[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 137 (Tuesday, July 17, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33263-33276]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14779]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2018-0140]
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 18, 2018, to June 29, 2018. The last
biweekly notice was published on July 3, 2018.
DATES: Comments must be filed by August 16, 2018. A request for a
hearing must be filed by September 17, 2018.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2018-0140. 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: Janet C. Burkhardt, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1384, email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments
A. Obtaining Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2018-0140, 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-2018-0140.
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.
[[Page 33264]]
B. Submitting Comments
Please include Docket ID NRC-2018-0140, facility name, unit
number(s), plant docket number, application date, and subject in your
comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact
information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your
comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into
ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove
identifying or contact information.
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons
for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to
include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be
publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should
state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to
remove such information before making the comment submissions available
to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
II. Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility
Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses and Proposed No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under
the Commission's regulations in section 50.92 of title 10 of the Code
of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), this means that operation of the
facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1)
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated, or (2) create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated;
or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis
for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown
below.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final
determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period if circumstances change during the 30-day comment
period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for
example in derating or shutdown of the facility. If the Commission
takes action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or
the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a notice of
issuance. If the Commission makes a final no significant hazards
consideration determination, any hearing will take place after
issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will
occur very infrequently.
A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing and Petition for Leave To Intervene
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any
persons (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by this action may
file a request for a hearing and petition for leave to intervene
(petition) with respect to the action. Petitions shall be filed in
accordance with the Commission's ``Agency Rules of Practice and
Procedure'' in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult a
current copy of 10 CFR 2.309. The NRC's regulations are accessible
electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's website at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/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
[[Page 33265]]
amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, then
any hearing held would take place before the issuance of the amendment
unless the Commission finds an imminent danger to the health or safety
of the public, in which case it will issue an appropriate order or rule
under 10 CFR part 2.
A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian
Tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to
participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition should
state the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the
proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission no later
than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. The petition
must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the
``Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)'' section of this document, and
should meet the requirements for petitions set forth in this section,
except that under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(2) a State, local governmental body,
or Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof does not need
to address the standing requirements in 10 CFR 2.309(d) if the facility
is located within its boundaries. Alternatively, a State, local
governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof
may participate as a non-party under 10 CFR 2.315(c).
If a hearing is granted, any person who is not a party to the
proceeding and is not affiliated with or represented by a party may, at
the discretion of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited
appearance pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person
making a limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of
his or her position on the issues but may not otherwise participate in
the proceeding. A limited appearance may be made at any session of the
hearing or at any prehearing conference, subject to the limits and
conditions as may be imposed by the presiding officer. Details
regarding the opportunity to make a limited appearance will be provided
by the presiding officer if such sessions are scheduled.
B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a
request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition), any
motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the
submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and
documents filed by interested governmental entities that request to
participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the
NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007, as amended at 77 FR
46562; August 3, 2012). The E-Filing process requires participants to
submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in
some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Detailed
guidance on making electronic submissions may be found in the Guidance
for Electronic Submissions to the NRC and on the NRC website at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants may not submit
paper copies of their filings 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
[[Page 33266]]
have an NRC-issued digital ID certificate as described above, click
cancel when the link requests certificates and you will be
automatically directed to the NRC's electronic hearing dockets where
you will be able to access any publicly available documents in a
particular hearing docket. Participants are requested not to include
personal privacy information, such as social security numbers, home
addresses, or personal phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC
regulation or other law requires submission of such information. For
example, in some instances, individuals provide home addresses in order
to demonstrate proximity to a facility or site. With respect to
copyrighted works, except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose
of the adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use
application, participants are requested not to include copyrighted
materials in their submission.
For further details with respect to these license amendment
applications, see the application for amendment which is available for
public inspection in ADAMS and at the NRC's PDR. For additional
direction on accessing information related to this document, see the
``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' section of this
document.
Dominion Energy Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. (DENC), Docket No. 50-423,
Millstone Power Station, Unit No. 3 (MPS3), New London County,
Connecticut
Date of amendment request: April 4, 2018. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18100A055.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the
MPS3 Technical Specifications (TSs). Specifically, with one Control
Building Inlet Ventilation Radiation monitor channel inoperable for
greater than 7 days, or if both radiation monitor channels are
inoperable, DENC proposes to revise and reformat Action 18 in TS Table
3.3-3, Functional Unit 7.e, ``Control Building Inlet Ventilation
Radiation,'' to allow control room operators to manually place one
train of the Control Room Emergency Ventilation System (CREVS) in the
emergency mode of operation to provide additional time to restore one
channel of Control Building Inlet Ventilation Radiation monitoring to
OPERABLE status.
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.
Operation of MPS3 in accordance with the proposed change does
not involve a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously evaluated. The proposed
change removes an overly restrictive requirement and adds a
conservative requirement for actions to be taken when there is a
loss of operability of the CREVS actuation instrumentation. This
does not increase the probability of an accident previously
evaluated since the CREVS actuation itself is not an accident
initiator. The proposed change is consistent with standard TSs for
Westinghouse plants (NUREG-1431) and provides assurance that the
CREVS is in the conservative mode of operation for a response to an
accident. Analysis demonstrates that with one train of the CREVS in
the emergency mode of operation, control room operators are
adequately protected from the radiological consequences of design
basis accident events. Therefore, the probability or consequences of
an accident previously evaluated is not significantly increased.
Based on the above, the proposed change does not involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
Operation of MPS3 in accordance with the proposed change does
not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident
from any accident previously evaluated. The proposed change does not
involve a physical alteration of the plant or change in the methods
governing normal plant operation. The proposed change replaces the
overly restrictive shutdown requirement with a conservative action
to be taken upon loss of CREVS actuation instrumentation
operability, thereby avoiding the risk associated with an immediate
controlled shutdown. Therefore, the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated is
not created.
With one train of CREVS in the emergency mode of operation, DENC
has confirmed that MPS3 is in compliance with the current
radiological analyses of record for design basis accidents with dose
consequences to the control room. Therefore, the proposed change
does not affect the design basis analyses and does not alter the
assumptions made in the MPS3 accident analysis.
Based on the above, the proposed amendment does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in
the margin of safety?
Response: No.
Operation of MPS3 in accordance with the proposed change does
not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety. The
proposed change revises and reformats the Control Building lnlet
Ventilation Radiation TS to place the CREVS in the conservative mode
of operation for a response to an accident. The proposed change
provides additional time to restore an inoperable radiation monitor
channel instead of requiring an immediate controlled plant shutdown
and suspension of movement of recently irradiated fuel assemblies,
if applicable. A plant shutdown is a transient that may be avoided
by providing a limited time to make repairs. In addition, the
control room operators are adequately protected from the
radiological consequences of design basis accident events with one
train of the CREVS in the emergency mode of operation. The potential
to avoid a plant transient in conjunction with protecting control
room operators offsets any risk associated with the proposed change.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
Based on the above, the proposed amendment does not involve a
significant reduction in the margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion
Energy, Inc., 120 Tredegar Street, RS-2, Richmond, VA 23219.
NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna.
Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-325 and 50-324, Brunswick
Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2 (Brunswick or BSEP), Brunswick
County, North Carolina
Date of amendment request: April 4, 2018, as supplemented by letter
dated May 29, 2018. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS under
Accession Nos. ML18094B058 and ML18149A487, respectively.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would modify the
BSEP Technical Specifications (TSs) to relocate the pressure-
temperature limit curves to a licensee-controlled Pressure and
Temperature Limits Report (PTLR). The amendment request was submitted
in accordance with guidance provided in NRC Generic Letter 96-03,
``Relocation of the Pressure Temperature Limit Curves and Low
Temperature Overpressure Protections System Limits,'' dated January 31,
1996.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the
[[Page 33267]]
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 license amendment adopts the NRC approved
methodology described in Boiling Water Reactor Owner's Group (BWROG)
Licensing Topical Report (LTR) (BWROG-TP-11-022-A, SIR-05-044,
Revision 1-A), ``Pressure Temperature Limits Report Methodology for
Boiling Water Reactors.'' The BSEP PTLR was developed based on the
methodology and template provided in the BWROG LTR.
10 CFR 50, Appendix G, establishes requirements to protect the
integrity of the reactor coolant pressure boundary (RCPB) in nuclear
power plants.
Implementing this NRC approved methodology does not reduce the
ability to protect the reactor coolant pressure boundary as
specified in Appendix G, nor will this change increase the
probability of malfunction of plant equipment, or the failure of
plant structures, systems, or components. Incorporation of the new
methodology for calculating pressure and temperature limit curves,
and the relocation of the pressure and temperature limit curves from
the TS to the PTLR provides an equivalent level of assurance that
the reactor coolant pressure boundary is capable of performing its
intended safety functions.
The proposed changes do not adversely affect accident initiators
or precursors, and do not alter the design assumptions, conditions,
or configuration of the plant or the manner in which the plant is
operated and maintained. The ability of structures, systems, and
components to perform their intended safety functions is not altered
or prevented by the proposed changes, and the assumptions used in
determining the radiological consequences of previously evaluated
accidents are not affected.
Therefore, the proposed amendment 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.
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 change in methodology for calculating pressure and
temperature limits and the relocation of those limits to the PTLR do
not alter or involve any design basis accident initiators. Reactor
coolant pressure boundary integrity will continue to be maintained
in accordance with 10 CFR part 50, Appendix G, and the assumed
accident performance of plant structures, systems and components
will not be affected. The proposed changes do not involve a physical
alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment
will be installed), and the installed equipment is not being
operated in a new or different manner.
Therefore, the proposed amendment 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 changes do not affect the function of the reactor
coolant pressure boundary or its response during plant transients.
Calculating the Brunswick pressure temperature limits using the NRC
approved structural integrity methodology ensures adequate margins
of safety relating to reactor coolant pressure boundary integrity
are maintained. The proposed changes do not alter the manner in
which the Limiting Conditions for Operation pressure and temperature
limits for the reactor coolant pressure boundary are determined.
There are no changes to the setpoints at which protective actions
are initiated, and the operability requirements for equipment
assumed to operate for accident mitigation are not affected.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does 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: Booma Venkataraman.
Exelon FitzPatrick, LLC and Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No.
50-333, James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant (FitzPatrick), Oswego
County, New York
Date of amendment request: January 31, 2018. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18037A782.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise
FitzPatrick's emergency plan by changing the emergency action level
(EAL) schemes. The proposed changes are based on the Nuclear Energy
Institute's (NEI's) guidance in NEI 99-01, Revision 6, ``Development of
Emergency Action Levels for Non-Passive Reactors,'' which was endorsed
by the NRC in a letter dated March 28, 2013 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML12346A463).
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 to FitzPatrick's EAL schemes to adopt the
NRC-endorsed guidance in NEI 99-01, Revision 6 do not reduce the
capability to meet the emergency planning requirements established
in 10 CFR 50.47 and 10 CFR part 50, Appendix E. The proposed changes
do not reduce the functionality, performance, or capability of
FitzPatrick's ERO [emergency response organization] to respond in
mitigating the consequences of any design basis accident.
The probability of a reactor accident requiring implementation
of Emergency Plan EALs has no relevance in determining whether the
proposed changes to the EALs reduce the effectiveness of the
Emergency Plans. As discussed in Section D, ``Planning Basis,'' of
NUREG-0654, Revision 1, ``Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of
Radiological Emergency Response Plants and Preparedness in Support
of Nuclear Power Plants:''
``. . . The overall objective of emergency response plans is to
provide dose savings (and in some cases immediate life saving) for a
spectrum of accidents that could produce offsite doses in excess of
Protective Action Guides (PAGs). No single specific accident
sequence should be isolated as the one for which to plan because
each accident could have different consequences, both in nature and
degree. Further, the range of possible selection for a planning
basis is very large, starting with a zero point of requiring no
planning at all because significant offsite radiological accident
consequences are unlikely to occur, to planning for the worst
possible accident, regardless of its extremely low likelihood. . .
.''
Therefore, Exelon did not consider the risk insights regarding
any specific accident initiation or progression in evaluating the
proposed changes.
The proposed changes do not involve any physical changes to
plant equipment or systems, nor do they alter the assumptions of any
accident analyses. The proposed changes do not adversely affect
accident initiators or precursors nor do they alter the design
assumptions, conditions, and configuration or the manner in which
the plants are operated and maintained. The proposed changes do not
adversely affect the ability of Structures, Systems, or Components
(SSCs) to perform their intended safety functions in mitigating the
consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance
limits.
Therefore, the proposed changes 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
[[Page 33268]]
accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to FitzPatrick's EAL schemes to adopt the
NRC-endorsed guidance in NEI 99-01, Revision 6 do not involve any
physical changes to plant systems or equipment. The proposed changes
do not involve the addition of any new plant equipment. The proposed
changes will not alter the design configuration, or method of
operation of plant equipment beyond its normal functional
capabilities. All FitzPatrick ERO functions will continue to be
performed as required. The proposed changes do not create any new
credible failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident initiators.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from those that have been
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to FitzPatrick's EAL schemes to adopt the
NRC-endorsed guidance in NEI 99-01, Revision 6 do not alter or
exceed a design basis or safety limit. There is no change 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. There are no changes to setpoints or
environmental conditions of any SSC or the manner in which any SSC
is operated. Margins of safety are unaffected by the proposed
changes to adopt the NEI 99-01, Revision 6 EAL scheme guidance. The
applicable requirements of 10 CFR 50.47 and 10 CFR part 50, Appendix
E will continue to be met.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve any 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: Donald P. Ferraro, Assistant General
Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 200 Exelon Way, Suite 305,
Kennett Square, PA 19348.
NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-289 and 50-320, Three
Mile Island Nuclear Station (TMI), Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Dauphin County,
Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: March 19, 2018. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18078A578.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the
TMI Site Emergency Plan (SEP) on-shift and emergency response
organization (ERO) staffing to support the planned permanent cessation
of operations and permanent defueling of TMI, Unit 1. Specifically, the
proposed changes would eliminate the on-shift positions not needed for
the safe storage of spent fuel in the spent fuel pool during the
initial decommissioning period and eliminate the ERO positions not
necessary to effectively respond to credible accidents for a
permanently shutdown and defueled power reactor facility. The proposed
changes will also relocate full augmentation position requirements from
the SEP to the Emergency Preparedness Implementing Procedures.
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 to the TMI Emergency Plan do not impact the
function of plant Structures, Systems, or Components (SSCs). The
proposed changes do not involve the modification of any plant
equipment or affect plant operation. The proposed changes do not
affect accident initiators or precursors, nor do the proposed
changes alter design assumptions. The proposed changes do not
prevent the ability of the on-shift staff and ERO to perform their
intended functions to mitigate the consequences of any accident or
event that will be credible in the permanently defueled condition.
The proposed changes only remove positions that will no longer be
needed or credited in the Emergency Plan in the permanently defueled
condition.
