[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 205 (Tuesday, October 23, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53509-53520]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-22654]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2018-0231]


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 September 25, 2018 to October 5, 2018. The 
last biweekly notice was published on October 9, 2018.

DATES: Comments must be filed by November 23, 2018. A request for a 
hearing must be filed by December 24, 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-2018-0231. Address 
questions about Docket IDs in Regulations.gov 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: Shirley Rohrer, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-5411, email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments

A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2018-0231 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-2018-0231.
     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 ``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]. For the convenience of the reader, 
instructions about obtaining materials referenced in this document are 
provided in the ``Availability of Documents'' section.
     NRC's PDR:You may examine and purchase copies of public 
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

B. Submitting Comments

    Please include Docket ID NRC-2018-0231 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-

[[Page 53510]]

day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment 
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the 
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period if circumstances change during the 30-day comment 
period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for 
example in derating or shutdown of the facility. If the Commission 
takes action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or 
the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a notice of 
issuance. If the Commission makes a final no significant hazards 
consideration determination, any hearing will take place after 
issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will 
occur very infrequently.

A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing and Petition for Leave To Intervene

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

[[Page 53511]]

with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007, as amended 
at 77 FR 46562; August 3, 2012). The E-Filing process requires 
participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the 
internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. 
Detailed guidance on making electronic submissions may be found in the 
Guidance for Electronic Submissions to the NRC and on the NRC website 
at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants may not 
submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in 
accordance with the procedures described below.
    To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 
days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the 
Office of the Secretary by email at [email protected], or by 
telephone at 301-415-1677, to (1) request a digital identification (ID) 
certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or 
representative) to digitally sign submissions and access the E-Filing 
system for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise 
the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a petition or 
other adjudicatory document (even in instances in which the 
participant, or its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-
issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the 
Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the hearing in this 
proceeding if the Secretary has not already established an electronic 
docket.
    Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is 
available on the NRC's public website at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/getting-started.html. Once a participant has obtained a 
digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant 
can then submit adjudicatory documents. Submissions must be in Portable 
Document Format (PDF). Additional guidance on PDF submissions is 
available on the NRC's public website at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/electronic-sub-ref-mat.html. A filing is considered complete at the 
time the document is submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be 
timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system 
no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of 
a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends 
the submitter an email notice confirming receipt of the document. The 
E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access 
to the document to the NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any 
others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to 
participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the 
document on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and 
other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for 
and receive a digital ID certificate before adjudicatory documents are 
filed so that they can obtain access to the documents via the E-Filing 
system.
    A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-
Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC's Electronic 
Filing Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC's 
public website at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by 
email to [email protected], or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-
7640. The NRC Electronic Filing Help Desk is available between 9 a.m. 
and 6 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government 
holidays.
    Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not 
submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in 
accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing 
stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and 
requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper 
format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail 
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: 
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or 
expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and 
Adjudications Staff. Participants filing adjudicatory documents in this 
manner are responsible for serving the document on all other 
participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of 
the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or 
expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the 
provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an 
exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or 
party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines 
that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no 
longer exists.
    Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the 
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at 
https://adams.nrc.gov/ehd, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the 
Commission or the presiding officer. If you do not have an NRC-issued 
digital ID certificate as described above, click cancel when the link 
requests certificates and you will be automatically directed to the 
NRC's electronic hearing dockets where you will be able to access any 
publicly available documents in a particular hearing docket. 
Participants are requested not to include personal privacy information, 
such as social security numbers, home addresses, or personal phone 
numbers in their filings, unless an NRC regulation or other law 
requires submission of such information. For example, in some 
instances, individuals provide home addresses in order to demonstrate 
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 
application(s), see the application for amendment which is available 
for public inspection in ADAMS and at the NRC's PDR. For additional 
direction on accessing information related to this document, see the 
``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' section of this 
document.

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414, Catawba 
Nuclear Station (Catawba), Units 1 and 2 (CNS), York County, South 
Carolina

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

Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Docket No. 50-400, Shearon Harris Nuclear 
Power Plant (Harris), Unit 1 (HNP), Wake County, North Carolina

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

    Date of amendment request: May 10, 2018. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18131A068.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the 
technical specifications (TSs) for Catawba and McGuire to remove 
ventilation system heaters. Specifically, ventilation system heaters 
will be removed from Catawba TSs 3.6.10, ``Annulus Ventilation System 
(AVS),'' and 3.7.10, ``Control Room Area Ventilation System (CRAVS),'' 
3.7.12, ``Auxiliary Building Filtered Ventilation

[[Page 53512]]

Exhaust System (ABFVES),'' 3.7.13, ``Fuel Handling Ventilation Exhaust 
System (FHVES),'' and 3.9.3, ``Containment Penetrations,'' 5.5.11, 
``Ventilation Filter Testing Program (VFTP),'' and 5.6.6, ``Ventilation 
Systems Heater Report,'' and McGuire TSs 3.6.10, ``Annulus Ventilation 
System (AVS),'' 3.7.9, ``Control Room Area Ventilation System 
(CRAVS),'' 5.5.11, ``Ventilation Filter Testing Program (VFTP),'' and 
5.6.6, ``Ventilation Systems Heater Failure Report.'' The specified 
relative humidity for charcoal testing in the ventilation system 
Surveillance Requirement (for Harris) and Ventilation Filter Testing 
Program (for Robinson) is revised from 70% to 95% and the ventilation 
system heaters will be removed from the Harris TSs \3/4\.7.6, ``Control 
Room Emergency Filtration System,'' \3/4\.7.7, ``Reactor Auxiliary 
Building (RAB) Emergency Exhaust System,'' and \3/4\.9.12, ``Fuel 
Handling Building Emergency Exhaust System,'' and Robinson TSs 3.7.11, 
``Fuel Building Air Cleanup System (FBACS),'' and 5.5.11, ``Ventilation 
Filter Testing Program (VFTP).'' The proposed changes are consistent 
with Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-522, 
``Revise Ventilation System Surveillance Requirements to Operate for 10 
Hours per Month,'' Revision 0. Additionally, an administrative error is 
being corrected in McGuire's TS 5.5.11, ``Ventilation Filter Testing 
Program (VFTP).''
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change affects various CNS [Catawba Nuclear 
Station], MNS [McGuire Nuclear Station], HNP [Shearon Harris Nuclear 
Power Plant], and RNP [H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant] 
ventilation system TS. For both CNS and MNS, the proposed change 
removes the requirement to test the heaters in these systems, and 
removes the Conditions in the associated TS which provide Required 
Actions, including reporting requirements, for inoperable heaters. 
In addition, the proposed change revises the CNS Surveillance 
Requirement (SR) 3.9.3.2 to operate for 15 continuous minutes 
without heaters running. For HNP and RNP, the proposed change 
removes the operability of the heaters from the SR. In addition, the 
electric heater output test is proposed to be deleted and a 
corresponding change in the charcoal filter testing to be made to 
require the testing be conducted at a humidity of at least 95% RH 
[relative humidity], which is more stringent than the current 
testing requirement of 70% RH.
    These systems are not accident initiators and therefore, these 
changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability of 
an accident. The proposed system and filter testing changes are 
consistent with current regulatory guidance for these systems and 
will continue to assure that these systems perform their design 
function, which may include mitigating accidents. Thus the change 
does not involve a significant increase in the consequences of an 
accident.
    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 affects various CNS, MNS, HNP, and RNP 
ventilation system TS. For both CNS and MNS, the proposed change 
removes the requirement to test the heaters in these systems, and 
removes the Conditions in the associated TS which provide Required 
Actions, including reporting requirements, for inoperable heaters. 
In addition, the proposed change revises the CNS Surveillance 
Requirement (SR) 3.9.3.2 to operate for 15 continuous minutes 
without heaters running. For HNP and RNP, the proposed change 
removes the operability of the heaters from the SR. In addition, the 
electric heater output test is proposed to be deleted and a 
corresponding change in the charcoal filter testing to be made to 
require the testing be conducted at a humidity of at least 95% RH, 
which is more stringent than the current testing requirement of 70% 
RH.
    The change proposed for these ventilation systems do not change 
any system operations or maintenance activities. Testing 
requirements will be revised and will continue to demonstrate that 
the Limiting Conditions for Operation are met and the system 
components are capable of performing their intended safety 
functions. The change does not create new failure modes or 
mechanisms and no new accident precursors are generated.
    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 affects various CNS, MNS, HNP, and RNP 
ventilation system TS. For both CNS and MNS, the proposed change 
removes the requirement to test the heaters in these systems, and 
removes the Conditions in the associated TS which provide Required 
Actions, including reporting requirements, for inoperable heaters. 
In addition, the proposed change revises the CNS Surveillance 
Requirement (SR) 3.9.3.2 to operate for 15 continuous minutes 
without heaters running. For HNP and RNP, the proposed change 
removes the operability of the heaters from the SR. In addition, the 
electric heater output test is proposed to be deleted and a 
corresponding change in the charcoal filter testing to be made to 
require the testing be conducted at a humidity of at least 95% RH, 
which is more stringent than the current testing requirement of 70% 
RH.
    The proposed increase to 95% RH in the required testing of the 
charcoal filters for HNP and RNP, compensates for the function of 
the heaters, which was to reduce the humidity of the incoming air to 
below the currently-specified value of 70% RH for the charcoal. The 
proposed change is consistent with regulatory guidance and continues 
to ensure that the performance of the charcoal filters is 
acceptable.
    The CNS and MNS ventilation systems are tested at 95% relative 
humidity, and, therefore, do not require heaters to heat the 
incoming air and reduce the relative humidity. The proposed change 
eliminates Technical Specification requirements for testing of 
heater operation, and removes administrative actions for heater 
inoperability.
    The proposed changes are consistent with the regulatory guidance 
and 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 
requested amendments involve no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Kathryn B. Nolan, Deputy General Counsel, 
Duke Energy Corporation, 550 South Tryon Street, Mail Code DEC45A, 
Charlotte, NC 28202.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael Markley.

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

    Date of amendment request: April 16, 2018, as supplemented by 
letter dated September 25, 2018. Publicly-available versions are in 
ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML18117A006 and ML18269A009, respectively.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
modify the Technical Specifications (TSs) by relocating specific TS 
surveillance frequencies to a licensee-controlled program with the 
adoption of Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-
425, Revision 3, ``Relocate Surveillance Frequencies to Licensee 
Control--Risk Informed Technical Specification Task Force (RITSTF) 
Initiative 5b.'' Additionally, the change would add a new program, the 
Surveillance Frequency Control Program, to TS Section 5, Administrative 
Controls.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination:

[[Page 53513]]

As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis 
of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is 
presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change relocates the specified frequencies for 
periodic surveillance requirements to licensee control under a new 
Surveillance Frequency Control Program. Surveillance frequencies are 
not an initiator to any accident previously evaluated. As a result, 
the probability of any accident previously evaluated is not 
significantly increased. The systems and components required by the 
technical specifications for which the surveillance frequencies are 
relocated are still required to be operable, meet the acceptance 
criteria for the surveillance requirements and be capable of 
performing any mitigation function assumed in the accident analysis. 
As a result, the consequences of any accident previously evaluated 
are not significantly increased.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    No new or different accidents result from utilizing the proposed 
change. The changes do not involve a physical alteration of the 
plant (that is, no new or different type of equipment will be 
installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant 
operation. In addition, the changes do not impose any new or 
different requirements. The changes do not alter assumptions made in 
the safety analysis. The proposed changes are consistent with the 
safety analysis assumptions and current plant operating practice.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The design, operation, testing methods and acceptance criteria 
for systems, structures and components (SSCs), specified in 
applicable codes and standards (or alternatives approved for use by 
the NRC) will continue to be met as described in the plant licensing 
basis (including the final safety analysis report and bases to the 
TS), since these are not affected by changes to the surveillance 
frequencies. Similarly, there is no impact to safety analysis 
acceptance criteria as described in the plant licensing basis. To 
evaluate a change in the relocated surveillance frequency, Duke 
Energy will perform a probabilistic risk evaluation using the 
guidance contained in NRC approved Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 
04-10, Revision 1, in accordance with the TS Surveillance Frequency 
Control Program. NEI 04-10, Revision 1 methodology provides 
reasonable acceptance guidelines and methods for evaluating the risk 
increase of proposed changes to surveillance frequencies consistent 
with Regulatory Guide 1.177, ``An Approach for Plant-Specific, Risk 
Informed Decision making: Technical Specifications.''
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Kathryn B. Nolan, Deputy General Counsel, 
Duke Energy Corporation, 550 South Tryon Street, DEC45A, Charlotte, NC 
28202.
    NRC Branch Chief: Undine Shoop.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353, Limerick 
Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania

    Date of amendment request: August 23, 2018. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18235A109.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the 
Limerick Generating Station (LGS), Units 1 and 2, Technical 
Specifications. The proposed changes would revise the TS requirements 
for inoperable dynamic restraints (snubbers) by adding a new Limiting 
Condition for Operation 3.0.8.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:
    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change allows a delay time before declaring supported 
Technical Specification (TS) systems inoperable when the associated 
snubber(s) cannot perform its required safety function. Entrance into 
Actions or delaying entrance into Actions is not an initiator of any 
accident previously evaluated. Consequently, the probability of an 
accident previously evaluated is not significantly increased. The 
consequences of an accident while relying on the delay time allowed 
before declaring a TS supported system inoperable and taking its 
Actions are no different than the consequences of an accident under the 
same plant conditions while relying on the existing TS supported system 
Actions. Therefore, the consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated are not significantly increased by this change. Therefore, 
the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change allows a delay time before declaring supported 
TS systems inoperable when the associated snubber(s) cannot perform its 
required safety function. The proposed change does not involve a 
physical alteration of the plant (no new or different type of equipment 
will be installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant 
operation. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The current LGS TS 3.7.4 allows a delay time before declaring 
supported TS systems inoperable when the associated snubber(s) cannot 
perform its required safety function. The proposed TS 3.0.8 provides a 
similar allowance. The current LGS TS 3.7.4 provides adequate margin of 
safety for plant operation, as does TS 3.0.8. Therefore, the proposed 
change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel, 
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 
60555.
    NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna.
    Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-317 and 50-318, 
Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, Calvert County, 
Maryland

    Date of amendment request: August 23, 2018. A publicly available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18235A199.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the

[[Page 53514]]

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2 (Calvert Cliffs or 
CCNPP) Technical Specifications (TS) to permit a one-time extension to 
the completion times (CTs) for two required actions in Section 3.8.1, 
``AC [Alternating Current] Sources-Operating,'' of the Calvert Cliffs 
TSs. The one-time extensions up to 14 days would apply to Required 
Action A.3, ``Restore required offsite circuit to OPERABLE status,'' 
and Required Action D.3, ``Declare CREVS [Control Room Emergency 
Ventilation System] and CRETS [Control Room Emergency Temperature 
Control System] supported by the inoperable offsite circuit 
inoperable.''
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed TS changes will not increase the probability of an 
accident since they will only extend the time period that one 
qualified offsite circuit can be out of service. The extension of 
the time duration that one qualified offsite circuit is out of 
service has no direct physical impact on the plant. The proposed 
inoperable offsite circuit limits the available redundancy of the 
offsite electrical system to a period not to exceed 14 days per each 
Unit. Therefore, the proposed TS changes do not have a direct impact 
on the plant that would make an accident more likely to occur due to 
their extended completion times.
    During transients or events which require these subsystems to be 
operating, there is sufficient capacity in the operable loops/
subsystems and available but inoperable equipment to support plant 
operation or shutdown. Therefore, failures that are accident 
initiators will not occur more frequently than previously postulated 
as a result of the proposed changes.
    In addition, the consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) will 
not be increased. With one offsite circuit inoperable, the 
consequences of any postulated accidents occurring on Unit 1 or Unit 
2 during these CT extensions was found to be bounded by the previous 
analyses as described in the UFSAR.
    The minimum equipment required to mitigate the consequences of 
an accident and/or safely shut down the plant will be operable or 
available. Therefore, by extending certain CTs and extending the 
assumptions concerning the combinations of events for the longer 
duration of each extended CT, Exelon concludes that at least the 
minimum equipment required to mitigate the consequences of an 
accident and/or safely shut down the plant will still be operable or 
available during the extended CT.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed TS changes will not create the possibility of a new 
or different type of accident since they will only extend the time 
period that one of the offsite circuits can be out of service. The 
extension of the time duration that one offsite circuit can be out 
of service has no direct physical impact on the plant and does not 
create any new accident initiators. The systems involved are 
accident mitigation systems. All of the possible impacts that the 
inoperable equipment may have on its supported systems were 
previously analyzed in the UFSAR and are the basis for the present 
TS Action statements and CTs. The impact of inoperable support 
systems for a given time duration was previously evaluated and any 
accident initiators created by the inoperable systems was evaluated. 
The lengthening of the time duration does not create any additional 
accident initiators for the plant.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The present offsite circuit TS CT limits were set to ensure that 
sufficient safety-related equipment is available for response to all 
accident conditions and that sufficient decay heat removal 
capability is available for a loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) 
coincident with a loss of offsite power (LOOP) on one unit and 
simultaneous safe shutdown of the other unit. A slight reduction in 
the margin of safety is incurred during the proposed extended CT due 
to the increased risk that an event could occur in a 14-day period 
versus a 72-hour period. This increased risk is judged to be minimal 
due to the low probability of an event occurring during the extended 
CT and maintaining the minimum ECCS [emergency core cooling system]/
decay heat removal requirements.
    The slight reduction in the margin of safety from the extension 
of one offsite circuit current CT limit is not significant since the 
remaining operable offsite circuit, the emergency diesel generators, 
the Station Blackout (SBO) Diesel, the Southern Maryland Electric 
Cooperative (SMECO) delayed offsite circuit, and the FLEX diesel 
generators provide an effective defense-in-depth plan to support the 
station electrical plant configurations during the extended 14-day 
CT periods.
    Operations personnel are fully qualified by normal periodic 
training to respond to, and mitigate, a Design Basis Accident, 
including the actions needed to ensure decay heat removal while 
CCNPP Unit 1 and Unit 2 are in the operational electrical 
configurations described within this submittal. Accordingly, 
existing procedures are in place that address safe plant shutdown 
and decay heat removal for situations applicable to those in the 
proposed CTs.
    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.

