[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 10, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15412-15420]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-06668]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2018-0064]


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 March 13, 2018, to March 26, 2018. The last 
biweekly notice was published on March 27, 2018.

DATES: Comments must be filed by May 10, 2018. A request for a hearing 
must be filed by June 11, 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-2018-0064. Address 
questions about NRC dockets to Jennifer Borges; telephone: 301-287-
9127; email: [email protected]. For technical questions, contact 
the individual(s) listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section 
of this document.
     Mail Comments to: May Ma, Office of Administration, Mail 
Stop: TWFN-7-A60M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001.
    For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting 
comments, see ``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' in the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kay Goldstein, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1506, email: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments

A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2018-0064, 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-2018-0064.
     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-2018-0064, facility name, unit 
number(s), plant docket number, application date, and subject in your 
comment submission.
    The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact 
information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your 
comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov, as well as enter the comment submissions into 
ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove 
identifying or contact information.

[[Page 15413]]

    If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons 
for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to 
include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be 
publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should 
state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to 
remove such information before making the comment submissions available 
to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.

II. Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility 
Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses and Proposed No Significant 
Hazards Consideration Determination

    The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following 
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under 
the Commission's regulations in 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 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/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

[[Page 15414]]

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 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

[[Page 15415]]

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.

Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Docket No. 50-261, H. B. Robinson Steam 
Electric Plant, Unit No. 2 (HBRSEP), Darlington County, South Carolina

    Date of amendment request: February 7, 2018. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18038B289.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise 
Technical Specification (TS) Section 3.4.3, ``RCS [Reactor Coolant 
System] Pressure and Temperature (P/T) Limits,'' to reduce the 
applicability terms from 50 effective full power years (EFPY) to 46.3 
EFPY in Figures 3.4.3-1 and 3.4.3-2, as a result of the removal of part 
length fuel assemblies (PLSAs) and the migration to 24-month fuel 
cycles.
    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 3.4.3 to reflect that Figures 
3.4.3-1 and 3.4.3-2 (P/T limit curves) are applicable up to 46.3 
EFPY instead of 50 EFPY with the removal of PLSAs and migration to 
24-month fuel cycles. The proposed change does not involve physical 
changes to the plant or alter the reactor coolant system (RCS) 
pressure boundary (i.e., there are no changes in operating pressure, 
materials or seismic loading). The P/T limit curves and Adjusted 
Reference Temperature (ART) values will remain as-is. Only the term 
to which the limit curves applies is effected by the proposed 
change. The P/T limit curves in TS 3.4.3 with an applicability term 
of 46.3 EFPY provide continued assurance that the fracture toughness 
of the reactor pressure vessel (RPV) is consistent with analysis 
assumptions and NRC regulations. The methodology used to develop the 
existing P/T limit curves provides assurance that the probability of 
a rapidly propagating failure will be minimized. The P/T limit 
curves, with the applicability term reduced to a proposed 46.3 EFPY, 
will continue to prohibit operation in regions where it is possible 
for brittle fracture of reactor vessel materials to occur, thereby 
assuring that the integrity of the RCS pressure boundary is 
maintained.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change revises TS 3.4.3 to reflect that Figures 
3.4.3-1 and 3.4.3-2 (P/T limit curves) are applicable up to 46.3 
EFPY instead of 50 EFPY with the removal of PLSAs and migration to 
24-month fuel cycles. The proposed change does not affect the design 
or assumed accident performance of any structure, system or 
component, or introduce any new modes of system operation or failure 
modes. Compliance with the proposed P/T curves (same as the existing 
P/T curves with the applicability term reduced to 46.3 EFPY) will 
provide sufficient protection against brittle fracture of reactor 
vessel materials to assure that the RCS pressure boundary performs 
as previously evaluated.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change revises TS 3.4.3 to reflect that Figures 
3.4.3-1 and 3.4.3-2 (P/T limit curves) are applicable up to 46.3 
EFPY instead of 50 EFPY with the removal of PLSAs and migration to 
24-month fuel cycles. HBRSEP adheres to applicable NRC regulations 
(i.e., 10 CFR 50, Appendices G and H) and NRC-approved methodologies 
(i.e., Regulatory Guides 1.99 and 1.190) with respect to the P/T 
limit curves in TS 3.4.3 in order to provide an adequate margin of 
safety to the conditions at which brittle fracture may occur. The P/
T limit curves, with the applicability term reduced to 46.3 EFPY, 
continue to provide assurance that the established P/T limits are 
not exceeded.
    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: Kathryn B. Nolan, Deputy General Counsel, 
Duke Energy Corporation, 550 South Tryon Street, DEC45A, Charlotte NC 
28202.
    NRC Acting Branch Chief: Brian W. Tindell.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-374, LaSalle 
County Station (LSCS), Units 1 and 2, LaSalle County, Illinois

    Date of amendment request: February 7, 2018. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18039A123.
    Description of amendment request: LSCS Technical Specifications 
(TS) 3.6.1.3, ``Primary Containment Isolation Valves (PCIVs),'' 
currently requires performance of Surveillance Requirement (SR) 
3.6.1.3.8 on each excess flow check valve (EFCV) during each refueling 
outage. The proposed amendments would revise the number of EFCVs tested 
by TS SR 3.6.1.3.8 from ``each'' to a ``representative sample.'' The 
representative sample is based on approximately 20 percent of the 
reactor instrumentation line EFCVs such that each EFCV will be tested 
at least once every 10 years (nominal). Therefore, approximately 20 
percent of the EFCVs will be tested every operating cycle.
    The reduced testing associated with the proposed change will result 
in an increase in the availability of the associated instrumentation 
during outages and will result in dose savings.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously analyzed?
    Response: No.
    The EFCVs at LSCS, Unit 1 and Unit 2, are designed so that they 
will not close accidently during normal operations, will close if a 
rupture of the instrument line is indicated downstream of the valve, 
can be reopened when appropriate, and have their status indicated in 
the control room. This proposed change relaxes the number of EFCVs 
tested for TS SR 3.6.1.3.8 from ``each'' to a ``representative 
sample'' in accordance with the SFCP [Surveillance Frequency Control 
Program]. There are no physical plant modifications associated with 
this change. Industry and LSCS operating experience demonstrate a 
high reliability of these valves. Neither EFCVs nor their failures 
are capable of initiating previously evaluated accidents; therefore, 
there can be no increase in the probability of occurrence of an 
accident regarding this proposed change.
    The LSCS Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) 
demonstrates, consistent with BWROG [Boiling Water Reactor Owners 
Group] topical report NEDO-32977-A, that the failure of an EFCV has 
very low

[[Page 15416]]

consequences. The LSCS UFSAR evaluates a circumferential rupture of 
an instrument line that is connected to the primary coolant system. 
The evaluation credits the 0.25-inch diameter flow-restricting 
orifice installed in the line with limiting flow following the 
instrumentation line break and does not credit the EFCV with 
actuating to limit leakage. The dose consequences of the instrument 
line break are determined using the calculated mass of coolant 
released over approximately a five-hour period. The reactor was 
assumed to be operating at design power conditions prior to the 
break. The Standby Gas Treatment System (SGTS) and secondary 
containment are not impaired by the event. The evaluation concludes 
that the consequences of the event are well within 10 CFR 100 
limits. Thus, the failure of an EFCV, though not expected as a 
result of the proposed change, does not affect the dose consequences 
of an instrument line break.
    Based on the above, it is concluded that the proposed change to 
the EFCV surveillance requirement does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously analyzed.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    This proposed change allows a reduced number of EFCVs to be 
tested in accordance with the SFCP [Surveillance Frequency Control 
Program]. The proposed change would revise SR 3.6.1.3.8 to verify 
that a ``representative sample'' (i.e., approximately 20 percent) of 
reactor instrumentation line EFCVs are tested, in accordance with 
the SFCP, such that each EFCV will be tested at least once every 10 
years (nominal). No other changes in the requirements are being 
proposed. Industry and LSCS-specific operating experience 
demonstrates the high degree of reliability of the EFCVs and the low 
consequences of an EFCV failure. The potential failure of an EFCV to 
isolate by the proposed reduction in test frequency is bounded by 
the previous evaluation of an instrument line rupture. This change 
will not alter the operation or process variables, structures, 
systems, or components as described in the safety analysis. Thus, a 
new or different kind of accident will not be created from 
implementation of the proposed change.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in 
the margin of safety. The LSCS UFSAR evaluates a circumferential 
rupture of an instrument line that is connected to the primary 
coolant system. The evaluation credits the 0.25-inch diameter flow-
restricting orifice installed in the line with limiting flow 
following the instrumentation line break and does not credit the 
EFCV with actuating to limit leakage. The dose consequences of the 
instrument line break are determined using the calculated mass of 
coolant released over approximately a five-hour period. The reactor 
was assumed to be operating at design power conditions prior to the 
break. The SGTS [Standby Gas Treatment System] and secondary 
containment are not impaired by the event. The evaluation concludes 
that the consequences of the event are well within 10 CFR 100 
limits. Thus, the failure of an EFCV, though not expected as a 
result of the proposed change, does not affect the dose consequences 
of an instrument line break.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel, 
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 
60555.
    NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, (EGC) Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-374, 
LaSalle County Station (LSCS), Units 1 and 2, LaSalle County, Illinois

    Date of amendment request: February 27, 2018. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18058A257.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would 
revise LSCS Technical Specifications (TS) 3.4, Reactor Coolant System 
(RCS), Section 3.4.4, ``Safety/Relief Valves (S/RVs).''
    Specifically, EGC proposes a new safety function lift setpoint 
lower tolerance for the S/RVs as delineated in Surveillance Requirement 
3.4.4.1. The proposed change will revise the lower setpoint tolerances 
from -3 percent (%) to -5%.
    This change is limited to the lower tolerances and does not affect 
the upper tolerances; therefore, the upper tolerance will remain at +3% 
of the safety function lift setpoint. In addition, this change only 
applies to the as-found tolerance and not to the as-left tolerance, 
which will remain unchanged at 1% of the safety lift 
setpoint. The as-found tolerances are used for determining operability 
and to increase sample sizes for S/RV testing should the tolerance be 
exceeded. There will be no revision to the actual setpoints of the 
valves installed in the plant due to this change.
    This proposed change will preclude the submittal of previously-
reportable licensee event reports (LERs) to the NRC due to setpoint 
drift in the low (conservative) direction.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Do the proposed amendments involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    This change has no influence on the probability or consequences 
of any accident previously evaluated. The lower setpoint tolerance 
change does not affect the operation of the valves and it does not 
change the as-left setpoint tolerance. The change only affects the 
lower tolerance for valve opening and does not change the upper 
tolerance, which is the limit that protects from overpressurization.
    The proposed amendments do not involve physical changes to the 
valves, nor do they change the safety function of the valves. The 
proposed TS revision involves no significant changes to the 
operation of any systems or components in normal or accident 
operating conditions and no changes to existing structures, systems, 
or components.
    The proposed amendments do not change any other behavior or 
operation of any safety/relief valves (S/RVs), and, therefore, has 
no significant impact on reactor operation. They also have no 
significant impact on response to any perturbation of reactor 
operation including transients and accidents previously analyzed in 
the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR).
    Based on the above, it is concluded that the proposed change to 
the S/RV surveillance requirement does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Do the proposed amendments create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change to the S/RV safety lower setpoint tolerance 
from -3% to -5% only affects the criteria to determine when an as-
found S/RV test is considered to be acceptable. This change does not 
affect the criteria for the upper setpoint tolerance.
    The proposed lower setpoint tolerance change does not adversely 
affect the operation of any safety-related components or equipment. 
The proposed amendments do not involve physical changes to the S/
RVs, nor do they change the safety function of the S/RVs. The 
proposed amendments do not require any physical change or alteration 
of any existing plant equipment. No new or different equipment is 
being installed, and installed equipment is not being operated in a 
new or different manner. There is no alteration to the parameters 
within which the plant is normally operated. This change does not 
alter the manner in which equipment operation is initiated, nor will 
the functional demands on credited equipment be changed. No 
alterations in the procedures that ensure

[[Page 15417]]

the plant remains within analyzed limits are being proposed, and no 
changes are being made to the procedures relied upon to respond to 
an off-normal event as described in the UFSAR. As such, no new 
failure modes are being introduced. The change does not alter 
assumptions made in the safety analysis and licensing basis.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Do the proposed amendments involve a significant reduction in 
a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed lower setpoint tolerance change only affects the 
criteria to determine when an as-found S/RV test is considered to be 
acceptable. This change does not affect the criteria for the S/RV 
setpoint upper setpoint tolerance. The TS setpoints for the S/RVs 
are not changed. The as-left setpoint tolerances are not changed by 
this proposed change and remain at 1% of the safety lift 
setpoint.
    The margin of safety is established through the design of the 
plant structures, systems, and components, the parameters within 
which the plant is operated, and the establishment of the setpoints 
for the actuation of equipment relied upon to respond to an event. 
The proposed change does not significantly impact the condition or 
performance of structures, systems, and components relied upon for 
accident mitigation.
    Therefore, this 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: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel, 
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 
60555.
    NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.

    Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. STN 50-456 and STN 50-
457, Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, Will County, Illinois

    Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. STN 50-454 and STN 50-
455, Byron Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Ogle County, Illinois

    Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-461, Clinton Power 
Station, Unit No. 1, DeWitt County, Illinois

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-010, 50-237, and 50-249, 
Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, Grundy County, 
Illinois

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-374, LaSalle 
County Station, Units 1 and 2, LaSalle County, Illinois

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-254 and 50-265, Quad 
Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Rock Island County, 
Illinois

    Date of amendment request: January 31, 2018. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Package Accession No. ML18053A159.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the 
emergency response organization (ERO) positions identified in the 
emergency plan for each site.
    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 for each site, 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 to the [site] Emergency Plan do not 
increase the probability or consequences of an accident. The 
proposed changes do not impact the function of plant Structures, 
Systems, or Components (SSCs). The proposed changes do not affect 
accident initiators or accident precursors, nor do the changes alter 
design assumptions. The proposed changes do not alter or prevent the 
ability of the onsite ERO to perform their intended functions to 
mitigate the consequences of an accident or event. The proposed 
changes remove ERO positions no longer credited or considered 
necessary in support of Emergency Plan implementation.
    Therefore, the proposed changes to the [site] Emergency Plan do 
not involve a significant increase in the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes have no impact on the design, function, or 
operation of any plant SSCs. The proposed changes do not affect 
plant equipment or accident analyses. The proposed changes do not 
involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or 
different type of equipment will be installed), a change in the 
method of plant operation, or new operator actions. The proposed 
changes do not introduce failure modes that could result in a new 
accident, and the proposed changes do not alter assumptions made in 
the safety analysis. The proposed changes remove ERO positions no 
longer credited or considered necessary in support of Emergency Plan 
implementation.
    Therefore, the proposed changes to the [site] Emergency Plan 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.
    Margin of safety is associated with confidence in the ability of 
the fission product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, reactor coolant 
system pressure boundary, and containment structure) to limit the 
level of radiation dose to the public.
    The proposed changes do not adversely affect existing plant 
safety margins or the reliability of the equipment assumed to 
operate in the safety analyses. There are no changes being made to 
safety analysis assumptions, safety limits, or limiting safety 
system settings that would adversely affect plant safety as a result 
of the proposed changes. Margins of safety are unaffected by the 
proposed changes to the ERO staffing.
    The proposed changes are associated with the [site] Emergency 
Plan staffing and do not impact operation of the plant or its 
response to transients or accidents. The proposed changes do not 
affect the Technical Specifications. The proposed changes do not 
involve a change in the method of plant operation, and no accident 
analyses will be affected by the proposed changes. Safety analysis 
acceptance criteria are not affected by these proposed changes. The 
proposed changes to the Emergency Plan will continue to provide the 
necessary onsite ERO response staff.
    Therefore, the proposed changes to the [site] Emergency Plan do 
not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis for each site 
and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 
CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to 
determine that the requested amendments involve no significant hazards 
consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel, 
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 
60555.
    NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.

Florida Power & Light Company, Docket Nos. 50-250 and 251, Turkey Point 
Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 3 and 4, Miami-Dade County, Florida

    Date of application for amendment: June 28, 2017, as supplemented 
by letter dated February 28, 2018. Publicly-available versions are in 
ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML17180A447 and ML18075A023, respectively.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would modify the 
Technical Specifications (TSs) by

[[Page 15418]]

relocating to licensee-controlled documents select acceptance criteria 
specified in TS surveillance requirements (SRs) credited for satisfying 
Inservice Testing (IST) Program and Inservice Inspection Program 
requirements; deleting the SRs for the American Society of Mechanical 
Engineers Code Class 1, 2, and 3 components; replacing references to 
the Surveillance Frequency Control Program (SFCP) with reference to the 
Turkey Point IST Program where appropriate; establishing a Reactor 
Coolant Pump (RCP) Flywheel Inspection Program; and related editorial 
changes. Additionally, the amendments would delete a redundant SR for 
Accumulator check valve testing and add a footnote to the SR for 
Pressure Isolation Valve (PIV) testing.
    The license amendment request was originally noticed in the Federal 
Register on August 29, 2017 (82 FR 41069). The notice is being reissued 
in its entirety to include the revised scope, description of the 
amendment request, and proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes provide assurance that inservice testing 
will be performed in the manner and within the timeframes 
established by 10 CFR 50.55(a). The deletion of SR 4.0.5 and the 
deletion of IST acceptance criteria from SR 4.5.2.c and SR 4.6.2.1.b 
neither affect the conduct nor the periodicity of the inservice 
testing. The addition of references to the IST Program in SR(s) 
where applicable and the deletion of references to the SFCP in SR 
testing credited by the IST Program are administrative in nature and 
can neither initiate nor affect the outcome of any accident 
previously evaluated. The deletion of SR 4.0.5 and the relocation of 
the RCP flywheel inspection requirements within the TS are 
administrative changes and cannot affect the likelihood or the 
outcome of accident previously evaluated. Deletion of the SR 
4.4.6.2.2.c requirement regarding returning PIV(s) to service 
following maintenance, repair or replacement, deletion of a SR 
4.5.1.1.d footnote previously applicable during Unit 3 Cycle 26, and 
related editorial changes are administrative changes and cannot 
affect the likelihood or the outcome of any accident previously 
evaluated. In addition, deletion of a redundant Accumulator check 
valve SR 4.5.1.1.d, and the addition of a footnote to TS SR 
4.4.6.2.2.d to avoid PIV repetitive loop testing do not affect the 
likelihood or the outcome of any accident previously evaluated.
    Therefore, facility operation in accordance with the proposed 
changes would 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 deletion of IST acceptance criteria from the TS does not 
affect the manner in which any SSC [structure, system, or component] 
is maintained or operated and does not introduce new SSCs or new 
methods for maintaining existing plant SSCs. Inservice testing will 
continue in the manner and periodicity specified in the IST program 
such that no new or different kind of accident can result. The 
addition of references to the IST Program in SR(s) where applicable 
and the deletion of references to the SFCP in SR testing credited by 
the IST Program are administrative changes and cannot introduce new 
or different kinds of accidents. The deletion of SR 4.0.5 and the 
relocation of the RCP flywheel inspection requirements within the TS 
are administrative changes and cannot be an initiator of a new or 
different kind of accident. Deletion of the SR 4.4.6.2.2.c 
requirement regarding returning PIV(s) to service following 
maintenance, repair or replacement, deletion of a SR 4.5.1.1.d 
footnote previously applicable during Unit 3 Cycle 26, and the other 
editorial changes are administrative changes and cannot introduce 
new or different kinds of accidents. In addition, deletion of a 
redundant Accumulator check valve SR 4.5.1.1.d, and the addition of 
a footnote to TS SR 4.4.6.2.2.d to avoid PIV repetitive loop testing 
do not introduce new or different kinds of accidents.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes do not involve changes to any safety 
analyses assumptions, safety limits, or limiting safety system 
settings and do not adversely impact plant operating margins or the 
reliability of equipment credited in safety analyses. The proposed 
changes provides assurance that inservice inspection and inservice 
testing will be performed in the manner and within the timeframes 
established by 10 CFR 50.55(a). The deletion of SR 4.0.5 and the 
relocation of the RCP flywheel inspection requirements within the TS 
are administrative changes with no impact on the margin of safety 
currently described the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report. 
Deletion of the SR 4.4.6.2.2.c requirement regarding returning 
PIV(s) to service following maintenance, repair or replacement, 
deletion of a SR 4.5.1.1.d footnote previously applicable during 
Unit 3 Cycle 26, and the other editorial changes are administrative 
changes with no impact on nuclear safety. In addition, deletion of a 
redundant Accumulator check valve SR 4.5.1.1.d, and the addition of 
a footnote to TS SR 4.4.6.2.2.d to avoid PIV repetitive loop testing 
do not affect any safety analyses assumptions, safety limits, or 
limiting safety system settings.
    Therefore, operation of the facility in accordance with the 
proposed changes will not involve a significant reduction in the 
margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Debbie Hendel, Managing Attorney--Nuclear, 
Florida Power & Light Company, 700 Universe Blvd. MS LAW/JB, Juno 
Beach, FL 33408-0420.
    NRC Acting Branch Chief: Brian W. Tindell.

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 50-259, Browns Ferry Nuclear 
Plant (BFN), Unit 1, Limestone County, Alabama

    Date of amendment request: March 16, 2018. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18080A171.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise 
License Condition 2.C(18)(a)3 for Unit 1 that requires the submittal of 
a revised BFN Unit 1 replacement steam dryer (RSD) analysis utilizing 
the BFN Unit 3 on-dryer strain gauge based end-to-end bias and 
uncertainties at extended power conditions ``at least 90 days prior to 
the start of the BFN Unit 1 EPU [extended power uprate] outage.'' 
Specifically, the amendment reduces the time from 90 days to 15 days 
before the BFN Unit 1 EPU outage for the submittal of the revised 
analysis of the RSD.
    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 license amendment reduces the length of time, from 
90 days to 15 days, prior to the outage by which a revised analysis 
of the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN) Unit 1 replacement steam 
dryer (RSD), performed using an NRC-approved methodology benchmarked 
on the BFN Unit 3 RSD, must be submitted to the NRC for

[[Page 15419]]

information. There is no required review or approval of the revised 
analysis needed to satisfy the license condition. The proposed 
change is an administrative change to the period before the outage 
and does not impact any system, structure or component in such a way 
as to affect the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated. The proposed amendment is purely 
administrative and has no technical or safety aspects. 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 license amendment reduces the length of time, from 
90 days to 15 days, prior to the outage by which a revised analysis 
of the BFN Unit 1 RSD must be submitted to the NRC for information. 
The proposed amendment is purely administrative and has no technical 
or safety aspects. 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 license amendment reduces the length of time, from 
90 days to 15 days, prior to the outage by which a revised analysis 
of the BFN Unit 1 RSD must be submitted to the NRC for information. 
The proposed amendment is purely administrative and has no technical 
or safety aspects. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a 
significant reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 
400 West Summit Hill Drive, 6A West Tower, Knoxville, TN 37902.
    NRC Acting Branch Chief: Brian W. Tindell.

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.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC and Exelon FitzPatrick, LLC, Docket No. 
50-333, James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant, Oswego County, New 
York

    Date of amendment request: July 31, 2017.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the license 
to authorize the description of the emergency response organization 
requalification training frequency defined in the Emergency Plan to be 
changed from ``annually'' to ``once per calendar year not to exceed 18 
months between training sessions.''
    Date of issuance: March 26, 2018.
    Effective date: As of the date of its issuance and shall be 
implemented within 90 days.
    Amendment No.: 318. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML17289A175; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-59: The amendment 
revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and Emergency Plan.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 26, 2017 (82 
FR 44854).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 26, 2018.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-461, Clinton Power 
Station, Unit No. 1, DeWitt County, Illinois

    Date of amendment request: May 1, 2017, as supplemented by letters 
dated November 15 and December 20, 2017.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment 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: March 22, 2018.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
prior to entering Mode 4 during the next refueling outage, C1R18, 
currently planned for April 2018.
    Amendment No.: 216. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML18043A505; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-62: The amendment revised the 
Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 5, 2017 (82 FR 
31096). The supplement letters dated November 15, 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 amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 22, 2018.
    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: November 3, 2017.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment changed the safety 
limit

[[Page 15420]]

minimum critical power ratio numeric values for Operating Cycle 17. 
Specifically, the amendment increased the numeric values of the safety 
limit minimum critical power ratio for Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, 
Unit 2, from >=1.15 to >=1.17 for two recirculation loop operation, and 
from >=1.15 to >=1.17 for single recirculation loop operation.
    Date of issuance: March 16, 2018.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
prior to startup from the next refueling outage.
    Amendment No.: 167. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML18060A016; 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: February 6, 2018 (83 FR 
5280).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 16, 2018.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Florida Power & Light Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389, 
St. Lucie Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, St. Lucie County, Florida

    Date of amendment request: January 31, 2018.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the 
Emergency Plan for St. Lucie to adopt the fire-related notification of 
unusual event requirement of the Nuclear Energy Institute 99-01, 
Revision 6, Emergency Action Level scheme.
    Date of issuance: March 26, 2018.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days.
    Amendment Nos.: 244 and 195. A publicly-available version is in 
ADAMS under Accession No. ML18046A712; documents related to these 
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 
amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-67 and NPF-16: The 
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 14, 2018 (83 
FR 6621). This notice provided an opportunity to request a hearing by 
April 15, 2018, but indicated that if the Commission makes a final no 
significant hazards consideration determination, any such hearing would 
take place after issuance of the amendments.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 26, 2018.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Florida Power & Light Company, Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251, Turkey 
Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 3 and 4, Miami-Dade County, Florida

    Date of amendment request: April 9, 2017, as supplemented by letter 
dated October 4, 2017.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the 
Technical Specifications (TSs) to remove various reporting 
requirements. Specifically, the amendments removed the requirements to 
prepare the Startup Report, the Annual Report, and various special 
reports. In addition, the amendments revised the TSs to remove the 
completion time for restoring spent fuel pool water level, to address 
inoperability of one of the two parallel flow paths in the residual 
heal removal or safely injection headers for the Emergency Core Cooling 
Systems, and to make other administrative changes, including updating 
plant staff and responsibilities.
    Date of issuance: March 19, 2018.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 279 (Unit No. 3) and 274 (Unit No. 4). A publicly-
available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18019A078; 
documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety 
Evaluation (SE) enclosed with the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-31 and DPR-41: 
Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 19, 2017 (82 FR 
27889). The supplemental letter dated October 4, 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 an SE dated March 19, 2018.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026, 
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), Units 3 and 4, Burke County, 
Georgia

    Date of amendment request: August 31, 2017.
    Description of amendment: The amendments authorized changes to the 
VEGP Units 3 and 4 Combined Operating License (COL) page 7 and COL 
Appendix A, Technical Specifications, to make necessary changes so that 
there will be adequate detection of reactor coolant system and main 
steam line leakage at all times and that the associated limits account 
for instrumentation sensitivities not accounted for in the current VEGP 
Technical Specification 3.4.9.
    Date of issuance: March 12, 2018.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 115 (Unit 3) and 114 (Unit 4). Publicly-available 
versions are in ADAMS Package Accession No. ML18036A782, which includes 
the Safety Evaluation that references documents related to these 
amendments.
    Facility Combined License Nos. NPF-91 and NPF-92: Amendments 
revised the Facility Combined Licenses.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 10, 2017 (82 FR 
47032).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in the Safety Evaluation dated March 12, 2018.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 28th day of March 2018.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Tara Inverso,
Acting Deputy Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office 
of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2018-06668 Filed 4-9-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7590-01-P