Therefore, the proposed changes 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 reduce the number of on-shift and ERO
positions commensurate with the hazards associated with a
permanently shutdown and defueled facility. The proposed changes do
not involve installation of new equipment or modification of
existing equipment, so that no new equipment failure modes are
introduced. Also, the proposed changes do not result in a change to
the way that the equipment or facility is operated so that no new
accident initiators are created.
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 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. The proposed changes are
associated with the Emergency Plan and 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 the
proposed changes and margins of safety are maintained. The revised
Emergency Plan will continue to provide the necessary response staff
with the proposed changes.
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: James G. Danna.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353, Limerick
Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-
171, 50-277, and 50-278, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Unit Nos.
1, 2, and 3, York and Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: May 10, 2018. Publicly-available version
is in ADAMS under Package Accession No. ML18149A290.
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
[[Page 33269]]
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.
Indiana Michigan Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-315 and 50-316, Donald
C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Berrien County, Michigan
Date of amendment request: May 4, 2018. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18129A219.
Description of amendment request: The proposed change would modify
technical specification (TS) requirements regarding Limiting Condition
for Operation (LCO) and Surveillance Requirement (SR) usage, in
accordance with NRC-approved Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF)
Traveler TSTF-529, Revision 4, ``Clarify Use and Application Rules.''
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 to Section 1.3 and LCO 3.0.4 have no effect
on the requirement for systems to be Operable and have no effect on
the application of TS actions. The proposed change to SR 3.0.3
states that the allowance may only be used when there is a
reasonable expectation the surveillance will be met when performed.
Since the proposed change does not significantly affect system
Operability, the proposed change will have no effect on the
initiating events for accidents previously evaluated and will have
no significant effect on the ability of the systems to mitigate
accidents previously evaluated.
Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change to the TS usage rules does not affect the
design or function of any plant systems. The proposed change does
not change the Operability requirements for plant systems or the
actions taken when plant systems are not operable.
Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change clarifies the application of Section 1.3 and
LCO 3.0.4 and does not result in changes in plant operation. SR
3.0.3 is revised to allow application of SR 3.0.3 when an SR has not
been previously performed if there is reasonable expectation that
the SR will be met when performed. This expands the use of SR 3.0.3
while ensuring the affected system is capable of performing its
safety function. As a result, plant safety is either improved or
unaffected.
Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Robert B. Haemer, Senior Nuclear Counsel,
One Cook Place, Bridgman, MI 49106.
NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-
026, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Unit Nos. 3 and 4, Burke County,
Georgia
Date of amendment request: May 18, 2018. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18138A396.
Description of amendment request: The amendment request proposes to
change Technical Specifications Limiting Condition for Operation 3.3.8,
Engineered Safety Feature Actuation System (ESFAS) Instrumentation,
related to Safeguard Actuation Functions. Various ESFAS Functions
require applicability and corresponding actions changes to more
accurately reflect their operation and related safety analysis
assumptions. This submittal requests approval of the license amendment
necessary to implement these changes.
[[Page 33270]]
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not involve changes to current plant
design or safety analysis assumptions. These changes provide
Technical Specifications consistency with the approved plant design
and safety analysis assumptions. The changes do not affect the
operation of any systems or equipment that initiate an analyzed
accident or alter any structures, systems, and components (SSCs)
accident initiator or initiating sequence of events. The proposed
changes do not result in any increase in the probability of an
analyzed accident occurring. Therefore, the requested amendment does
not involve a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not involve changes to current plant
design or safety analysis assumptions. These changes provide
Technical Specifications consistency with the approved plant design
and safety analysis assumptions. The proposed changes do not affect
plant protection instrumentation systems, and do not affect the
design function, support, design, or operation of mechanical and
fluid systems. The proposed changes do not result in a new failure
mechanism or introduce any new accident precursors. No design
function described in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report
(UFSAR) is affected by the proposed changes. Therefore, the
requested amendment does not create the possibility of a new or
different kind accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not involve changes to current plant
design or safety analysis assumptions. These changes provide
Technical Specifications consistency with the approved plant design
and safety analysis assumptions. No safety analysis or design basis
acceptance limit/criterion is involved. 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: M. Stanford Blanton, Balch & Bingham LLP,
1710 Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 35203-2015.
NRC Branch Chief: Jennifer Dixon-Herrity.
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), Docket Nos. 50-259, 50-260, and 50-
296, Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN), Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3, Limestone
County, Alabama
Date of amendment request: May 3, 2018. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18124A053.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the
BFN Units 1, 2, and 3 renewed facility operating licenses (RFOLs) to
provide a correction to previously submitted information in relation to
their approved fire protection program under 10 CFR 50.48(c),
``National Fire Protection Association Standard NFPA 805.''
Specifically, TVA requested to modify the BFN licenses to reflect
changes to Item 3.3.4 in Table B-1, ``Transition of Fundamental Fire
Protection Program & Design Elements,'' of Attachment A in its NFPA 805
license amendment request dated March 27, 2013 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML13092A393).
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 amendment adds the reference to this letter to the
BFN RFOL License Condition paragraphs 2.C.(13), 2.C.(14), and
2.C.(7) for BFN Units 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The change
encompassed by the proposed amendment is to correct the entry in
Attachment A Table B-1 of the BFN Transition Report.
