[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 58 (Tuesday, March 26, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11334-11345]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-05266]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2019-0079]


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

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Biweekly notice.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to 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 February 26, 2019 to March 11, 2019. The 
last biweekly notice was published on March 12, 2019.

DATES: Comments must be filed by April 25, 2019. A request for a 
hearing must be filed by May 28, 2019. Comments received after this 
date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission 
is able to ensure consideration only for comments received before this 
date.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods 
(unless this document describes a different method for submitting 
comments on a specific subject):
     Federal Rulemaking website: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2019-0079. Address 
questions about NRC dockets IDs in Regulations.gov to Jennifer Borges; 
telephone: 301-287-9127; email: [email protected]. For technical 
questions, contact the individual(s) listed in the FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.
     Mail comments to: Office of Administration, Mail Stop: 
TWFN-7-A60M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-
0001, ATTN: Program Management, Announcements and Editing Staff.
    For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting 
comments,

[[Page 11335]]

see ``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' in the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ikeda Betts, Office of Nuclear Reactor 
Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-
0001; telephone: 301-415-1959, email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments

A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2019-0079, 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-2019-0079.
     NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the 
ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select ``Begin Web-based ADAMS 
Search.'' For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public 
Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or 
by email to [email protected]. The ADAMS accession number for each 
document referenced (if it is available in ADAMS) is provided the first 
time that it is mentioned in this document.
     NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public 
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

B. Submitting Comments

    Please include Docket ID NRC-2019-0079, 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. Background

    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.

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

    The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following 
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under 
the Commission's regulations in Sec.  50.92 of title 10 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations (10 CFR), this means that operation of the facility 
in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or 
(3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis 
for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown 
below.
    The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed 
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of 
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final 
determination.
    Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the 
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The 
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment 
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the 
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period if circumstances change during the 30-day comment 
period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for 
example in derating or shutdown of the facility. If the Commission 
takes action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or 
the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a notice of 
issuance. If the Commission makes a final no significant hazards 
consideration determination, any hearing will take place after 
issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will 
occur very infrequently.

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

    Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any 
persons (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by this action may 
file a request for a hearing and petition for leave to intervene 
(petition) with respect to the action. Petitions shall be filed in 
accordance with the Commission's ``Agency Rules of Practice and 
Procedure'' in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult a 
current copy of 10 CFR 2.309. The NRC's regulations are accessible 
electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's website at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. Alternatively, a copy of 
the regulations is available at the NRC's Public Document Room, located 
at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first 
floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. If a petition is filed, the 
Commission or a presiding officer will rule on the petition and, if 
appropriate, a notice of a hearing will be issued.
    As required by 10 CFR 2.309(d) the petition should specifically 
explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with 
particular reference to the following general requirements for 
standing: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the 
petitioner; (2) the nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to 
be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the 
petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; 
and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be 
entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest.
    In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f), the petition must also set 
forth the specific contentions which the petitioner seeks to have 
litigated in the proceeding. Each contention must

[[Page 11336]]

consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be 
raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner must provide a 
brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise 
statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the 
contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the 
contention at the hearing. The petitioner must also provide references 
to the specific sources and documents on which the petitioner intends 
to rely to support its position on the issue. The petition must include 
sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the 
applicant or licensee on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions 
must be limited to matters within the scope of the proceeding. The 
contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner 
to relief. A petitioner who fails to satisfy the requirements at 10 CFR 
2.309(f) with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted 
to participate as a party.
    Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, 
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene. 
Parties have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the 
hearing with respect to resolution of that party's admitted 
contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence, consistent 
with the NRC's regulations, policies, and procedures.
    Petitions must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of 
publication of this notice. Petitions and motions for leave to file new 
or amended contentions that are filed after the deadline will not be 
entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the 
filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 
CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i) through (iii). The petition must be filed in 
accordance with the filing instructions in the ``Electronic Submissions 
(E-Filing)'' section of this document.
    If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final 
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the 
Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no 
significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve 
to establish when the hearing is held. If the final determination is 
that the amendment request involves no significant hazards 
consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it 
immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any 
hearing would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final 
determination is that the amendment request involves a significant 
hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before 
the issuance of the amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent 
danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will 
issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.
    A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian 
Tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to 
participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition should 
state the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the 
proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission no later 
than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. The petition 
must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the 
``Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)'' section of this document, and 
should meet the requirements for petitions set forth in this section, 
except that under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(2) a State, local governmental body, 
or Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof does not need 
to address the standing requirements in 10 CFR 2.309(d) if the facility 
is located within its boundaries. Alternatively, a State, local 
governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof 
may participate as a non-party under 10 CFR 2.315(c).
    If a hearing is granted, any person who is not a party to the 
proceeding and is not affiliated with or represented by a party may, at 
the discretion of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited 
appearance pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person 
making a limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of 
his or her position on the issues but may not otherwise participate in 
the proceeding. A limited appearance may be made at any session of the 
hearing or at any prehearing conference, subject to the limits and 
conditions as may be imposed by the presiding officer. Details 
regarding the opportunity to make a limited appearance will be provided 
by the presiding officer if such sessions are scheduled.

B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)

    All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a 
request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition), any 
motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the 
submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and 
documents filed by interested governmental entities that request to 
participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the 
NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007, as amended at 77 FR 
46562; August 3, 2012). The E-Filing process requires participants to 
submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in 
some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Detailed 
guidance on making electronic submissions may be found in the Guidance 
for Electronic Submissions to the NRC and on the NRC website at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants may not submit 
paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in 
accordance with the procedures described below.
    To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 
days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the 
Office of the Secretary by email at [email protected], or by 
telephone at 301-415-1677, to (1) request a digital identification (ID) 
certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or 
representative) to digitally sign 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

[[Page 11337]]

that they wish to participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need 
not serve the document on those participants separately. Therefore, 
applicants and other participants (or their counsel or representative) 
must apply for and receive a digital ID certificate before adjudicatory 
documents are filed so that they can obtain access to the documents via 
the E-Filing system.
    A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-
Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC's Electronic 
Filing Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC's 
public website at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by 
email to [email protected], or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-
7640. The NRC Electronic Filing Help Desk is available between 9 a.m. 
and 6 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government 
holidays.
    Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not 
submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in 
accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing 
stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and 
requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper 
format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail 
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: 
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or 
expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and 
Adjudications Staff. Participants filing adjudicatory documents in this 
manner are responsible for serving the document on all other 
participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of 
the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or 
expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the 
provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an 
exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or 
party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines 
that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no 
longer exists.
    Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the 
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at 
https://adams.nrc.gov/ehd, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the 
Commission or the presiding officer. If you do not have an NRC-issued 
digital ID certificate as described above, click cancel when the link 
requests certificates and you will be automatically directed to the 
NRC's electronic hearing dockets where you will be able to access any 
publicly available documents in a particular hearing docket. 
Participants are requested not to include personal privacy information, 
such as social security numbers, home addresses, or personal phone 
numbers in their filings, unless an NRC regulation or other law 
requires submission of such information. For example, in some 
instances, individuals provide home addresses in order to demonstrate 
proximity to a facility or site. With respect to copyrighted works, 
except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory 
filings and would constitute a Fair Use application, participants are 
requested not to include copyrighted materials in their submission.
    For further details with respect to these license amendment 
application(s), see the application for amendment which is available 
for public inspection in ADAMS and at the NRC's PDR. For additional 
direction on accessing information related to this document, see the 
``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' section of this 
document.

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

    Date of amendment request: January 17, 2019. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19023A427.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would modify the 
Millstone Power Station, Unit No. 2, licensing basis by the addition of 
a license condition to allow for the implementation of the provisions 
of 10 CFR 50.69, ``Risk-Informed Categorization and Treatment of 
Structures, Systems and Components for Nuclear Power Reactors.''
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change will permit the use of a risk-informed 
categorization process to modify the scope of structures, systems 
and components (SSCs) subject to special treatment requirements and 
to implement alternative treatments per the regulations. The process 
used to evaluate SSCs for changes to special treatment requirements 
and the use of alternative requirements ensures the ability of the 
SSCs to perform their design function. The potential change to 
special treatment requirements does not change the design and 
operation of the SSCs. As a result, the proposed change does not 
significantly affect any initiators to accidents previously 
evaluated or the ability to mitigate any accidents previously 
evaluated. The consequences of the accidents previously evaluated 
are not affected because the mitigation functions performed by the 
SSCs assumed in the safety analysis are not being modified. The SSCs 
required to safely shut down the reactor and maintain it in a safe 
shutdown condition following an accident will continue to perform 
their design functions.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change will permit the use of a risk-informed 
categorization process to modify the scope of SSCs subject to 
special treatment requirements and to implement alternative 
treatments per the regulations. The proposed change does not change 
the functional requirements, configuration, or method of operation 
of any SSC. Under the proposed change, no additional plant equipment 
will be installed.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change will permit the use of a risk-informed 
categorization process to modify the scope of SSCs subject to 
special treatment requirements and to implement alternative 
treatments per the regulations. The proposed change does not affect 
any Safety Limits or operating parameters used to establish the 
safety margin. The safety margins included in analyses of accidents 
are not affected by the proposed change. The regulation requires 
that there be no significant effect on plant risk due to any change 
to the special treatment requirements for SSCs and that the SSCs 
continue to be capable of performing their design basis functions, 
as well as to perform any beyond design basis functions consistent 
with the categorization process and results.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the

[[Page 11338]]

amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion 
Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar Street, RS-2, Richmond, VA 
23219.
    NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna.

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

    Date of amendment request: December 13, 2018, as supplemented by 
letter dated February 14, 2019. Publicly-available versions are in 
ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML18347B366 and ML19045A011, respectively.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would modify 
Technical Specification (TS) requirements to permit the use of risk-
informed completion times in accordance with Technical Specifications 
Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-505, Revision 2, ``Provide Risk-
Informed Extended Completion Times--RITSTF [Risk-Informed TSTF] 
Initiative 4b'' (ADAMS Accession No. ML18183A493).
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes permit the extension of Completion Times 
provided the associated risk is assessed and managed in accordance 
with the NRC approved Risk-Informed Completion Time Program. The 
proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the 
probability of an accident previously evaluated because the changes 
involve no change to the plant or its modes of operation. The 
proposed changes do not increase the consequences of an accident 
because the design-basis mitigation function of the affected systems 
is not changed and the consequences of an accident during the 
extended Completion Time are no different from those during the 
existing Completion Time.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes do not change the design, configuration, or 
method of operation of the plant. The proposed changes do not 
involve a physical alteration of the plant (no new or different kind 
of equipment will be installed).
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes permit the extension of Completion Times 
provided that risk is assessed and managed in accordance with the 
NRC approved Risk-Informed Completion Time Program. The proposed 
changes implement a risk-informed configuration management program 
to assure that adequate margins of safety are maintained. 
Application of these new specifications and the configuration 
management program considers cumulative effects of multiple systems 
or components being out of service and does so more effectively than 
the current TS.
    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 No. 50-289, Three Mile Island 
Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania

    Date of amendment request: December 14, 2018. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18351A006.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise 
Technical Specification (TS) 6.8.5 ``Reactor Building Leakage Rate 
Testing Program.'' The amendment would allow for a one-cycle extension 
to the 10-year frequency of the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 
1, containment leakage rate test (i.e., Integrated Leakage Rate Test 
(ILRT) or Type A test). The proposed change would permit the existing 
ILRT to be extended from 10 years to 11.75 years. This extension would 
move the performance of the next ILRT from the scheduled fall 2019 
refueling outage to the fall 2021 refueling outage.
    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 to the Technical Specifications (TS) 
6.8.5 involves a one-time extension of the Three Mile Island Nuclear 
Station, Unit 1 (TMI-1), Type A integrated leakage rate test (ILRT) 
from 10 years to 11.75 years, in accordance with the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission (NRC)-accepted guidelines of Nuclear Energy 
Institute (NEI) 94-01, ``Industry Guideline for Implementing 
Performance-Based Option of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix J,'' Revision 
3-A. This change will extend the requirement to perform the Type A 
ILRT from the current requirement of ``prior to startup from the 
T1R18 refueling outage,'' to ``November 2009 Type A test shall be 
performed no later than prior to startup from the T1R24 refueling 
outage in 2021.
    The proposed extension does not involve either a physical change 
to the plant or a change in the manner in which the plant is 
operated or controlled. The containment is designed to provide an 
essentially leak tight barrier against the uncontrolled release of 
radioactivity to the environment for postulated accidents. Types B 
and C testing ensures that individual containment isolation valves 
(CIVs) are essentially leak tight. In addition, aggregate Types B 
and C leakage rates support the leakage tightness of primary 
containment by minimizing potential leakage paths. The proposed 
amendment will not change the leakage rate acceptance requirements. 
As such, the containment will continue to perform its design 
function as a barrier to fission product releases. In addition, the 
containment and the testing requirements invoked to periodically 
demonstrate the integrity of the containment exist to ensure the 
plant's ability to mitigate the consequences of an accident, and do 
not involve the prevention or identification of any precursors of an 
accident previously evaluated. Therefore, this proposed interval 
extension does not involve a significant increase in the probability 
or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

    Therefore, the proposed change does not result in a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment to the TS involves a one-time extension 
of the TMI-1 Type A ILRT from 10 years to 11.75 years. The 
containment and the testing requirements to periodically demonstrate 
the integrity of the containment exist to ensure the plant's ability 
to mitigate the consequences of an accident do not involve any 
accident precursors or initiators.
    The proposed change does not involve a physical change to the 
plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be 
installed)

[[Page 11339]]

or a change to the manner in which the plant is operated or 
controlled. This administrative change to extend the Type A ILRT for 
TMI-1 will not affect the control parameters governing unit 
operation or the response of plant equipment to transient or 
accident conditions.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment to the TS involves the extension of the 
TMI-1 Type A ILRT interval to 11.75 years. This amendment does not 
alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system set 
points, or limiting conditions for operation are determined. The 
specific requirements and conditions of the TS 6.8.5, ``Reactor 
Building Leakage Rate Testing Program,'' for containment leak rate 
testing exist to ensure that the degree of containment structural 
integrity and leak-tightness that is considered in the plant safety 
analysis are maintained. The overall containment leak rate limit 
specified by TS is maintained.
    The proposed change involves the extension of the interval for 
only the Type A containment leakage rate test at TMI-1. The proposed 
surveillance interval extension is bounded by the 15-year Type A 
test interval currently authorized within NEI 94-01, Revision 3-A. 
The design, operation, testing methods, and acceptance criteria for 
Types A, B, and C containment leakage tests specified in applicable 
codes and standards would continue to be met with the acceptance of 
this proposed change, since these are not affected by the proposed 
change to the Type A test interval.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

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

Indiana Michigan Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-315 and 50-316, Donald 
C. Cook Nuclear Plant (CNP), Units 1 and 2, Berrien County, Michigan

    Date of amendment request: December 11, 2018. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18348A579.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would 
modify the Operating Licenses, Appendix B, Environmental Technical 
Specifications, Part II, ``Non-Radiological Environmental Protection 
Plan,'' for CNP, Units 1 and 2. The amendment request would update the 
Environmental Protection Plan to reflect a Michigan State requirement 
to obtain and maintain a Renewable Operating Permit for the possession 
and operation of specified stationary sources of air pollutants and 
other editorial changes.
    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 of occurrence or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The Environmental Protection Plan (EPP) is concerned with 
monitoring the effect that plant operations have on the environment 
for the purpose of protecting the environment and has no effect on 
any accident postulated in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report 
(UFSAR). Accident probabilities or consequences are not affected in 
any way by obtaining an environmental monitoring permit and 
reporting required by the EPP. The revision of portions of Appendix 
B of the Operating Licenses will not impact the design or operation 
of any plant system or component. No environmental protection 
requirements established by other federal, state, or local agencies 
are being reduced by this license amendment request.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident-
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    Obtaining an environmental monitoring permit and reporting have 
no effect on accident initiation. The revision to portions of 
Appendix B of the Operating Licenses will not impact the design or 
operation of any plant system or component. There will be no impact 
upon the type or amount of any effluents released from CNP.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or, different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The change to add permit and reporting requirements and other 
administrative revisions has no impact on margin of safety. 
Environmental evaluations will continue to be performed, when 
necessary, on changes to plant design or operations to assess the 
effect on environmental protection.
    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 involve 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.

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

    Date of amendment request: February 4, 2019. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19035A620.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the 
Salem Technical Specification (TS) requirements on control and shutdown 
rods and rod and bank position indication, consistent with NRC-approved 
Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-547, Revision 
1, ``Clarification of Rod Position Requirements,'' dated March 4, 2016.
    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.
    Control and shutdown rods are assumed to insert into the core to 
shut down the reactor in evaluated accidents. Rod insertion limits 
ensure that adequate negative reactivity is available to provide the 
assumed shutdown margin (SDM). Rod alignment and overlap limits 
maintain an appropriate power distribution and reactivity insertion 
profile.
    Control and shutdown rods are initiators to several accidents 
previously evaluated, such as rod ejection. The proposed change does 
not change the limiting conditions for operation for the rods or 
make any technical changes to the Surveillance Requirements (SRs) 
governing the rods. Therefore, the proposed change has no 
significant effect on the probability of any accident previously 
evaluated.
    Revising the TS Actions to provide a limited time to repair rod 
movement control has no effect on the SDM assumed in the accident 
analysis as the proposed Actions require verification that SDM is 
maintained. The effects on power distribution will not cause a 
significant increase in the consequences of any accident previously 
evaluated as all TS requirements on power distribution continue to 
be applicable.

[[Page 11340]]

    Revising the TS Actions to provide an alternative to frequent 
use of the moveable incore detector system to verify the position of 
rods with inoperable rod position indicators does not change the 
requirement for the rods to be aligned and within the insertion 
limits.
    Therefore, the assumptions used in any accidents previously 
evaluated are unchanged and there is no significant increase in the 
consequences.
    The consequences of an accident that might occur during the 1 
hour period provided for the analog rod position indication to 
stabilize after rod movement are no different than the consequences 
of the accident under the existing actions with the rod declared 
inoperable.
    The proposed change to resolve the conflicts in the TS ensure 
that the intended Actions are followed when equipment is inoperable. 
Actions taken with inoperable equipment are not assumptions in the 
accidents previously evaluated and have no significant effect on the 
consequences.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of 
the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be 
installed). The change does not alter assumptions made in the safety 
analyses. The proposed change does not alter the limiting conditions 
for operation for the rods or make any technical changes to the SRs 
governing the rods. The proposed change to actions maintains or 
improves safety when equipment is inoperable and does not introduce 
new failure modes.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change to allow time for rod position indication to 
stabilize after rod movement and to allow an alternative method of 
verifying rod position has no effect on the safety margin as actual 
rod position is not affected. The proposed change to provide time to 
repair rods that are operable but immovable does not result in a 
significant reduction in the margin of safety because all rods must 
be verified to be Operable, and all other banks must be within the 
insertion limits. The remaining proposed changes to make the 
requirements internally consistent do not affect the margin of 
safety as the changes do not affect the ability of the rods to 
perform their specified safety function.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Steven Fleischer, PSEG Services Corporation, 
80 Park Plaza, T-5, Newark, NJ 07102.
    NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Georgia Power Company, 
Oglethorpe Power Corporation, Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, 
City of Dalton, Georgia, Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366, Edwin I. Hatch 
Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Appling County, Georgia

    Date of amendment request: April 4, 2018. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Package Accession No. ML18096A936.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise 
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-5 and DPR-57 for the Hatch 
Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, respectively. The amendments would 
approve the adoption of a new fire protection licensing basis which 
complies with the requirements in 10 CFR 50.48(a), 10 CFR 50.48(c), and 
the guidance in Regulatory Guide 1.205, Revision 1.
    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 transition to NFPA 805 [proposed amendment] involve 
a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    Operation of Hatch Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2 in accordance 
with the proposed amendment does not increase the probability or 
consequences of accidents previously evaluated. Engineering 
analyses, which may include engineering evaluations, probabilistic 
safety assessments, and fire modeling calculations, have been 
performed to demonstrate that the performance-based requirements of 
NFPA 805 have been satisfied. The Updated Final Safety Analysis 
Report documents the analyses of design basis accidents at Hatch 
Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2. The proposed amendment does not affect 
accident initiators, nor does it alter design assumptions, 
conditions, or configurations of the facility that would increase 
the probability of accidents previously evaluated. Further, the 
changes to be made for fire hazard protection and mitigation do not 
adversely affect the ability of structures, systems, or components 
to perform their design functions for accident mitigation, nor do 
they affect the postulated initiators or assumed failure modes for 
accidents described and evaluated in the Updated Final Safety 
Analysis Report. Structures, systems, or components required to 
safely shutdown the reactor and to maintain it in a safe shutdown 
condition will remain capable of performing their design functions.
    The purpose of the proposed amendment is to permit Hatch Nuclear 
Plant Units 1 and 2 to adopt a new fire protection licensing basis 
which complies with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.48(a) and (c) and the 
guidance in Regulatory Guide 1.205. The NRC considers that NFPA 805 
provides an acceptable methodology and performance criteria for 
licensees to identify fire protection requirements that are an 
acceptable alternative to the 10 CFR 50 Appendix R required fire 
protection features (69 FR 33536, June 16, 2004). Engineering analyses, 
which may include engineering evaluations, probabilistic safety 
assessments, and fire modeling calculations, have been performed to 
demonstrate that the performance-based requirements of NFPA 805 have 
been met.
    NFPA [805] taken as a whole, provides an acceptable alternative for 
satisfying General Design Criterion 3 (GDC 3) of Appendix A to 10 CFR 
50, meets the underlying intent of the NRC's existing fire protection 
regulations and guidance, and provides for defense-in-depth. The goals, 
performance objectives, and performance criteria specified in Chapter 1 
of the standard ensure that, if there are any increases in core damage 
frequency or risk, the increase will be small and consistent with the 
intent of the Commission's Safety Goal Policy.
    Based on this, the implementation of the proposed amendment does 
not increase the probability of any accident previously evaluated. 
Equipment required to mitigate an accident remains capable of 
performing the assumed function(s). The proposed amendment will not 
affect the source term, containment isolation, or radiological release 
assumptions used in evaluating the radiological consequences of any 
accident previously evaluated. The applicable radiological dose 
criteria will continue to be met. Therefore, the consequences of any 
accident previously evaluated are not increased with the implementation 
of the proposed amendment.
    2. Does the transition to NFPA 805 [proposed amendment] create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    Operation of Hatch Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2 in accordance with 
the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or 
different kind

[[Page 11341]]

of accident from any accident previously evaluated. The proposed change 
does not alter the requirements or functions for systems required 
during accident conditions. Implementation of the new fire protection 
licensing basis which complies with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.48(a) 
and (c) and the guidance [in] Regulatory Guide 1.205 will not result in 
new or different accidents.
    The proposed amendment does not introduce new or different accident 
initiators, nor does it alter design assumptions, conditions, or 
configurations of the facility. The proposed amendment does not 
adversely affect the ability of structures, systems, or components to 
perform their design function. Structures, systems, or components 
required to safely shutdown the reactor and maintain it in a safe 
shutdown condition remain capable of performing their design functions.
    The purpose of the proposed amendment is to permit Hatch Nuclear 
Plant Units 1 and 2 to adopt a new fire protection licensing basis 
which complies with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.48(a) and (c) and the 
guidance in Regulatory Guide 1.205. The NRC considers that NFPA 805 
provides an acceptable methodology and appropriate performance criteria 
for licensees to identify fire protection systems and features that are 
an acceptable alternative to the 10 CFR 50, Appendix R required fire 
protection features (69 FR 33536, June 16, 2004).
    The requirements of NFPA 805 address only fire protection and the 
impacts of fire on the plant that have previously been evaluated, with 
the exception of including requirements for radiological release 
performance criteria and non-Power Operation fire safety criteria, and 
alignment with plant down powers below hot shutdown. Based on this, 
implementation of the proposed amendment would not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any kind of 
accident previously evaluated. No new accident scenarios, transient 
precursors, failure mechanisms, or limiting single failures will be 
introduced as a result of this amendment. There will be no adverse 
effect or challenges imposed on any safety-related system as a result 
of this amendment. Therefore, the possibility of a new or different 
kind of accident from any kind of accident previously evaluated is not 
created with the implementation of the proposed amendment.
    3. Does the transition to NFPA 805 [proposed amendment] involve a 
significant reduction in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    Operation of Hatch Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2 in accordance with 
the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in the 
margin of safety. The proposed amendment does not alter the manner in 
which safety limits, limiting safety system settings or limiting 
conditions for operation are determined. The safety analysis acceptance 
criteria are not affected by this change. The proposed amendment does 
not adversely affect existing plant safety margins or the reliability 
of equipment assumed to mitigate accidents in the Updated Final Safety 
Analysis Report. The proposed amendment does not adversely affect the 
ability of structures, systems, or components to perform their design 
function. Structures, systems, or components required to safely shut 
down the reactor and to maintain it in a safe shutdown condition, 
remain capable of performing their design functions.
    The purpose of the proposed amendment is to permit Hatch Nuclear 
Plant Units 1 and 2 to adopt a new fire protection licensing basis 
which complies with the requirements in 10 CFR 50.48(a) and (c) and the 
guidance in Regulatory Guide 1.205. The NRC considers that NFPA 805 
provides an acceptable methodology and performance criteria for 
licensees to identify fire protection systems and features that are an 
acceptable alternative to the 10 CFR 50 Appendix R required fire 
protection features (69 FR 33536, June 16, 2004). Engineering analyses, 
which may include engineering evaluations, probabilistic safety 
assessments, and fire modeling calculations, have been performed to 
demonstrate that the performance based requirements of NFPA 805 do not 
result in a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
    The proposed changes are evaluated to ensure that risk and safety 
margins are kept within acceptable limits. The risk informed fire 
protection scenarios and resolutions ensure fire risk analyses are 
performed and are only successful if adequate safety margin and 
defense-in-depth is maintained. Therefore, the transition to NFPA 805 
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: Millicent Ronnlund, Vice President and 
General Counsel, Southern Nuclear Operating Co., Inc., P.O. Box 1295, 
Birmingham, AL 35201-1295.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Georgia Power Company, 
Oglethorpe Power Corporation, Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, 
City of Dalton, Georgia, Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366, Edwin I. Hatch 
Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Appling County, Georgia

