[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 127 (Tuesday, July 2, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31629-31640]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-14001]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2019-0140]


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

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Biweekly notice.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the 
Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is publishing this 
regular biweekly notice. The Act requires the Commission to publish 
notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to be issued, and grants 
the Commission the authority to issue and make immediately effective 
any amendment to an operating license or combined license, as 
applicable, upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment 
involves no significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the 
pendency before the Commission of a request for a hearing from any 
person.
    This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or 
proposed to be issued, from June 4, 2019, to June 17, 2019. The last 
biweekly notice was published on June 18, 2019.

DATES: Comments must be filed by August 1, 2019. A request for a 
hearing must be filed by September 3, 2019.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal Rulemaking website: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2019-0140. Address 
questions about NRC dockets IDs in Regulations.gov to Jennifer Borges; 
telephone: 301-287-9127; email: [email protected]. For technical 
questions, contact the individual 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: Shirley Rohrer, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, 
D.C. 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-5411, email: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments

A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2019-0140, facility name, unit 
number(s), plant docket number, application date, and subject when 
contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this 
action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this 
action by any of the following methods:
     Federal Rulemaking website: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2019-0140.
     NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the 
ADAMS Public Documents collection at https://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-2019-0140, facility name, unit 
number(s), plant docket number, application date, and subject in your 
comment submission.
    The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact 
information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your 
comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at 
https://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions 
into ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to 
remove identifying or contact information.
    If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons 
for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to 
include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be 
publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should 
state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to 
remove such information before making the comment submissions available 
to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.

II. Background

    Pursuant to Section 189a.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 
amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is 
publishing this regular biweekly notice. The Act requires the 
Commission to publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to 
be issued, and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make 
immediately effective any amendment to an operating license or combined 
license, as applicable, upon a determination by the Commission that 
such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, 
notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a 
hearing from any person.

[[Page 31630]]

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

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

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

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

[[Page 31631]]

its boundaries. Alternatively, a State, local governmental body, 
Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof may participate as 
a non-party under 10 CFR 2.315(c).
    If a hearing is granted, any person who is not a party to the 
proceeding and is not affiliated with or represented by a party may, at 
the discretion of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited 
appearance pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person 
making a limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of 
his or her position on the issues but may not otherwise participate in 
the proceeding. A limited appearance may be made at any session of the 
hearing or at any prehearing conference, subject to the limits and 
conditions as may be imposed by the presiding officer. Details 
regarding the opportunity to make a limited appearance will be provided 
by the presiding officer if such sessions are scheduled.

B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)

    All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a 
request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition), any 
motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the 
submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and 
documents filed by interested governmental entities that request to 
participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the 
NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007, as amended at 77 FR 
46562; August 3, 2012). The E-Filing process requires participants to 
submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in 
some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Detailed 
guidance on making electronic submissions may be found in the Guidance 
for Electronic Submissions to the NRC and on the NRC website at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants may not submit 
paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in 
accordance with the procedures described below.
    To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 
days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the 
Office of the Secretary by email at [email protected], or by 
telephone at 301-415-1677, to (1) request a digital identification (ID) 
certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or 
representative) to digitally sign submissions and access the E-Filing 
system for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise 
the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a petition or 
other adjudicatory document (even in instances in which the 
participant, or its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-
issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the 
Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the hearing in this 
proceeding if the Secretary has not already established an electronic 
docket.
    Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is 
available on the NRC's public website at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/getting-started.html. Once a participant has obtained a 
digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant 
can then submit adjudicatory documents. Submissions must be in Portable 
Document Format (PDF). Additional guidance on PDF submissions is 
available on the NRC's public website at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/electronic-sub-ref-mat.html. A filing is considered complete at the 
time the document is submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be 
timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system 
no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of 
a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends 
the submitter an email notice confirming receipt of the document. The 
E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access 
to the document to the NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any 
others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to 
participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the 
document on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and 
other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for 
and receive a digital ID certificate before adjudicatory documents are 
filed so that they can obtain access to the documents via the E-Filing 
system.
    A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-
Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC's Electronic 
Filing Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC's 
public website at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by 
email to [email protected], or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-
7640. The NRC Electronic Filing Help Desk is available between 9 a.m. 
and 6 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government 
holidays.
    Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not 
submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in 
accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing 
stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and 
requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper 
format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail 
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: 
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or 
expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and 
Adjudications Staff. Participants filing adjudicatory documents in this 
manner are responsible for serving the document on all other 
participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of 
the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or 
expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the 
provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an 
exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or 
party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines 
that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no 
longer exists.
    Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the 
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at 
https://adams.nrc.gov/ehd, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the 
Commission or the presiding officer. If you do not 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

[[Page 31632]]

information related to this document, see the ``Obtaining Information 
and Submitting Comments'' section of this document.

Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Docket No. 50-400, Shearon Harris Nuclear 
Power Plant, Unit 1, Wake and Chatham Counties, North Carolina

    Date of amendment request: February 18, 2019. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19049A027.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the 
Technical Specifications (TSs) to permit one train of the Essential 
Services Chilled Water System (ESCWS) to be inoperable for up to 7 
days, from the current 72 hours allowed outage time. In addition, the 
amendment would remove an expired note previously added to TSs by 
implementation of License Amendment 153.
    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 operable train of the ESCWS and supported equipment will 
remain fully operable during the 7-day allowed outage time. The 
unavailable train of the ESCWS and supported equipment function as 
accident mitigators. The removal of a train of the ESCWS from 
service for a limited period of time does not affect any accident 
initiator and therefore cannot change the probability of an 
accident. The proposed change has been evaluated to assess the 
impact on systems affected and the upon design basis safety 
functions.
    The activities covered by this LAR [license amendment request] 
also include defense-in-depth compensatory measures. There will be 
no effect on the analysis of any accident or the progression of the 
accident since the operable ESCWS train is capable of serving 100 
percent of all the required heat loads. As such, there is no impact 
on consequence mitigation for any transient or accident.
    The proposed changes to TS 3.1.2.4, TS 3.5.2, TS 3.6.2.1, TS 
3.6.2.2, TS 3.6.2.3, TS 3.7.1.2, TS 3.7.3, TS 3.7.4, TS 3.7.6, TS 
3.7.7, TS 3.7.13, and TS 3.8.1.1 that remove an expired note are 
administrative, non-technical changes which remove temporary TS 
requirements added as part of the HNP License Amendment 153 issued 
on September 16, 2016 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management 
System Accession No. ML16253A059), that are currently obsolete.
    As a result, operation of the facility in accordance with the 
proposed changes will not significantly increase the consequences of 
accidents 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 amendment is an extension of the allowed outage 
time from 72 hours to 7 days for the ESCWS and its supported TS 
systems that includes Charging Pumps, ECCS [emergency core cooling 
system] subsystems, Containment Spray System, Containment Cooling 
System, and the Emergency Service Water System, `B' Train. The 
requested change does not involve the addition or removal of any 
plant system, structure, or component.
    The proposed TS changes do not affect the basic design, 
operation, or function of any of the systems associated with the TS 
impacted by the amendment. Implementation of the proposed amendment 
will not create the possibility of a new or different kind of 
accident from that previously evaluated.
    The proposed changes to TS 3.1.2.4, TS 3.5.2, TS 3.6.2.1, TS 
3.6.2.2, TS 3.6.2.3, TS 3.7.1.2, TS 3.7.3, TS 3.7.4, TS 3.7.6, TS 
3.7.7, TS 3.7.13, and TS 3.8.1.1 that remove an expired note are 
administrative, non-technical changes which remove temporary TS 
requirements added as part of the HNP License Amendment 153 issued 
on September 16, 2016, that are currently obsolete.
    In conclusion, this proposed LAR does not impact any plant 
systems that are accident initiators and does not impact any safety 
analysis. Therefore, operation of the facility in accordance with 
the proposed changes will 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 margin of safety is related to the confidence in the ability 
of the fission product barriers to perform their design functions 
during and following an accident condition. These barriers include 
the fuel cladding, the reactor coolant system, and the containment 
system. The performance of the fuel cladding, reactor coolant, and 
containment systems will not be impacted by the proposed LAR.
    Additionally, the proposed amendment does not involve a change 
in the operation of the plant. The activity only extends the amount 
of time a train of the ESCWS is allowed to be inoperable to complete 
maintenance for equipment reliability. The incremental conditional 
core damage probability (ICCDP) and incremental conditional large 
early release probability (ICLERP) calculated for the 7-day AOT are 
within the limits presented in Regulatory Guides 1.174 and 1.177.
    The proposed changes to TS 3.1.2.4, TS 3.5.2, TS 3.6.2.1, TS 
3.6.2.2, TS 3.6.2.3, TS 3.7.1.2, TS 3.7.3, TS 3.7.4, TS 3.7.6, TS 
3.7.7, TS 3.7.13, and TS 3.8.1.1 that remove an expired note are 
administrative, non-technical changes which remove temporary TS 
requirements added as part of the HNP License Amendment 153 issued 
on September 16, 2016, that are currently obsolete.
    Therefore, operation of the facility in accordance with the 
proposed changes will not involve a significant reduction in the 
margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: David Cummings, Associate General Counsel, 
Duke Energy Corporation, Mail Code DEC45, 550 South Tryon St., 
Charlotte, NC 28202.
    NRC Branch Chief: Undine Shoop.

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

    Date of amendment request: March 28, 2019, as supplemented by 
letter dated May 6, 2019. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS 
under Accession Nos. ML19098A966, and ML19127A018, respectively.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise and 
modify the PNP technical specifications (TSs) by relocating specific 
surveillance frequencies to a licensee-controlled program with the 
implementation of Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler 
TSTF-425, ``Relocate Surveillance Frequencies to Licensee Control--
RITSTF [Risk-Informed TSTF] Initiative 5b,'' Revision 3.
    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:
    As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its 
analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The NRC 
staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis against the standards of 10 
CFR 50.92(c). The NRC staff's analysis is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change relocates the specified frequencies for 
periodic surveillance requirements to licensee control under a new 
Surveillance Frequency Control Program [SFCP]. Surveillance 
frequencies are not an initiator to any accident previously 
evaluated. As a result, the probability of any accident previously 
evaluated is not significantly increased. The systems and

[[Page 31633]]

components required by the technical specifications for which the 
surveillance frequencies are relocated are still required to be 
operable, meet the acceptance criteria for the surveillance 
requirements, and be capable of performing any mitigation function 
assumed in the accident analysis. As a result, the consequences of 
any accident previously evaluated are not significantly increased.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    No new or different accidents result from utilizing the proposed 
change. The changes do not involve a physical alteration of the 
plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be 
installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant 
operation. In addition, the changes do not impose any new or 
different requirements. The changes do not alter assumptions made in 
the safety analysis. The proposed changes are consistent with the 
safety analysis assumptions and current plant operating practice.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in 
the margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The design, operation, testing methods, and acceptance criteria 
for systems, structures, and components (SSCs), specified in 
applicable codes and standards (or alternatives approved for use by 
the NRC) will continue to be met as described in the plant licensing 
basis (including the Final Safety Analysis Report and Bases to TS), 
since these are not affected by changes to the surveillance 
frequencies. Similarly, there is no impact to safety analysis 
acceptance criteria as described in the plant licensing basis. To 
evaluate a change in the relocated surveillance frequency, Entergy 
will perform a probabilistic risk evaluation using the guidance 
contained in NRC approved [Nuclear Energy Institute] NEI 04-10, 
Revision 1 in accordance with the TS SFCP. NEI 04-10, Revision 1, 
methodology provides reasonable acceptance guidelines and methods 
for evaluating the risk increase of proposed changes to surveillance 
frequencies consistent with Regulatory Guide 1.177.
    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: Anna V. Jones, Senior Counsel, Entergy 
Services, Inc., 101 Constitution Avenue NW, Suite 200 East, Washington, 
DC 20001.
    NRC Acting Branch Chief: Lisa M. Regner.

Entergy Operations, Inc. (Entergy), Docket Nos. 50-313 and 50-368, 
Arkansas Nuclear One, Units 1 (ANO-1) and 2 (ANO-2), Pope County, 
Arkansas

    Date of amendment request: April 29, 2019. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19119A090.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the 
license basis documents for ANO-1 and ANO-2, to utilize the Tornado 
Missile Risk Evaluator (TMRE) methodology as the licensing basis to 
qualify several components that have been identified as not conforming 
to the unit-specific current licensing basis.
    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 amendment is to revise the ANO-1 and ANO-2 unit-
specific SARs [Safety Analysis Reports] by reflecting the results of 
the TMRE analysis, which demonstrated that tornado-generated missile 
protection is not required for identified nonconforming structures, 
systems, and components (SSCs) on each unit. TMRE is an alternative 
methodology which can only be applied to discovered conditions where 
tornado missile protection was not provided, and cannot be used to 
avoid providing tornado missile protection in the plant modification 
process.
    The proposed amendment does not involve an increase in the 
probability of an accident previously evaluated. The relevant 
accident previously evaluated is a Design Basis tornado impacting 
the ANO site. The probability of a Design Basis tornado is driven by 
external factors and is not affected by the proposed amendment. 
There are no changes required to any of the previously evaluated 
accidents in the SAR.
    The proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase 
in the consequences of a Design Basis tornado. TMRE is a risk-
informed methodology for determining whether certain safety-related 
features that are currently not protected from tornado-generated 
missiles require such protection. The criteria for significant 
increase in consequences was established in the NRC Policy Statement 
on probabilistic risk assessment, which were incorporated into 
Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.174, ``An Approach for Using Probabilistic 
Risk Assessment in Risk-Informed Decisions on Plant-specific Changes 
to the Licensing Basis.'' The TMRE calculations performed by Entergy 
meet the acceptance criteria of RG 1.174.
    Therefore, 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 amendment is to revise the ANO-1 and ANO-2 unit-
specific SARs by reflecting the results of the TMRE analysis, which 
demonstrated that tornado-generated missile protection is not 
required for identified nonconforming SSCs on each unit. TMRE is an 
alternative methodology which can only be applied to discovered 
conditions where tornado missile protection was not provided, and 
cannot be used to avoid providing tornado missile protection in the 
plant modification process.
    The proposed amendment involves no physical changes to the 
existing plants; therefore, no new malfunctions could create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident. The proposed 
amendment makes no changes to conditions external to the plants that 
could create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident. 
The proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident due to new accident precursors, failure 
mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident initiators not considered in 
the design and licensing bases. The existing unit-specific SAR 
accident analyses will continue to meet requirements for the scope 
and type of accidents that require analysis.
    Therefore, this change does not create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from an accident previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment is to revise the ANO-1 and ANO-2 unit-
specific SARs by reflecting the results of the TMRE analysis, which 
demonstrated that tornado-generated missile protection is not 
required for identified nonconforming SSCs on each unit. TMRE is an 
alternative methodology which can only be applied to discovered 
conditions where tornado missile protection was not provided, and 
cannot be used to avoid providing tornado missile protection in the 
plant modification process.
    The change does not exceed or alter any controlling numerical 
value for a parameter established in the ANO-1 or ANO-2 SAR or 
elsewhere in the ANO unit-specific licensing basis related to design 
basis or safety limits. The change does not impact any unit specific 
accident analyses, and those analyses remain valid. The change does 
not reduce diversity or redundancy as required by regulation or 
credited in the unit-specific SAR. The change does not reduce 
defense-in-depth as described in the unit-specific SAR.
    Therefore, 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

[[Page 31634]]

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.

Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-368, Arkansas Nuclear One 
(ANO), Unit 2, Pope County, Arkansas

    Date of amendment request: April 30, 2019. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19120A086.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would modify the 
ANO, Unit 2, Technical Specifications (TSs) by adopting Technical 
Specifications Task Force (TSTF)-563, ``Revise Instrument Testing 
Definitions to Incorporate the Surveillance Frequency Control 
Program,'' which would revise the definitions of Channel Calibration 
and Channel Functional Tests in the ANO, Unit 2 TSs.
    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 revises the TS definitions of Channel 
Calibration and Channel Functional Test to allow the frequency for 
testing the components or devices in each step to be determined in 
accordance with the TS SFCP [surveillance frequency control 
program]. All components in the channel continue to be tested. The 
frequency at which a channel test is performed is not an initiator 
of any accident previously evaluated; therefore, the probability of 
an accident is not affected by the proposed change. The channels 
surveilled in accordance with the affected definitions continue to 
be required to be operable and the acceptance criteria of the 
surveillances are unchanged. As a result, any mitigating functions 
assumed in the accident analysis will continue to be performed.
    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 revises the TS definitions of Channel 
Calibration and Channel Functional Test to allow the frequency for 
testing the components or devices in each step to be determined in 
accordance with the TS SFCP. The design function or operation of the 
components involved are not affected and there is no physical 
alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment 
will be installed). No credible new failure mechanisms, 
malfunctions, or accident initiators not considered in the design 
and licensing bases are introduced. The changes do not alter 
assumptions made in the safety analysis. The proposed changes are 
consistent with the safety analysis assumptions.
    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 revises the TS definitions of Channel 
Calibration and Channel Functional Test to allow the frequency for 
testing the components or devices in each step to be determined in 
accordance with the TS SFCP. The SFCP assures sufficient safety 
margins are maintained, and that the design, operation, surveillance 
methods, and acceptance criteria specified in applicable codes and 
standards (or alternatives approved for use by the NRC) will 
continue to be met as described in the plants' licensing basis. The 
proposed change does not adversely affect existing plant safety 
margins, or the reliability of the equipment assumed to operate in 
the safety analysis. As such, there are no changes being made to 
safety analysis assumptions, safety limits, or limiting safety 
system settings that would adversely affect plant safety as a result 
of the proposed change. Margins of safety are unaffected by method 
of determining surveillance test intervals under an NRC-approved 
licensee-controlled program.
    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: 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. 50-317 and 50-318, 
Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant (CCNPP), Units 1 and 2, Calvert 
County, Maryland
    Date of amendment request: May 6, 2019. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19127A076.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise 
CCNPP, Units 1 and 2, Technical Specification Limiting Condition for 
Operation 3.4.15, ``RCS [Reactor Coolant System] Specific Activity,'' 
and associated surveillance requirements. The proposed changes would 
replace the current technical specification limit on reactor coolant 
system gross specific activity with a new limit on reactor coolant 
system noble gas specific activity. The noble gas specific activity 
limit would be based on a new definition of ``DOSE EQUIVALENT XE-133'' 
that would replace the current definition of ``[Emacr]-AVERAGE 
DISINTEGRATION ENERGY.'' Also, the current definition of ``DOSE 
EQUIVALENT I-131'' would be revised. The proposed changes are 
consistent with NRC-approved Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) 
Traveler, TSTF-490, Revision 0, ``Deletion of E Bar Definition and 
Revision to RCS Specific Activity Tech Spec.''
    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.
    Reactor coolant specific activity is not an initiator for any 
accident previously evaluated. The Completion Time when primary 
coolant gross activity is not within limit is not an initiator for 
any accident previously evaluated. The current variable limit on 
primary coolant iodine concentration is not an initiator to any 
accident previously evaluated. As a result, the proposed change does 
not significantly increase the probability of an accident. The 
proposed change will limit primary coolant noble gases to 
concentrations consistent with the accident analyses. The proposed 
change to the Completion Time has no impact on the consequences of 
any design basis accident since the consequences of an accident 
during the extended Completion Time are the same as the consequences 
of an accident during the Completion Time. As a result, the 
consequences of any accident previously evaluated are not 
significantly increased.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change in specific activity limits does not alter 
any physical part of the plant nor does it affect any plant 
operating parameter. The change does not create the potential for a 
new or different kind of accident from any previously calculated.

[[Page 31635]]

    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change revises the limits on noble gas 
radioactivity in the primary coolant. The proposed change is 
consistent with the assumptions in the safety analyses and will 
ensure the monitored values protect the initial assumptions in the 
safety analyses. Based upon the reasoning presented above and the 
previous discussion of the amendment request, the requested change 
does not involve a significant hazards consideration.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

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

Florida Power & Light Company, et al., Docket No. 50-389, St. Lucie 
Plant, Unit No. 2, St. Lucie County, Florida

    Date of amendment request: May 20, 2019. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19140A100.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the 
Technical Specifications (TSs) by relocating the requirements for the 
Motor Operated Valve (MOV) Thermal Overload Protection Bypass Devices 
to licensee-controlled documents.
    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 relocates the MOV Thermal Overload 
Protection Bypass Devices requirements to licensee control whereby 
future changes are subject to the regulatory controls of 10 CFR 
50.59. Relocating the MOV Thermal Overload Protection Bypass Devices 
requirements neither affects the physical design of any plant 
structure, system, or component (SSC), nor the manner in which SSCs 
are operated and controlled. MOV thermal overload protection, and 
the need to bypass the protection, do not satisfy the four 10 CFR 
50.36c(2)(ii) criterion for TS inclusion and are thereby appropriate 
for relocation, consistent with the NRC Final Policy Statement on TS 
Improvements. Implementing NRC policies developed to assure 
compliance with applicable regulations cannot adversely affect the 
likelihood or outcome of any design basis accident.
    Therefore, the proposed license amendments would 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 to relocate the MOV Thermal Overload 
Protection Bypass Devices requirements to licensee control does not 
install new plant equipment or modify existing plant equipment or 
modify the manner in which existing plant equipment is operated and 
controlled. Hence no new failures modes can result from the proposed 
change. MOV Thermal Overload Protection and the need to bypass the 
protection during accident conditions are not credited in safety 
analyses and therefore cannot alter or create new inputs, 
assumptions or limits associated with accident analyses. MOV thermal 
overload protection, and the need to bypass the protection, do not 
satisfy the four 10 CFR 50.36c(2)(ii) criterion for TS inclusion and 
are thereby appropriate for relocation consistent with the NRC Final 
Policy Statement on TS Improvements. Implementing NRC policies 
developed to assure compliance with applicable regulations cannot 
create new. or different kinds of accidents.
    Therefore, the proposed license amendments would 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 relocates the MOV Thermal Overload 
Protection Bypass Devices requirements to licensee control whereby 
future changes will be subject to the regulatory controls of 10 CFR 
50.59. The proposed change does not involve changes to any safety 
analyses, safety limits or limiting safety system settings. The 
proposed change does not adversely impact plant operating margins or 
the reliability of equipment credited in safety analyses. The 
proposed change implements the NRC Final Policy Statement on TS 
Improvements for the MOV thermal overload protection bypass devices. 
Implementing NRC policies developed to assure compliance with 
applicable regulations cannot result in a reduction in the margin of 
safety.
    Therefore, the proposed license amendment would not involve a 
significant reduction in the margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Debbie Hendell, Managing Attorney--Nuclear, 
Florida Power & Light Company, 700 Universe Blvd. MS LAW/JB, Juno 
Beach, Florida 33408-0420.
    NRC Branch Chief: Undine Shoop.

NextEra Energy Duane Arnold, LLC, Docket No. 50-331, Duane Arnold 
Energy Center (DAEC), Linn County, Iowa

    Date of amendment request: April 19, 2019. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19109A031.
    Description of amendment request: The licensee proposes to change 
the technical specifications (TSs) for DAEC to permit changes in plant 
operations when the plant is permanently defueled in the fourth quarter 
of 2020. Specifically, the licensee proposes to revise the TSs to 
support the implementation of the certified fuel handler and non-
certified operator positions. In addition, certain organization, 
staffing, and training requirements in the TSs will be revised. The 
proposed amendment would also make other administrative changes.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes do not involve any physical changes to 
plant Structures, Systems, and Components (SSCs) or the manner in 
which SSCs are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. 
The proposed changes do not involve a change to any safety limits, 
limiting safety system settings, limiting control settings, limiting 
conditions for operation, surveillance requirements, or design 
features.
    The deletion and modification of provisions of the 
administrative controls do not directly affect the design of SSCs 
necessary for safe storage of spent irradiated fuel or the methods 
used for handling and storage of such fuel in the Spent Fuel Pool 
(SFP). The proposed changes are administrative in nature and do not 
affect any accidents applicable to the safe management of spent 
irradiated fuel or the permanently shutdown and defueled condition 
of the reactor.
    DAEC's accident analyses are contained in Chapter 15 of the 
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). In a permanently

[[Page 31636]]

defueled condition, the only credible UFSAR described accident that 
remains is the Fuel Handling Accident (FHA). Other Chapter 15 
accidents will no longer be applicable to a permanently defueled 
reactor plant.
    The probability of occurrence of previously evaluated accidents 
is not increased, since extended operation in a permanently defueled 
condition will be the only operation allowed, and therefore, bounded 
by the existing analyses. Additionally, the occurrence of postulated 
accidents associated with reactor operation is no longer credible in 
a permanently defueled reactor. This significantly reduces the scope 
of applicable accidents.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve an increase in 
the probability or consequences of a previously evaluated accident.
    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 changes have no impact on facility SSCs affecting 
the safe storage of the spent irradiated fuel, or on the methods of 
operation of such SSCs, or on the handling and storage of spent 
irradiated fuel itself. The proposed changes do not result in 
different or more adverse failure modes or accidents than previously 
evaluated because the reactor will be permanently shut down and 
defueled and DAEC will no longer be authorized to operate the 
reactor.
    The proposed changes do not affect systems credited in the 
accident analysis for the FHA at DAEC. The proposed changes will 
continue to require proper control and monitoring of safety 
significant parameters and activities.
    The proposed changes do not result in any new mechanisms that 
could initiate damage to the remaining relevant safety barriers in 
support of maintaining the plant in a permanently shutdown and 
defueled condition (e.g., fuel cladding and SFP cooling). Since 
extended operation in a defueled condition will be the only 
operation allowed, and therefore bounded by the existing analyses, 
such a condition does not create the possibility of a new of 
different kind of accident.
    The proposed changes do not alter the protection system design, 
create new failure modes, or change any modes of operation. The 
proposed changes do 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 changes do 
not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident 
from any accident previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes involve adding TS definitions and deleting 
and/or modifying certain TS administrative controls once the DAEC 
facility has been permanently shut down and defueled. As specified 
in 10 CFR 50.82(a)(2), the 10 CFR 50 license for DAEC will no longer 
authorize operation of the reactor or emplacement or retention of 
fuel into the reactor vessel following submittal of the 
certifications required by 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1). As a result, the 
occurrence of certain design basis postulated accidents are no 
longer considered credible when the reactor is permanently defueled.
    The only remaining credible UFSAR described accident is a FHA. 
The proposed changes do not adversely affect the inputs or 
assumptions of any of the design basis analyses that impact the FHA.
    The proposed changes are limited to those portions of the TS 
definitions and administrative controls that are related to the safe 
storage and maintenance of spent irradiated fuel. The requirements 
that are proposed to be revised and/or deleted from the DAEC TS are 
not credited in the existing accident analysis for the remaining 
postulated accident (i.e., FHA); therefore, they do not contribute 
to the margin of safety associated with the accident analysis. 
Certain postulated DBAs [design-basis accidents] involving the 
reactor are no longer possible because the reactor will be 
permanently shut down and defueled and DAEC will no longer be 
authorized to operate the reactor.
    Therefore, the proposed changes have no impact to the margin of 
safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Steven Hamrick, Managing Attorney--Nuclear, 
Florida Power Light Company, P.O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420.
    NRC Acting Branch Chief: Lisa M. Regner.

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: May 10, 2019. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19134A059.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment request proposes 
changes to the Combined License (COL) Numbers NPF-91 and NPF-92 for 
VEGP Units 3 and 4. The requested amendment proposes to delete 
redundant plant-specific emergency planning Inspections, Tests, 
Analyses, and Acceptance Criteria (ITAAC) from VEGP Units 3 and 4 COL 
Appendix C that are bounded by other ITAAC or redundant to document 
submittal regulatory requirements. The proposed changes do not involve 
changes to the approved emergency plan, the plant-specific Tier 2 
Design Control Document, or the VEGP Unit 3 and 4 emergency 
preparedness exercise schedule requirements prescribed in 10 CFR part 
50, Appendix E, Sections IV.F.2.a.ii, IV.F.2.a.iii, IV.F.2.b and 
IV.F.2.c for multi-unit sites.
    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 VEGP Unit 3 and 4 emergency planning Inspections, Tests, 
Analyses, and Acceptance Criteria (ITAAC) provide assurance that the 
facility has been constructed and will be operated in conformity 
with the license, the provisions of the Act, and the Commission's 
rules and regulations. The proposed changes do not affect the design 
of a system, structure, or component (SSC) used to meet the design 
bases of the nuclear plant. The changes do not affect the 
construction or operation of the nuclear plant itself, so there is 
no change to the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated. The deletion of redundant VEGP Unit 3 and 4 
emergency planning ITAAC does not affect prevention and/or 
mitigation of abnormal events (e.g., accidents, anticipated 
operational occurrences, earthquakes, floods, or turbine missiles) 
or the applicable safety and design analyses. No safety-related SSC 
or function is adversely affected. The changes do not involve or 
interface with any SSC accident initiator or initiating sequence of 
events, so the probabilities of the accidents evaluated in the 
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) are not affected.
    The proposed activity will not allow for a new fission product 
release path, nor will it result in a new fission product barrier 
failure mode or create a new sequence of events that would result in 
fuel cladding failures. The changes do not involve any safety-
related SSC or function used to mitigate an accident. Therefore, the 
consequences of accidents previously evaluated in the UFSAR are not 
affected.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The VEGP Unit 3 and 4 emergency planning ITAAC provide assurance 
that the facility has been constructed and will be operated in 
conformity with the license, the provisions of the Act, and the 
Commission's rules and regulations. The deletion of redundant VEGP 
Unit 3 and 4 emergency planning ITAAC does not affect the design of 
a system, structure, or component (SSC) used to meet the design 
bases of the nuclear plant.

[[Page 31637]]

The changes do not affect the construction or operation of any 
systems or equipment such that a new or different kind of accident, 
failure mode, or malfunction is created, or alter any SSC such that 
a new accident initiator or initiating sequence of events is 
created.
    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 VEGP Unit 3 and 4 emergency planning ITAAC provide assurance 
that the facility has been constructed and will be operated in 
conformity with the license, the provisions of the Act, and the 
Commission's rules and regulations. The deletion of redundant VEGP 
Unit 3 and 4 emergency planning ITAAC does not adversely affect 
safety-related equipment or fission product barriers. No safety 
analysis or design basis acceptance limit or criterion is challenged 
or exceeded by the proposed change.
    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., Georgia Power Company, 
Oglethorpe Power Corporation, Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, 
City of Dalton, Georgia, Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366, Edwin I. Hatch 
Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Appling County, Georgia

    Date of amendment request: April 23, 2019. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19113A282.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the 
technical specification (TS) safety limit (SL) on minimum critical 
power ratio (MCPR) to reduce the need for cycle-specific changes to the 
value, while still meeting the regulatory requirement for an SL, by 
adoption of Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-
564, Revision 2, ``Safety Limit MCPR,'' which is an approved change to 
the Improved Standard Technical Specifications, into the Edwin I. Hatch 
Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, TSs.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment revises the TS [safety limit MCPR] SLMCPR 
and the list of core operating limits to be included in the Core 
Operating Limits Report (COLR). The SLMCPR is not an initiator of 
any accident previously evaluated. The revised safety limit values 
continue to ensure for all accidents previously evaluated that the 
fuel cladding will be protected from failure due to transition 
boiling. The proposed change does not affect plant operation or any 
procedural or administrative controls on plant operation that affect 
the functions of preventing or mitigating any accidents previously 
evaluated.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment revises the TS SLMCPR and the list of 
core operating limits to be included in the COLR. The proposed 
change will not affect the design function or operation of any 
structures, systems or components (SSCs). No new equipment will be 
installed. As a result, the proposed change will not create any 
credible new failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident 
initiators not considered 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 amendment revises the TS SLMCPR and the list of 
core operating limits to be included in the COLR. This will result 
in a change to a safety limit, but will not result in a significant 
reduction in the margin of safety provided by the safety limit. As 
discussed in the application, changing the SLMCPR methodology to one 
based on a 95% probability with 95% confidence that no fuel rods 
experience transition boiling during an anticipated transient 
instead of the current limit based on ensuring that 99.9% of the 
fuel rods are not susceptible to boiling transition does not have a 
significant effect on plant response to any analyzed accident. The 
SLMCPR and the TS Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) on MCPR 
continue to provide the same level of assurance as the current 
limits and do not reduce a margin of 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: Millicent Ronnlund, Vice President and 
General Counsel, Southern Nuclear Operating Co., Inc., P.O. Box 1295, 
Birmingham, AL 35201-1295.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

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

[[Page 31638]]

Submitting Comments'' section of this document.

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287, 
Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, Oconee County, South 
Carolina

    Date of amendment request: May 17, 2018, as supplemented by letter 
dated February 26, 2019.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revise Technical 
Specification (TS) 3.8.1, ``AC [Alternating Current] Sources--
Operating,'' by adding a surveillance requirement that verifies the 
ability of the Keowee Hydroelectric Unit auxiliary power system to 
automatically transfer from its normal auxiliary power source to its 
alternate auxiliary power source.
    Date of issuance: June 14, 2019.
    Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 411, 413, and 412. A publicly-available version is 
in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19140A026; documents related to these 
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 
amendments.
    Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-38, DPR-47 and DPR-55: 
Amendments revised the Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 28, 2018 (83 FR 
43904). The supplemental letter dated February 26, 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 June 14, 2019.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Entergy Operations, Inc., System Energy Resources, Inc., Cooperative 
Energy, A Mississippi Electric Cooperative, and Entergy Mississippi, 
LLC, Docket No. 50-416, Grand Gulf Nuclear Station (Grand Gulf), Unit 
1, Claiborne County, Mississippi

    Date of amendment request: April 12, 2018, as supplemented by 
letters dated June 7, 2018, November 30, 2018, and March 6, 2019.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Grand 
Gulf Technical Specifications (TSs) by relocating specific surveillance 
frequencies to a licensee-controlled program with the adoption of 
Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-425, Revision 
3, ``Relocate Surveillance Frequencies to Licensee Control--RITSTF 
[Risk-Informed TSTF] Initiative 5b.'' Additionally, the amendment added 
a new program, the Surveillance Frequency Control Program to TS Chapter 
5.0, ``Administrative Controls.''
    Date of issuance: June 11, 2019.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No: 219. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML19094A799; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-29: The amendment 
revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical 
Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 31, 2018 (83 FR 
36975). The supplemental letters dated November 30, 2018, and March 6, 
2019, provided additional information that clarified the application, 
did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and 
did not change the NRC staff's original proposed no significant hazards 
consideration determination as published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 11, 2019.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-219, Oyster Creek Nuclear 
Generating Station (Oyster Creek), Ocean County, New Jersey

    Date of amendment request: October 22, 2018, as supplemented by 
letters dated November 6, 2018, and February 13, 2019.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the effective 
and implementation dates of Amendment No. 294 for the Oyster Creek 
Permanently Defueled Emergency Plan (PDEP) and Emergency Action Level 
(EAL) scheme for the permanently defueled condition.
    Date of issuance: June 11, 2019.
    Effective date: As of June 29, 2019, and shall be implemented 
within 30 days of the effective date.
    Amendment No.: 296. A publicly available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML19098A258; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-16: The amendment 
revised the Renewed Facility Operating License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 18, 2018 (83 
FR 64894). The supplemental letter dated February 13, 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 June 11, 2019.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-461, Clinton Power 
Station (CPS), Unit No. 1, DeWitt County, Illinois

    Date of amendment request: September 17, 2018. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18260A307.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment recaptured low-power 
testing time to extend the full-power operating license (FPOL) to 
expire on April 17, 2027, instead of the current expiration date of 
September 29, 2026.
    Date of issuance: June 12, 2019.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No: 224. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML19109A001; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-62: The amendment revised the 
Facility Operating License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 31, 2019 (84 FR 
813).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 12, 2019.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Northern States Power Company--Minnesota, Docket Nos. 50-282 and 50-
306, Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, Goodhue 
County, Minnesota

    Date of amendment request: June 26, 2018.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendments revised TS 1.3, 
``Completion Times'' Example 1.3-3, TS 3.6.5, ``Containment Spray and 
Cooling Systems,'' TS 3.7.5, ``Auxiliary Feedwater (AFW) System,'' TS 
3.7.8,

[[Page 31639]]

``Cooling Water (CL) System,'' TS 3.8.1, ``AC Sources--Operating,'' and 
TS 3.8.9, ``Distribution Systems--Operating'' by eliminating the second 
completion time in accordance with Technical Specifications Task Force 
(TSTF)-439, Revision 2, ``Eliminate Second Completion Times Limiting 
Time from Discovery of Failure to Meet an LCO [limiting condition for 
operation].''
    Date of issuance: June 6, 2019.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 227-Unit 1; 215-Unit 2. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19128A133; documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with 
the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-42 and DPR-60: The 
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and 
Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 14, 2018 (83 FR 
40351)
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 6, 2019.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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: September 27, 2018.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendments revised Surveillance 
Requirement 4.7.7.b of TS Section \3/4\.7.7, ``Control Room Makeup and 
Cleanup Filtration System,'' to operate for at least 15 continuous 
minutes at a frequency controlled in accordance with the Surveillance 
Frequency Control Program by adoption of Technical Specifications Task 
Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-522, Revision 0, ``Revise Ventilation System 
Surveillance Requirements to Operate for 10 Hours per Month.'' The NRC 
approved TSTF-522, Revision 0, as a part of the consolidated line item 
improvement process on September 20, 2012 (77 FR 58421).
    Date of issuance: June 6, 2019.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: Unit 1--215; Unit 2--201. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19067A222; documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with 
the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-76 and NPF-80: The 
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and 
Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 2, 2019 (84 FR 
25)
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 6, 2019.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 50-391, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, 
Unit 2, Rhea County, Tennessee

    Date of amendment request: May 14, 2018, as supplemented by letter 
dated November 8, 2018.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical 
Specifications to implement a voltage-based alternate repair criteria 
(ARC) for degraded steam generator (SG) tubes in the Unit 2 
Westinghouse Model D3 SGs. The ARC follow the guidelines set forth in 
NRC Generic Letter 95-05, ``Voltage-Based Criteria for Westinghouse 
Steam Generator Tubes Affected by Outside Diameter Stress Corrosion 
Cracking.''
    Date of issuance: June 3, 2019.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 28. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML19063B721; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-96: Amendment revised the 
Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 20, 2018 (83 
FR 58618). The supplemental letter dated November 8, 2018, provided 
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand 
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change 
the NRC staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination as published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 23, 2019.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-390 and 50-391, Watts Bar 
Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Rhea County, Tennessee

    Date of amendment request: February 28, 2018, as supplemented by 
letters dated November 9, 2018, and March 21, 2019.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendments revised Technical 
Specification 3.8.9 to add a new Condition C with an 8-hour completion 
time for performing maintenance on the opposite unit's vital bus when 
the opposite unit is in Mode 5, Mode 6, or defueled.
    Date of issuance: June 7, 2019.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 126 and 29. A publicly-available version is in 
ADAMS under Accession No. ML19098A774; documents related to these 
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 
amendments.
    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-90 and NPF-96: Amendments 
revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 20, 2018 (83 
FR 58619). The supplemental letters dated November 9, 2018, and March 
21, 2019, provided additional information that clarified the 
application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally 
noticed, and did not change the NRC staff's original proposed no 
significant hazards consideration determination as published in the 
Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 7, 2019.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

United States Maritime Administration (MARAD), Docket No. 50-238, 
Nuclear Ship SAVANNAH (NSS), Baltimore, Maryland

    Date of application for amendment: June 19, 2018.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical 
Specifications to establish and incorporate reporting requirements for 
a Process Control Program, an Offsite Dose Calculation Manual, a 
Radioactive Effluent Controls Program, and a Radiological Environmental 
Monitoring Program.
    Date of issuance: June 18, 2019.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days.
    Amendment No.: 17. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML19085A482. The Commission's related evaluation of the 
amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated November 26, 2018.
    Facility Operating License No. NS-1: This amendment revises the 
Technical Specifications of the License.

[[Page 31640]]

    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 14, 2018 (83 FR 
40352).
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: March 2, 2018, as supplemented by letter 
dated October 25, 2018.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the Surry 
Power Station (SPS), Unit Nos. 1 and 2 Technical Specifications 
consistent with Revision 0 to the Technical Specification Task Force 
(TSTF) Traveler, TSTF-490, ``Deletion of E Bar Definition and Revision 
to RCS [reactor coolant system] Specific Activity Tech Spec.'' The 
amendments adopted TSTF-490, Revision 0, and made associated changes, 
which included replacing the current limits on primary coolant gross 
specific activity with limits on primary coolant noble gas specific 
activity. The amendments also updated the Alternative Source Term (AST) 
analyses bases for new codes, revised atmospheric dispersion factors, 
new fuel handling accident fuel rod gap fractions and control room 
isolation operator action time, and elimination of the locked rotor 
accident dose consequences.
    Date of issuance: June 12, 2019.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 295 and 295. A publicly-available version is in 
ADAMS under Accession No. ML19028A384; documents related to these 
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 
amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-32 and DPR-37: 
Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and 
Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 19, 2018, 83 FR 
28465. The supplemental letter dated October 25, 2018 provided 
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand 
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change 
the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination as published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 12, 2019.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 26th day of June 2019.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Blake D. Welling,
Acting Deputy Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office 
of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2019-14001 Filed 7-1-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7590-01-P