The proposed change does not adversely affect accident
initiators or precursors nor alter the design assumptions,
conditions, and configuration of the facility or the manner in which
the plant is operated and maintained. The proposed change does not
affect the ability of structures, systems and components (SSCs) to
perform their intended safety function to mitigate the consequences
of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits.
Therefore, these proposed changes do not involve a significant
increase in the probability of consequences of an accident
previously identified.
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 adds the reference to this letter to the
BFN RFOL License Condition paragraphs 2.C.(13), 2.C.(14), and
2.C.(7) for BFN Units 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The change
encompassed by the proposed amendment is to correct the entry in
Attachment A Table B-1 of the BFN Transition Report.
There is no risk impact to Core Damage Frequency (CDF) or Large
Early Release Frequency (LERF) because this is an administrative
change. Plant secondary combustibles, including insulating
materials, are considered in the fire modeling input to the Fire PRA
[Probabilistic Risk Assessment].
The proposed change does not result in any new or different
kinds of accident from that previously evaluated because it does not
change any precursors or equipment that is previously credited for
accident mitigation.
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 amendment adds the reference to this letter to the
BFN RFOL License Condition paragraphs 2.C.(13), 2.C.(14), and
2.C.(7) for BFN Units 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The change
encompassed by the proposed amendment are to correct the entry in
Attachment A Table B-1 of the BFN Transition Report.
This proposed change corrects erroneous information to
previously approved information in the BFN Transition Report. This
proposed change will have an insignificant impact on the accident
analysis as it is a clarifying or administrative change. Plant
secondary combustibles, including insulating materials, are
considered in the fire modeling input to the Fire PRA.
The proposed change will not result in any new or different
kinds of accident from that previously evaluated because it does not
change any precursors or equipment that is previously credited for
accident mitigation.
Therefore, based on the above discussion, these proposed changes
do not involve a 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: General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority,
400 West Summit Hill Drive, 6A West Tower, Knoxville, TN 37902.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Booma Venkataraman.
[[Page 33271]]
III. Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses
and Combined Licenses
During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice,
the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has
determined for each of these amendments that the application complies
with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,
as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The
Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the
Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR chapter I, which are set
forth in the license amendment.
A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility
operating license or combined license, as applicable, proposed no
significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a
hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the Federal
Register as indicated.
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that
these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in
accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b),
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be
prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an
environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in
10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment,
it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the action see (1) the
applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's
related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as
indicated. All of these items can be accessed as described in the
``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' section of this
document.
Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Docket No. 50-400, Shearon Harris Nuclear
Power Plant, Unit No. 1, Wake and Chatham Counties, North Carolina
Date of amendment request: June 5, 2017, as supplemented by letters
dated October 30, 2017, November 27, 2017, and January 28, 2018.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical
Specifications (TSs) to restrict the steady-state voltage and frequency
limits for emergency diesel generator (EDG) operation to ensure that
accident mitigation equipment can perform as designed. In addition, the
amendment revised a TS to increase the voltage limit for the EDG full
load rejection test to provide additional operating margin to test
acceptance criteria.
Date of issuance: June 20, 2018.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment No.: 165. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML18130A270; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-63: The amendment
revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 26, 2017 (82
FR 44851). The supplemental letters dated October 30, 2017, November
27, 2017, and January 28, 2018, provided additional information that
clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application
as originally noticed, and did not change the NRC staff's original
proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as
published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 20, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-271, Vermont Yankee
Nuclear Power Station, Vernon, Vermont
Date of amendment request: July 13, 2017.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment approved the removal
of the existing cyber security license condition from the facility
operating license.
Date of issuance: June 27, 2018.
Effective date: As of the date the licensee notifies the NRC in
writing that all spent nuclear fuel assemblies have been transferred
out of the spent fuel pool and have been placed in dry storage within
the independent spent fuel storage installation, and shall be
implemented within 60 days of the effective date.
Amendment No.: 268. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML18145A208; documents related to this amendment are
referenced in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-28: This amendment
revised the License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 26, 2017 (82
FR 44852).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 27, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-313, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit
1 (ANO-1), Pope County, Arkansas
Date of amendment request: July 17, 2017.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical
Specifications (TSs) for ANO-1 and established a new Completion Time in
ANO-1 TS 3.7.5, ``Emergency Feedwater (EFW) System,'' where one steam
supply to the turbine-driven EFW pump is inoperable concurrent with an
inoperable motor-driven EFW train. The amendment is consistent with
NRC-approved Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-
412, Revision 3, ``Provide Actions for One Steam Supply to Turbine
Driven AFW [Auxiliary Feedwater]/EFW Pump Inoperable,'' with certain
plant-specific deviations.
