2018-14779. Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations  

  • Start Preamble

    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: Jennifer.Borges@nrc.gov. 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.

    Start Further Info

    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: Janet.Burkhardt@nrc.gov.

    End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental Information

    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 pdr.resource@nrc.gov. 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.Start Printed 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 Start Printed Page 33265amendment 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 hearing.docket@nrc.gov, 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 MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, 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 Start Printed Page 33266have 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 Start Printed Page 33267licensee 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 Start Printed Page 33268accident 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 Start Printed Page 33269consideration 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.Start Printed 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.Start Printed 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 Start Printed Page 33272changes 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 Start Printed Page 33273related 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.Start Printed 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 Start Printed Page 33275action 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 hearing.docket@nrc.gov, 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 Start Printed Page 33276submissions 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 MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, 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.

    Start Signature

    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.

    End Signature End Supplemental Information

    [FR Doc. 2018-14779 Filed 7-16-18; 8:45 am]

    BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

Document Information

Published:
07/17/2018
Department:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
EntryType:
Notice
Action:
Biweekly notice.
Document Number:
2018-14779
Dates:
Comments must be filed by August 16, 2018. A request for a hearing must be filed by September 17, 2018.
Pages:
33263-33276 (14 pages)
Docket Numbers:
NRC-2018-0140
SectionNoes:
PDF File:
2018-14779.pdf