration determination as 

published in the Federal Register. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment and final 

determination of no significant hazards 

consideration is contained in a Safety 

Evaluation dated August 16, 2018. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 31st 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. 2018–19419 Filed 9–10–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2018–0197] 

Proposed Revisions to Standard 

Review Plan Section 13.6, Physical 

Security 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Standard review plan-draft 

section revision; request for comment. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is soliciting public 

comment on draft NUREG–0800, 

‘‘Standard Review Plan for the Review 

of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear 

Power Plants: LWR Edition,’’ Section 

13.6, ‘‘Physical Security.’’ This section 

has been updated to reflect the latest 

NRC guidance concerning physical 

security. 

DATES: Comments must be filed no later 

than November 13, 2018. Comments 

received after this date will be 

considered, if it is practical to do so, but 

the Commission is able to ensure 

consideration only for comments 

received on or before this date. 

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–2018–0197. Address 

questions about NRC dockets to Jennifer 

Borges; telephone: 301–287–9127; 

email: Jennifer.Borges@nrc.gov. For 

technical questions, contact the 

individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

document. 

• Mail comments to: May Ma, Office 

of Administration, Mail Stop: TWFN–7– 

A60M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 

0001. 

For additional direction on obtaining 

information and submitting comments, 

see ‘‘Obtaining Information and 

Submitting Comments’’ in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mark D. Notich, Office of New Reactors, 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001; telephone: 

301–415–3053, email: Mark.Notich@

nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Obtaining Information and 

Submitting Comments 

A. Obtaining Information 

Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2018– 

0197 when contacting the NRC about 

the availability of information for this 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES