[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 128 (Tuesday, July 3, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31180-31190]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-13758]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2018-0124]


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 June 5, 2018, to June 18, 2018. The last 
biweekly notice was published on June 19, 2018.

DATES: Comments must be filed by August 2, 2018. A request for a 
hearing must be filed by September 3, 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-2018-0124. Address 
questions about NRC dockets to Jennifer Borges; telephone: 301-287-
9127; 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: 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: Paula Blechman, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2242, email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments

A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2018-0124, 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-2018-0124.
     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-2018-0124, facility name, unit 
number(s), plant docket number, application date, and subject in your 
comment submission.

[[Page 31181]]

    The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact 
information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your 
comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into 
ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove 
identifying or contact information.
    If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons 
for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to 
include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be 
publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should 
state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to 
remove such information before making the comment submissions available 
to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.

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

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

[[Page 31182]]

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 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

[[Page 31183]]

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.

Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-325 and 50-324, Brunswick 
Steam Electric Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Brunswick County, North 
Carolina

    Date of amendment request: April 25, 2018. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18121A366.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise an 
existing Note for Technical Specification (TS) 3.8.3, ``Diesel Fuel 
Oil,'' to allow, on a one-time basis, the main fuel oil storage tank to 
be inoperable for up to 14 days for the purpose of performing required 
inspection, cleaning, and any necessary repair activities.
    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 does not alter the assumption of the 
accident analyses or the Technical Specification Bases. The Diesel 
Fuel Oil system supplies each Emergency Diesel Generator (EDG) with 
fuel oil capacity sufficient to operate that EDG for a period of 
approximately seven days while the EDG is operating at rated load. 
The one-time allowance to permit internal inspection of the main 
fuel oil storage tank during plant operation does not impact the 
availability of the EDGs to perform their intended safety function. 
Furthermore, while the main fuel oil storage tank is out of service, 
the availability of onsite and offsite fuel oil sources ensures that 
an adequate supply of fuel oil remains available.
    In addition to supplying the four EDGs, the main fuel oil 
storage tank also supplies the Standby Diesel Fire Pump fuel oil 
tank. With the main fuel oil storage tank out of service, operator 
actions necessary to refill this tank are similar in nature to 
existing operator actions. As such, this change does not adversely 
impact fire protection capabilities.
    Therefore, the proposed amendments do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    Creation of the possibility of a new or different kind of 
accident requires creating one or more new accident precursors. New 
accident precursors may be created by modifications of plant 
configuration, including changes in allowable modes of operation. 
The proposed change does not involve a physical change to the design 
of the Diesel Fuel Oil system, nor does it alter the assumptions of 
the accident analyses. The one-time allowance to permit internal 
inspection of the main fuel oil storage tank during plant operation 
does not introduce any new failure modes.
    Therefore, the proposed amendments 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 change alters the method of operation of the Diesel 
Fuel Oil system. However the availability of the EDGs to perform 
their intended safety function is not impacted and the assumptions 
of the accident analyses are not altered. Additionally, this change 
does not adversely impact fire protection capabilities.
    Therefore, the proposed amendments do not result in 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: Kathryn B. Nolan, Deputy General Counsel, 
550 South Tryon Street, M/C DEC45A, Charlotte, NC 28202.
    NRC Acting Branch Chief: Brian W. Tindell.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-317 and 50-318, Calvert 
Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 (CCNPP), Calvert County, 
Maryland

    Date of amendment request: April 20, 2018. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18113A090.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would change (TS) 
5.2.2, ``Unit Staff,'' by deleting TS 5.2.2.g.3 related to specific 
requirements for shift technical advisor (STA) personnel education and 
training. This change is needed to remove a previously accepted means 
of filling the STA role that no longer applies to CCNPP.
    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 any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment removes one of three permissible means 
for filling the STA position. TS 5.2.2.g defines the education and 
experience requirements for personnel filling the STA position 
during operation of either Unit in Modes 1, 2, 3, or 4. It provides 
three permissible means to fill the STA position. One of those means 
(TS 5.2.2.g.3) is unique to CCNPP and is no longer needed. The 
remaining requirements (TS 5.2.2.g.1 and TS 5.2.2.g.2) for filling 
the STA position meet the guidance provided in Generic Letter 86-04, 
Policy Statement on Engineering Expertise on Shift. This is an 
administrative change.
    This change does not involve any change to the design basis of 
the plant or of any structure, system or component. As a result, 
there is no change to the probability or consequences of any 
previously evaluated accident.
    Therefore, the operation of the facility in accordance with the 
proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident form any previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment removes one of three permissible means 
for filling the STA position. TS 5.2.2.g defines the education and 
experience requirements for personnel filling the STA position 
during operation of either Unit in Modes 1, 2, 3, or 4. It provides 
three permissible means to fill the STA position. One of those means 
(TS 5.2.2.g.3) is unique to CCNPP and is no longer needed. The 
remaining requirements (TS 5.2.2.g.1 and TS 5.2.2.g.2) for filling 
the STA position meet the guidance provided in Generic Letter 86-04, 
Policy Statement on Engineering

[[Page 31184]]

Expertise on Shift. This is an administrative change.
    This change does not involve any change to the design basis of 
the plant or of any structure, system or component. The proposed 
amendment does not impose any new or different requirements. The 
change does not alter assumptions made in the safety analyses. The 
proposed change is consistent with the safety analyses assumptions 
and current plant operating practice.
    Therefore, the operation of the facility in accordance with 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 amendment removes one of three permissible means 
for filling the STA position. TS 5.2.2.g defines the education and 
experience requirements for personnel filling the STA position 
during operation of either Unit in Modes 1, 2, 3, or 4. It provides 
three permissible means to fill the STA position. One of those means 
(TS 5.2.2.g.3) is unique to CCNPP and is no longer needed. The 
remaining requirements (TS 5.2.2.g.1 and TS 5.2.2.g.2) for filling 
the STA position meet the guidance provided in Generic Letter 86-04, 
Policy Statement on Engineering Expertise on Shift. This is an 
administrative change.
    This change does not involve any change to the design basis of 
the plant or of any structure, system or component. As a result, 
there is no decrease in any margin of safety due to this proposed 
change.
    Therefore, operation of the facility in accordance with 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: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel, 
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 
60555.
    NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-220, Nine Mile Point 
Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1 (NMP1), Oswego County, New York

    Date of amendment request: March 13, 2018. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18072A182.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would modify NMP1, 
Technical Specifications Surveillance Requirement (SR) 4.2.7.d for 
reactor coolant system isolation valves and SR 4.2.7.1.a for reactor 
coolant system pressure isolation valve leakage to relocate the 
specific surveillance frequency to the NMP1 Inservice Testing Program.
    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.
    Performance of lnservice Testing is not an initiator to any 
accident previously evaluated. As a result, the probability of 
occurrence of an accident is not significantly affected by the 
proposed change. The availability of the affected components, as 
well as their ability to mitigate the consequences of accidents 
previously evaluated, is not affected.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not alter the design or configuration 
of the plant. The proposed change does not involve a physical 
alteration of the plant; no new or different kind of equipment will 
be installed. The proposed change does not alter the types of 
lnservice Testing performed. The frequency of lnservice Testing is 
unchanged.
    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 eliminates [surveillance] requirements from 
the TS in lieu of requirements in the ASME [American Society of 
Mechanical Engineers] Code. Compliance with the ASME Code is 
required by 10 CFR 50.55a. Should the component be inoperable, the 
Technical Specifications provide actions to ensure that the margin 
of safety is protected.
    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: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel, 
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 
60555.
    NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-220, Nine Mile Point 
Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1, Oswego County, New York

    Date of amendment request: February 9, 2018. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18040A636.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would remove the 
Boraflex credit from the two remaining Boraflex storage racks located 
in the spent fuel pool. The licensee plans to install permanent cell 
blockers in pre-determined spent fuel pool rack cells thus eliminating 
reliance on Boraflex for spent fuel pool reactivity 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 change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not make any change to the systems, 
structures or components in the Nine Mile Point Unit 1 (NMP1) Spent 
Fuel Pool (SFP) except for the installation of cell blockers in pre-
determined Boraflex rack cells. The change is necessary to ensure 
that, with continued Boraflex degradation over time, the effective 
neutron multiplication factor, keff, is less than 0.95, 
if the SFP is fully flooded with unborated water. The proposed 
change does not change the manner in which spent fuel is handled, 
moved or stored in the storage rack cells. The installation of the 
cell blockers does not impact the fuel source terms, therefore, 
there is no adverse radiological impact. The installation of the 
cell blockers does not change the decay heat and the cell blockers 
meet the criterion to allow for continued water flow through the 
storage cell; thus, there is no adverse thermal-hydraulic impact. 
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.
    Onsite storage of spent fuel assemblies in the NMP1 SFP is a 
normal activity for which NMP1 has been designed and licensed. As 
part of assuring that this normal activity can be performed without 
endangering public health and safety, the ability to safely 
accommodate different possible accidents in the SFP, such as 
dropping a fuel bundle or misleading a fuel bundle, have been 
analyzed. The proposed SFP storage configuration using cell blockers 
does not change the methods of fuel movement or spent fuel storage. 
The proposed change of

[[Page 31185]]

using cell blockers in pre-determined Boraflex rack cells allows for 
continued use of SFP storage rack cells with degraded Boraflex while 
assuring the effective neutron multiplication factor, 
keff, is less than 0.95.
    The proposed use of cell blockers in the pre-determined Boraflex 
rack cells does not create a possible new or different kind of 
accident from any accident previously evaluated. The displacement of 
the SFP water by the cell blockers is small and hence has an 
insignificant impact on the heat transfer from fuel assemblies to 
the SFP water, the time-to-boil and boil-off rate in the SFP. The 
stresses in the storage rack under the loaded weight of fuel 
assemblies and the cell blockers will remain within the allowable 
limits and will be bounded by the rack seismic analysis. The 
accident condition, where a fuel assembly is dropped onto the cell 
blocker, will not cause loss of the cell blocker function. 
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 will maintain, per Attachment 3, the 
keff to be less than 0.95 and thus preserve the required 
safety margin of 5%. The installation of the cell blockers does not 
impact the fuel source terms and decay heat and hence has no adverse 
radiological impact. In addition, the radiological consequences of a 
dropped fuel bundle are unchanged because the event involving a 
dropped fuel bundle onto a spent fuel storage rack cell containing a 
cell blocker is bounded by the radiological consequences of a 
dropped fuel bundle onto a spent fuel storage rack cell containing a 
stored fuel bundle. 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: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel, 
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 
60555.
    NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna.

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

    Date of amendment request: May 14, 2018. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18134A264.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the 
technical specifications to increase the minimum load required for the 
Emergency Diesel Generator (EDG) partial-load rejection surveillance 
requirement (SR). Additionally, the amendments would modify the EDG 
voltage and frequency limits for the SR and establish a recovery period 
for the EDG(s) to return to steady-state conditions.
    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 modify an EDG surveillance test by aligning 
the voltage and frequency limits with the current licensing basis 
and the Westinghouse STS [Standard Technical Specification]. As 
such, the proposed changes cannot be an initiator of any previously 
evaluated accident, increase its likelihood or increase the 
likelihood of an EDG malfunction or supported equipment. The 
proposed changes to the voltage and frequency limits for the 
immediate aftermath of a partial-load rejection and the proposed 
recovery period will not affect the manner in which EDGs are 
designed or operated. The EDGs have no time-dependent failure modes 
as a result of the proposed changes and will continue to operate 
within the parameters assumed in applicable accident analyses. Hence 
no impact on the consequences of any previously evaluated accident 
will result from the proposed changes.
    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 proposed changes modify an EDG surveillance test by aligning 
the voltage and frequency limits with the current licensing basis 
and the Westinghouse STS. The proposed changes do not modify the 
manner in which the EDGs are designed or operated and thereby cannot 
introduce new failure modes, impact existing plant equipment in a 
manner not previously evaluated or initiate a new type of 
malfunction or accident. The proposed changes serve to enhance EDG 
reliability and availability and as such, cannot adversely affect 
the EDGs' ability to perform as originally designed, including their 
capability to withstand a worst case single failure.
    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 changes modify an EDG surveillance test by aligning 
the voltage and frequency limits with the current licensing basis 
and the Westinghouse STS. The proposed changes do not modify any 
setpoints for which protective actions associated with accident 
detection or mitigation are initiated. The proposed change neither 
affects the design of plant equipment nor the manner in which the 
plant is operated. The proposed changes increase the reliability and 
the availability of the EDGs and as such, cannot adversely impact 
any Turkey Point safety limits or limiting safety settings.
    Therefore, operation of the facility in accordance with the 
proposed change will not involve a significant reduction in a margin 
of safety.

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

Florida Power and 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: May 3, 2018. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18127B714.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the 
Technical Specifications by revising Safety Limit 2.1.1.b, to reflect 
the peak fuel centerline temperature specified in WCAP-17642-P-A, 
Revision 1, ``Westinghouse Performance Analysis and Design Model 
(PAD5).'' A non-proprietary version (WCAP-17642-NP-A, Revision (1) can 
be found in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17338A396.
    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.
    There are no design changes associated with the proposed 
amendments. All design, material, and construction standards that 
were applicable prior to this amendment request will continue to be 
applicable. The

[[Page 31186]]

proposed amendments will not affect accident initiators or 
precursors or alter the design, conditions, and configuration of the 
facility, or the manner in which the plant is operated and 
maintained, with respect to such initiators or precursors. 
Compliance with Safety Limit 2.1.1.b is required to confirm that 
fuel cladding failure does not occur as a result of fuel centerline 
melting. The fuel centerline melt temperature limit is established 
to preclude centerline melting. The proposed change to the fuel 
centerline melt temperature limit has been reviewed by the NRC and 
found to be appropriately conservative with respect to the fuel 
material properties in the Final Safety Evaluation for WCAP-17642-P-
A, Revision 1 Accident analysis acceptance criteria will continue to 
be met with the proposed amendments. Hence, the proposed amendments 
will not affect the source term, containment isolation, or 
radiological release assumptions used in evaluating the radiological 
consequences of any accident previously evaluated. The proposed 
amendments will not alter any assumptions or change any mitigation 
actions in the radiological consequence evaluations in the Turkey 
Point Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). Consequently, 
the applicable radiological dose acceptance criteria will continue 
to be met.
    Therefore, the proposed amendments do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Do the proposed amendments create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    There are no proposed design changes nor are there any changes 
in the method by which any safety-related plant structures, systems, 
and components perform their specified safety functions. The 
proposed amendments will not affect the normal method of plant 
operation or change any operating parameters. No equipment 
performance requirements will be affected. The proposed amendments 
will not alter any assumptions made in the safety analyses. The 
proposed amendments revise Reactor Core Safety Limit 2.1.1.b; 
however, the change does not involve a physical modification of the 
plant. No new accident scenarios, transient precursors, failure 
mechanisms, or limiting single failures will result from this 
amendment. Hence, there will be no adverse effect or challenges 
imposed on any safety-related system as a result of these 
amendments.
    Therefore, the proposed amendments do not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. Do the proposed amendments involve a significant reduction in 
a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The revised Safety Limit 2.1.1.b has been calculated based on 
the NRC-approved methods which ensure that the plant operates in 
compliance with all regulatory criteria. There will be no effect on 
those plant systems necessary to effect the accomplishment of 
protection functions. No instrument setpoints or system response 
times are affected and none of the acceptance criteria for any 
accident analysis will be changed. Consequently, the proposed 
amendments will have no impact on the radiological consequences of a 
design basis accident.
    Therefore, the proposed amendments 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: Debbie Hendell, Managing Attorney--Nuclear, 
Florida Power & Light Company, 700 Universe Blvd. MS LAW/JB, Juno 
Beach, Florida 33408-0420.
    NRC Acting Branch Chief: Booma Venkataraman.

NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC, Docket No. 50-443, Seabrook Station, Unit 
No. 1, Rockingham County, New Hampshire

    Date of amendment request: March 16, 2018. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18079A058.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the 
frequencies for performing the relative pressure measurement and the 
assessment of the control room envelope boundary required by (TS) 
6.7.6.l, Control Room Envelope Habitability Program, from 18 months to 
36 months.
    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 TS administrative controls associated with the proposed 
change to the TS are not initiators of any accidents previously 
evaluated, so the probability of accidents previously evaluated is 
unaffected by the proposed changes. The proposed change does not 
alter the design, function, or operation of any plant structure, 
system, or component (SSC). The capability of any operable TS-
required SSC to perform its specified safety function is not 
impacted by the proposed change. As a result, the outcomes of 
accidents previously evaluated are unaffected. Therefore, the 
proposed changes do not result in a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not challenge the integrity or 
performance of any safety-related systems. No plant equipment is 
installed or removed, and the changes do not alter the design, 
physical configuration, or method of operation of any plant SSC. No 
physical changes are made to the plant, so no new causal mechanisms 
are introduced. Therefore, the proposed changes to the TS 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 
the margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The ability of any operable SSC to perform its designated safety 
function is unaffected by the proposed changes. The proposed changes 
do not alter any safety analyses assumptions, safety limits, 
limiting safety system settings, or method of operating the plant. 
The changes do not adversely affect plant operating margins or the 
reliability of equipment credited in the safety analyses. With the 
proposed change, the control room envelope remains capable of 
performing its safety function. Therefore, the proposed changes do 
not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Debbie Hendell, Managing Attorney, Florida 
Power & Light Company, P.O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420.
    NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna.

PSEG Nuclear LLC and Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-272 
and 50-311, Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Salem 
County, New Jersey

    Date of amendment request: May 16, 2018. A publicly-available 
versions is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18136A866.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise (TS) 
3.8.2.1, ``A.C. [Alternating Current] Distribution--Operating,'' to 
increase the Vital Instrument Bus Inverters allowed outage time (AOT) 
from 24 hours for the A, B and C inverters to 7 days and from 72 hours 
for the D inverter to 7 days. The proposed extended AOT is based on 
application of the Salem Generating Station Probabilistic Risk 
Assessment (PRA) in support of a risk-informed extension, and on 
additional considerations and compensatory actions.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the

[[Page 31187]]

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 TS amendment does not affect the design of the 
vital A.C. inverters, the operational characteristics or function of 
the inverters, the interfaces between the inverters and other plant 
systems, or the reliability of the inverters. An inoperable vital 
A.C. inverter is not considered an initiator of an analyzed event. 
In addition, TS Actions and the associated Allowed Outage Times are 
not initiators of previously evaluated accidents. Extending the 
Allowed Outage Time for an inoperable vital A.C. inverter would not 
have a significant impact on the frequency of occurrence of an 
accident previously evaluated. The proposed amendment will not 
result in modifications to plant activities associated with inverter 
maintenance, but rather, provides operational flexibility by 
allowing additional time to perform inverter troubleshooting, 
corrective maintenance, and post-maintenance testing on-line.
    The proposed extension of the Allowed Outage Time for an 
inoperable vital A.C. inverter will not significantly affect the 
capability of the inverters to perform their safety function, which 
is to ensure an uninterruptible supply of 115-volt A.C. electrical 
power to the associated power distribution subsystems. An 
evaluation, using PRA methods, confirmed that the increase in plant 
risk associated with implementation of the proposed Allowed Outage 
Time extension is consistent with the NRC's Safety Goal Policy 
Statement, as further described in RG [Regulatory Guide] 1.174 and 
RG 1.177. In addition, a deterministic evaluation concluded that 
plant defense-in-depth philosophy will be maintained with the 
proposed Allowed Outage Time extension.
    There will be no impact on the source term or pathways assumed 
in accidents previously evaluated. No analysis assumptions will be 
changed and there will be no adverse effects on onsite or offsite 
doses as the result of an accident.
    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 amendment does not involve physical alteration of 
the Salem Generating Station. No new equipment is being introduced, 
and installed equipment is not being operated in a new or different 
manner. There is no change being made to the parameters within which 
Salem is operated. There are no setpoints at which protective or 
mitigating actions are initiated that are affected by this proposed 
action. The use of the alternate Class 1E power source for the vital 
A.C. instrument bus is consistent with the Salem plant design. The 
change does not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis. This 
proposed action will not alter the manner in which equipment 
operation is initiated, nor will the functional demands on credited 
equipment be changed. No alteration is proposed to the procedures 
that ensure Salem remains within analyzed limits, and no change is 
being made to procedures relied upon to respond to an off-normal 
event. As such, no new failure modes are being introduced.
    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.
    Margin of safety is related to the confidence in the ability of 
the fission product barriers to perform their design functions 
during and following an accident. These barriers include the fuel 
cladding, the reactor coolant system, and the containment system. 
The proposed change, which would increase the AOT from 24/72 hours 
to 7 days for one inoperable inverter, does not exceed or alter a 
setpoint, design basis or safety limit.
    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: Jeffrie J. Keenan, PSEG Nuclear LLC--N21, 
P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038.
    NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna.

Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation (WCNOC), Docket No. 50-482, 
Wolf Creek Generating Station (WCGS), Unit No. 1, Coffey County, Kansas

    Date of amendment request: May 9, 2018. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18135A172.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the 
Emergency Plan for WCGS to (1) reduce the number of required Emergency 
Response Organization positions; (2) standardize Technical Support 
Center activation time to 75 minutes; (3) replace the current normal 
full-time work hours licensed medical practitioner position with First 
Aid Responders; and (4) remove reference to performing dose assessment 
using containment pressure indication.
    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 to the WCNOC Emergency Plan is 
administrative in nature. This proposed change does not alter 
accident analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the 
function of plant systems or the manner in which systems are 
operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed 
change does not require any plant modifications which affect the 
performance capability of the structures, systems, and components 
(SSCs) relied upon to mitigate the consequences of postulated 
accidents, and has no impact on the probability or consequences of 
an accident previously evaluated.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change to the WCNOC Emergency Plan is 
administrative in nature. This proposed change does not alter 
accident analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the 
function of plant systems or the manner in which systems are 
operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed 
change does not require any plant modifications which affect the 
performance capability of the SSCs relied upon to mitigate the 
consequences of postulated accidents, and does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    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.
    Plant safety margins are established through limiting conditions 
for operation, limiting safety systems settings, and safety limits 
specified in the technical specifications. The proposed change to 
the WCNOC Emergency Plan is administrative in nature. Since the 
proposed change is administrative in nature, there are no changes to 
these established safety margins.
    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

[[Page 31188]]

amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Jay E. Silberg, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop 
Shaw Pittman LLP, 2300 N Street NW, Washington, DC 20037.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.

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.

Arizona Public Service Company, et al., Docket Nos. STN 50-528, STN 50-
529, and STN 50-530, Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 
1, 2, and 3 (PVNGS), Maricopa County, Arizona

    Date of amendment request: June 22, 2017.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the 
technical specifications to eliminate TS 5.5.8, ``Inservice Testing 
Program.'' A new defined term, ``INSERVICE TESTING PROGRAM,'' was added 
to the TS definitions section. This is consistent with Technical 
Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-545, Revision 3, ``TS 
Inservice Testing Program Removal & Clarify SR [Surveillance 
Requirement] Usage Rule Application to Section 5.5 Testing.'' The 
amendments eliminated the PVNGS TS 5.5.8 to remove requirements 
duplicated in American Society of Mechanical Engineers Code for 
Operations and Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants, Code Case OMN-20, 
``Inservice Test Frequency.''
    Date of issuance: June 7, 2018.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 120 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 206 (Unit 1), 206 (Unit 2), and 206 (Unit 3). A 
publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18120A283; 
documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety 
Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-41, NPF-51, and NPF-74: 
The amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 15, 2017 (82 FR 
38716).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 7, 2018.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-255, Palisades Nuclear 
Plant, Van Buren County, Michigan

    Date of amendment request: July 27, 2017, as supplemented by letter 
dated December 19, 2017.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised certain 
staffing and training requirements, reports, programs, and editorial 
changes in the Technical Specifications Table of Contents; Section 1.0, 
``Use and Application''; and Section 5.0, ``Administrative Controls,'' 
that will no longer be applicable once Palisades Nuclear Plant is 
permanently defueled.
    Date of issuance: June 4, 2018.
    Effective date: Upon the licensee's submittal of the certifications 
required by 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1) and shall be implemented within 60 days 
from the amendment effective date.
    Amendment No.: 266. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML18114A410; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-20: The amendment 
revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical 
Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 12, 2017 (82 
FR 42847). The supplemental letter dated December 19, 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 June 4, 2018.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-410, Nine Mile Point 
Nuclear Station, Unit No. 2 (Nine Mile Point 2), Oswego County, New 
York

    Date of amendment request: August 22, 2017.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Nine Mile 
Point 2 Technical Specifications by removing a note associated with 
Surveillance Requirement 3.5.1.2 that allowed low pressure coolant 
injection subsystems to be considered operable in MODE 3 under certain 
conditions.
    Date of issuance: June 8, 2018.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 170. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML18131A291; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-69: The amendment 
revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical 
Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 19, 2017 (82 
FR 60227).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 8, 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: June 28, 2017, as supplemented by letter 
dated February 28, 2018.

[[Page 31189]]

    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the 
technical specifications to relocate to licensee-controlled documents; 
select acceptance criteria specified in TS surveillance requirements 
credited for satisfying the Inservice Testing (IST) Program and 
Inservice Inspection Program requirements; to delete the SRs for the 
ASME Code Class 1, 2, and 3 components; to replace references to the 
Surveillance Frequency Control Program with reference to the Turkey 
Point IST Program where appropriate; to establish a Reactor Coolant 
Pump Flywheel Inspection Program; and to make related editorial 
changes. Additionally, the amendments deleted a redundant SR for 
Accumulator check valve testing and added a footnote to the SR for 
Pressure Isolation Valve testing.
    Date of issuance: June 12, 2018.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 120 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 281 and 275. A publicly-available version is in 
ADAMS under Accession No. ML18130A466; documents related to these 
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 
amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-31 and DPR-41: The 
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and 
Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 29, 2017 (82 FR 
41069). The supplemental letter dated February 28, 2018, expanded the 
scope of its request as originally noticed; therefore, the NRC 
published another notice in the Federal Register on April 10, 2018 (83 
FR 15417), which replaced the original notice in its entirety.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 12, 2018.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

NextEra Energy Duane Arnold, LLC, Docket No. 50-331, Duane Arnold 
Energy Center (DAEC), Linn County, Iowa

    Date of amendment request: June 9, 2017, as supplemented by letters 
dated November 1, 2017, February 8, 2018, and March 28, 2018.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised existing DAEC 
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 TS 2.1.1.3 
Safety Limit.
    Date of issuance: June 18, 2018.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days of the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 305. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML18089A160; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-49: The amendment 
revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical 
Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 16, 2018 (83 FR 
2230). The supplemental letters dated February 8, 2018, and March 28, 
2018, provided additional information that clarified the application, 
did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and 
they 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 June 18, 2018.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

NextEra Energy, Point Beach, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-266 and 50-301, Point 
Beach Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Town of Two Creeks, Manitowoc 
County, Wisconsin

    Date of amendment request: June 23, 2017, as supplemented by 
letters dated August 21, 2017, and December 21, 2017.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the current 
emergency action level (EAL) scheme to one based on the Nuclear Energy 
Institute (NEI) guidance in NEI 99-01, Revision 6, ``Development of 
Emergency Action Levels for Non-Passive Reactors,'' dated November 
2012. Revision 6 to NEI 99-01 was endorsed by the NRC by letter dated 
March 28, 2013.
    Date of issuance: June 13, 2018.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 365 days of issuance to allow consideration of outage schedules 
and required training cycles.
    Amendment Nos.: 261 and 264. A publicly-available version is in 
ADAMS under Accession No. ML18079A045; documents related to these 
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 
amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-24 and DPR-27: The 
amendments revised the Facility Operating License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 21, 2017 (82 
FR 55408). The supplemental letter dated 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 June 13, 2018.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: October 6, 2017, as supplemented by 
letter dated February 28, 2018.
    Description of amendments: The amendments consisted of changes to 
the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) in the form of 
departures from the incorporated plant-specific Design Control Document 
Tier 2 information. Further, the amendments revised a Combined License 
(COL) License Condition which references an UFSAR Section impacted by 
the proposed changes. Specifically, the amendments consisted of changes 
to revise the methodology and acceptance criteria for the in-
containment refueling water storage tank heatup preoperational test 
described in UFSAR Subsection 14.2.9.1.3, item h and the passive 
residual heat removal heat exchanger preoperational test described in 
UFSAR Subsection 14.2.9.1.3, item g. These changes involves material 
which is specifically referenced in Section 2.D.(2) of the COLs for 
VEGP Units 3 and 4. The amendments also revised the reference to the 
In-containment Refueling Water Storage Tank Heatup Test in the COL 
license condition, consistent with the changes to the UFSAR.
    Date of issuance: April 11, 2018.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 120 (Unit 3) and 119 (Unit 4). A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18085A045; documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with 
the amendments.
    Facility Combined Licenses Nos. NPF-91 and NPF-92: The amendments 
revised the Facility Combined Licenses.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 2, 2018 (83 FR 
8509). The supplemental letter dated February 28, 2018, provided 
additional information that clarified the

[[Page 31190]]

application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally 
noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no 
significant hazards consideration determination as published in the 
Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in the Safety Evaluation dated April 11, 2018.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: February 2, 2018.
    Description of amendments: The amendments authorized the Southern 
Nuclear Operating Company to depart from the VEGP Units 3 and 4 plant-
specific Appendix A, technical specifications as incorporated into the 
VEGP Unit Nos. 3 and 4 COLs, and changed to the approved AP1000 Design 
Control Document Tier 2 information as incorporated into the Updated 
Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). Specifically, the changes to the 
COLs Appendix A, included TS 5.6.3 for the core operating limits report 
documentation to remove certain reactor trip instrumentation from the 
list of core operating limits and include analytical methods mentioned 
elsewhere in the TS and UFSAR and to TS 5.7.2 to correct a 
typographical error in a description of a radiation monitoring device 
that may be used in a high radiation area. The changes to the UFSAR 
Tier 2 Table 1.6-1, ``Material Referenced,'' and Section 4.3.5, 
``References,'' updated the list of references as described in the 
application.
    Date of issuance: May 31, 2018.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 124 (Unit 3) and 123 (Unit 4). A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18123A511; documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with 
the amendments.
    Facility Combined Licenses Nos. NPF-91 and NPF-92: The amendments 
revised the Facility Combined Licenses.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 13, 2018 (83 FR 
10911).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in the Safety Evaluation dated May 31, 2018.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

STP Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 50-498 and 50-499, South 
Texas Project (STP), Units 1 and 2, Matagorda County, Texas

    Date of amendment request: September 18, 2017.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments relocated the 
defined core plane regions where the radial peaking factor limits are 
not applicable, called radial peaking factor exclusion zones, from TS 
4.2.2.2.f to the Core Operating Limits Reports (COLRs) for STP, Unit 
Nos. 1 and 2. The amendment also revised the COLR Administrative 
Controls TS to add exclusion zones to the list of limits found in the 
COLRs, and revised the description of the methodology used to determine 
the values for the radial peaking factor exclusion zones. In addition, 
the amendment corrected two administrative errors.
    Date of issuance: June 7, 2018.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 213 (Unit 1) and 199 (Unit 2). A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18128A342; documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with 
the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-76 and NPF-80: The 
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and 
Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 5, 2017 (82 FR 
57475).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 7, 2018.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

United States Maritime Administration (MARAD), Docket No. 50-238, 
Nuclear Ship SAVANNAH (NSS), Baltimore, Maryland

    Date of amendment request: March 30, 2018.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical 
Specifications to establish controls for all accesses to the 
Containment Vessel in support of two structural modifications.
    Date of issuance: June 12, 2018.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days.
    Amendment No.: 16. A publically-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML18109A578.
    Facility Operating License No. NS-1: The amendment revised the 
License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 8, 2018 (83 FR 
20863).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 12, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 21st day of June 2018.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Tara Inverso,
Acting Deputy Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office 
of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2018-13758 Filed 7-2-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P