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

    Date of amendment request: August 31, 2018. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18243A459.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment request includes a 
departure from information in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report 
(UFSAR) (which includes the plant-specific Design Control Document 
(DCD) Tier 2 information and involves related changes to plant-specific 
Tier 1 information, with corresponding changes to the associated 
combined license (COL) appendix C information. Specifically, the 
changes are proposed for reactor coolant system flow coast down curves 
in UFSAR and COL appendix C. Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 
52.63(b)(1), an exemption from elements of the design as certified in 
the 10 CFR part 52, appendix D, design certification rule is also 
requested for the plant-specific DCD Tier 1 material departures.
    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 adversely affect the operation of 
any systems or equipment that initiate an analyzed accident or alter 
any structures, systems, and components (SSC) accident initiator or 
initiating sequence of events. The proposed changes do not adversely 
affect the physical design and operation of the RCPs [reactor 
coolant pumps] including as-installed inspections, testing, and 
maintenance

[[Page 53515]]

requirements, as described in the UFSAR. Therefore, the operation of 
the RCPs is not adversely affected. A CLOF [complete loss of flow] 
event is identified as an event that is sensitive to RCP coastdown. 
However, the proposed changes do not adversely affect the 
probability of a CLOF occurring. Therefore, the probabilities of the 
accidents previously evaluated in the UFSAR are not affected.
    The proposed changes do not adversely affect the ability of the 
RCPs to perform its design functions. The design of the RCPs 
continues to meet the same regulatory acceptance criteria, codes, 
and standards as required by the UFSAR. The proposed changes do not 
adversely affect the prevention and mitigation of other abnormal 
events, e.g., anticipated operational occurrences, earthquakes, 
floods and turbine missiles, or their safety or design analyses. 
Therefore, the consequences of the accidents evaluated in the UFSAR 
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 amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes would not introduce a new failure mode, 
fault, or sequence of events that could result in a radioactive 
material release. The proposed changes do not alter the design, 
configuration, or method of operation of the plant beyond standard 
functional capabilities of the equipment. Therefore, this activity 
does not allow for a new fission product release path, result in a 
new fission product barrier failure mode, or create a new sequence 
of events which results in significant fuel cladding failures.
    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 amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    Safety margins are applied at many levels to the design and 
licensing basis functions and to the controlling values of 
parameters to account for various uncertainties and to avoid 
exceeding regulatory or licensing limits. The proposed changes 
maintain existing safety margins, and in some cases, provide 
additional margin. The proposed changes maintain the capabilities of 
the RCPs to perform its design functions. Therefore, the proposed 
changes satisfy the same design functions in accordance with the 
same codes and standards as stated in the UFSAR. These changes do 
not adversely affect any design code, function, safety analysis, 
safety analysis input or results, or design/safety margin. No safety 
analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is challenged or 
exceeded by the proposed changes, and no margin of safety is 
reduced.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
reduction in the margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: M. Stanford Blanton, Balch & Bingham LLP, 
1710 Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 35203-2015.
    NRC Branch Chief: Jennifer Dixon-Herrity.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-
364, Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant (Farley), Units 1 and 2, Houston 
County, Alabama

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-
366, Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant (Hatch), Unit Nos. 1 and 2, City of 
Dalton, Georgia

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., (SNC) Docket Nos. 50-424, 50-
425, 52-025, 52-026, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), Units 1, 
and 2, Burke County, Georgia

    Date of amendment request: August 9, 2018. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18226A094.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would modify 
technical specification (TS) 5.2.2.g to eliminate a dedicated shift 
technical advisor (STA) position at Farley and Hatch by allowing the 
STA functions to be combined with one or more of the required senior 
licensed operator positions. The Vogtle TS change aligns the facilities 
with equivalent wording. This proposed change also incorporates wording 
related to the modes of operation during which the individual meeting 
the requirements in TS 5.2.2.g is required and provides guidance that 
the same individual may provide advisory technical support for both 
units.
    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 advisory technical support function and on-shift staffing 
requirements are not associated with an initiator of any accident 
previously evaluated, so the probability of accidents previously 
evaluated is unaffected by the proposed change. In addition, the 
proposed change does not alter the design or safety function of any 
safety related system. The proposed change emends the STA role as a 
function in lieu of a position and reduces the minimum required on-
shift EP [emergency plan] staffing for [Hatch] and [Farley] by one. 
Minimum staffing studies were re-performed and confirmed on-shift 
staffing continues to be adequate to perform critical functions 
until relieved by the augmented emergency response organization 
(ERO) as required by 10 CFR 50.47(b)(2) and 10 CFR 50, Appendix E, 
Paragraph IV.A.9. As a result, manual operator action necessary to 
mitigate previously evaluated accidents continue to be persevered. 
Thus, the consequences of any accident are not affected by the 
proposed change.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change emends the STA role as a function in lieu of 
a position and reduces the minimum required on-shift EP staffing for 
[Hatch] and [Farley] by one. The proposed change does 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 change does not 
introduce failure modes that could result in a new accident, and the 
change does not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis. As a 
result, there are no new accident scenarios, failure mechanisms, 
including no new single failures, introduced as a result of the 
proposed change.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    Safety margins are applied to the design and licensing basis 
functions and to the controlling values of parameters to account for 
various uncertainties and to avoid exceeding regulatory or licensing 
limits. The proposed change emends the STA role as a function in 
lieu of a position and reduces the minimum required on-shift EP 
staffing for [Hatch] and [Farley] by one. The change does not impact 
any specific values that define margin established in each plant's 
licensing basis and, as a result, does not result in exceeding or 
altering a design basis or safety limit (i.e., the controlling 
numerical value for a parameter established in the [updated final 
safety analysis report] or the licenses). On-shift staffing 
continues to be adequate to perform critical functions until 
relieved by the augmented ERO as required by 10 CFR 50.47(b)(2) and 
10 CFR 50, Appendix E, Paragraph IV.A.9.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three