    Date of amendment request: June 7, 2018. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18158A583.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise 
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-57 and NPF-5 for the Hatch 
Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, respectively, to add a condition to each 
license allowing for the implementation of the provisions of 10 CFR 
50.69, ``Risk-informed categorization and treatment of structures, 
systems and components [(SSCs)] for nuclear power reactors.''
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change will permit the use of a risk-informed 
categorization process to modify the scope of SSCs subject to NRC 
special treatment requirements and to implement alternative 
treatments per the regulations. The process used to evaluate SSCs 
for changes to NRC special treatment requirements and the use of 
alternative requirements ensures the ability of the SSCs to perform 
their design function. The potential change to special treatment 
requirements does not change the design and operation of the SSCs. 
As a result, the proposed change does not significantly affect any 
initiators to accidents previously evaluated or the ability to 
mitigate any accidents previously evaluated. The consequences of the 
accidents previously evaluated are not affected because the 
mitigation functions performed by the SSCs assumed in the safety 
analysis are not being modified. The SSCs required to safely shut 
down the reactor and maintain it in a safe shutdown condition 
following an accident will continue to perform their design 
functions.

[[Page 11342]]

    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change will permit the use of a risk-informed 
categorization process to modify the scope of SSCs subject to NRC 
special treatment requirements and to implement alternative 
treatments per the regulations. The proposed change does not change 
the functional requirements, configuration, or method of operation 
of any SSC. Under the proposed change, no additional plant equipment 
will be installed.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change will permit the use of a risk-informed 
categorization process to modify the scope of SSCs subject to NRC 
special treatment requirements and to implement alternative 
treatments per the regulations. The proposed change does not affect 
any Safety Limits or operating parameters used to establish the 
safety margin. The safety margins included in analyses of accidents 
are not affected by the proposed change. The regulation requires 
that there be no significant effect on plant risk due to any change 
to the special treatment requirements for SSCs and that the SSCs 
continue to be capable of performing their design basis functions, 
as well as to perform any beyond design basis functions consistent 
with the categorization process and results.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Millicent Ronnlund, Vice President and 
General Counsel, Southern Nuclear Operating Co., Inc., P. O. Box 1295, 
Birmingham, AL 35201-1295.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC), Georgia Power Company, 
Oglethorpe Power Corporation, Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, 
City of Dalton, Georgia, Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366, Edwin I. Hatch 
Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Appling County, Georgia

    Date of amendment request: October 17, 2018. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18290A940.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would modify the 
required actions associated with the Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 
2, Technical Specification (TS) 3.6.4.1, ``Secondary Containment,'' to 
allow up to 7 days to determine and correct the cause of secondary 
containment degradation when at least one combination of standby gas 
treatment (SGT) subsystems can maintain adequate secondary containment 
vacuum.
    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 secondary containment is not an initiator of any accident 
previously evaluated but is assumed to mitigate some accidents 
previously evaluated. However, the proposed change does not alter 
the design or safety function of the secondary containment or 
associated support systems. Therefore, the probability of an 
accident previously evaluated is not increased.
    The consequences of accidents previously evaluated that assume 
the secondary containment function in accident mitigation are not 
altered by the proposed change. The change includes proposed 
requirements to verify at least one or more Operable SGT subsystems 
can establish and maintain vacuum within the required time assumed 
in the safety analysis, thereby conserving the safety analysis 
assumptions. Therefore, the consequences of any accident that 
assumes the secondary containment function are not affected by this 
change.
    Consequently, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not change the design function or 
operation of the secondary containment function. No plant 
modifications or changes to the plant configuration or method of 
operation are involved. The change includes proposed requirements to 
verify at least one or more Operable SGT subsystems can establish 
and maintain vacuum within the required time assumed in the safety 
analysis.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not affect any of the controlling 
values or parameters used to avoid exceeding regulatory or licensing 
limits. The proposed change does not exceed or alter the design 
basis or safety limits, or any limiting safety system settings. The 
requirement for the secondary containment to perform its designated 
safety function is unaffected. The proposed change provides 
additional action requirements similar to action requirements 
currently provided in the SGT system TS for a similar condition. The 
risk of providing additional time to restore the leak-tightness of 
the secondary containment to support any combination of SGT 
subsystems is offset by the proposed requirements to verify at least 
one or more Operable SGT subsystems can establish and maintain 
vacuum within the required time periods. Because the secondary 
containments for both Units 1 and 2 are interconnected during plant 
operation, the proposed change also reduces the need for a dual unit 
shutdown and the associated risk during this condition by allowing 
more time to identify the degraded components and restore the 
secondary containments to Operable status. SNC has determined that 
the acceptability of the allowable outage time for a single SGT 
subsystem, which was previously evaluated, is also acceptable for 
the allowable outage time for the secondary containment in the 
proposed conditions.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Millicent Ronnlund, Vice President and 
General Counsel, Southern Nuclear Operating Co., Inc., P. O. Box 1295, 
Birmingham, AL 35201-1295.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-338 and 50-339, 
North Anna Power Station, Units No. 1 and No. 2, Louisa County, 
Virginia

    Date of amendment request: November 19, 2018. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18334A106.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise 
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-4 and NPF-7 for the North 
Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2, respectively, by approving the 
installation of two non-safety-related water headers (fire protection 
and domestic water) within the safety-related flood protection dike, 
along with corresponding changes to the Updated Final Safety Analysis 
Report (UFSAR).

[[Page 11343]]

    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 change revises the UFSAR to reflect the addition of non 
safety-related, underground, fire protection and domestic water 
system piping within the safety-related flood protection dike west 
of the Unit 2 Turbine Building. Failure of non safety-related piping 
within the flood protection dike or failure of the flood protection 
dike is not an initiator of any accident previously evaluated. The 
modification does not significantly increase the probability of a 
failure to the flood protection dike. The technical evaluation for 
the change shows that slope stability for the flood protection dike 
is maintained in the event of a non safety-related piping failure. 
In addition, existing inspections and surveillances are adequate to 
identify piping leaks or breaks prior to failure of the flood 
protection dike. In the event a piping break causes a failure of the 
flood protection dike, a risk review indicates that the probability 
of this occurring with consequences to be low (not significant).
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The change revises the UFSAR to reflect the addition of non 
safety-related, underground, fire protection and domestic water 
system piping within the safety-related flood protection dike. The 
flood protection dike is located west of the Unit 2 Turbine and 
Service Buildings, and provides flood protection to those buildings 
if Lake Anna reached the PMF [probable maximum flood] level.
    The addition of the non safety-related piping within the flood 
protection dike does not change the design function or operation of 
the flood protection dike. A failure of the flood protection dike is 
not an accident initiator. Failure of the non safety-related piping 
could potentially degrade the safety-related flood protection dike; 
however, it does not introduce a new or different kind of accident 
from any accident previously evaluated.
    3. Does proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The change has no significant impact on margins of safety. The 
installation of the non safety-related piping does not result in a 
reduction of a peak flood protection dike height. An analysis 
demonstrated that slope stability is maintained and factors of 
safety are well within acceptable limits during installation and 
following installation, including in the event of a pipe break. 
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Mr. W.S. Blair, Senior Counsel, Dominion 
Energy Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar Street, RS-2, Richmond, VA 23219.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

IV. Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and 
Combined Licenses

    During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, 
the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has 
determined for each of these amendments that the application complies 
with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 
as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The 
Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the 
Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR chapter I, which are set 
forth in the license amendment.
    A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility 
operating license or combined license, as applicable, proposed no 
significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a 
hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the Federal 
Register as indicated.
    Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that 
these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in 
accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), 
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be 
prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an 
environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 
10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, 
it is so indicated.
    For further details with respect to the action see (1) the 
applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's 
related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as 
indicated. All of these items can be accessed as described in the 
``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' section of this 
document.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-
277 and 50-278, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3, York 
and Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania

    Date of amendment request: August 27, 2018.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised 
compensatory measures in the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 
and 3, Technical Requirements Manual to permit operation of the Leading 
Edge Flow Meter (LEFM) system at three separate intermediate power 
levels for an indefinite period when the mass flow input to the core 
thermal power calculation is from one, two, or three feedwater lines in 
Check mode with none in Fail mode, and to permit operation of the LEFM 
system at a fourth intermediate power level when not more than one LEFM 
is in Fail mode and flow measurement is being provided by the 
associated feedwater flow nozzle. The changes allow operation at power 
levels commensurate with the uncertainties in the measurement of core 
thermal power and reduce the magnitude of the required reactivity 
maneuver and plant power level change for degradation of the LEFM 
system.
    Date of issuance: February 26, 2019.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
immediately upon issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 324 (Unit 2) and 327 (Unit 3). A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19039A223; 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 Section 3.20 of the Technical Requirements Manual.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 6, 2018 (83 FR 
55566).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 26, 2019.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-277 and 50-278, Peach 
Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3, York County, Pennsylvania

    Date of amendment request: May 30, 2018, as supplemented by letter 
dated December 6, 2018.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the Peach 
Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3,

[[Page 11344]]

Technical Specifications to allow continued operation with two safety 
relief valves/safety valves out of service and to increase the reactor 
coolant system pressure safety limit. Specifically, the amendments 
revised Technical Specification Safety Limit 2.1.2 and Limiting 
Condition for Operation 3.4.3 for both Units 2 and 3.
    Date of issuance: February 26, 2019.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 323 (Unit 2) and 326 (Unit 3). A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19011A325; documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with 
the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-44 and DPR-56: The 
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and 
Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 6, 2018 (83 FR 
55564). The supplemental letter dated December 6, 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 
determined as published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 26, 2019.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: August 23, 2018.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments modified the 
Technical Specification requirements for inoperable dynamic restraints 
(snubbers) by adding a new Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) 
3.0.8. The changes are based on Technical Specifications Task Force 
(TSTF) Traveler TSTF 372, Revision 4, ``Addition of LCO 3.0.8, 
Inoperability of Snubbers.''
    Date of issuance: February 28, 2019.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
no later than May 31, 2019.
    Amendment Nos.: 234 and 197. A publicly-available version is in 
ADAMS under Accession No. ML19036A913; documents related to these 
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 
amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-39 and NPF-85: The 
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical 
Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 23, 2018 (83 FR 
53513).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 28, 2019.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, Docket No. 50-412, Beaver Valley 
Power Station, Unit 2, Beaver County, Pennsylvania

    Date of amendment request: March 28, 2018, as supplemented by 
letter dated October 28, 2018.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised various 
Technical Specification (TS) sections associated with steam generators 
to allow the use of Westinghouse leak-limiting Alloy 800 sleeves for an 
additional three fuel cycles of operation, bringing the total usage 
time from five to eight fuel cycles of operation. The Technical 
Specification changes also clarified wording in two sections related to 
use of the leak-limiting Alloy 800 sleeves.
    Date of issuance: February 25, 2019.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days.
    Amendment No.: 193. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML18348B206; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-73: The amendment 
revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical 
Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 5, 2018 (83 FR 
26105). The supplemental letter dated October 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 amendments is contained 
in a safety evaluation dated February 25, 2019.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-354, 50-272, and 50-311, Hope Creek 
Generating Station (Hope Creek) and Salem Nuclear Generating Station 
(Salem), Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Salem County, New Jersey

    Date of amendment request: June 29, 2018.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical 
Specification requirements in Section 3/4.0, ``Applicability,'' 
regarding limiting condition for operation and surveillance requirement 
usage. These changes are consistent with NRC-approved Technical 
Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-529, ``Clarify Use and 
Application Rules.''
    Date of issuance: March 6, 2019.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 214 (Hope Creek), 327 (Salem, Unit No. 1), and 308 
(Salem, Unit No. 2). A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML19044A627; documents related to these amendments are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-57, DPR-70, and DPR-75: 
The amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and 
Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 14, 2018 (83 FR 
40351).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 6, 2019.
    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 8, 2018, as supplemented by 
letter dated February 22, 2019.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the 
surveillance frequency of Technical Specification 3/4.4.6 Reactor 
Coolant System Leakage, Surveillance Requirement 4.4.6.2.2 a, to allow 
the reactor coolant system pressure isolation valve leakage test to be 
extended to a performance-based frequency not to exceed 3 refueling 
outages (to a maximum of 60 months) following two consecutive 
satisfactory tests.
    Date of issuance: March 7, 2019.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of issuance.

[[Page 11345]]

    Amendment No.: 213. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML19023A420, documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-12: The amendment 
revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and the Technical 
Specification.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 20, 2018 (83 
FR 58615). The supplemental letter dated February 22, 2019, 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 March 7, 2019.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-338 and 50-339, 
North Anna Power Station (North Anna), Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Louisa 
County, Virginia, and Docket Nos. 50-280 and 50-281, Surry Power 
Station (Surry), Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Surry County, Virginia

    Date of amendment request: January 16, 2018, as supplemented by 
letters dated June 13, and September 18, 2018.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments authorized changes 
to the North Anna and Surry emergency plans and allowed the 
consolidation of both sites' previous emergency operations facilities 
into a central emergency operations facility.
    Date of issuance: February 27, 2019.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 180 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 281 (Unit No. 1) and 264 (Unit No. 2) for North 
Anna, and 294 (Unit No. 1) and 294 (Unit No. 2) for Surry. A publicly-
available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19031B227; 
documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety 
Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-4, NPF-7, DPR-32, and 
DPR-37: The amendments revised the North Anna and Surry emergency 
plans.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 11, 2018 (83 
FR 45981). The supplemental letters dated June 13, and September 18, 
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 these amendments is 
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated February 27, 2019.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 15th day of March 2019.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Craig G. Erlanger,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2019-05266 Filed 3-25-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7590-01-P