2224 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2018 / Notices 

Reason for Change: NCUA was 

granted an emergency clearance for the 

information collection requirements 

under this notice to bring it into 

compliance under the PRA; which is set 

to expire April 2018. The information 

collection requirements prescribed 

under subpart E of part 702 were 

published as final on April 30, 2014, at 

79 FR 24311 (effective May 20, 2014). 

NCUA sought initial public comments 

via the proposed rule (NPRM November 

1, 2013, at 78 FR 65583); but no PRA 

submission was made to OMB. NCUA is 

soliciting comments on the OMB 

clearance obtained under the emergency 

approval. 

Request for Comments: Comments 

submitted in response to this notice will 

be summarized and included in the 

request for Office of Management and 

Budget approval. All comments will 

become a matter of public record. The 

public is invited to submit comments 

concerning: (a) Whether the collection 

of information is necessary for the 

proper execution of the function of the 

agency, including whether the 

information will have practical utility; 

(b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate 

of the burden of the collection of 

information, including the validity of 

the methodology and assumptions used; 

(c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, 

and clarity of the information to be 

collected; and (d) ways to minimize the 

burden of the collection of the 

information on the respondents, 

including the use of automated 

collection techniques or other forms of 

information technology. 

By Gerard Poliquin, Secretary of the Board, 

the National Credit Union Administration, on 

January 10, 2018. 

Dated: January 10, 2018. 

Dawn D. Wolfgang, 

NCUA PRA Clearance Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2018–00559 Filed 1–12–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7535–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2018–0005] 

Biweekly Notice; Applications and 

Amendments to Facility Operating 

Licenses and Combined Licenses 

Involving No Significant Hazards 

Considerations 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Biweekly notice. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 189a. (2) 

of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 

amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission (NRC) is 

publishing this regular biweekly notice. 

The Act requires the Commission to 

publish notice of any amendments 

issued, or proposed to be issued, and 

grants the Commission the authority to 

issue and make immediately effective 

any amendment to an operating license 

or combined license, as applicable, 

upon a determination by the 

Commission that such amendment 

involves no significant hazards 

consideration, notwithstanding the 

pendency before the Commission of a 

request for a hearing from any person. 

This biweekly notice includes all 

notices of amendments issued, or 

proposed to be issued, from December 

19, 2017 to December 29, 2017. The last 

biweekly notice was published on 

January 2, 2018. 

DATES: Comments must be filed by 

February 15, 2018. A request for a 

hearing must be filed by March 19, 

2018. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by any of the following methods. 

Federal Rulemaking website: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and search 

for Docket ID NRC–2018–0005. Address 

questions about NRC dockets to Carol 

Gallagher; telephone: 301–415–3463; 

email: Carol.Gallagher@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: OWFN–2– 

A13, 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: Kay 

Goldstein, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington DC 20555– 

0001; telephone: 301–415–1506, email: 

Kay.Goldstein@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Obtaining Information and 

Submitting Comments 

A. Obtaining Information 

Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2018– 

0005, 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–2018–0005. 

• 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 

‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and then 

select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS 

Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS, 

please contact the NRC’s Public 

Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 

1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by 

email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. 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– 

0005, 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 posts all comment 

submissions at http://

www.regulations.gov as well as entering 

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. 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 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2018 / Notices 2225 

§ 50.92 of title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (10 CFR), this means that 

operation of the facility in accordance 

with the proposed amendment would 

not (1) involve a significant increase in 

the probability or consequences of an 

accident previously evaluated, or (2) 

create the possibility of a new or 

different kind of accident from any 

accident previously evaluated; or (3) 

involve a significant reduction in a 

margin of safety. The basis for this 

proposed determination for each 

amendment request is shown below. 

The Commission is seeking public 

comments on this proposed 

determination. Any comments received 

within 30 days after the date of 

publication of this notice will be 

considered in making any final 

determination. 

Normally, the Commission will not 

issue the amendment until the 

expiration of 60 days after the date of 

publication of this notice. The 

Commission may issue the license 

amendment before expiration of the 60- 

day period provided that its final 

determination is that the amendment 

involves no significant hazards 

consideration. In addition, the 

Commission may issue the amendment 

prior to the expiration of the 30-day 

comment period if circumstances 

change during the 30-day comment 

period such that failure to act in a 

timely way would result, for example in 

derating or shutdown of the facility. If 

the Commission takes action prior to the 

expiration of either the comment period 

or the notice period, it will publish in 

the Federal Register a notice of 

issuance. If the Commission makes a 

final no significant hazards 

consideration determination, any 

hearing will take place after issuance. 

The Commission expects that the need 

to take this action will occur very 

infrequently. 

A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing 

and Petition for Leave To Intervene 

Within 60 days after the date of 

publication of this notice, any persons 

(petitioner) whose interest may be 

affected by this action may file a request 

for a hearing and petition for leave to 

intervene (petition) with respect to the 

action. Petitions shall be filed in 

accordance with the Commission’s 

‘‘Agency Rules of Practice and 

Procedure’’ in 10 CFR part 2. Interested 

persons should consult a current copy 

of 10 CFR 2.309. The NRC’s regulations 

are accessible electronically from the 

NRC Library on the NRC’s website at 

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

the regulations is available at the NRC’s 

Public Document Room, located at One 

White Flint North, Room O1–F21, 11555 

Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, 

Maryland 20852. If a petition is filed, 

the Commission or a presiding officer 

will rule on the petition and, if 

appropriate, a notice of a hearing will be 

issued. 

As required by 10 CFR 2.309(d) the 

petition should specifically explain the 

reasons why intervention should be 

permitted with particular reference to 

the following general requirements for 

standing: (1) The name, address, and 

telephone number of the petitioner; (2) 

the nature of the petitioner’s right under 

the Act to be made a party to the 

proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of 

the petitioner’s property, financial, or 

other interest in the proceeding; and (4) 

the possible effect of any decision or 

order which may be entered in the 

proceeding on the petitioner’s interest. 

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f), 

the petition must also set forth the 

specific contentions which the 

petitioner seeks to have litigated in the 

proceeding. Each contention must 

consist of a specific statement of the 

issue of law or fact to be raised or 

controverted. In addition, the petitioner 

must provide a brief explanation of the 

bases for the contention and a concise 

statement of the alleged facts or expert 

opinion which support the contention 

and on which the petitioner intends to 

rely in proving the contention at the 

hearing. The petitioner must also 

provide references to the specific 

sources and documents on which the 

petitioner intends to rely to support its 

position on the issue. The petition must 

include sufficient information to show 

that a genuine dispute exists with the 

applicant or licensee on a material issue 

of law or fact. Contentions must be 

limited to matters within the scope of 

the proceeding. The contention must be 

one which, if proven, would entitle the 

petitioner to relief. A petitioner who 

fails to satisfy the requirements at 10 

CFR 2.309(f) with respect to at least one 

contention will not be permitted to 

participate as a party. 