[[Page 53516]]

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: Millicent Ronnlund, Vice President and 
General Counsel, Southern Nuclear Operating Co., Inc., P.O. Box 1295, 
Birmingham, AL 35201-1295.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

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.

Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Docket No. 50-336, Millstone Power 
Station, Unit No. 2, New London County, Connecticut

    Date of amendment request: October 4, 2017, as supplemented by 
letters dated May 24, 2018, and June 14, 2018.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Millstone 
Power Station, Unit No. 2, Technical Specification 6.19, ``Containment 
Leakage Rate Testing Program.'' Specifically, the amendment extends the 
Type A primary containment integrated leak rate test interval for 
Millstone Power Station, Unit No. 2, from 10 years to 15 years and the 
Type C local leak rate test interval to 75 months, and incorporates the 
regulatory positions stated in Regulatory Guide 1.163, ``Performance-
Based Containment Leak-Test Program.''
    Date of issuance: September 25, 2018.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 335. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML18246A007; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-65: The Amendment 
revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical 
Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 2, 2018 (83 FR 
163). The supplemental letters dated May 24, 2018, and June 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 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 September 25, 2018.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: September 6, 2016, as supplemented by 
letters dated November 9, 2016; April 6 and November 1, 2017; and 
February 5, February 14, March 1, March 14, March 29 and April 10, 
2018.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments approve a revision 
to the Technical Specifications (TSs) to allow plant operation from the 
currently licensed Maximum Extended Load Line Limit Analysis (MELLLA) 
domain to operate in the expanded MELLLA Plus domain under the 
previously approved Extended Power Uprate conditions, including a 2923 
megawatt thermal rated core thermal power. The amendments expand the 
operating boundary without changing the maximum licensed core power and 
maximum licensed core flow.
    Date of issuance: September 18, 2018.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
no later than 60 days following startup from the 2019 Unit 2 refueling 
outage.
    Amendment Nos.: 285 (Unit 1) and 313 (Unit 2). A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18172A258; documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with 
the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-71 and DPR-62: 
Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 3, 2017 (82 FR 
158). The supplemental letters dated November 9, 2016; April 6 and 
November 1, 2017; and February 5, February 14, March 1, March 14, March 
29 and April 10, 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 September 18, 2018.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: October 3, 2017.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised 
Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.8.4.5 contained in Technical 
Specification (TS) 3.8.4, ``DC Sources--Operating.''
    Date of issuance: September 27, 2018.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 120 days.
    Amendment Nos.: 286 and 314. A publicly-available version is in 
ADAMS under Accession No. ML18243A298; documents related to these 
amendments

[[Page 53517]]

are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-71 and DPR-62: 
Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 13, 2018 (83 FR 
10915).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 27, 2018.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: August 31, 2017, as supplemented by 
letter dated April 16, 2018.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Palisades 
Nuclear Plant (PNP) Site Emergency Plan (SEP) for the permanently shut 
down and defueled condition. The proposed PNP SEP changes would revise 
the shift staffing and Emergency Response Organization (ERO) staffing.
    Date of issuance: September 24, 2018.
    Effective date: Upon the licensee's submittal of the certifications 
required by Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 50, 
Section 82(a)(1) and shall be implemented within 90 days from the 
amendment effective date.
    Amendment No.: 267. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML18170A219; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-20: Amendment revised 
the Renewed Facility Operating License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 21, 2017 (82 
FR 55403). The supplemental letter dated April 16, 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 September 24, 2018.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-277 and 50-278, Peach 
Bottom Atomic

