[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 20 (Tuesday, January 30, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4289-4296]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-01469]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2018-0012]


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 30, 2017, to January 12, 2018. The 
last biweekly notice was published on January 16, 2018.

DATES: Comments must be filed by March 1, 2018. A request for a hearing 
must be filed by April 2, 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-2018-0012. Address 
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-
3463; email: [email protected]. For technical questions, contact 
the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of 
this document.
     Mail comments to: May Ma, Office of Administration, Mail 
Stop: 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: Lynn Ronewicz, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1927, email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments

A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2018-0012, 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 publicly-available 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-2018-0012.
     NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the 
ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select ``ADAMS Public Documents'' and 
then select ``Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.'' For problems with ADAMS, 
please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 
1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected]. 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-2018-0012, 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 Sec.  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

[[Page 4290]]

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

B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)

    All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a 
request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition), any 
motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the 
submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and 
documents filed by interested governmental entities that request to 
participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the 
NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007, as amended at 77 FR 
46562, August 3, 2012). The E-Filing process requires participants to 
submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in 
some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Detailed 
guidance on making electronic submissions may be found in the Guidance 
for Electronic Submissions to the NRC and on the NRC website at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants may not submit 
paper copies of their filings

[[Page 4291]]

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 [email protected], or by 
telephone at 301-415-1677, to (1) request a digital identification (ID) 
certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or 
representative) to digitally sign submissions and access the E-Filing 
system for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise 
the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a petition or 
other adjudicatory document (even in instances in which the 
participant, or its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-
issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the 
Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the hearing in this 
proceeding if the Secretary has not already established an electronic 
docket.
    Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is 
available on the NRC's public website at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/getting-started.html. Once a participant has obtained a 
digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant 
can then submit adjudicatory documents. Submissions must be in Portable 
Document Format (PDF). Additional guidance on PDF submissions is 
available on the NRC's public website at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/electronic-sub-ref-mat.html. A filing is considered complete at the 
time the document is submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be 
timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system 
no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of 
a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends 
the submitter an email notice confirming receipt of the document. The 
E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access 
to the document to the NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any 
others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to 
participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the 
document on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and 
other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for 
and receive a digital ID certificate before adjudicatory documents are 
filed so that they can obtain access to the documents via the E-Filing 
system.
    A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-
Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC's Electronic 
Filing Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC's 
public website at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by 
email to [email protected], or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-
7640. The NRC Electronic Filing Help Desk is available between 9 a.m. 
and 6 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government 
holidays.
    Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not 
submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in 
accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing 
stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and 
requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper 
format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail 
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: 
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or 
expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and 
Adjudications Staff. Participants filing adjudicatory documents in this 
manner are responsible for serving the document on all other 
participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of 
the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or 
expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the 
provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an 
exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or 
party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines 
that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no 
longer exists.
    Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the 
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at 
https://adams.nrc.gov/ehd, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the 
Commission or the presiding officer. If you do not have an NRC-issued 
digital ID certificate as described above, click cancel when the link 
requests certificates and you will be automatically directed to the 
NRC's electronic hearing dockets where you will be able to access any 
publicly available documents in a particular hearing docket. 
Participants are requested not to include personal privacy information, 
such as social security numbers, home addresses, or personal phone 
numbers in their filings, unless an NRC regulation or other law 
requires submission of such information. For example, in some 
instances, individuals provide home addresses in order to demonstrate 
proximity to a facility or site. With respect to copyrighted works, 
except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory 
filings and would constitute a Fair Use application, participants are 
requested not to include copyrighted materials in their submission.
    For further details with respect to these license amendment 
applications, see the application for amendment which is available for 
public inspection in ADAMS and at the NRC's PDR. For additional 
direction on accessing information related to this document, see the 
``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' section of this 
document.

Entergy Louisiana, LLC, and Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-
458, River Bend Station, Unit 1 (RBS), West Feliciana Parish, Louisiana

    Date of amendment request: September 8, 2017. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17255A463.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the 
RBS Technical Specifications (TSs) by adding a new specification 
related to ``Control Building Air Conditioning (AC) System,'' TS 
Limiting Condition for Operation 3.7.7. This new TS specifically would 
address the AC function for switchgear and other electrical equipment 
located in the RBS control building. A TS Surveillance Requirement 
3.7.7.1 would be added to verify that the control building AC (CBAC) 
system has the capability to remove the assumed heat load. The proposed 
amendment also requests a correction to the RBS license antitrust 
conditions, Appendix C, due to an administrative error.
    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 addition of Technical Specification (TS) 3.7.7 
creates a Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) for the CBAC system 
required to support TS equipment. The Completion Time presented in 
the proposed TS is consistent with other [engineered safety feature 
(ESF)] mechanical system Completion Times and is supported by the 
inputs used in the current analysis.

[[Page 4292]]

    The CBAC systems, including the Control Building Heating, 
Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) and the Control Building 
Chilled Water systems, are designed for the mitigation of design 
basis accidents or transients, such as a Loss of Coolant Accident 
(LOCA). They are not designed, nor do they serve, for the prevention 
of those events. Consequently, the proposed amendment does not 
increase the probability of a previously evaluated accident 
occurring.
    Should an accident occur during the period of time that one 
subsystem of the CBAC system is out of service, the other subsystem 
components would serve to provide the minimum required air 
conditioning and chilled water assumed in the accident analysis. 
Therefore, the radiological consequences of associated accidents 
assuming no additional failures are not impacted by the proposed 
amendment.
    Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not 
significantly increase the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change provides a new technical specification 
providing a new completion time [(CT)] for one CBAC subsystem out of 
service CT. The change does not involve any unanalyzed modifications 
to the design or operational limits. The new CT does not introduce 
any new or unanalyzed modes of operation. No new accident scenarios, 
failure mechanisms or limiting single failures are introduced as 
result of the proposed change. The change has no adverse effects on 
any safety related system. Therefore, no new failure modes or 
accident precursors are created.
    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 does not change any accident analyses. The 
proposed change does not exceed or alter a design basis or safety 
limit, including limits on Control Building temperatures; therefore 
it does not significantly reduce the margin of safety. The proposed 
change establishes TS Allowed Outage Times for CBAC which are longer 
than the current governing LCO's. The risk implications of this 
amendment request were evaluated and found to be acceptable.
    During the proposed Completion Time, the supported systems will 
remain capable of providing adequate airflow and chilled water to 
maintain the supported systems capable of mitigating the 
consequences of a design basis event such as LOCA with no additional 
single failure.
    The proposed change does not impact accident offsite dose, 
containment pressure or temperature, emergency core cooling system 
(ECCS) or reactor protection system (RPS) settings or other 
parameter that could affect a margin of safety.
    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: William B. Glew, Jr., Associate General 
Counsel--Entergy Services, Inc., 440 Hamilton Avenue, White Plains, NY 
10601.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.

Entergy Louisiana, LLC, and Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-
458, River Bend Station, Unit 1 (RBS), West Feliciana Parish, Louisiana

    Date of amendment request: November 15, 2017. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17319A898.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the 
RBS Technical Specifications (TSs) by replacing the existing 
specifications related to ``operation with a potential for draining the 
reactor vessels'' (OPDRVs) with revised 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 reactor vessel water level 
to be greater than the top of active irradiated fuel. The proposed 
amendment would adopt changes, with variations as noted in the license 
amendment request, and is based on the NRC-approved safety evaluation 
for Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-542, 
Revision 2, ``Reactor Pressure Vessel Water Inventory Control,'' dated 
December 20, 2016 (ADAMS Accession No. ML16343B065).
    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.
    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

[[Page 4293]]

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 B. Glew, Jr., Associate General 
Counsel--Entergy Services, Inc., 440 Hamilton Avenue, White Plains, NY 
10601.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, Docket No. 50-440, Perry Nuclear 
Power Plant, Unit No. 1, Lake County, Ohio

    Date of amendment request: December 6, 2017. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17347A788.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would add, replace, 
and modify numerous technical specification (TS) requirements related 
to operations that have the potential for draining the reactor vessel 
(OPDRVs) with new requirements on reactor pressure vessel water 
inventory control (RPV WIC) to protect TS Safety Limit 2.1.1.3. The 
proposed changes are based on Technical Specifications Task Force 
(TSTF) Traveler TSTF-542, ``Reactor Pressure Vessel Water Inventory 
Control.''
    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 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 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 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. 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 license bases.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in 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 license 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

[[Page 4294]]

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 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: David W. Jenkins, FirstEnergy Corporation, 
Mail Stop A-GO-15, 76 South Main Street, Akron, OH 44308.
    NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.

PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50-354, Hope Creek Generating Station, 
Salem County, New Jersey

    Date of amendment request: September 21, 2017. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17265A847.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the 
Hope Creek Generating Station Technical Specifications (TSs) by 
replacing the existing specifications related to ``operation with a 
potential for draining the reactor vessel'' (OPDRV) with revised 
requirements for reactor pressure vessel (RPV) water inventory control 
(WIC) to protect Safety Limit 2.1.4. Safety Limit 2.1.4 requires 
reactor vessel water level to be greater than the top of active 
irradiated fuel. The amendment would adopt changes with variations as 
noted in the license amendment request and is based on the NRC-approved 
safety evaluation for Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) 
Traveler TSTF-542, Revision 2, ``Reactor Pressure Vessel Water 
Inventory Control,'' 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 2.1.4. Draining of RPV water inventory in OPCON [Operational 
Condition] 4 (i.e., cold shutdown) and OPCON 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 OPCON 4 or OPCON 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 OPCONs 4 and 5. The current TS requirements 
do not require any water injection systems, ECCS or otherwise, to be 
Operable in certain conditions in OPCON 5. The change in requirement 
from two ECCS subsystems to one ECCS subsystem in OPCONs 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 2.1.4. 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 2.1.4. 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: Jeffrie J. Keenan, PSEG Nuclear LLC--N21, 
P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038.
    NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna.

[[Page 4295]]

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, Units 1 and 2, York County, South Carolina

    Date of amendment request: December 15, 2016, as supplemented by 
letters dated June 8, 2017, and July 17, 2017.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments modified Technical 
Specification (TS) 3.9.4, ``Residual Heat Removal (RHR) and Coolant 
Circulation--High Water Level,'' and TS 3.9.5, ``Residual Heat Removal 
(RHR) and Coolant Circulation--Low Water Level.'' Condition A of TS 
3.9.4 applies when RHR requirements are not met and includes four 
required actions. Required Action A.4 requires, within 4 hours, the 
closure of all containment penetrations providing direct access from 
containment atmosphere to outside atmosphere. The proposed changes 
revise Required Action A.4 and add new Required Actions A.5, A.6.1, and 
A.6.2 to clarify that the intent of the required actions is to 
establish containment closure. Each of these required actions will have 
a completion time of 4 hours. Condition B of TS 3.9.5 applies when no 
RHR loop is in operation and includes three required actions. Required 
Action B.3 requires the closure of all containment penetrations 
providing direct access from containment atmosphere to outside 
atmosphere. The proposed changes are the same as the proposed changes 
to TS 3.9.4, consisting of a revision to Required Action B.3 and the 
addition of new Required Actions B.4, B.5.1, and B.5.2. These proposed 
changes are consistent with Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) 
Traveler TSTF-197-A, Revision 2, ``Require Containment Closure When 
Shutdown Cooling Requirements Are Not Met.''
    Date of issuance: January 4, 2018.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 120 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 297 (Unit 1) and 293 (Unit 2). A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17296A208; documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with 
the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-35 and NPF-52: 
Amendments revised the Renewed Licenses and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 23, 2017 (82 FR 
23618).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated January 4, 2018.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370, McGuire 
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina

    Date of amendment request: January 11, 2017, as supplemented by 
letter dated June 8, 2017.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments modified Technical 
Specification (TS) 3.9.4, ``Residual Heat Removal (RHR) and Coolant 
Circulation--High Water Level,'' and TS 3.9.5, ``Residual Heat Removal 
(RHR) and Coolant Circulation--Low Water Level.'' Condition A of TS 
3.9.4 applies when RHR requirements are not met and includes four 
required actions. Required Action A.4 requires, within 4 hours, the 
closure of all containment penetrations providing direct access from 
containment atmosphere to outside atmosphere. The proposed changes 
revise Required Action A.4 and add new Required Actions A.5, A.6.1, and 
A.6.2 to clarify that the intent of the required actions is to 
establish containment closure. Each of these required actions will have 
a completion time of 4 hours. Condition B of TS 3.9.5 applies when no 
RHR loop is in operation and includes three required actions. Required 
Action B.3 requires the closure of all containment penetrations 
providing direct access from containment atmosphere to outside 
atmosphere. The proposed changes are the same as the proposed changes 
to TS 3.9.4, consisting of a revision to Required Action B.3 and the 
addition of new Required Actions B.4, B.5.1, and B.5.2. These proposed 
changes are consistent with Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) 
Traveler TSTF-197-A, Revision 2, ``Require Containment Closure When 
Shutdown Cooling Requirements Are Not Met.''
    Date of issuance: January 5, 2018.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 120 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 305 (Unit 1) and 284 (Unit 2). A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17297A917; documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with 
the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-9 and NPF-17: 
Amendments revised the Renewed Licenses and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 23, 2017 (82 FR 
23619).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated January 5, 2018.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: Yes. One 
comment from a member of the public was received; however, it was not 
related to the proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination or to the proposed license amendment request.