Those permitted to intervene become 

parties to the proceeding, subject to any 

limitations in the order granting leave to 

intervene. Parties have the opportunity 

to participate fully in the conduct of the 

hearing with respect to resolution of 

that party’s admitted contentions, 

including the opportunity to present 

evidence, consistent with the NRC’s 

regulations, policies, and procedures. 

Petitions must be filed no later than 

60 days from the date of publication of 

this notice. Petitions and motions for 

leave to file new or amended 

contentions that are filed after the 

deadline will not be entertained absent 

a determination by the presiding officer 

that the filing demonstrates good cause 

by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 

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

must be filed in accordance with the 

filing instructions in the ‘‘Electronic 

Submissions (E-Filing)’’ section of this 

document. 

If a hearing is requested, and the 

Commission has not made a final 

determination on the issue of no 

significant hazards consideration, the 

Commission will make a final 

determination on the issue of no 

significant hazards consideration. The 

final determination will serve to 

establish when the hearing is held. If the 

final determination is that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration, the 

Commission may issue the amendment 

and make it immediately effective, 

notwithstanding the request for a 

hearing. Any hearing would take place 

after issuance of the amendment. If the 

final determination is that the 

amendment request involves a 

significant hazards consideration, then 

any hearing held would take place 

before the issuance of the amendment 

unless the Commission finds an 

imminent danger to the health or safety 

of the public, in which case it will issue 

an appropriate order or rule under 10 

CFR part 2. 

A State, local governmental body, 

Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or 

agency thereof, may submit a petition to 

the Commission to participate as a party 

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

should state the nature and extent of the 

petitioner’s interest in the proceeding. 

The petition should be submitted to the 

Commission no later than 60 days from 

the date of publication of this notice. 

The petition must be filed in accordance 

with the filing instructions in the 

‘‘Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)’’ 

section of this document, and should 

meet the requirements for petitions set 

forth in this section, except that under 

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

governmental body, or federally 

recognized Indian Tribe, or agency 

thereof does not need to address the 

standing requirements in 10 CFR 

2.309(d) if the facility is located within 

its boundaries. Alternatively, a State, 

local governmental body, 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 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
2226 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2018 / Notices 

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’s 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 

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. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2018 / Notices 2227 

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket 

Nos. 50–413 and 50–414, Catawba 

Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 (CNS), 

York County, South Carolina 

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket 

Nos. 50–369 and 50–370, McGuire 

Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 (MNS), 

Mecklenburg County, North Carolina 

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket 

Nos. 50–269, 50–270, and 50–287, 

Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 

3 (ONC), Oconee County, South 

Carolina 

Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Docket No. 

50–400, Shearon Harris Nuclear Power 

Plant, Unit 1 (HNP), Wake County, 

North Carolina 

Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Docket No. 

50–261, H.B. Robinson Steam Electric 

Plant, Unit No. 2 (RNP), Darlington 

County, South Carolina 

Date of amendment request: November 

7, 2017. A publicly-available version is 

in ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML17312A362. 

Description of amendment request: The 

amendments would revise 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’’ (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML15294A555), with 

some variations. For each plant, the 

changes include deleting the current TS 

for the IST Program, adding a new 

defined term, ‘‘INSERVICE TESTING 

PROGAM,’’ to the TSs, and revising 

other TSs to reference this new defined 

term instead of the deleted TS. 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 

licensee has provided its analysis of the 

issue of no significant hazards 

consideration, which is presented 

below: 

1. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant increase in the probability or 

consequences of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change revises TS Chapter 5 

(TS Chapter 6 for HNP), ‘‘Administrative 

Controls,’’ Section 5.5 (Section 6.8.4 for 

HNP), ‘‘Programs and Manuals,’’ by replacing 

the current contents of the ‘‘Inservice Testing 

Program’’ specification with a note referring 

to the TS Definition of ‘‘INSERVICE 

TESTING PROGRAM.’’ Most requirements in 

the Inservice Testing Program are removed, 

as they are duplicative of requirements in the 

ASME OM Code [American Society of 

Mechanical Engineers Code for Operations 

and Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants], 

as clarified by Code Case OMN–20, 

‘‘Inservice Test Frequency.’’ The remaining 

requirements in the Section 5.5 (Section 6.8.4 

for HNP) IST Program are eliminated because 

the NRC has determined their inclusion in 

the TS is contrary to regulations. A new 

defined term, ‘‘INSERVICE TESTING 

PROGRAM,’’ is added to the TS, which 

references the requirements of 10 CFR 

50.55a(f). 

Performance of inservice testing is not an 

initiator to any accident previously 

evaluated. As a result, the probability of 

occurrence of an accident is not significantly 

affected by the proposed change. Inservice 

test frequencies under Code Case OMN–20 

are equivalent to the current testing period 

allowed by the TS with the exception that 

testing frequencies greater than or equal to 2 

years may be extended by up to 6 months to 

facilitate test scheduling and consideration of 

plant operating conditions that may not be 

suitable for performance of the required 

testing. The testing frequency extension will 

not affect the ability of the components to 

mitigate any accident previously evaluated as 

the components are required to be operable 

during the testing period extension. 

Performance of inservice tests utilizing the 

allowances in OMN–20 will not significantly 

affect the reliability of the tested 

components. As a result, the availability of 

the affected components, as well as their 

ability to mitigate the consequences of 

accidents previously evaluated, is not 

affected. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed change create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change does not alter the 

design or configuration of the plant. The 

proposed change does not involve a physical 

alteration of the plant; no new or different 

kind of equipment will be installed. The 

proposed change does not alter the types of 

inservice testing performed. In most cases, 

the frequency of inservice testing is 

unchanged. However, the frequency of 

testing would not result in a new or different 

kind of accident from any previously 

evaluated since the testing methods are not 

altered. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any previously 

evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change eliminates some 

requirements from the TS in lieu of 

requirements in the ASME Code, as modified 

by use of Code Case OMN–20. Compliance 

with the ASME Code is required by 10 CFR 

50.55a. The proposed change also allows 

inservice tests with frequencies greater than 

or equal to 2 years to be extended by 6 

months to facilitate test scheduling and 

consideration of plant operating conditions 

that may not be suitable for performance of 

the required testing. The testing frequency 

extension will not affect the ability of the 

components to respond to an accident as the 

components are required to be operable 

during the testing period extension. The 

proposed change will eliminate the existing 

TS SR 3.0.3 allowance to defer performance 

of missed inservice tests up to the duration 

of the specified testing frequency, and 

instead will require an assessment of the 

missed test on equipment operability. This 

assessment will consider the effect on a 

margin of safety (equipment operability). 

Should the component be inoperable, the 

Technical Specifications provide actions to 

ensure that the margin of safety is protected. 

The proposed change also eliminates a 

statement that nothing in the ASME Code 

should be construed to supersede the 

requirements of any TS. The NRC has 

determined that statement to be incorrect. 

However, elimination of the statement will 

have no effect on plant operation or safety. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant reduction in a margin of 

safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

requested amendments involve no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: Kathryn B. 

Nolan, Deputy General Counsel, Duke 

Energy Corporation, 550 South Tryon 

Street, Mail Code DEC45A, Charlotte NC 

28202. 

NRC Branch Chief: Undine Shoop. 

Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50–397, 

Columbia Generating Station, Benton 

County, Washington 

Date of amendment request: October 

23, 2017, as supplemented by letter 

dated November 15, 2017. Publiclyavailable versions are in ADAMS under 

Accession Nos. ML17296B380, and 

ML17320A314, respectively. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendment would adopt 

Technical Specification Task Force 

(TSTF) traveler TSTF–542, Revision 2, 

ADAMS Accession No. ML16343B008 

‘‘Reactor Pressure Vessel Water 

Inventory Control.’’ The proposed 

amendment would replace existing 

technical specification (TS) 

requirements related to operations with 

a potential for draining the reactor 

vessel (OPDRVs) with new requirements 

on Reactor Pressure Vessel (RPV) Water 

Inventory Control (WIC) to protect 

Safety Limit 2.1.1.3. Safety Limit 2.1.1.3 

requires the reactor vessel water level to 

be greater than the top of active 

irradiated fuel. 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration determination: 

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
2228 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2018 / Notices 

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 replaces existing TS 

requirements related to OPDRVs with new 

requirements RPV WIC that will protect 

Safety Limit 2.1.1.3. Draining of RPV water 

inventory in Mode 4 (i.e., cold shutdown) 

and Mode 5 (i.e., refueling) is not an accident 

previously evaluated and, therefore, 

replacing the existing TS controls to prevent 

or mitigate such an event with a new set of 

controls has no effect on any accident 

previously evaluated. RPV water inventory 

control in Mode 4 or Mode 5 is not an 

initiator of any accident previously 

evaluated. The existing OPDRV controls or 

the proposed RPV WIC controls are not 

mitigating actions assumed in any accident 

previously evaluated. 

The proposed change reduces the 

probability of an unexpected draining event 

(which is not a previously evaluated 

accident) by imposing new requirements on 

the limiting time in which an unexpected 

draining event could result in the reactor 

vessel water level dropping to the top of the 

active fuel (TAF). These controls require 

cognizance of the plant configuration and 

control of configurations with unacceptably 

short drain times. These requirements reduce 

the probability of an unexpected draining 

event. The current TS requirements are only 

mitigating actions and impose no 

requirements that reduce the probability of 

an unexpected draining event. 

The proposed change reduces the 

consequences of an unexpected draining 

event (which is not a previously evaluated 

accident) by requiring an Emergency Core 

Cooling System (ECCS) subsystem to be 

operable at all times in Modes 4 and 5. The 

current TS requirements do not require any 

water injection systems, ECCS or otherwise, 

to be Operable in certain conditions in Mode 

5. The change in requirement from two ECCS 

subsystems to one ECCS subsystem in Modes 

4 and 5 does not significantly affect the 

consequences of an unexpected draining 

event because the proposed Actions ensure 

equipment is available within the limiting 

drain time that is as capable of mitigating the 

event as the current requirements. The 

proposed controls provide escalating 

compensatory measures to be established as 

calculated drain times decrease, such as 

verification of a second method of water 

injection and additional confirmations that 

containment and/or filtration would be 

available if needed. 

The proposed change reduces or eliminates 

some requirements that were determined to 

be unnecessary to manage the consequences 

of an unexpected draining event, such as 

automatic initiation of an ECCS subsystem 

and control room ventilation. These changes 

do not affect the consequences of any 

accident previously evaluated since a 

draining event in Modes 4 and 5 is not a 

previously evaluated accident and the 

requirements are not needed to adequately 

respond to a draining event. 

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 replaces existing TS 

requirements related to OPDRVs with new 

requirements on RPV WIC that will protect 

Safety Limit 2.1.1.3. The proposed change 

will not alter the design function of the 

equipment involved. Under the proposed 

change, some systems that are currently 

required to be operable during OPDRVs 

would be required to be available within the 

limiting drain time or to be in service 

depending on the limiting drain time. Should 

those systems be unable to be placed into 

service, the consequences are no different 

than if those systems were unable to perform 

their function under the current TS 

requirements. 

The event of concern under the current 

requirements and the proposed change is an 

unexpected draining event. The proposed 

change does not create new failure 

mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident 

initiators that would cause a draining event 

or a new or different kind of accident not 

previously evaluated or included in the 

design and licensing bases. 

Therefore, 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. 

The proposed change replaces existing TS 

requirements related to OPDRVs with new 

requirements on RPV WIC. The current 

requirements do not have a stated safety basis 

and no margin of safety is established in the 

licensing basis. The safety basis for the new 

requirements is to protect Safety Limit 

2.1.1.3. New requirements are added to 

determine the limiting time in which the 

RPV water inventory could drain to the top 

of the fuel in the reactor vessel should an 

unexpected draining event occur. Plant 

configurations that could result in lowering 

the RPV water level to the TAF within one 

hour are now prohibited. New escalating 

compensatory measures based on the limiting 

drain time replace the current controls. The 

proposed TS establish a safety margin by 

providing defense-in-depth to ensure that the 

Safety Limit is protected and to protect the 

public health and safety. While some less 

restrictive requirements are proposed for 

plant configurations with long calculated 

drain times, the overall effect of the change 

is to improve plant safety and to add safety 

margin. 

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: William A. 

Horin, Esq., Winston & Strawn, 1700 K 

Street NW, Washington, DC 20006– 

3817. 

NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. 

Pascarelli. 

Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50– 

382, Waterford Steam Electric Station, 

Unit 3 (Waterford 3), St. Charles Parish, 

Louisiana 

Date of amendment request: 

November 28, 2017, as supplemented by 

letter dated December 7, 2017. Publiclyavailable versions are in ADAMS under 

Accession Nos. ML17332A898, and 

ML17341B295, respectively. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendment would revise 

Section 4.3.3 of the Waterford 3 

Updated Final Safety Analysis Report to 

indicate that the RAPTOR–M3G code is 

used for reactor vessel fluence 

calculations. The use of the RAPTOR– 

M3G code would meet the criteria 

present in Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.190, 

‘‘Calculational and Dosimetry Methods 

for Determining Pressure Vessel 

Neutron Fluence,’’ dated March 2001. 

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 probability of occurrence of an 

accident previously evaluated for Waterford 

3 is not altered by the proposed license 

amendment. The accidents currently 

analyzed in the Waterford 3 Final Safety 

Analysis Report (FSAR) remain the same. 

The proposed change does not impact the 

integrity of the reactor coolant pressure 

boundary (RCPB) (i.e., there is no change to 

the operating pressure, materials, loadings, 

etc.). The proposed change does not affect the 

probability nor consequences of any design 

basis accident (DBA). The proposed neutron 

fluence calculational methodology meets the 

criteria in RG 1.190 and will be used to 

ensure that the P/T [pressure-temperature] 

limit curves, maximum heatup and cooldown 

rates, and LTOP [low-temperature 

overpressure protection] enable temperature 

remain acceptable to maintain reactor 

pressure vessel integrity. 

Fracture toughness test data are obtained 

from material specimens contained in 

capsules that are periodically withdrawn 

from the reactor vessel. These data, combined 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2018 / Notices 2229 

with the neutron fluence calculations, permit 

determination of the conditions under which 

the vessel can be operated with adequate 

safety margins against brittle fracture 

throughout its service life. For each analyzed 

transient and steady state condition, the 

allowable pressure is determined as a 

function of reactor coolant temperature 

considering postulated flaws in the reactor 

vessel beltline, inlet nozzle, outlet nozzle, 

and closure head. 

The predicted radiation induced DRTNDT

[delta reference temperature nil ductility 

transition] is calculated using the respective 

reactor vessel beltline materials’ copper and 

nickel contents and the neutron fluence 

determination. The RTNDT and, in turn, the 

operating limits for Waterford 3 are adjusted, 

if necessary, to account for the effects of 

irradiation on the fracture toughness of the 

reactor vessel materials and maintain reactor 

vessel integrity within design assumptions. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed change create the 

possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change to the neutron 

fluence calculational method will not create 

a new accident scenario. The requirements to 

have P/T limits and LTOP protection are part 

of the licensing basis for Waterford 3. The 

neutron fluence calculation method will 

validate, and when necessary, provide input 

to the development of new operating limits. 

The data analysis for the vessel surveillance 

specimens are used to confirm that the vessel 

materials are responding as predicted based 

on previous neutron fluence projections. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any previously 

evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed change involve a 

significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change to the neutron 

fluence calculational method conforms to the 

criteria presented in RG 1.190 and will 

ensure that Waterford 3 continues to operate 

within the operating margins allowed by 10 

CFR 50.60 and the ASME [American Society 

of Mechanical Engineers] Code. 

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: Ms. Anna 

Vinson Jones, Senior Counsel, Entergy 

Services, Inc., 101 Constitution Avenue 

NW, Suite 200 East, Washington, DC 

20001. 

NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. 

Pascarelli. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC 

(Exelon), Docket No. 50–219, Oyster 

Creek Nuclear Generating Station 

(OCNGS), Ocean County, New Jersey 

Date of amendment request: 

November 16, 2017. A publiclyavailable version is available in ADAMS 

under Accession No. ML17320A411. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendment would revise the 

OCNGS renewed facility operating 

license (RFOL) and the associated 

Technical Specifications (TSs) to 

Permanently Defueled Technical 

Specifications (PDTS) consistent with 

the permanent cessation of reactor 

operation and permanent defueling of 

the reactor. By letter dated January 7, 

2011 (ADAMS Accession No. 

ML110070507), Exelon provided formal 

notification to the NRC of Exelon’s 

contingent determination to 

permanently cease operations at OCNGS 

no later than December 31, 2019. The 

amendment would eliminate those TSs 

applicable in operating modes or modes 

where fuel is placed in the reactor 

vessel. The amendment would change 

other TS limiting conditions for 

operation (LCOs), definitions, 

surveillance requirements (SRs), 

administrative controls, as well as 

several license conditions. 

Basis for proposed no significant 

hazards consideration (NSHC) 

determination: As required by 10 CFR 

50.91(a), the licensee has provided its 

analysis of the issue of NSHC, 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 would not take 

effect until OCNGS has permanently ceased 

operation, entered a permanently defueled 

condition, and at least 60 days of irradiated 

fuel decay time after reactor shutdown. The 

proposed changes would revise the OCNGS 

RFOL and TS by deleting or modifying 

certain portions of the TS that are no longer 

applicable to a permanently shutdown and 

defueled facility. This change is consistent 

with the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 50.36 for 

the contents of TS. 

Chapter 15 of the OCNGS Updated Final 

Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) described 

the design basis accident (DBA) and transient 

scenarios applicable to OCNGS during power 

operations. The analyzed accidents that 

remains applicable to OCNGS in the 

permanently shut down and defueled 

condition is a Fuel Handling Accident (FHA) 

in the [spent fuel pool (SFP)] (a dropped fuel 

assembly onto the top of the core will no 

longer be applicable) and the Postulated 

Radioactive Tank Failure and Release of 

Radioactive Liquid Waste while radioactive 

liquids are still present. The FHA is the 

remaining accident with radiological 

consequences and has been revised for the 

permanently shutdown and defueled 

condition. The liquid tank accidents analysis 

remains bounding and unchanged; therefore, 

is not discussed further in this NSHC 

evaluation. 

Once the reactor is in a permanently 

defueled condition, the spent fuel pool (SFP) 

and its cooling systems will be dedicated 

only to spent fuel storage. In this condition, 

the spectrum of credible accidents will be 

much smaller than for an operational plant. 

Once the certifications are docketed by 

OCNGS pursuant to 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1), and 

the consequent removal of authorization to 

operate the reactor or to place or retain fuel 

in the reactor vessel pursuant to 10 CFR 

50.82(a)(2), the majority of the accident 

scenarios previously postulated in the 

UFSAR will no longer be possible and will 

be removed from the UFSAR under the 

provisions of 10 CFR 50.59. 

The deletion of TS definitions and rules of 

usage and application, that will not be 

applicable in a defueled condition, has no 

impact on facility structures, systems, and 

components (SSCs) or the methods of 

operation of such SSCs. The deletion of 

design features and safety limits not 

applicable to the permanently shutdown and 

defueled status of OCNGS has no impact on 

the remaining applicable DBA. The removal 

of LCOs or SRs that are related to only the 

operation of the nuclear reactor or to only the 

prevention, diagnosis, or mitigation of 

reactor-related transients or accidents do not 

affect the applicable DBAs previously 

evaluated since these DBAs are no longer 

applicable in the defueled mode. The safety 

functions involving core reactivity control, 

reactor heat removal, reactor coolant system 

inventory control, and containment integrity 

are no longer applicable at OCNGS as a 

permanently defueled plant. The analyzed 

accidents involving damage to the reactor 

coolant system, main steam lines, reactor 

core, and the subsequent release of 

radioactive material will no longer be 

possible at OCNGS. 

After OCNGS permanently ceases 

operation, the future generation of fission 

products will cease and the remaining source 

term will decay. The radioactive decay of the 

irradiated fuel following shutdown of the 

reactor will have reduced the consequences 

of the FHA in the SFP below those 

previously analyzed. The relevant parameter 

(water level) associated with the fuel pool 

provides an initial condition for the FHA 

analysis and is included in the PDTS. 

The SFP water level and spent fuel storage 

TSs are retained to preserve the current 

requirements for safe storage of irradiated 

fuel. SFP cooling and makeup related 

equipment and support equipment (e.g., 

electrical power systems) are not required to 

be continuously available since there will be 

sufficient time to effect repairs, establish 

alternate sources of makeup flow, or establish 

alternate sources of cooling in the event of a 

loss of cooling and makeup flow to the SFP. 

The deletion and modification of 

provisions of the administrative controls do 

not directly affect the design of SSCs 

necessary for safe storage of irradiated fuel or 

the methods used for handling and storage of 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
2230 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2018 / Notices 

such fuel in the fuel pool. The changes to the 

administrative controls are administrative in 

nature and do not affect any accidents 

applicable to the safe management of 

irradiated fuel or the permanently shutdown 

and defueled condition of the reactor. 

The probability of occurrence of previously 

evaluated accidents is not increased, since 

extended operation in a defueled condition 

will be the only operation allowed, and 

therefore bounded by the existing analyses. 

Additionally, the occurrence of postulated 

accidents associated with reactor operation 

will no longer be credible in a permanently 

defueled reactor. This significantly reduces 

the scope of applicable accidents. 

Therefore, the proposed amendment does 

not involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an accident 

previously evaluated. 

2. Does the proposed amendment create 

the possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed changes to delete and/or 

modify certain TS have no impact on facility 

SSCs affecting the safe storage of spent 

irradiated fuel, or on the methods of 

operation of such SSCs, or on the handling 

and storage of spent irradiated fuel itself. The 

removal of TS that are related only to the 

operation of the nuclear reactor or only to the 

prevention, diagnosis, or mitigation of reactor 

related transients or accidents, cannot result 

in different or more adverse failure modes or 

accidents than previously evaluated because 

the reactor will be permanently shutdown 

and defueled and OCNGS will no longer be 

authorized to operate the reactor. 

The proposed deletion of requirements of 

the OCNGS RFOL and TS do not affect 

systems credited in the accident analysis for 

the FHA in the SFP at OCNGS. The proposed 

RFOL and PDTS will continue to require 

proper control and monitoring of safety 

significant parameters and activities. 

The TS regarding SFP water level and 

spent fuel storage is retained to preserve the 

current requirements for safe storage of 

irradiated fuel. The restriction on the SFP 

water level is fulfilled by normal operating 

conditions and preserves initial conditions 

assumed in the analyses of the postulated 

DBA. 

The proposed amendment does not result 

in any new mechanisms that could initiate 

damage to the remaining relevant safety 

barriers for defueled plants (fuel cladding 

and spent fuel cooling). Since extended 

operation in a defueled condition will be the 

only operation allowed, and therefore 

bounded by the existing analyses, such a 

condition does not create the possibility of a 

new or different kind of accident. 

Therefore, the proposed changes do not 

create the possibility of a new or different 

kind of accident from any accident 

previously evaluated. 

3. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The proposed changes involve deleting 

and/or modifying certain TS once the 

OCNGS facility has been permanently 

shutdown, defueled, and at least 60 days of 

irradiated fuel decay time after reactor 

shutdown. As specified in 10 CFR 

50.82(a)(2), the 10 CFR 50 license for OCNGS 

will no longer authorize operation of the 

reactor or emplacement or retention of fuel 

into the reactor vessel following submittal of 

the certifications required by 10 CFR 

50.82(a)(1). As a result, the occurrence of 

certain design basis postulated accidents 

associated with reactor operation is no longer 

considered credible. The only remaining 

credible accidents are a FHA and the 

Postulated Radioactive Releases Due to 

Liquid Radwaste Tank Failures. The 

proposed amendment does not adversely 

affect the inputs or assumptions of any of the 

design basis analyses that impact either 

accident. 

The proposed changes are limited to those 

portions of the RFOL and TS that are not 

related to the safe storage of irradiated fuel. 

The requirements that are proposed to be 

revised or deleted from the OCNGS RFOL 

and TS are not credited in the existing 

accident analysis for the remaining 

applicable postulated accidents; and as such, 

do not contribute to the margin of safety 

associated with the accident analysis. 

Postulated design basis accidents involving 

the reactor will no longer be possible because 

the reactor will be permanently shutdown 

and defueled and OCNGS will no longer be 

authorized to operate the reactor. 

Therefore, the proposed changes 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 NSHC. 

Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer, 

Associate General Counsel, Exelon 

Generation Company, LLC, 4300 

Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555. 

NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. 

Broaddus. 

NextEra Energy Duane Arnold, LLC, 

Docket No. 50–331, Duane Arnold 

Energy Center, Linn County, Iowa 

Date of amendment request: June 9, 

2017, as supplemented by letter dated 

November 1, 2017. Publicly-available 

versions are in ADAMS under 

Accession Nos. ML17164A076 and 

ML17305A910, respectively. 

Description of amendment request: 

The proposed amendment would 

replace the existing technical 

specification (TS) requirements related 

to ‘‘operations with a potential for 

draining the reactor vessel’’ (OPDRVs) 

with requirements for reactor pressure 

vessel (RPV) water inventory control 

(WIC) to protect Safety Limit 2.1.1.3. 

Safety Limit 2.1.1.3 requires RPV water 

level to be greater than the top of active 

irradiated fuel. The proposed 

amendment is based on Technical 

Specification Task Force (TSTF) traveler 

TSTF–542, Revision 2, ‘‘Reactor 

Pressure Vessel Water Inventory 

Control,’’ which was approved by the 

NRC by letter dated December 20, 2016. 

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 replaces existing TS 

requirements related to OPDRVs with new 

requirements on RPV WIC that will protect 

Safety Limit 2.1.1.3. Draining of RPV water 

inventory in Mode 4 (i.e., cold shutdown) 

and Mode 5 (i.e., refueling) is not an accident 

previously evaluated and, therefore, 

replacing the existing TS controls to prevent 

or mitigate such an event with a new set of 

controls has no effect on any accident 

previously evaluated. RPV water inventory 

control in Mode 4 or Mode 5 is not an 

initiator of any accident previously 

evaluated. The existing OPDRV controls or 

the proposed RPV WIC controls are not 

mitigating actions assumed in any accident 

previously evaluated. 

The proposed change reduces the 

probability of an unexpected draining event 

(which is not a previously evaluated 

accident) by imposing new requirements on 

the limiting time in which an unexpected 

draining event could result in the reactor 

vessel water level dropping to the top of the 

active fuel (TAF). These controls require 

cognizance of the plant configuration and 

control of configurations with unacceptably 

short drain times. These requirements reduce 

the probability of an unexpected draining 

event. The current TS requirements are only 

mitigating actions and impose no 

requirements that reduce the probability of 

an unexpected draining event. 

The proposed change reduces the 

consequences of an unexpected draining 

event (which is not a previously evaluated 

accident) by requiring an Emergency Core 

Cooling System (ECCS) subsystem to be 

operable at all times in Modes 4 and 5. The 

current TS requirements do not require any 

water injection systems, ECCS or otherwise, 

to be Operable in certain conditions in Mode 

5. The change in requirement from two ECCS 

subsystems to one ECCS subsystem in Modes 

4 and 5 does not significantly affect the 

consequences of an unexpected draining 

event because the proposed Actions ensure 

equipment is available within the limiting 

drain time that is as capable of mitigating the 

event as the current requirements. The 

proposed controls provide escalating 

compensatory measures to be established as 

calculated drain times decrease, such as 

verification of a second method of water 

injection and additional confirmations that 

containment and/or filtration would be 

available if needed. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2018 / Notices 2231 

The proposed change reduces or eliminates 

some requirements that were determined to 

be unnecessary to manage the consequences 

of an unexpected draining event, such as 

automatic initiation of an ECCS subsystem 

and control room ventilation. These changes 

do not affect the consequences of any 

accident previously evaluated since a 

draining event in Modes 4 and 5 is not a 

previously evaluated accident and the 

requirements are not needed to adequately 

respond to a draining event. 