Date of issuance: June 19, 2018.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 260. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML18115A282; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-51: Amendment revised
the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 10, 2017 (82 FR
47036).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 19, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-368, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit
No. 2 (ANO-2), Pope County, Arkansas
Date of amendment request: July 17, 2017.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical
Specifications (TSs) for ANO-2 and established Actions and Allowable
Outage Times in ANO-2 TS 3.7.1.2, ``Emergency Feedwater System,'' for
several combinations of inoperable Emergency Feedwater (EFW) trains
consistent with NUREG-1432, ``Standard Technical Specifications--
Combustion Engineering Plants,'' Revision 4. The amendment includes
[[Page 33272]]
changes incorporated by Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF)-340,
``Allow 7 Day Completion Time for a Turbine-Driven AFW [Auxiliary
Feedwater] Pump Inoperable,'' Revision 3 and TSTF-412, ``Provide
Actions for One Steam Supply to Turbine Driven AFW/EFW Pump
Inoperable,'' Revision 3.
Date of issuance: June 19, 2018.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 310. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML18134A253; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-6: Amendment revised the
Renewed Facility Operating License and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 10, 2017 (82 FR
47036).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 19, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-317 and 50-318, Calvert
Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Calvert County,
Maryland, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-220 and 50-
410, Nine Mile, Point, Nuclear Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Oswego
County, New York, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-244,
R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, Wayne County, New York
Date of amendment request: May 31, 2017.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the
emergency plans for each facility by changing the emergency action
level schemes. The changes are based on the Nuclear Energy Institute's
(NEI's) guidance in NEI 99-01, Revision 6, ``Development of Emergency
Action Levels for Non-Passive Reactors,'' which was endorsed by the NRC
by letter dated March 28, 2013 (ADAMS Package Accession No.
ML13091A209).
Date of issuance: June 26, 2018.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
on or before June 28, 2019.
Amendment Nos.: Calvert Cliffs--324/302; Nine Mile Point--230/171;
and, Ginna--128. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML18137A614; documents related to these amendments are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-53, DPR-69, DPR-63, NPF-69, and
DPR-18: Amendments revised the emergency plans.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 1, 2017 (82 FR
35838).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 26, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-237 and 50-249, Dresden
Nuclear Power Station (DNPS), Unit Nos. 2 and 3, Grundy County,
Illinois
Date of amendment request: May 3, 2017, as supplemented by letter
dated February 14, 2018.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the DNPS
Technical Specification (TS) 5.5.12, ``Primary Containment Leakage Rate
Testing Program,'' to allow for the permanent extension of the Type A
integrated leak rate testing and the Type C leak rate testing
frequencies.
Date of issuance: June 29, 2018.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 257 (Unit 2) and 250 (Unit 3). A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18137A271; documents related
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with
the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-19 and DPR-25:
Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TS.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 1, 2017 (82 FR
35838). The supplemental letter dated February 14, 2018, provided
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change
the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 29, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-244, R. E. Ginna Nuclear
Power Plant (Ginna), Wayne County, New York
Date of amendment request: June 30, 2017, as supplemented by
letters dated October 25, 2017, and June 5, 2018.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the license
to delete the modification to install overcurrent protection on its
emergency diesel generators which was required as part of Ginna's
implementation of its risk-informed, performance-based fire protection
program in accordance with 10 CFR 50.48(c).
Date of issuance: June 25, 2018.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 127. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML18114A025; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-18: Amendment revised
the Renewed Facility Operating License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 3, 2017 (82 FR
46097). The supplemental letters dated October 25, 2017, and June 5,
2018, provided additional information that clarified the application,
did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and
did not change the NRC staff's original proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 25, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. STN 50-456 and STN 50-457,
Braidwood Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Will County, Illinois and Docket
Nos. STN 50-454 and STN 50-455, Byron Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Ogle
County, Illinois
Date of amendment request: June 30, 2017, as supplemented by
letters dated October 25, 2017, and May 29, 2018.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical
Specification (TS) 3.1.4, ``Rod Group Alignment Limits,'' TS 3.1.5,
``Shutdown Bank Insertion Limits,'' TS 3.1.6, ``Control Bank Insertion
Limits,'' and TS 3.1.7, ``Rod Position Indication.''
Date of issuance: June 27, 2018.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos: 196 (Braidwood, Unit 1) and 196 (Braidwood, Unit 2);
202 (Bryon, Unit 1) and 202 (Bryon, Unit 2). A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18065A529; documents related
to these amendments are listed in the
[[Page 33273]]
related Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-72, NPF-77, NPF-37, and
NPF-66: The amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses
and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 29, 2017 (82 FR
41069). The supplemental letters dated October 25, 2017, and May 29,
2018, provided additional information that clarified the application,
did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and
did not change the NRC staff's original proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 27, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, Docket No. 50-440, Perry Nuclear
Power Plant, Unit No. 1, Lake County, Ohio
Date of amendment request: September 11, 2017.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the
requirements in Technical Specification (TS) 3.3.6.1, ``Primary
Containment and Drywell Isolation Instrumentation,'' by adding an
ACTIONS note to Limiting Condition of Operation 3.3.6.1 to allow
intermittent opening, under administrative control, of containment and
drywell penetration flow paths that are isolated.
Date of issuance: June 25, 2018.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 181. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML18157A084; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-58: Amendment revised the
Facility Operating License and TS.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 7, 2017 (82 FR
51652).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 25, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, South Carolina Public Service
Authority, Docket No. 50-395, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit
No. 1, Fairfield County, South Carolina
Date of amendment request: October 6, 2017, as supplemented by
letter dated April 19, 2018.
Brief description of amendment: This amendment increased the
Integrated Leak Rate Test Peak Calculated Containment Internal
Pressure, Pa, listed in Technical Specification (TS) 6.8.4.g,
``Containment Leakage Rate Testing Program,'' from 45.1 pounds per
square inch gauge (psig) to 46.0 psig. It also removed the reference to
Regulatory Guide 1.163, ``Performance-Based Containment Leak Test
Program,'' and American National Standards Institute/American Nuclear
Society (ANSI/ANS)-56.8-2002, ``Containment System Leakage Testing
Requirements,'' and replaced the reference of Nuclear Energy Institute
(NEI) 94-01, Revision 3-A, ``Industry Guideline for Implementing
Performance-Based Option of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix J,'' with NEI 94-
01, Revision 2-A.
Date of issuance: June 28, 2018.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 210. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML18141A668, documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-12: Amendment revised
the Renewed Facility Operating License and the TS.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 21, 2017 (82
FR 55409). The supplemental letter dated April 19, 2018, provided
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change
the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination as published in the Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 28, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-364,
Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Houston County,
Alabama
Date of amendment request: December 21, 2017.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments modified Technical
Specification (TS) 3.7.5, ``Auxiliary Feedwater (AFW) System,'' to
establish a new Completion Time for the Condition where one steam
supply to the turbine driven AFW pump is inoperable concurrent with an
inoperable motor driven AFW train. In addition, the amendments added
specific Conditions and Action requirements: (1) For when two motor
driven AFW trains are inoperable at the same time and; (2) for when the
turbine driven AFW train is inoperable either (a) due solely to one
inoperable steam supply, or (b) due to reasons other than one
inoperable steam supply. The proposed changes are consistent with NRC-
approved Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Traveler, TSTF-412,
Revision 3, ``Provide Actions for One Steam Supply to Turbine Driven
AFW/EFW [Emergency Feedwater] Pump Inoperable'' dated January 10, 2007.
Date of issuance: June 27, 2018.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 219 (Unit 1) and 216 (Unit 2). A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18151A174. Documents related
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with
the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-2 and NPF-8: The
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TS.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 13, 2018 (83
FR 6234).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 27, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Susquehanna Nuclear, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-387 and 50-388, Susquehanna
Steam Electric Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: December 14, 2017.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical
Specification (TS) 3.6.4.1, ``Secondary Containment,'' Surveillance
Requirement (SR) 3.6.4.1.1. The SR was revised to address conditions
during which the secondary containment pressure may not meet the SR
pressure requirements. The changes are based on Technical Specification
Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-551, Revision 3, ``Revise Secondary
Containment Surveillance Requirements.''
Date of issuance: June 26, 2018.
[[Page 33274]]
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment Nos.: 270 (Unit 1) and 252 (Unit 2). A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18150A281. Documents related
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with
the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-14 and NPF-22: The
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TS.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 27, 2018 (83
FR 8520).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 26, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-390 and 50-391, Watts Bar
Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Rhea County, Tennessee
Date of amendment request: November 23, 2016, as supplemented by
letters dated September 29, November 16, and December 27, 2017, and May
11, 2018.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the
Technical Specification (TS) requirements on control and shutdown rods,
and rod and bank position indication in the Units 1 and 2, TS 3.1.5,
``Rod Group Alignment Limits,'' TS 3.1.6, ``Shutdown Bank Insertion
Limits,'' TS 3.1.7, ``Control Bank Insertion Limits,'' and TS 3.1.8,
``Rod Position Indication.''
Date of issuance: June 26, 2018.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 120 (Unit 1) and 20 (Unit 2). A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18079A029; documents related
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with
the amendments.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-90 and NPF-96: Amendments
revised the Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 14, 2017 (82 FR
13672). The supplemental letters dated September 29, November 16, and
December 27, 2017, expanded the scope of the amendment request as
originally noticed in the Federal Register. A second notice was
published in the Federal Register on February 21, 2018 (83 FR 7500),
which superseded the original notice in its entirety. The supplemental
letter dated May 11, 2018, provided additional information that
clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application
as re-noticed, and did not change the NRC staff's proposed no
significant hazards consideration determination as published in the
Federal Register.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 26, 2018.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
IV. Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and
Combined Licenses and Final Determination of No Significant Hazards
Consideration and Opportunity for a Hearing (Exigent Public
Announcement or Emergency Circumstances)
During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice,
the Commission has issued the following amendment. The Commission has
determined for this amendment that the application for the amendment
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.
Because of exigent or emergency circumstances associated with the
date the amendment was needed, there was not time for the Commission to
publish, for public comment before issuance, its usual notice of
consideration of issuance of amendment, proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination, and opportunity for a hearing.
For exigent circumstances, the Commission has either issued a
Federal Register notice providing opportunity for public comment or has
used local media to provide notice to the public in the area
surrounding a licensee's facility of the licensee's application and of
the Commission's proposed determination of no significant hazards
consideration. The Commission has provided a reasonable opportunity for
the public to comment, using its best efforts to make available to the
public means of communication for the public to respond quickly, and in
the case of telephone comments, the comments have been recorded or
transcribed as appropriate and the licensee has been informed of the
public comments.
In circumstances where failure to act in a timely way would have
resulted, for example, in derating or shutdown of a nuclear power plant
or in prevention of either resumption of operation or of increase in
power output up to the plant's licensed power level, the Commission may
not have had an opportunity to provide for public comment on its no
significant hazards consideration determination. In such case, the
license amendment has been issued without opportunity for comment. If
there has been some time for public comment but less than 30 days, the
Commission may provide an opportunity for public comment. If comments
have been requested, it is so stated. In either event, the State has
been consulted by telephone whenever possible.
Under its regulations, the Commission may issue and make an
amendment immediately effective, notwithstanding the pendency before it
of a request for a hearing from any person, in advance of the holding
and completion of any required hearing, where it has determined that no
significant hazards consideration is involved.
The Commission has applied the standards of 10 CFR 50.92 and has
made a final determination that the amendment involves no significant
hazards consideration. The basis for this determination is contained in
the documents related to this action. Accordingly, the amendment has
been issued and made effective as indicated.
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that this
amendment satisfies 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 this amendment. If the Commission has prepared an
environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in
10 CFR 51.12(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
application for amendment, (2) the amendment to Facility Operating
License or Combined License, as applicable, 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.
A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing and Petition for Leave To Intervene
The Commission is also offering an opportunity for a hearing with
respect to the issuance of the amendment. Within 60 days after the date
of publication of this notice, any persons (petitioner) whose interest
may be affected by this
[[Page 33275]]
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 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
[[Page 33276]]
submissions and access the E-Filing system for any proceeding in which
it is participating; and (2) advise the Secretary that the participant
will be submitting a petition or other adjudicatory document (even in
instances in which the participant, or its counsel or representative,
already holds an NRC-issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this
information, the Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the
hearing in this proceeding if the Secretary has not already established
an electronic docket.
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is
available on the NRC's public website at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/getting-started.html. Once a participant has obtained a
digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant
can then submit adjudicatory documents. Submissions must be in Portable
Document Format (PDF). Additional guidance on PDF submissions is
available on the NRC's public website at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/electronic-sub-ref-mat.html. A filing is considered complete at the
time the document is submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be
timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system
no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of
a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends
the submitter an email notice confirming receipt of the document. The
E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access
to the document to the NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any
others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to
participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the
document on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and
other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for
and receive a digital ID certificate before adjudicatory documents are
filed so that they can obtain access to the documents via the E-Filing
system.
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-
Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC's Electronic
Filing Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC's
public website at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by
email to [email protected], or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-
7640. The NRC Electronic Filing Help Desk is available between 9 a.m.
and 6 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government
holidays.
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not
submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in
accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing
stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and
requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper
format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention:
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or
expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and
Adjudications Staff. Participants filing adjudicatory documents in this
manner are responsible for serving the document on all other
participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of
the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or
expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the
provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an
exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or
party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines
that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no
longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
https://adams.nrc.gov/ehd, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the
Commission or the presiding officer. If you do not have an NRC-issued
digital ID certificate as described above, click cancel when the link
requests certificates and you will be automatically directed to the
NRC's electronic hearing dockets where you will be able to access any
publicly available documents in a particular hearing docket.
Participants are requested not to include personal privacy information,
such as social security numbers, home addresses, or personal phone
numbers in their filings, unless an NRC regulation or other law
requires submission of such information. For example, in some
instances, individuals provide home addresses in order to demonstrate
proximity to a facility or site. With respect to copyrighted works,
except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory
filings and would constitute a Fair Use application, participants are
requested not to include copyrighted materials in their submission.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-277 and 50-278, Peach
Bottom Atomic Power Station, Unit Nos. 2 and 3 (Peach Bottom), York
County, Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: June 21, 2018.
Description of amendments: The amendments revised the Peach Bottom
Technical Specifications (TSs) for a one-time suspension of the
emergency diesel generator (EDG) No. 4 (E-4) surveillance requirements.
Specifically, the amendments revised TS Surveillance Requirements
3.8.1.2, 3.8.1.3, 3.8.1.6, and 3.8.3.4 to suspend performing required
monthly surveillance testing on the E-4 EDG until the E-3 EDG is
returned to operable status, not to exceed 2205 hours Eastern Time on
June 27, 2018.
Date of issuance: June 23, 2018.
Effective date: June 23, 2018.
Amendment Nos.: 318 (Unit 1) and 321 (Unit 2). A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18173A042. Documents related
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with
the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-44 and DPR-56: The
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
Public comments requested as to proposed no significant hazards
consideration: No.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments, finding of
emergency circumstances, State consultation, and final no significant
hazards consideration determination are contained in a Safety
Evaluation dated June 23, 2018.
Attorney for licensee: J. Bradley Fewell, Vice President and Deputy
General Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 200 Exelon Way,
Kennett Square, PA 19348.
NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 5th day of July 2018.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Gregory F. Suber,
Deputy Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of
Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2018-14779 Filed 7-16-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P