[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 107 (Tuesday, June 4, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25832-25844]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-11453]



[[Page 25832]]

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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2019-0129]


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 May 7, 2019, to May 20, 2019. The last 
biweekly notice was published on May 21, 2019.

DATES: Comments must be filed by July 5, 2019. A request for a hearing 
must be filed by August 5, 2019.

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-2019-0129. Address 
questions about NRC docket IDs in Regulations.gov to Jennifer Borges; 
telephone: 301-287-9127; email: [email protected]. For technical 
questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT section of this document.
     Mail Comments To: 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, see ``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' in the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Janet Burkhardt, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1384, email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments

A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2019-0129, 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-2019-0129.
     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-2019-0129, 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 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

[[Page 25833]]

period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for 
example in derating or shutdown of the facility. If the Commission 
takes action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or 
the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a notice of 
issuance. If the Commission makes a final no significant hazards 
consideration determination, any hearing will take place after 
issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will 
occur very infrequently.

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

    Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any 
persons (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by this action may 
file a request for a hearing and petition for leave to intervene 
(petition) with respect to the action. Petitions shall be filed in 
accordance with the Commission's ``Agency Rules of Practice and 
Procedure'' in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult a 
current copy of 10 CFR 2.309. The NRC's regulations are accessible 
electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's website at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. Alternatively, a copy of 
the regulations is available at the NRC's Public Document Room, located 
at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (First 
Floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. If a petition is filed, the 
Commission or a presiding officer will rule on the petition and, if 
appropriate, a notice of a hearing will be issued.
    As required by 10 CFR 2.309(d) the petition should specifically 
explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with 
particular reference to the following general requirements for 
standing: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the 
petitioner; (2) the nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to 
be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the 
petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; 
and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be 
entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest.
    In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f), the petition must also set 
forth the specific contentions which the petitioner seeks to have 
litigated in the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific 
statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In 
addition, the petitioner must provide a brief explanation of the bases 
for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or 
expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner 
intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The 
petitioner must also provide references to the specific sources and 
documents on which the petitioner intends to rely to support its 
position on the issue. The petition must include sufficient information 
to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant or licensee on 
a material issue of law or fact. Contentions must be limited to matters 
within the scope of the proceeding. The contention must be one which, 
if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner who 
fails to satisfy the requirements at 10 CFR 2.309(f) with respect to at 
least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
    Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, 
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene. 
Parties have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the 
hearing with respect to resolution of that party's admitted 
contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence, consistent 
with the NRC's regulations, policies, and procedures.
    Petitions must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of 
publication of this notice. Petitions and motions for leave to file new 
or amended contentions that are filed after the deadline will not be 
entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the 
filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 
CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i) through (iii). The petition must be filed in 
accordance with the filing instructions in the ``Electronic Submissions 
(E-Filing)'' section of this document.
    If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final 
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the 
Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no 
significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve 
to establish when the hearing is held. If the final determination is 
that the amendment request involves no significant hazards 
consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it 
immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any 
hearing would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final 
determination is that the amendment request involves a significant 
hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before 
the issuance of the amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent 
danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will 
issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.
    A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian 
Tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to 
participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition should 
state the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the 
proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission no later 
than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. The petition 
must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the 
``Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)'' section of this document, and 
should meet the requirements for petitions set forth in this section, 
except that under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(2) a State, local governmental body, 
or Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof does not need 
to address the standing requirements in 10 CFR 2.309(d) if the facility 
is located within its boundaries. Alternatively, a State, local 
governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof 
may participate as a non-party under 10 CFR 2.315(c).
    If a hearing is granted, any person who is not a party to the 
proceeding and is not affiliated with or represented by a party may, at 
the discretion of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited 
appearance pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person 
making a limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of 
his or her position on the issues but may not otherwise participate in 
the proceeding. A limited appearance may be made at any session of the 
hearing or at any prehearing conference, subject to the limits and 
conditions as may be imposed by the presiding officer. Details 
regarding the opportunity to make a limited appearance will be provided 
by the presiding officer if such sessions are scheduled.

B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)

    All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a 
request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition), any 
motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the 
submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and 
documents filed by interested governmental entities that request to 
participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance 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

[[Page 25834]]

storage media. Detailed guidance on making electronic submissions may 
be found in the Guidance for Electronic Submissions to the NRC and on 
the NRC website at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. 
Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they 
seek an exemption in accordance with the procedures described below.
    To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 
days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the 
Office of the Secretary by email at [email protected], or by 
telephone at 301-415-1677, to (1) request a digital identification (ID) 
certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or 
representative) to digitally sign submissions and access the E-Filing 
system for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise 
the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a petition or 
other adjudicatory document (even in instances in which the 
participant, or its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-
issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the 
Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the hearing in this 
proceeding if the Secretary has not already established an electronic 
docket.
    Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is 
available on the NRC's public website at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/getting-started.html. Once a participant has obtained a 
digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant 
can then submit adjudicatory documents. Submissions must be in Portable 
Document Format (PDF). Additional guidance on PDF submissions is 
available on the NRC's public website at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/electronic-sub-ref-mat.html. A filing is considered complete at the 
time the document is submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be 
timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system 
no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of 
a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends 
the submitter an email notice confirming receipt of the document. The 
E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access 
to the document to the NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any 
others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to 
participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the 
document on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and 
other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for 
and receive a digital ID certificate before adjudicatory documents are 
filed so that they can obtain access to the documents via the E-Filing 
system.
    A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-
Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC's Electronic 
Filing Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC's 
public website at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by 
email to [email protected], or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-
7640. The NRC Electronic Filing Help Desk is available between 9 a.m. 
and 6 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government 
holidays.
    Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not 
submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in 
accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing 
stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and 
requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper 
format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail 
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: 
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or 
expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and 
Adjudications Staff. Participants filing adjudicatory documents in this 
manner are responsible for serving the document on all other 
participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of 
the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or 
expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the 
provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an 
exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or 
party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines 
that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no 
longer exists.
    Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the 
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at 
https://adams.nrc.gov/ehd, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the 
Commission or the presiding officer. If you do not have an NRC-issued 
digital ID certificate as described above, click cancel when the link 
requests certificates and you will be automatically directed to the 
NRC's electronic hearing dockets where you will be able to access any 
publicly available documents in a particular hearing docket. 
Participants are requested not to include personal privacy information, 
such as social security numbers, home addresses, or personal phone 
numbers in their filings, unless an NRC regulation or other law 
requires submission of such information. For example, in some 
instances, individuals provide home addresses in order to demonstrate 
proximity to a facility or site. With respect to copyrighted works, 
except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory 
filings and would constitute a Fair Use application, participants are 
requested not to include copyrighted materials in their submission.
    For further details with respect to these license amendment 
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., Docket Nos. 50-336 and 50-
423, Millstone Power Station, Unit Nos. 2 and 3 (Millstone or MPS), New 
London County, Connecticut