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 replaces existing TS 

requirements related to OPDRVs with new 

requirements on RPV WIC that will protect 

Safety Limit 2.1.1.3. The proposed change 

will not alter the design function of the 

equipment involved. Under the proposed 

change, some systems that are currently 

required to be operable during OPDRVs 

would be required to be available within the 

limiting drain time or to be in service 

depending on the limiting drain time. Should 

those systems be unable to be placed into 

service, the consequences are no different 

than if those systems were unable to perform 

their function under the current TS 

requirements. 

The event of concern under the current 

requirements and the proposed change is an 

unexpected draining event. The proposed 

change does not create new failure 

mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident 

initiators that would cause a draining event 

or a new or different kind of accident not 

previously evaluated or included in the 

design and licensing bases. 

Therefore, 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. 

The proposed change replaces existing TS 

requirements related to OPDRVs with new 

requirements on RPV WIC. The current 

requirements do not have a stated safety basis 

and no margin of safety is established in the 

licensing basis. The safety basis for the new 

requirements is to protect Safety Limit 

2.1.1.3. New requirements are added to 

determine the limiting time in which the 

RPV water inventory could drain to the top 

of the fuel in the reactor vessel should an 

unexpected draining event occur. Plant 

configurations that could result in lowering 

the RPV water level to the TAF within one 

hour are now prohibited. New escalating 

compensatory measures based on the limiting 

drain time replace the current controls. The 

proposed TS establish a safety margin by 

providing defense-in-depth to ensure that the 

Safety Limit is protected and to protect the 

public health and safety. While some less 

restrictive requirements are proposed for 

plant configurations with long calculated 

drain times, the overall effect of the change 

is to improve plant safety and to add safety 

margin. 

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: William Blair, 

P. O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, FL 33408– 

0420. 

NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona. 

Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), 

Docket Nos. 50–259, 50–260, and 50– 

296, Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN), 

Units 1, 2, and 3, Limestone County, 

Alabama 

TVA, Docket Nos. 50–327 and 50–328, 

Sequoyah Nuclear Plant (SQN), Units 1 

and 2, Hamilton County, Tennessee 

TVA, Docket Nos. 50–390 and 50–391, 

Watts Bar Nuclear Plant (WBN), Units 1 

and 2, Rhea County, Tennessee 

Date of amendment request: 

November 17, 2017. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession Nos. ML17324A349. 

Description of amendment request: 

The amendments would add a new level 

of protection, ‘‘Unbalanced Voltage,’’ to 

the Technical Specifications for the loss 

of power instrumentation. The NRC 

issued Bulletin 2012–01, ‘‘Design 

Vulnerability in Electric Power 

System,’’ which requested addressees to 

submit specific information regarding 

plant design and operating 

configurations relative to the regulatory 

requirements of General Design 

Criterion (GDC) 17, ‘‘Electric power 

systems.’’ The Nuclear Energy Institute 

notified the NRC that the nuclear 

industry’s chief nuclear officers 

approved a formal initiative to address 

the open phase condition (OPC). It 

further stated that the initiative 

represented a formal commitment 

among nuclear power plant licensees to 

address the OPC design vulnerability for 

operating reactors. 

The licensee stated, in its November 

17, 2017, submittal, that the primary 

reason for the proposed change is to 

provide equipment protection from the 

effects of an unbalanced voltage in a 

similar fashion to the existing degraded 

and loss of voltage protection schemes. 

The identification of the vulnerability 

was based on industry operating 

experience and subsequent commitment 

to meet the voluntary Nuclear Strategic 

Issues Advisory Committee Open Phase 

Industry Initiative, also known as the 

‘‘Voluntary Industry Initiative’’ (VII) for 

GDC 17 Compliance. 

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 

consequence of an accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change to add a new 

unbalanced voltage relay (UVR) function at 

BFN, SQN, and WBN provides another level 

of undervoltage protection for the Class 1E 

electrical equipment. The new relay setpoints 

ensure that the normally operating Class 1E 

motors and equipment, which are powered 

from the Class 1E buses, are appropriately 

isolated from the normal offsite power source 

and would not be damaged in the event of 

sustained unbalanced voltage. The addition 

of the UVR function continues to allow the 

existing undervoltage protection circuitry to 

function as originally designed (i.e., degraded 

and loss of voltage protection remain in place 

and are unaffected by this change). The 

addition of the new UVR function has no 

impact on accident initiators or precursors; 

does not alter the accident analysis 

assumptions or the manner in which the 

plant is operated or maintained; and does not 

affect the probability of operator error. 

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 proposed amendment create 

the possibility of a new or different kind of 

accident from any accident previously 

evaluated? 

Response: No. 

The proposed change to add a new UVR 

function at BFN, SQN, and WBN provides 

another level of undervoltage protection for 

the Class 1E electrical equipment. This 

change ensures that the assumption in the 

previously evaluated accidents, which may 

involve a degraded voltage condition, 

continue to be valid. 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. The UVR function would not affect 

the existing loss of voltage and degraded 

voltage protection schemes, would not affect 

the number of occurrences of degraded 

voltage conditions that would cause the 

actuation of the existing Loss of Voltage 

Relays, Degraded Voltage Relays or the new 

UVRs; would not affect the failure rate of the 

existing protection relays; and 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. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
2232 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2018 / Notices 

3. Does the proposed amendment involve 

a significant reduction in a margin of safety? 

Response: No. 

The current undervoltage protection 

circuitry is designed to isolate the normally 

operating Class 1E motors/equipment, which 

are powered from the Class 1E buses, from 

the offsite power source such that the subject 

equipment would not be damaged in the 

event of sustained degraded bus voltage. 

After the Class 1E buses are isolated from the 

offsite power supply, the Class 1E motors 

would be sequenced back on the Class 1E bus 

powered by the diesel generators (DGs) and 

continue to perform their design basis 

function to mitigate the consequences of an 

accident, with a specified margin of safety. 

With the addition of the new level of 

undervoltage protection, the capability of the 

Class 1E equipment is assured. Thus the 

equipment would continue to perform its 

design basis function to mitigate the 

consequences of the previously analyzed 

accidents and maintain the existing margin to 

safety currently assumed in the accident 

analyses. A DG start due to a safety injection 

signal (i.e., loss of coolant accident) and the 

subsequent sequencing of Class 1E loads back 

onto the Class 1E buses, powered by the DG, 

are not adversely affected by this change. If 

an actual loss of voltage condition were to 

occur on the Class 1E buses, the loss of 

voltage time delays would continue to isolate 

the Class 1E distribution system from the 

offsite power source prior to the DG 

assuming the Class 1E loads. The Class 1E 

loads would sequence back on the bus in a 

specified order and timer interval, again 

ensuring that the existing accident analysis 

assumptions remain valid and the existing 

margin to safety is unaffected. 