    Power Station, Units 2 and 3, York County, Pennsylvania
    Date of amendment request: September 29, 2017, as supplemented by 
letters dated August 1, August 14, and September 14, 2018.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments added new actions 
for an inoperable battery, battery charger, and alternate battery 
charger testing criteria. A longer completion time for an inoperable 
battery charger will allow additional time for maintenance and testing. 
Additionally, a number of surveillance requirements are relocated to 
licensee control. Monitoring of battery cell parameter requirements and 
performance of battery maintenance activities are relocated to a 
licensee-controlled program, the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, 
Units 2 and 3, Technical Requirements Manual. The changes in the 
Technical Specification requirements are consistent with NRC-approved 
Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-500, Revision 
2, ``DC Electrical Rewrite--Update to TSTF-360.''
    Date of issuance: September 28, 2018.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
by no later than September 30, 2019.
    Amendment Nos.: 320 (Unit 2) and 323 (Unit 3). A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18249A240; documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with 
the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-44 and DPR-56: The 
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and 
Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 21, 2017 (82 
FR 55405), The supplemental letters dated letters dated August 1, 
August 14, and September 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 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 September 28, 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: April 3, 2018, as supplemented by letter 
dated August 22, 2018.
    Brief description of amendment: This amendment changes Technical 
Specification Table 4.3-1, ``Reactor Trip System Instrumentation 
Surveillance Requirements'' Functional Units 17.A, Turbine Trip--Low 
Fluid Oil Pressure, and 17.B, Turbine Trip--Turbine Stop Valve Closure. 
Specifically, the Trip Actuating Device Operational Test column of 
Table 4.3-1 is revised to delete performing the 17.A and 17.B 
surveillance requirements prior to reactor startup (S/U) and replacing 
this requirement with a reference to Table Notation (8), that states 
17.A and 17.B surveillance requirements will be conducted ``Prior to 
entering MODE 1 whenever the unit has been in MODE 3.''
    Date of issuance: October 5, 2018.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 7 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 212. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML18253A115, 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: May 22, 2018 (83 FR 
23736). The supplemental letter dated August 22, 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 October 5, 2018.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: November 17, 2017, as supplemented by 
letter dated June 8, 2018.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment authorized changes to 
the VEGP Units 3 and 4 Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) in 
the form of departures from the incorporated plant-specific Design 
Control Document Tier 2* and associated Tier 2 information and a 
Combined License (COL) License Condition which references a UFSAR 
section impacted by one of the changes. Specifically, the amendment 
revises

[[Page 53518]]

COL License Condition 2.D.(4)(b), requirement to perform the Natural 
Circulation test (first plant test) using the steam generators 
identified in UFSAR, Subsection 14.2.10.3.6, and Passive Residual Heat 
Removal (PRHR) Heat Exchanger test (first plant test) identified in 
UFSAR, Subsection 14.2.10.3.7, as part of the Initial Criticality and 
Low-Power Testing requirements. The changes to the Natural Circulation 
test suspend the requirements of COL Appendix A, Technical 
Specification 3.4.4 during performance of the test. Also the amendment 
changes the PRHR Heat Exchanger Test to be performed as part of the 
Power Ascension Testing as specified in COL License Condition 
2.D.(5)(b) instead of as part of the Initial Criticality and Low-Power 
Testing requirements as currently specified in COL License Condition 
2.D.(4)(b).
    Date of issuance: July 11, 2018.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 132 (Unit 3) and 131 (Unit 4). A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18179A336. The documents 
related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation 
enclosed with the amendments.
    Facility Combined Licenses Nos. NPF-91 and NPF-92: Amendment 
revised the Facility Combined Licenses.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 13, 2018 (83 
FR 6218). The June 8, 2018, letter provided additional information that 
did not change the scope or the conclusions of the No Significant 
Hazard Determination.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 11, 2018.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: September 8, 2018.
    Description of amendment: The amendment proposes changes to (1) the 
design of the Protection and Safety Monitoring (PMS) system and 
associated changes to Chapter 15 transient and accident analyses, (2) 
changes to technical specifications for the moderator temperature 
coefficient (MTC), and (3) additional changes to technical 
specifications for power distributions and the On-Line Power 
Distribution Monitoring System (OPDMS). The proposed changes to the PMS 
system and the crediting of trips in the Chapter 15 transient and 
accident analyses address issues caused by increased uncertainties in 
the ex-core nuclear instrumentation during mechanical shim operations. 
The proposed changes to the technical specifications for MTC modify the 
surveillance of MTC to address surveillance issues at beginning of life 
and end of life. The proposed changes to technical specifications for 
the power distribution and OPDMS update these technical specifications 
to accurately reflect system capabilities.
    Date of issuance: September 27, 2018.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 144 (Unit 3) and 143 (Unit 4). A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18239A192; documents related 
to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 
amendment.
    Facility Combined Licenses No. NPF-91 and NPF-92: Amendment revised 
the Facility Combined Licenses.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 24, 2018 (82 FR 
49234).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in the Safety Evaluation dated September 27, 2018.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Susquehanna Nuclear, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-387 and 50-388, Susquehanna 
Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania

    Date of amendment request: September 20, 2017, as supplemented by 
letters dated February 16, 2018, and May 15, 2018.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical 
Specification requirements associated with ``operations with a 
potential for draining the reactor vessel [OPDRVs]'' with new 
requirements on reactor pressure vessel water inventory control to 
protect Safety Limit 2.1.1.3. Safety Limit 2.1.1.3 requires reactor 
pressure vessel water level to be greater than the top of active 
irradiated fuel. The changes are based on Technical Specifications Task 
Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-542, Revision 2, ``Reactor Pressure Vessel 
Water Inventory Control.''
    Date of issuance: September 26, 2018.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
on both units no later than initial entry into Mode 4 for Unit 2 during 
the Spring 2019 Unit 2 refueling outage.
    Amendment Nos.: 271 for Unit 1 and 253 for Unit 2. A publicly-
available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18222A203; 
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 
Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 21, 2017 (82 
FR 55414). The supplemental letters dated February 16, 2018, and May 
15, 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 September 26, 2018.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-259, 50-260, and 50-296, 
Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3, Limestone County, 
Alabama

    Date of amendment request: August 15, 2017. As supplemented by 
letters dated February 5, March 27, and July 27, 2018.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the Browns 
Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3, Technical Specification 5.5.12, 
``Primary Containment Leakage Rate Testing Program,'' by adopting 
Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 94-01, Revision 3-A, ``Industry 
Guideline for Implementing Performance-Based Option of 10 CFR part 50, 
Appendix J,'' as the implementation document for the performance-based 
Option B of 10 CFR part 50, appendix J. The amendments allow the 
licensee to extend the Type A containment integrated leak rate testing 
interval from 10 years to 15 years and the Type C local leakage rate 
testing intervals from 60 months to 75 months.
    Date of issuance: September 27, 2018.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
prior to Unit 2 startup following the spring 2019 refueling outage.
    Amendment Nos.: 305 (Unit 1); 328 (Unit 2); and 288 (Unit 3). A 
publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18251A003; 
documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety 
Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.

[[Page 53519]]

    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-33, DPR-52, and DPR-68: 
The amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and 
Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 21, 2017 (82 
FR 55415). The supplemental letters dated February 5, March 27, and 
July 27, 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 Evaluations dated September 27, 2018.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-280 and 50-281, 
Surry PowerStation, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Surry County, Virginia.

    Date of amendment request: Dated November 7, 2017, as supplemented 
by letters dated June 21, 2018, and October 3, 2018.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the Surry 
Power Station (SPS) Units 1 and 2 Technical Specification (TS) 3.16, 
``Emergency Power System,'' to provide a temporary, one-time 21-day 
allowed outage time (AOT) for replacement of Reserve Station Service 
Transformer (RSST) C and associated cabling.
    Date of issuance: October 5, 2018.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 293 and 293. A publicly-available version is in 
ADAMS under Accession No. ML18261A099; documents related to these 
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 
amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-32 and DPR-37: 
Amendments revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical 
Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 13, 2018, 83 
FR 6236. The supplemental letters dated June 21, 2018, and October 3, 
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 October 5, 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 amendments. The Commission has 
determined for each of these amendments 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 amendments have 
been issued and made effective 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 51.12(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.

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: August 24, 2018, as supplemented by 
letters dated August 31, September 11, and September 19, 2018.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment revised the Summer, 
Unit No. 1, Technical Specifications (TS) for a one-time extension to 
the TS surveillance requirement of channel calibrations of the Core 
Exit

[[Page 53520]]

Temperature Instrumentation. The surveillance requirement of TS 4.3.3.6 
was revised to allow a one-time extension of the frequency of the Core 
Exit Temperature Instrumentation Channel Calibrations from ``every 
refueling outage'', which has been interpreted as 18 months, to ``every 
19 months.''
    Date of issuance: September 25, 2018.
    Effective date: As of its issuance date and shall be implemented 
upon approval.
    Amendment No.: 211. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML18260A027; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    [Renewed] Facility Operating License No. NPF-12: The amendment 
revised the facility operating license.
    Public comments requested as to proposed no significant hazards 
consideration (NSHC): Yes. An individual 14-day notice for comments was 
published in the Federal Register on September 10, 2018 (83 FR 45688). 
The notice provided an opportunity to submit comments on the 
Commission's proposed NSHC determination. One comment from a member of 
the public was received, however it was not related to the proposed no 
significant hazards consideration determination or to the proposed 
license amendment request. The notice also provided an opportunity to 
request a hearing by November 9, 2018, but indicated that if the 
Commission makes a final NSHC determination, any such hearing would 
take place after issuance of the amendment.
    The supplemental letters dated August 31, September 11, and 
September 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 on September 10, 2018.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment, finding of 
exigent circumstances, state consultation, and final NSHC determination 
are contained in a Safety Evaluation dated September 25, 2018.
    Attorney for licensee: Kathryn M. Sutton, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius 
LLP, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 10th day of October, 2018.
    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Kathryn M. Brock,
Deputy Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of 
Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2018-22654 Filed 10-22-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7590-01-P