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-247, Indian Point 
Nuclear Generating Unit No. 2, Westchester County, New York

    Date of amendment request: April 7, 2017, as supplemented by letter 
dated August 17, 2017.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical 
Specification Section 3.5.4, ``Refueling Water Storage Tank (RWST),'' 
to allow for the temporary connection between

[[Page 4296]]

the non-seismically qualified piping of the boric acid recovery system 
to the seismically qualified piping of the RWST for the purpose of 
purifying the contents of the RWST in advance of the Indian Point 
Nuclear Generating Unit No. 2 spring 2018 refueling outage. Operation 
in this mode will be under administrative controls and will only be 
applicable through the end of the spring 2018 refueling outage.
    Date of issuance: January 11, 2018.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days.
    Amendment No.: 288. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML17348A695; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Facility Operating License No. DPR-26: The amendment revised the 
Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 18, 2017 (82 FR 
32881). The supplemental letter dated August 17, 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 amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated January 11, 2018.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Entergy Operations, Inc.; System Energy Resources, Inc.; Cooperative 
Energy, A Mississippi Electric Cooperative; and Entergy Mississippi, 
Inc., Docket No. 50-416, Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (GGNS), 
Claiborne County, Mississippi

    Date of amendment request: December 29, 2016, as supplemented by 
letter dated August 25, 2017.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment modified GGNS 
Technical Specification (TS) 5.5.12, ``10 CFR Appendix J, Testing 
Program,'' and TS Surveillance Requirement 3.6.5.1.1 to allow for a one 
cycle extension to the 10-year frequency of the GGNS containment 
leakage rate test (i.e., Integrated Leakage Rate Test or Type A test) 
and the drywell bypass leakage rate test, respectively.
    Date of issuance: December 29, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
by February 18, 2018.
    Amendment No: 214. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML17334A739; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-29: The amendment 
revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 23, 2017 (82 FR 
23625). The supplemental letter dated August 25, 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 amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 29, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-237 and 50-249, Dresden 
Nuclear Power Station (DNPS), Unit Nos. 2 and 3, Grundy County, 
Illinois

    Date of amendment request: February 10, 2017, as supplemented by 
letters dated July 13, December 20, and December 21, 2017.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the DNPS, 
Unit Nos. 2 and 3, Technical Specifications (TSs) by replacing the 
existing specifications related to ``operations with a potential for 
draining the reactor vessel'' with revised requirements for reactor 
pressure vessel water inventory control to protect Safety Limit 
2.1.1.3. Safety Limit 2.1.1.3 requires reactor vessel water level to be 
greater than the top of active irradiated fuel. The amendments adopt 
changes, with variations, as noted in the license amendment request, 
and are based on the NRC-approved safety evaluation for Technical 
Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-542, Revision 2, 
``Reactor Pressure Vessel Water Inventory Control,'' dated December 20, 
2016.
    Date of issuance: January 8, 2018.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
prior to the beginning of the DNPS, Unit No. 3, refueling outage 
currently planned for fall of 2018.
    Amendment Nos.: 256 (Unit No. 2) and 249 (Unit No. 3). A publicly-
available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17272A783; 
documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety 
Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-19 and DPR-25: 
Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 11, 2017 (82 FR 
17457). The supplemental letters dated July 13, December 20, and 
December 21, 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 January 8, 2018.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, on January 23, 2018.
    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Greg A. Casto,
Acting Deputy Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office 
of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2018-01469 Filed 1-29-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7590-01-P