Therefore, the proposed change does not 

involve a significant reduction in a margin of 

safety. 

The NRC staff has reviewed the 

licensee’s analysis and, based on this 

review, it appears that the three 

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff 

proposes to determine that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. 

Attorney for licensee: General 

Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 

400 West Summit Hill Drive, 6A West 

Tower, Knoxville, TN 37902. 

NRC Branch Chief: Undine Shoop. 

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. 

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 

Docket Nos. 50–247 and 50–286, Indian 

Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 

and 3 (Indian Point 2 and 3), 

Westchester County, New York 

Date of amendment request: 

December 14, 2016, as supplemented by 

letters dated April 19, 2017; August 16, 

2017; and October 2, 2017. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments revised the Appendix A 

Technical Specifications Limiting 

Condition for Operation (LCO) 3.7.13, 

‘‘Spent Fuel Pit Storage,’’ for Indian 

Point 2 and Appendix C Technical 

Specifications LCO 3.1.2, ‘‘Shielded 

Transfer Canister (STC) Loading,’’ for 

Indian Point 2 and 3. These LCOs 

ensure that the fuel to be loaded into the 

STC meets the design basis for the STC 

and has an acceptable rack location in 

the Indian Point 2 spent fuel pool before 

the STC is loaded with fuel. The 

proposed changes increase the 

population of Indian Point 3 fuel 

eligible for transfer via the STC to the 

Indian Point 2 spent fuel pool. 

Date of issuance: December 22, 2017. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance, and shall be implemented 

within 60 days. 

Amendment Nos.: 287 (Unit No. 2) 

and 264 (Unit No. 3). A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML17320A354; 

documents related to these amendments 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendments. 

Facility Operating License Nos. DPR– 

26 and DPR–64: The amendments 

revised the Facility Operating Licenses 

and Technical Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: June 19, 2017 (82 FR 27885). 

The supplemental letters dated August 

16, 2017, and October 2, 2017, provided 

additional information that clarified the 

application, did not expand the scope of 

the application as originally noticed, 

and did not change the NRC staff’s 

original proposed no significant hazards 

consideration determination as 

published in the Federal Register. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated December 22, 

2017. 

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: May 1, 

2017, as supplemented by letter dated 

June 13, 2017. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revised the completion date 

for Milestone 8, full implementation of 

the Cyber Security Plan, from December 

15, 2017, to July 31, 2019. 

Date of issuance: December 15, 2017. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 30 days of issuance. 

Amendment No.: 266. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML17339A097; 

documents related to this amendment 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendments. 

Facility Operating License No. DPR– 

28: The amendment revised the Facility 

Operating License. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: August 15, 2017 (82 FR 38717). 

The supplemental letter dated June 13, 

2017, 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 December 15, 

2017. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2018 / Notices 2233 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC and 

PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50–277 

and 50–278, Peach Bottom Atomic 

Power Station, Units 2 and 3, York and 

Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania 

Date of amendment request: January 

30, 2017, as supplemented by letters 

dated August 11, 2017, September 8, 

2017, and December 20, 2017. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments replaced existing 

Technical Specification requirements 

related to ‘‘operations with a potential 

for draining the reactor vessel’’ with 

new requirements on reactor pressure 

vessel water inventory control to protect 

Safety Limit 2.1.1.3. Safety Limit 2.1.1.3 

requires reactor pressure vessel water 

level to be greater than the top of active 

irradiated fuel. The changes are based 

on Technical Specifications Task Force 

(TSTF) Traveler TSTF–542, Revision 2, 

‘‘Reactor Pressure Vessel Water 

Inventory Control.’’ 

Date of issuance: December 27, 2017. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

prior to the Unit 2 fall 2018 refueling 

outage (P2R22). 

Amendments Nos.: 317 (Unit 2) and 

320 (Unit 3). A publicly-available 

version is in ADAMS under Accession 

No. ML17325B708; documents related 

to these amendments are listed in the 

Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 

amendments. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. DPR–44 and DPR–56: The 

amendments revised the Renewed 

Facility Operating Licenses and 

Technical Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: March 28, 2017 (82 FR 15382). 

The supplemental letters dated August 

11, 2017, September 8, 2017, and 

December 20, 2017, provided additional 

information that clarified the 

application, did not expand the scope of 

the application as originally noticed, 

and did not change the NRC staff’s 

original proposed no significant hazards 

consideration determination as 

published in the Federal Register. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated December 27, 

2017. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket No. 50–410, Nine Mile Point 

Nuclear Station, Unit 2, Oswego County, 

New York 

Date of amendment request: April 5, 

2017. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revised the Nine Mile Point 

Nuclear Station, Unit 2, Technical 

Specifications to allow greater flexibility 

in performing surveillance testing in 

Modes 1, 2, or 3 of emergency diesel 

generators. The changes are based on 

Technical Specifications Task Force 

(TSTF) Traveler TSTF–283A, Revision 

3, ‘‘Modify Section 3.8 Mode 

Restrictions Notes.’’ 

Date of issuance: December 21, 2017. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 60 days of issuance. 

Amendment No.: 165. A publiclyavailable version of the amendment is in 

ADAMS under Accession No. 

ML17324B178; documents related to 

this amendment are listed in the Safety 

Evaluation enclosed with the 

amendment. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. NPF–69: Amendment revised the 

Renewed Facility Operating License and 

Technical Specifications. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: June 19, 2017 (82 FR 27887). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated December 21, 

2017. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 

Docket No. 50–219, Oyster Creek 

Nuclear Generating Station (OCNGS), 

Ocean County, New Jersey 

Date of amendment request: April 10, 

2017, as supplemented by letters dated 

October 4 and December 15, 2017. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendment revised the OCNGS 

renewed facility operating license for 

the Cyber Security Plan (CSP) Milestone 

8 full implementation completion date, 

as set forth in the CSP implementation 

schedule, and revised the physical 

protection license condition. The 

amendment revised the CSP Milestone 8 

completion date from December 31, 

2017, to August 31, 2021. 

Date of issuance: December 22, 2017. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 30 days of issuance. 

Amendment No.: 292. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML17289A222; 

documents related to this amendment 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendment. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

No. DPR–16: The amendment revised 

the renewed facility operating license. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: May 23, 2017 (82 FR 23626). 

The supplemental letters dated October 

4 and December 15, 2017, 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 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 December 22, 

2017. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Indiana Michigan Power Company, 

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

C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 

2, Berrien County, Michigan 

Date of amendment request: March 

24, 2017. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments revised the Donald C. Cook 

Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, 

Technical Specification (TS) 3.7.2, 

‘‘Steam Generator Stop Valves 

(SGSVs),’’ to incorporate the SGSV 

actuator trains into the Limiting 

Condition for Operation statement and 

to provide associated Conditions, 

Required Actions, and Completion 

Times to the ACTIONS table. In 

addition, Surveillance Requirement (SR) 

3.7.2.2 was revised to clearly identify 

that the SGSV actuator trains are 

required to be tested in accordance with 

the SR. 