    Date of amendment request: April 11, 2019. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19109A100.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would adopt 
Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-522, ``Revise 
Ventilation System Surveillance Requirements to Operate for 10 Hours 
per Month,'' and decrease ventilation system flow test requirements 
from 10 hours at the frequency specified in the Millstone, Unit Nos. 2 
and 3, Surveillance Frequency Control Program (SFCP) to 15 continuous 
minutes at the frequency specified in the SFCP. Additionally, 
Millstone, Unit No. 2, Technical Specification (TS) Surveillance 
Requirement (SR) 4.6.5.1.a would be revised to remove the requirement 
to run the flow test with the duct heaters energized since the charcoal 
adsorption test is performed at 95 percent relative humidity.
    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, with NRC staff edits in square 
brackets.

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or

[[Page 25835]]

consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change modifies existing SRs to operate the EBFS 
[Enclosure Building Filtration System] system for MPS2 and ABFS 
[Auxiliary Building Filter System], CREVS [Control Room Emergency 
Ventilation System], and SLCRS [Supplementary Leak Collection and 
Release System] systems for MPS3 that are equipped with electric 
heaters for a 10 hour period at the frequency specified in the SFCP 
with a requirement to operate the systems for 15 continuous minutes. 
Additionally, the SR for EBFS will be revised to remove the 
requirement [to] conduct the flow test with the duct heaters 
energized since the charcoal adsorption test is performed at 95% 
relative humidity.
    These systems are not accident initiators and therefore, these 
changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability of 
an accident. The proposed system and filter testing changes are 
consistent with current regulatory guidance for these systems and 
will continue to assure that these systems perform their design 
function which may include mitigating accidents. Thus the change 
does not involve a significant increase in the consequences of an 
accident.
    Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change modifies existing SRs to operate the EBFS, 
ABFS, CREVS, and SLCRS systems equipped with electric heaters for a 
10 hour period at the frequency specified in the SFCP with a 
requirement to operate the systems for 15 continuous minutes. 
Additionally, the SR for EBFS will be revised to remove the 
requirement [to] conduct the flow test with the duct heaters 
energized since the charcoal adsorption test is performed at 95% 
relative humidity.
    The change proposed for these ventilation systems does not 
change any system operations or maintenance activities. Testing 
requirements will be revised and will continue to demonstrate that 
the Limiting Conditions for Operation are met and the system 
components are capable of performing their intended safety 
functions. The change does not create new failure modes or 
mechanisms and no new accident precursors are generated.
    Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in the margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change modifies existing SRs to operate the EBFS, 
ABFS, CREVS, and SLCRS systems equipped with electric heaters for a 
10 hour period at the frequency specified in the SFCP with a 
requirement to operate the systems for 15 continuous minutes. 
Additionally, TSTF-522 identifies a regulatory position which 
indicates that plants which test ventilation system absorption at a 
relative humidity of 95% do not require heaters for the ventilation 
system to perform its specified safety function systems and that 
reference to the heaters can be removed from the TS. Based on 
justification provided in TSTF-522, the existing SR for EBFS will be 
revised to remove the requirement to complete the ventilation system 
test with the duct heaters energized since the adsorption test is 
performed at 95% relative humidity. EBFS will continue to have the 
heaters, but they will not be credited in the TS.
    The design basis for the ventilation systems' heaters is to heat 
the incoming air which reduces the relative humidity. Per TSTF-522, 
the monthly 10 hour system operation utilizing the heaters was 
intended to remove moisture from the charcoal adsorber banks. 
Because the ASTM D3803-1989 Standard no longer requires this 10 hour 
operation utilizing the heaters, the duration is replaced with a 
continuous 15 minute operation requirement. The proposed change is 
consistent with guidance provided in Regulatory Position 4.9 of 
Regulatory Guide 1.52, Revision 3.
    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: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion 
Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar Street, RS-2, Richmond, VA 
23219.
    NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna.

DTE Electric Company, Docket No. 50-341, Fermi 2, Monroe County, 
Michigan

    Date of amendment request: February 27, 2019. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19058A251.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would place a Note 
prior to the surveillance requirements (SRs) section of Technical 
Specification (TS) 3.3.5.3 that allows delayed entry into the 
associated conditions and required actions, when a channel is placed in 
an inoperable status solely for testing, provided the associated 
Function maintains emergency core cooling system (ECCS) initiation 
capability.
    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 to TS 3.3.5.3 adds a note that previously applied 
when the Surveillance Requirements for Modes 4 and 5 were included 
in TS 3.3.5.1. There are no new requirements or actions added that 
have not been previously approved. Applying the note cannot increase 
probability of an accident because it does not change plant 
equipment or SR method or surveillance frequency.
    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 duplicates existing TS Surveillance 
Requirements that will continue to protect Safety Limit 2.1.1.3. The 
note requires ECCS initiation function to be maintained in order to 
allow the delayed entry into the Condition. The proposed change will 
not alter the design function of the equipment involved. The event 
of concern is an unexpected draining event. The proposed change does 
not create new failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident 
initiators that would cause a draining event or a new or different 
kind of accident not previously evaluated or included in the design 
and licensing bases.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes have no adverse effect on plant operation. 
The plant response to the design basis accidents do not change. 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 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. The analysis in NEDC-30936-P-A demonstrates that 
the testing allowance does not significantly reduce the probability 
that the ECCS will initiate when necessary. The note can only be 
used when initiation capability is maintained.
    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: Jon P. Christinidis, DTE Energy, Expert

[[Page 25836]]

Attorney--Regulatory, 688 WCB, One Energy Plaza, Detroit, MI 48226-
1279.
    NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.

Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50-397, Columbia Generating Station, 
Benton County, Washington

    Date of amendment request: February 25, 2019. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19057A549.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
allow use of the control room chilled water (CCH) system or the 
emergency service water (SW) system as acceptable cooling sources in 
support of the main control room (MCR) air conditioning (AC) system.
    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 CCH system is not an initiator of an accident and does not 
have the function of preventing any accidents. Therefore, the 
proposed change does not involve an increase in the probability of 
an event.
    The CCH system utilizes active components to perform its design 
function in support of MCR cooling, however, the CCH system utilizes 
safety-related equipment which meet the design requirements stated 
in the Columbia FSAR [Final Safety Analysis Report]. System 
performance and reliability will be monitored by the Maintenance 
Rule, the IST [Inservice Testing] Program and TS [technical 
specification] surveillance. Procedures are available for CCH system 
use and the CCH system components are accessible post-accident. 
Analyses have been performed and conclude there is adequate time to 
initiate MCR cooling following a design basis event. The proposed 
change does not impact radiological consequences of any accident 
described in the FSAR. Therefore, the proposed change does not 
involve a significant increase in the consequences of an event.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously analyzed?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change allows the use of either CCH or SW, when 
capable of the required heat removal, as cooling support to the 
[Main] Control Room AC system for the purpose of meeting both the 
equipment qualification temperature limit and the bounding control 
room habitability steady state temperature. The proposed change will 
align CCH to both the Division 1 and Division 2 emergency cooling 
coils for emergency standby service. If normal MCR cooling is lost, 
emergency MCR cooling will be manually initiated post-accident and 
is supported by analyses that conclude the manual actions are 
feasible and adequate time is available to perform the actions. The 
[Main] Control Room AC system cooling function is not an accident 
initiator and is not postulated to create a new or different kind of 
accident than previously analyzed.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed LAR [license amendment request] provides additional 
flexibility to utilize either the CCH or SW system to meet the MCR 
required equipment qualification temperature limit and the long term 
steady state temperature for 30 days continuous control room 
occupancy. The SW system will be evaluated to ensure it is capable 
of the required heat removal prior to crediting it as the available 
cooling source. Operator training will be provided to reflect use of 
CCH as the preferred cooling source to support the Control Room AC 
system in both Division 1 and Division 2 following approval of this 
LAR. Analyses have been performed and conclude that there is 
adequate time to initiate MCR cooling following a design basis 
event. Surveillances will be performed on both the CCH and SW 
systems in support of MCR cooling and the systems will be maintained 
as safety-related. 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: William A. Horin, Esq., Winston & Strawn, 
1700 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20006-3817.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.

Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-313, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 
1, Pope County, Arkansas

    Date of amendment request: March 25, 2019. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19084A217.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would modify the 
Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1 Technical Specifications (TSs) to remove 
second completion times consistent with NRC-approved Technical 
Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-439, Revision 2, 
``Eliminate Second Completion Times Limiting Time from Discovery of 
Failure to Meet an LCO [Limiting Condition for Operation'' (ADAMS 
Accession No. ML051860296).
    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 change eliminates certain Completion Times from the 
TSs. Completion Times are not an initiator to any accident 
previously evaluated. As a result, the probability of an accident 
previously evaluated is not affected. The consequences of an 
accident with respect to the proposed change are no different than 
the consequences of the same accident when applying the existing 
Completion Times. As a result, the consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated are not affected by this change. The proposed 
change does not alter or prevent the ability of [a] structure, 
system, or component (SSC) from performing the credited function to 
mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within the assumed 
acceptance limits. The proposed change does not affect the source 
term, reactor building isolation, or radiological release 
assumptions used in evaluating the radiological consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated. Further, the proposed change does not 
increase the types or amounts of radioactive effluent that may be 
released offsite, nor significantly increase individual or 
cumulative occupational/public radiation exposures. The proposed 
change is consistent with the safety analysis assumptions and 
resultant 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) or a change in the methods governing plant operation. The 
proposed change does not alter any assumptions made in the safety 
analysis.
    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 delete the second Completion Time 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 change will not result in plant operation in a 
configuration outside of the design basis.
    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

[[Page 25837]]

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: Anna Vinson Jones, Senior Counsel, Entergy 
Services, Inc., 101 Constitution Avenue NW, Suite 200 East, Washington, 
DC 20001.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.

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: April 9, 2019. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19099A367.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would modify 
Technical Specification requirement 6.8.4.g, ``Primary Containment 
Leakage Rate Testing Program,'' to allow for a permanent extension of 
Types A and C integrated leakage rate test frequencies from 10 years to 
1 year. In addition, the proposed request seeks approval for drywell-
to-suppression chamber bypass leak rate test frequency from 120 months 
(10 years) to 180 months (15 years) to align this test with the 
proposed Type A test frequency (Surveillance Requirement 4.6.2.1.e).
    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 activity involves the revision of the Limerick 
Generating Station (LGS), Units 1 and 2 Technical Specification (TS) 
6.8.4.g, ``Primary Containment Leakage Rate Testing Program,'' to 
allow the extension of the Type A integrated leakage rate test 
(ILRT) containment test interval to 15 years and the extension of 
the Type C local leakage rate test (LLRT) interval to 75 months. The 
proposed activity also involves the extension of the drywell-to-
suppression chamber bypass leak test (DWBT) from 120 months to 180 
months to align the test with the proposed Type A test frequency. 
Per the guidance provided in Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 94-01, 
``Industry Guideline for Implementing Performance-Based Option of 10 
CFR 50, Appendix J,'' Revision 3-A, the current Type A test interval 
of 120 months (10 years) would be extended on a permanent basis to 
no longer than 15 years from the last Type A test. The current Type 
C test interval of 60 months for selected components would be 
extended on a performance basis to no longer than 75 months. 
Extensions of up to nine months (total maximum interval of 84 months 
for Type C tests) are permissible only for non-routine emergent 
conditions.
    The proposed extensions do 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. As such, 
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.
    The change in dose risk for changing the Type A test frequency 
from three-per-ten years to once-per-fifteen years, measured as an 
increase to the total integrated dose risk for all internal events 
accident sequences for LGS, is 6.60E-02 person-roentgen equivalent 
man(rem)/yr (0.36 percent) using the Electric Power Research 
Institute (EPRI) guidance with the base case corrosion included. The 
change in dose risk drops to 1.16E-02 person-rem/yr (0.06 percent) 
when using the EPRI Expert Elicitation methodology. The values 
calculated per the EPRI guidance are all lower than the acceptance 
criteria of <=1.0 person-rem/yr or <1.0% person-rem/yr. The change 
in dose risk for changing the DWBT frequency from once-per-ten years 
to once-per-fifteen years, measured as an increase to the total 
integrated dose risk for all internal events accident sequences for 
LGS, is 1.5E-02 person-rem/yr. The results of the risk assessment 
for this amendment meet these criteria. Moreover, the risk impact 
for the ILRT extension when compared to other severe accident risks 
is negligible. Therefore, this proposed extension does not involve a 
significant increase in the probability of an accident previously 
evaluated.
    In addition, as documented in NUREG-1493, ``Performance-Based 
Containment Leak-Test Program,'' dated September 1995, Types B and C 
tests have identified a very large percentage of containment leakage 
paths, and the percentage of containment leakage paths that are 
detected only by Type A testing is very small. The LGS Type A test 
history supports this conclusion.
    The integrity of the containment is subject to two types of 
failure mechanisms that can be categorized as: (1) Activity based, 
and (2) time based. Activity based failure mechanisms are defined as 
degradation due to system and/or component modifications or 
maintenance. Local leak rate test requirements and administrative 
controls such as configuration management and procedural 
requirements for system restoration ensure that containment 
integrity is not degraded by plant modifications or maintenance 
activities. The design and construction requirements of the 
containment combined with the containment inspections performed in 
accordance with the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) 
Boiler and Pressure Vessel (B&PV) Code, Section XI, Rules for 
Inservice Inspection of Nuclear Power Plant Components, Containment 
Maintenance Rule Structures Monitoring Program, Containment Coatings 
Program and TS requirements serve to provide a high degree of 
assurance that the containment would not degrade in a manner that is 
detectable only by a Type A test (ILRT). Based on the above, the 
proposed extensions do not significantly increase the consequences 
of an accident previously evaluated.
    The proposed amendment also deletes Units 1 and 2 TS 6.8.4.g 
exceptions previously granted via TS Amendments No. 190 (Unit 1) and 
No. 151 (Unit 2) to allow one-time extensions of the ILRT test 
frequency for LGS. These exceptions were for activities that would 
have already taken place by the time this amendment is approved; 
therefore, their deletion is solely an administrative action that 
has no effect on any component and no impact on how the unit is 
operated.
    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 amendment to the LGS, Units 1 and 2 TS 6.8.4.g 
involves the extension of the LGS, Units 1 and 2 Type A (ILRT) 
containment test interval to 15 years and the extension of the Type 
C (LLRT) test interval to 75 months. The proposed activity also 
involves the extension of the DWBT from 120 months to 180 months to 
align the test with the proposed Type A test frequency. 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 and 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) nor does it alter the design, 
configuration, or change the manner in which the plant is operated 
or controlled beyond the standard functional capabilities of the 
equipment.
    The proposed amendment also deletes Units 1 and 2 TS 6.8.4.g(a) 
exceptions previously granted to allow one-time extensions of the 
ILRT test frequency for LGS. These exceptions were for activities 
that would have already taken place by the time this amendment is 
approved; therefore, their deletion is solely an administrative 
action that has no effect on any component and no impact on how the 
unit is operated.
    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 Units 1 and 2 TS 6.8.4.g involves the 
extension of the LGS Type A containment test interval to 15 years 
and the extension of the Type C test

[[Page 25838]]

interval to 75 months for selected components. The proposed activity 
also involves the extension of the DWBT from 120 months to 180 
months to align the test with the proposed Type A test frequency. 
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 Containment Leak Rate Testing Program exist to ensure that 
the degree of containment structural integrity and leak-tightness 
that is considered in the plant safety analysis is maintained. The 
overall containment leak rate limit specified by TS is maintained.
    The proposed change involves only the extension of the interval 
between Type A containment leak rate tests and Type C tests for LGS. 
The proposed surveillance interval extension is bounded by the 15-
year ILRT interval and the 75-month Type C test interval currently 
authorized within NEI 94-01, Revision 3-A. Industry experience 
supports the conclusion that Types B and C testing detects a large 
percentage of containment leakage paths and that the percentage of 
containment leakage paths that are detected only by Type A testing 
is small. The containment inspections performed in accordance with 
ASME Section Xl and TS serve to provide a high degree of assurance 
that the containment would not degrade in a manner that is 
detectable only by Type A testing. The combination of these factors 
ensures that the margin of safety in the plant safety analysis is 
maintained. 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 
changes to the Type A and Type C test intervals.
    The current frequency associated with a DWBT leakage test is 120 
months. If any DWBT test fails to meet the specified limit, the test 
schedule for subsequent tests shall be reviewed and approved by the 
NRC. If two consecutive tests fail to meet the specified limit, a 
test shall be performed at least every 24 months until two 
consecutive tests meet the specified limit, at which time the test 
schedule may be resumed. The proposed change will modify this 
leakage test frequency from 120 months to 180 months. The proposed 
change is acceptable as the results from previous tests show that 
the measured drywell-to-suppression chamber bypass leakage at the 
current TS frequency has been a small percentage of the allowable 
leakage. Acceptability is further demonstrated by the design 
requirements applied to the primary containment components and other 
periodically performed primary containment inspections.
    LGS, Units 1 and 2 TS SR 4.6.2.1.e DWBT monitors the combined 
leakage of three types of pathways: (1) The drywell floor and 
downcomers, (2) piping externally connected to both the drywell and 
suppression chamber air space and (3) the suppression chamber to 
drywell vacuum breakers. This amendment would extend the 
surveillance interval on the passive components of the test (the 
first two types of pathways), while retaining the current 
surveillance interval on the active components (suppression chamber 
to drywell vacuum breakers).
    The proposed amendment also deletes Units 1 and 2 TS 6.8.4.g(a) 
exceptions previously granted to allow one-time extensions of the 
ILRT test frequency for LGS. These exceptions were for activities 
that would have already taken place by the time this amendment is 
approved; therefore, the deletion is solely an administrative action 
that has no effect on any component and no impact on how the unit is 
operated.
    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.

Nebraska Public Power District, Docket No. 50-298, Cooper Nuclear 
Station, Nemaha County, Nebraska

    Date of amendment request: February 28, 2019. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19071A111.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
revise the Cooper Nuclear Station Technical Specifications (TSs) to 
define a new time limit for restoring inoperable reactor coolant system 
(RCS) leakage detection instrumentation to operable status; establish 
alternate methods of monitoring RCS leakage when one or more required 
monitors are inoperable; and make TS Bases changes that reflect the 
proposed changes and more accurately reflect the contents of the 
facility design basis related to operability of the RCS leakage 
detection instrumentation. The proposed changes are consistent with the 
NRC-approved Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Improved 
Standard Technical Specifications Change Traveler TSTF-514, Revision 3, 
``Revise BWR [Boiling Water Reactor] Operability Requirements and 
Actions for RCS Leakage Instrumentation.'' The availability of this TS 
improvement was announced in the Federal Register on December 17, 2010 
(75 FR 79048), as part of the consolidated line item improvement 
process.
    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 clarifies the operability requirements for 
the RCS leakage detection instrumentation and reduces the time 
allowed for the plant to operate when the only TS-required operable 
RCS leakage detection instrumentation monitor is the drywell 
atmospheric gaseous radiation monitor. The monitoring of RCS leakage 
is not a precursor to any accident previously evaluated. The 
monitoring of RCS leakage is not used to mitigate the consequences 
of any accident 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 clarifies the operability requirements for 
the RCS leakage detection instrumentation and reduces the time 
allowed for the plant to operate when the only TS-required operable 
RCS leakage detection instrumentation monitor is the drywell 
atmospheric gaseous radiation monitor. The proposed change does not 
involve a physical alteration of the plant (no new or different type 
of equipment will be installed) or a change in the methods governing 
normal plant operation. Therefore, 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 operability requirements for 
the RCS leakage detection instrumentation and reduces the time 
allowed for the plant to operate when the only TS-required operable 
RCS leakage detection instrumentation monitor is the drywell 
atmospheric gaseous radiation monitor. Reducing the amount of time 
the plant is allowed to operate with only the drywell atmospheric 
gaseous radiation monitor operable increases the margin of safety by 
increasing the likelihood that an increase in RCS leakage will be 
detected before it potentially results in gross failure. 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: Mr. John C. McClure, Nebraska Public Power

[[Page 25839]]

District, Post Office Box 499, Columbus, NE 68602-0499.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.

PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50-354, Hope Creek Generating Station, 
Salem County, New Jersey

    Date of amendment request: April 18, 2019. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19108A143.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise Hope 
Creek Generating Station Technical Specification (TS) 3.6.5.1, 
``Secondary Containment Integrity,'' Surveillance Requirements (SRs) 
4.6.5.1.a and 4.6.5.1.b.2.a. SR 4.6.5.1.a would be revised to address 
conditions during which the secondary containment pressure may not meet 
the SR pressure requirements. SR 4.6.5.1.b.2.a would be modified to 
acknowledge that secondary containment access openings may be open for 
entry and exit. Additionally, TS Definitions 1.39.d and 1.39.g would be 
revised to conform to the proposed changes to these two SRs.
    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 addresses conditions during which the 
secondary containment SRs are not met. The secondary containment is 
not an initiator of any accident previously evaluated. As a result, 
the probability of an accident previously evaluated is not 
increased. The consequences of an accident previously evaluated 
while utilizing the proposed changes are no different than the 
consequences of an accident while utilizing the existing four hour 
Completion Time for an inoperable secondary containment. In 
addition, the proposed Note for SR 4.6.5.1.a provides an alternative 
means to ensure the secondary containment safety function is met. As 
a result, the consequences of an accident previously evaluated are 
not significantly increased.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not alter the protection system design, 
create new failure modes, or change any modes of operation. The 
proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant; 
and no new or different kind of equipment will be installed. 
Consequently, there are no new initiators that could result in a new 
or different kind of accident.
    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 change addresses conditions during which the 
secondary containment SRs are not met. Conditions in which the 
secondary containment is not at a negative pressure are acceptable 
provided the conditions do not affect the ability of the FRVS 
[filtration recirculation and ventilation system] to establish the 
required secondary containment vacuum under post-accident conditions 
within the time assumed in the accident analysis. This condition is 
incorporated in the proposed change by requiring an analysis of 
actual environmental and secondary containment pressure conditions 
to confirm the capability of the FRVS is maintained within the 
assumptions of the accident analysis. Therefore, the safety function 
of the secondary containment is not affected. The allowance for both 
an inner and outer secondary containment door to be open 
simultaneously for entry and exit does not affect the safety 
function of the secondary containment as the doors are promptly 
closed after entry or exit, thereby restoring the secondary 
containment boundary.
    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, Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026, 
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4, Burke County, Georgia

    Date of amendment request: March 29, 2019. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19088A126.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment proposes a change 
in Tier 1 (and associated Combined License Appendix C) Figure 2.2.4-1 
(Sheet 3) to relocate the auxiliary steam header isolation valve from 
the same header as the turbine bypass valves to a new header.
    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 change does not affect the operation or reliability 
of any system, structure or component (SSC) required to maintain a 
normal power operating condition or to mitigate anticipated 
transients without safety-related systems. There is no change to the 
auxiliary steam header isolation valve safety class or nonsafety-
related functions. With the proposed change, the auxiliary steam 
header isolation valve will continue to perform its nonsafety-
related design function of providing isolation at the system 
interface between the main steam system and auxiliary steam supply 
system. The operation of the auxiliary steam header isolation valve 
is not changed, and it remains downstream of the main steam 
isolation valve (MSIV). The auxiliary steam header isolation valve 
is not, nor was it, credited in limiting blowdown of a second steam 
generator in the event of a steam line break upstream of an MSIV 
concurrent with the failure of the other MSIV. Therefore, there is 
no impact to the MSS [main steam system] design function of limiting 
blowdown of a second steam generator in the event of a steam line 
break upstream of an MSIV concurrent with the failure of the other 
MSIV, and there is no impact to Chapter 15 evaluations.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
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 affect the operation of systems or 
equipment that could initiate a new or different kind of accident or 
alter any SSC such that a new accident initiator or initiating 
sequence of events is created. There is no change to the auxiliary 
steam header isolation valve safety class or nonsafety-related 
functions. With the proposed change, the auxiliary steam header 
isolation valve will continue to perform its nonsafety-related 
design function of providing isolation at the system interface 
between the main steam system and auxiliary steam supply system. The 
operation of the auxiliary steam header isolation valve is not 
changed, and it remains downstream of the main steam isolation valve 
(MSIV). The auxiliary steam header isolation valve is not, nor was 
it, credited in limiting blowdown of a second steam generator in the 
event of a steam line break upstream of an MSIV concurrent with the 
failure of the other MSIV. Therefore, there is no impact to the MSS 
design function of limiting blowdown of a second steam generator in 
the event of a steam line break upstream of an MSIV concurrent with 
the failure of the other MSIV, and there is no impact to Chapter 15 
evaluations.

[[Page 25840]]

    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not affect existing safety margins. 
There is no change to the auxiliary steam header isolation valve 
safety class or nonsafety-related functions. With the proposed 
change, the auxiliary steam header isolation valve will continue to 
perform its nonsafety-related design function of providing isolation 
at the system interface between the main steam system and auxiliary 
steam supply system. The operation of the auxiliary steam header 
isolation valve is not changed, and it remains downstream of the 
main steam isolation valve (MSIV). The auxiliary steam header 
isolation valve is not, nor was it, credited in limiting blowdown of 
a second steam generator in the event of a steam line break upstream 
of an MSIV concurrent with the failure of the other MSIV. Therefore, 
there is no impact to the MSS design function of limiting blowdown 
of a second steam generator in the event of a steam line break 
upstream of an MSIV concurrent with the failure of the other MSIV, 
and there is no impact to Chapter 15 evaluations.
    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 L. Dixon-Herrity.

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

    Date of amendment request: July 27, 2018, as supplemented by 
letters dated May 3, 2019, and May 17, 2019. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML18208A619, ML19123A253, and 
ML19137A343, respectively.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
modify Technical Specification (TS) requirements to permit use of Risk-
Informed Completion Times in accordance with Nuclear Energy Institute 
(NEI) topical report NEI 06-09, Revision 0-A, ``Risk-Informed Technical 
Specifications Initiative 4b, Risk-Managed Technical Specifications 
(RMTS) Guidelines.'' Notice of this action was previously published in 
the Federal Register on September 25, 2018 (83 FR 48466). The re-
noticing of this action is provided to include two supplements dated 
May 3, 2019, and May 17, 2019, to the licensee's original application 
dated July 27, 2018. This re-notice supersedes the Federal Register 
notice of September 25, 2018, in its entirety. The supplements added a 
new Condition B in Technical Specification 3.7.8, ``Service Water 
System (SWS)''.
    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 [change] involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change permits the extension of completion times 
provided risk is assessed and managed within the Risk Informed 
Completion Time Program. The proposed change does not involve a 
significant increase in the probability of an accident previously 
evaluated because the changes involve no change to the plant or its 
mode of operation. The proposed change does 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 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 TS revision does not change the design, 
configuration, or method of plant operation. The proposed change 
does not involve a physical alteration of the plant in that no new 
or different kind of 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 permits the extension of completion times 
provided risk is assessed and managed within the Risk Informed 
Completion Time Program. The proposed change implements a risk-
informed configuration management program to assure that adequate 
safety margins 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 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: Jennifer M. Buettner, Associate General 
Counsel, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., 40 Inverness Center 
Parkway, Birmingham, AL 35242.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

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

    Date of amendment request: April 24, 2019. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19114A535.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the 
South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, Technical Specification Tables 2.2-
1, 3.3-1, and 4.3-1, to change the description of the P-13 permissive 
interlock for the Reactor Trip System instrumentation. Specifically, 
the phrases ``Turbine Impulse Chamber Pressure'' and ``Turbine Impulse 
Pressure'' would be replaced with ``Turbine Inlet Pressure.''
    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 change to replace the words ``Turbine Impulse 
Chamber Pressure'' or ``Turbine Impulse Pressure'', as appropriate, 
with ``Turbine Inlet Pressure'' in the descriptive text associated 
with the P-13 function of the Reactor Trip System does not involve 
any physical or design change to the P-13 function. The proposed 
change is intended to eliminate potential confusion by making the 
description generically applicable for other turbine types.
    Therefore, there is no impact to the probability or consequences 
of an accident previously evaluated due to the proposed change.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of

[[Page 25841]]

accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    Replacing the words ``Turbine Impulse Chamber Pressure'' with 
``Turbine Inlet Pressure'' in the descriptive text associated with 
the P-13 function will not create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 
No safety-related equipment, safety function, or plant operation 
will be altered as a result of this proposed change. No new operator 
actions are created as a result of the proposed change.
    Changing the descriptive text associated with the P-13 
permissive has no impact on the accidents analyzed in the STPNOC 
[STP Nuclear Operating Company] Updated Final Safety Analysis Report 
(UFSAR) and is not an accident initiator. Since this change does not 
impact any conditions that would initiate an accident, there is no 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident resulting from 
this change.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    Changing the descriptive text associated with the P-13 
permissive will not affect the margin of safety. The margin of 
safety presently provided by the Technical Specifications remains 
unchanged.
    The proposed amendment does not affect the design of the 
facility or system operating parameters, does not physically alter 
safety-related systems and does not affect the method in which 
safety-related systems perform their functions.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not impact margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
request for amendments involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Kym Harshaw, Vice President and General 
Counsel, STP Nuclear Operating Company, P.O. Box 289, Wadsworth, TX 
77483.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.

Union Electric Company, Docket No. 50-483, Callaway Plant, Unit 1 
(Callaway), Callaway County, Missouri

    Date of amendment request: March 12, 2019. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19071A281.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the 
Callaway technical specifications (TSs) to remove slave relay K620 from 
the scope of TS Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.3.2.14 testing during 
shutdown conditions at 18-month intervals and incorporate it into the 
scope of SR 3.3.2.6 for surveillance testing during power operations, 
at a frequency in accordance with the Surveillance Frequency Control 
Program.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    Testing slave relay K620 more frequently than currently required 
will not increase the probability or the consequences of a 
previously evaluated accident.
    The new turbine controls being installed under a plant 
modification include new EHC [Electrohydraulic Control] trip bus 
coils with an impedance sized to allow a small test current to be 
applied to the trip logic without activating the trip coils. This 
permits the K620 slave relay to be tested on-line at the frequency 
used for testing other, similar slave relays in the plant and 
without any significant increase in the probability of an 
inadvertent turbine trip. Consequently, the new test scheme for this 
relay does not increase the probability of a previously evaluated 
transient (i.e., turbine trip) for Callaway.
    Slave relay K620 provides trip signals to the Main Turbine and 
the Main Feedwater trip logic. Performing this test at the increased 
frequency will not adversely affect the relay's performance since 
the new frequency is typical for slave relays that can be tested 
during plant operation. It is thus reasonable to conclude that the 
likelihood of relay failure is not increased.
    In regard to accident consequences, the change in test frequency 
for the K620 relay does not affect its required operability. Since 
the relay's function is not affected, there is no change to how the 
function is credited or assumed in the plant's accident analysis. 
The analyzed consequences are thus unaffected.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    Testing slave relay K620 more frequently than currently required 
does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of 
accident from any accident previously evaluated.
    Currently, slave relay K620 is tested with the turbine offline 
since under the current (unmodified) design, the testing of slave 
relay K620 produces a test current sufficient to trip the main 
turbine. The new proposed turbine controls include new EHC trip bus 
coils with an impedance sized to allow a small test current to be 
applied to the trip logic without activating the trip coils, thus 
allowing the slave relay test to be performed online. There is no 
change to the design or function of the relay itself or its 
associated logic. Thus, no new failure modes are introduced by the 
replacement of these trip coils.
    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 TS change only affects the testability of the K620 
relay (and thus the frequency at which the relay is tested). The 
design and function of the K620 slave relay itself are unchanged. No 
changes to the accident analyses, including any associated 
assumptions such as instrument setpoints or credited trip functions, 
are required or being made for this proposed change.
    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: John O'Neill, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw 
Pittman LLP, 2300 N Street NW, Washington, DC 20037.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.

Union Electric Company, Docket No. 50-483, Callaway Plant, Unit 1 
(Callaway), Callaway County, Missouri

    Date of amendment request: March 22, 2019. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19081A173.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the 
Callaway technical specifications (TSs) to eliminate TS Section 5.5.8, 
``lnservice Testing Program.'' The proposed change eliminates the 
Callaway TS Section 5.5.8, to remove requirements duplicated in the 
American Society of Mechanical Engineers Code for Operations and 
Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants (ASME OM Code) Code Case OMN-20, 
``Inservice Test Frequency,'' which is approved for use in the Callaway 
Plant inservice testing program (IST). A new defined term, ``INSERVICE 
TESTING PROGRAM,'' will be added to TS Section 1.1, ``Definitions.'' 
The proposed change to the TSs is consistent with Technical 
Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-545, Revision 3, ``TS 
Inservice Testing Program Removal & Clarify SR [Surveillance 
Requirement] Usage Rule Application to Section 5.5 Testing.''

[[Page 25842]]

    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 revises TS Chapter 5, ``Administrative 
Controls,'' Section 5.5, ``Programs and Manuals,'' by eliminating 
the ``lnservice Testing Program'' specification (i.e., TS 5.5.8). 
Most requirements in the Inservice Testing Program are removed, as 
they are duplicative of requirements in the ASME OM Code, as 
clarified by Code Case OMN-20, ``lnservice Test Frequency.'' The 
remaining requirements in the Section 5.5 IST Program description 
are eliminated because the NRC has determined their inclusion in the 
TS is contrary to regulations. A new defined term, ``Inservice 
Testing Program,'' is added to Section 1.1 of the TS, which 
references the requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a(f).
    Performance of inservice testing is not an initiator to any 
accident previously evaluated. As a result, the probability of 
occurrence of an accident is not significantly affected by the 
proposed change. lnservice test frequencies under Code Case OMN-20 
are equivalent to the current testing periods allowed by the TS with 
the exception that test intervals greater than 2 years may be 
extended by up to 6 months to facilitate test scheduling and 
consideration of plant operating conditions that may not be suitable 
for performance of the required testing. The testing frequency 
extension will not affect the ability of the components to mitigate 
any accident previously evaluated, as the components are required to 
be operable during the testing period extension. Performance of 
inservice tests utilizing the allowances in OMN-20 will not 
significantly affect the reliability of the tested components. As a 
result, the availability of the affected components, as well as 
their ability to mitigate the consequences of accidents previously 
evaluated is not affected.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not alter the design or configuration 
of the plant. The proposed change does not involve a physical 
alteration of the plant; no new or different kind of equipment will 
be installed. The proposed change does not alter the types of 
inservice testing performed. In most cases, the frequency of 
inservice testing is unchanged. However, the frequency of testing 
would not result in a new or different kind of accident from any 
previously evaluated since the testing methods are not altered.
    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 change eliminates some requirements from the TS in 
lieu of requirements in the ASME Code, as modified by use of Code 
Case OMN-20. Compliance with the ASME Code is required by 10 CFR 
50.55a. The proposed change also allows inservice tests with test 
intervals greater than 2 years to be extended by 6 months 
(consistent with code case OMN-20) to facilitate test scheduling and 
consideration of plant operating conditions that may not be suitable 
for performance of the required testing. The testing frequency 
extension will not affect the ability of the components to respond 
to an accident as the components are required to be operable during 
the testing period extension. The proposed change also eliminates a 
statement that nothing in the ASME Code should be construed to 
supersede the requirements of any TS. The NRC has determined that 
statement to be incorrect. However, elimination of the statement 
will have no effect on plant operation or safety.
    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: John O'Neill, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw 
Pittman LLP, 2300 N Street NW, Washington, DC 20037.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.

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.

Duke Energy Florida, Inc., et al., Docket No. 50-302, Crystal River 
Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant (CR-3), Citrus County, Florida

    Date of application for amendment: January 16, 2019.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment approved revision 1 
to the Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation-Only Emergency Plan 
for the CR-3 Site.
    Date of issuance: May 3, 2019.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days.
    Amendment No.: 257. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML19080A186; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Facility Operating License No. DPR-72: This amendment revised the 
License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 12, 2019 (84 
FR 3507).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated May 3, 2019.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

[[Page 25843]]

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

    Date of amendment request: April 25, 2018, as supplemented by 
letter dated March 26, 2019.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the 
expiration date of an existing Note for Technical Specification 3.8.3, 
``Diesel Fuel Oil,'' to allow, on a one-time basis, the main fuel oil 
storage tank to be inoperable for up to 14 days for the purpose of 
performing required inspection, cleaning, and any necessary repair 
activities.
    Date of issuance: May 6, 2019.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 120 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 290 and 318. A publicly-available version is in 
ADAMS under Accession No. ML19018A206; documents related to these 
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 
amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-71 and DPR-62: The 
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and 
Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 3, 2018 (83 FR 
31183).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated May 6, 2019.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Entergy Louisiana, LLC, and Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-
458, River Bend Station, Unit 1 (River Bend), West Feliciana Parish, 
Louisiana

    Date of amendment request: April 30, 2018, as supplemented by 
letter dated October 18, 2018.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the River 
Bend Emergency Plan to adopt an Emergency Action Level scheme based on 
Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) guidance in NEI 99-01, Revision 6, 
``Development of Emergency Action Levels for Non-Passive Reactors,'' 
dated November 2012, which was endorsed by the NRC by letter dated 
March 28, 2013.
    Date of issuance: May 14, 2019.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 365 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 197. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML19070A062; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-47: The amendment 
revised the River Bend Emergency Plan.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 31, 2018 (83 FR 
36975). The supplemental letter dated October 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 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 May 14, 2019.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: May 30, 2018, as supplemented by letters 
dated February 7 and April 17, 2019.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical 
Specification 3.3.5, ``Diesel Generator (DG)--Undervoltage Start (UV 
Start),'' Surveillance Requirement 3.3.5.2a by adding a channel 
calibration requirement for the combined time delay setpoints for the 
degraded voltage sensing relay and the degraded voltage time delay 
relay.
    Date of issuance: May 13, 2019.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days.
    Amendment No.: 268. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML19107A053; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-20: Amendment revised 
the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 14, 2018 (83 FR 
40347). The supplemental letters dated February 7 and April 17, 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 May 13, 2019.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: September 28, 2018, as supplemented by 
letter dated February 4, 2019.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendments authorized changes 
to Appendix E of the VEGP Units 3 and 4 Physical Security Plan to 
describe the Transitional Security Measures that will be implemented in 
the event that Unit 3 is ready to load fuel and begin operation with a 
contiguous Protected Area boundary and vehicle barrier system, and 
where a secure boundary is needed between VEGP Units 3 and 4. In 
addition, the amendment revised the plant-specific emergency planning 
inspections, tests, analyses, and acceptance criteria in Appendix C of 
the VEGP Unit 4 Combined License, associated with the presence of a 
security barrier between the Technical Support Center and the Unit 4 
control room.
    Date of issuance: April 30, 2019.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 160 (Unit 3) and 158 (Unit 4). A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19092A449. The documents 
related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation 
enclosed with the amendments.
    Facility Combined Licenses Nos. NPF-91 and NPF-92: Amendment 
revised the Facility Combined Licenses.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 8, 2019 (84 FR 
88). The February 4, 2019, supplemental letter provided additional 
information that did not change the scope or the conclusions of 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 April 30, 2019.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-327 and 50-328, Sequoyah 
Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Hamilton County, Tennessee

    Date of amendment request: March 9, 2018, as supplemented by 
letters dated April 11, 2018, and January 30, 2019.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments authorized changes 
to the Essential Raw Cooling Water Motor Control Center Breakers and 
authorized revision of the Updated Final Safety

[[Page 25844]]

Analysis Report (UFSAR) to describe the normal and alternate power 
sources for the ERCW system.
    Date of issuance: May 7, 2019.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 344--Unit 1 and 337--Unit 2. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19058A029; documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with 
the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-77 and DPR-79: 
Amendments revised the UFSAR.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 5, 2018 (83 FR 
26107). The supplemental letter dated January 30, 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 amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated May 7, 2019.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th day of May 2019.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Gregory F. Suber,
Deputy Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of 
Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2019-11453 Filed 6-3-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7590-01-P