Date of issuance: December 19, 2017. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 90 days of issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: Unit No. 1–338; 

Unit No. 2–320. A publicly-available 

version is in ADAMS under Accession 

No. ML17312B030; documents related 

to these amendments are listed in the 

Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 

amendments. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. DPR–58 and DPR–74: Amendments 

revised the Renewed Facility Operating 

Licenses and TSs. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: May 23, 2017 (82 FR 23626). 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendment is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated December 19, 

2017. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 

Docket Nos. 50–348 and 50–364, Joseph 

M. Farley Nuclear Plant (FNP), Units 1 

and 2, Houston County, Alabama 

Date of amendment request: 

November 22, 2016, as supplemented by 

letters dated May 23, 2017; June 8, 2017; 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
2234 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 16, 2018 / Notices 

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

2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 

September 7, 2017; November 21, 2017; 

and December 18, 2017. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments revised the licensing basis 

of FNP to support a full scope 

application of an Alternative Source 

Term methodology and modified 

Technical Specifications (TSs) 3.7.10, 

3.9.3, and TS 5.5.18, consistent with 

Technical Specifications Task Force 

(TSTF) Travelers TSTF–448–A, 

‘‘Control Room Habitability,’’ Revision 

3, and TSTF–312, ‘‘Administratively 

Control Containment Penetrations.’’ 

Date of issuance: December 20, 2017. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 120 days of issuance. 

Amendment Nos.: 216 (Unit 1) and 

213 (Unit 2). A publicly-available 

version is in ADAMS under Accession 

No. ML17271A265; documents related 

to these amendments are listed in the 

Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 

amendments. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. NPF–2 and NPF–8: The 

amendments revised the Renewed 

Facility Operating Licenses and TSs. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: January 3, 2017 (82 FR 160). 

The supplemental letters dated May 23, 

2017; June 8, 2017; September 7, 2017; 

November 21, 2017; and December 18, 

2017, provided additional information 

that clarified the application, did not 

expand the scope of the application as 

originally noticed, and did not change 

the NRC staff’s original proposed no 

significant hazards consideration 

determination as published in the 

Federal Register. 

The Commission’s related evaluation 

of the amendments is contained in a 

Safety Evaluation dated December 20, 

2017. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket 

Nos. 50–259, 50–260, and 50–296, 

Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, 

and 3 (BFN), Limestone County, 

Alabama 

Date of amendment request: June 7, 

2017. As supplemented by letters dated 

September 18 and October 23, 2017. 

Brief description of amendment: The 

amendments revised fire protection 

license condition 2.C.(13) for Unit 1, 

license condition 2.C.(14) for Unit 2, 

and license condition 2.C.(7) for Unit 3. 

Date of issuance: December 19, 2017. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented as 

indicated in Items 2 and 3 under 

‘‘Transition License Conditions’’ of the 

Operating Licenses, as shown in the 

attachment to the license amendments. 

Amendment Nos.: 302 (Unit 1), 326 

(Unit 2), and 286 (Unit 3). A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML17317A422; 

documents related to these amendments 

are listed in the Safety Evaluation 

enclosed with the amendments. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. DPR–33, DPR–52, and DPR–68: 

Amendments revised the licenses. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: September 5, 2017 (82 FR 

41997). The supplemental letters dated 

September 18 and October 23, 2017, 

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 evaluations 

of the amendments are contained in 

Safety Evaluations dated December 19, 

2017. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) 

Docket Nos. 50–259, 50–260, 50–296, 

and 72–052, Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant 

(BFN), Units 1, 2, and 3, Limestone 

County, Alabama 

TVA Docket Nos. 50–327, 50–328, and 

72–034, Sequoyah Nuclear Plant (SQN), 

Units 1 and 2, Hamilton County, 

Tennessee 

TVA Docket Nos. 50–390, 50–391, and 

72–1048, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant 

(WBN), Units 1 and 2, Rhea County, 

Tennessee 

Date of amendment request: January 

4, 2017, as supplemented by letter dated 

July 7, 2017. 

Brief description of amendments: The 

amendments revised TVA Emergency 

Plans for the above nuclear plants. 

Specifically, they adopted the NRCendorsed Radiological Emergency Plan 

Emergency Action Level schemes 

developed by the Nuclear Energy 

Institute (NEI 99–01, Revision 6, 

‘‘Development of Emergency Action 

Levels for Non-Passive Reactors’’). 

Date of issuance: December 22, 2017. 

Effective date: As of the date of 

issuance and shall be implemented 

within 180 days from the date of its 

issuance or July 3, 2018, whichever 

comes later. 

Amendment Nos.: BFN, 303 (Unit 1), 

327 (Unit 2), and 287 (Unit 3); SQN, 339 

(Unit 1) and 332 (Unit 2); and WBN, 118 

(Unit 1) and 18 (Unit 2). A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML17289A032; 

documents related to these amendments 

are listed in the Safety Evaluations (SEs) 

enclosed with the amendments. 

Renewed Facility Operating License 

Nos. DPR–33, DPR–52, DPR–68, DPR– 

77, DPR–79 and Facility Operating 

License Nos, NPF–90 and NPF–96: 

Amendments revised the licenses. 

Date of initial notice in Federal 

Register: June 19, 2017 (82 FR 27891). 

The supplemental letter dated July 7, 

2017, 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 SEs 

dated December 22, 2017. 

No significant hazards consideration 

comments received: No. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, on January 8, 

2018. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Kathryn M. Brock, 

Acting Director, Division of Operating Reactor 

Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation. 

[FR Doc. 2018–00386 Filed 1–12–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–82476; File No. SR– 

BATSBZX–2017–58] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats 

BZX Exchange, Inc.; Order Approving 

a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified 

by Amendment No. 2, To List and 

Trade Shares of the Cboe Vest S&P 

500® Dividend Aristocrats® Target 

Income Index ETF Under the ETF 

Series Solutions Trust Under Rule 

14.11(c)(3) 

January 9, 2018. 

I. Introduction 

On September 19, 2017, Bats BZX 

Exchange, Inc. (‘‘Exchange’’ or ‘‘BZX’’) 

filed with the Securities and Exchange 

Commission (‘‘Commission’’), pursuant 

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

Exchange Act of 1934 (‘‘Act’’ or 

‘‘Exchange Act’’) 1 and Rule 19b–4 

thereunder,2 a proposed rule change to 

list and trade shares (‘‘Shares’’) of the 

Cboe Vest S&P 500® Dividend 

Aristocrats® Target Income Index ETF 

(‘‘Fund’’) under the ETF Series 

Solutions Trust (‘‘Trust’’). The proposed 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES