[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 204 (Tuesday, October 22, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56478-56486]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-22720]
[[Page 56478]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2019-0201]
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 September 24, 2019 to October 8, 2019. The
last biweekly notice was published on October 8, 2019.
DATES: Comments must be filed by November 21, 2019. A request for a
hearing must be filed by December 23, 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-2019-0201. Address
questions about NRC docket IDs in Regulations.gov to Anne Frost;
telephone: 301-287-9232; 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-2019-0201, 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-2019-0201.
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-2019-0201, 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.
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 56479]]
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 https://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 56480]]
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 https://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 https://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 https://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 https://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.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. STN 50-456 and STN 50-457,
Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, Will County, Illinois
Date of amendment request: September 11, 2019. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19254D105.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the
technical specification surveillance requirements ultimate heat sink
inventory verification from a level-based to a volume-based
verification.
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 a Technical Specifications
Surveillance Requirement to replace the requirement to verify bottom
level of the Ultimate Heat Sink (UHS) with a requirement to verify
the volume of the UHS. The design basis inventory requirement is
unchanged; the change only pertains to the method of inventory
verification. The UHS is not an initiator of any accident 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 change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of
[[Page 56481]]
accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises a Technical Specifications
Surveillance Requirement to replace the requirement to verify bottom
level of the Ultimate Heat Sink (UHS) with a requirement to verify
the volume of the UHS. 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 change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment revises a Technical Specifications
Surveillance Requirement to replace the requirement to verify bottom
level of the Ultimate Heat Sink (UHS) with a requirement to verify
the volume of the UHS. The volume of the UHS is already a
requirement of the design analysis. This change modifies the method
of verifying the volume, however, it does not change the required
volume documented in the analysis of record.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in the margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel,
Exelon Nuclear, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Lisa M. Regner.
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket No. 50-346,
Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 1 (DBNPS), Ottawa County,
Ohio
Date of amendment request: August 26, 2019. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Package Accession No. ML19241A267.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would
revise the technical specification (TS) requirements for the
containment leakage rate testing program. Specifically, the licensee is
requesting to use the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) topical report NEI
94-01, Revision 3-A, ``Industry Guideline for Implementing Performance-
Based Option of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix J'' (ADAMS Accession No.
ML12221A202), and the limitations and conditions specified in NEI 94-
01, Revision 2-A (ADAMS Accession No. ML100620847), for Type A and Type
B containment leak rate testing. The proposed amendment would allow
extension of the Type A test interval up to one test in 15 years, based
on acceptable performance history as defined in NEI 94-01, Revision 3-
A.
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 test interval extensions do not involve either a
physical change to the plant or a change in the way 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 Type A test frequency to once-per-fifteen years,
measured as an increase to the total integrated plant risk for those
accident sequences influenced by Type A testing, based on the
internal events probabilistic risk analysis is 0.016 person-Roentgen
Equivalent Man (rem) per year. In Section 3.2.4.6, ``Acceptance
Guidelines,'' of the final safety evaluation for NEI 94-01, Revision
2, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff concluded that for the
purposes of assessing the risk impacts of the Type A test extension
in accordance with the Electric Power Research Institute Report
Number 1009325, Revision 2, methodology, a small increase in
population dose should be defined as an increase in population dose
of less than or equal to 1.0 person-rem per year or less than or
equal to 1 percent of the total population dose, whichever is less
restrictive. The risk impact for the integrated leak rate test
interval extension when compared to other severe accident risks is
negligible.
As documented in the NRC technical support document NUREG-1493,
``Performance-Based Containment Leak-Test Program,'' dated September
1995, Type B and Type C testing can detect a very large percentage
of containment leakages, and the percentage of containment leakages
that can be detected only by Type A testing is very small. The DBNPS
Type A test history supports this conclusion.
Based on the above paragraphs, the proposed test interval
extensions do not involve a significant increase in the probability
of an accident previously evaluated.
The overall containment leak rate limit is maintained with the
proposed test interval extension changes. Since the proposed changes
do not result in a significant increase in containment leakage, the
changes do not involve a significant increase in the consequences of
a previously evaluated accident.
Therefore, the proposed change does not result in a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The 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 alter the design or configuration of the plant (that
is, no physical change will be made to the plant and no new or
different type of equipment will be installed), nor does the
proposed change alter the manner in which the plant is operated or
controlled.
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.
This amendment does not alter the way safety limits, limiting
safety system set points, or limiting conditions for operation are
determined. The specific requirements and conditions of the
Technical Specification 5.5.15, ``Containment Leakage 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 is
maintained. The design, operation, testing methods and acceptance
criteria for Type A and B containment leakage tests specified in
applicable codes and standards would continue to be met, with the
acceptance of this proposed amendment, since they are not affected
by implementation of a performance-based containment testing
program.
The combination of the above factors ensures that the margin of
safety in the plant safety analysis 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: Rick Giannantonio, General Counsel,
FirstEnergy Corporation, Mail Stop A-
[[Page 56482]]
GO-15, 76 South Main Street, Akron, OH 44308.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Lisa M. Regner.
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026,
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4, Burke County, Georgia
Date of amendment request: August 16, 2019. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19228A241.
Description of amendment request: The amendment request proposes to
depart from Tier 2 information in the Updated Final Safety Analysis
Report (UFSAR) (that includes plant-specific Design Control Document
Tier 2 information). Specifically, the amendment request proposes
changes to the UFSAR reflecting changes to the evaluation of the
auxiliary building main steam safety valve vent stack openings and the
auxiliary building Wall 11 openings for protection from tornado-
generated missiles.
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, that is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not adversely affect the operation of
any systems or equipment inside or outside the auxiliary building
that could initiate or mitigate abnormal events, e.g., accidents,
anticipated operational occurrences, earthquakes, floods, tornado
missiles, and turbine missiles, or their safety or design analyses,
evaluated in the UFSAR. The changes do not adversely affect any
design function of the auxiliary building or the systems and
equipment contained therein. The ability of the affected auxiliary
building MSIV [main steam isolation valve] compartments to withstand
the pressurization effects from the design basis pipe rupture is not
adversely affected because the alternate relief paths are available.
MSIV compartment temperature following the limiting pipe rupture
remain acceptably within the envelope for environmental
qualification of equipment in the compartments. The credit of the
turbine building and annex building structures, equipment, and
components to protect Wall 11 openings from the automobile tornado
missile continues to provide adequate protection of structures,
systems, and components (SSCs) required to safely shut down the
plant. Case-by-case evaluations for the main steam vent stacks and
Wall 11 openings for tornado generated missiles demonstrate that
safe shutdown is accomplished.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not change the design function of the
auxiliary building or of any of the systems or equipment in the
auxiliary building or elsewhere within the nuclear island structure.
These proposed changes do not introduce any new equipment or
components that would result in a new failure mode, malfunction or
sequence of events that could affect safety-related or non-safety-
related equipment. This activity will not allow for a new fission
product release path, result in a new fission product barrier
failure mode, or create a new sequence of events that would result
in significant fuel cladding failures.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The margin of safety of the design of the auxiliary building is
maintained through continued use of the current codes and standards
as stated in the UFSAR and adherence to the assumptions used in the
analyses of this structure and the events associated with this
structure. The auxiliary building will continue to maintain a
seismic Category I rating which preserves the current structural
safety margins. The 3-hour fire rating requirements for the impacted
auxiliary building walls are maintained. The ability of the affected
auxiliary building MSIV compartments to withstand the pressurization
effects from the design basis pipe rupture is not adversely affected
because the alternate relief paths are available. The credit of the
turbine building and annex building structures, equipment, and
components to protect Wall 11 openings from the automobile tornado
missile continues to provide adequate protection of structures,
systems, and components (SSCs) required to safely shut down the
plant. Case-by-case evaluations for the main steam vent stacks and
Wall 11 openings for tornado generated missiles demonstrate that
safe shutdown is accomplished. Thus, the requested changes will not
adversely affect any safety-related equipment, design code,
function, design analysis, safety analysis input or result, or
design/safety margin. No safety analysis or design basis acceptance
limit/criterion is challenged or exceeded by the requested change,
thus no margin of safety is reduced.
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.
Susquehanna Nuclear, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-387 and 50-388, Susquehanna
Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: July 15, 2019. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19196A270.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the
technical specifications to allow application of advanced Framatome
methodologies for determining core operating limits in support of
loading fuel type ATRIUM 11.
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, along with NRC edits in square
brackets:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The probability of an evaluated accident is derived from the
probabilities of the individual precursors to that accident. The
proposed change revises the list of NRC-approved analytical methods
used to establish core operating limits, adjusts the low pressure SL
[safety limit], and eliminates neutronic methods penalties on OPRM
[Oscillation Power Range Monitor] amplitude setpoint, pin power
distribution uncertainty, and bundle power correlation coefficient.
The change does not require any physical plant modifications,
physically affect any plant components, or entail changes in plant
operation. Since no individual precursors of an accident are
affected, the proposed amendments do not increase the probability of
a previously analyzed event.
The consequences of an evaluated accident are determined by the
operability of plant systems designed to mitigate those
consequences. The proposed change revises the list of NRC-approved
analytical methods used to establish core operating limits, adjusts
the low pressure SL, and eliminates neutronic methods penalties on
OPRM amplitude setpoint, pin power distribution uncertainty, and
bundle power correlation coefficient. The changes in methodology do
not alter the assumptions of accident analyses. Based on the above,
the proposed amendments do not increase the consequences of a
previously analyzed accident.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
[[Page 56483]]
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
Creation of the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident requires creating one or more new accident precursors. New
accident precursors may be created by modifications of plant
configuration, including changes in allowable modes of operation.
The proposed change revises the list of NRC-approved analytical
methods used to establish core operating limits, adjusts the low
pressure SL, and eliminates neutronic methods penalties on OPRM
amplitude setpoint, pin power distribution uncertainty, and bundle
power correlation coefficient. The proposed amendments do not
involve any plant configuration modifications or changes to
allowable modes of operation thereby ensuring no new accident
precursors are created.
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 revises the list of NRC-approved analytical
methods used to establish core operating limits, adjusts the low
pressure SL, and eliminates neutronic methods penalties on OPRM
amplitude setpoint, pin power distribution uncertainty, and bundle
power correlation coefficient. The proposed change will ensure that
the current level of fuel protection is maintained by continuing to
ensure that the fuel design safety criteria are met. The proposed
changes will not impact the capabilities of the existing NRC-
approved CPR [Critical Power Ratio] correlations and ensure valid
CPR calculations including applicable uncertainties for AOOs
[Anticipated Operational Occurrence] defined in the FSAR [Final
Safety Analysis Report]. The proposed amendment would have no impact
on the structural integrity of the fuel cladding, reactor coolant
pressure boundary, or containment structure. Based on the above
considerations, the proposed amendment would not degrade the
confidence in the ability of the fission product barriers to limit
the level of radiation to the public.
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: Damon D. Obie, Associate General Counsel,
Talen Energy Supply, LLC, 835 Hamilton St., Suite 150, Allentown, PA
18101.
NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna.
Susquehanna Nuclear, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-387 and 50-388, Susquehanna
Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: July 15, 2019. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19196A270.
Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the
technical specification definition of ``Shutdown Margin'' (SDM) to
require calculation of the SDM at a reactor moderator temperature of 68
degrees Fahrenheit or a higher temperature that represents the most
reactive state throughout the operating cycle. The proposed changes are
based on Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-535,
Revision 0, ``Revise Shutdown Margin Definition to Address Advanced
Fuel Designs.''
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, along with NRC edits in square
brackets:
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 the definition of SDM. SDM is not an
initiator of any accident previously evaluated. Accordingly, the
proposed change to the definition of SDM has no effect on the
probability of any accident previously evaluated. SDM is an
assumption in the analysis of some previously evaluated accidents
and inadequate SDM could lead to an increase in the consequences for
those accidents. However, the proposed change revises the SDM
definition to ensure that the correct SDM is determined for all fuel
types at all times during the fuel cycle. As a result, the proposed
change does not adversely affect the consequences of any accident
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 change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change revises the definition of SDM. The 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 normal plant operations. The change does not alter
the assumptions made in the safety analysis regarding SDM.
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 revises the definition of SDM. The proposed
change does not alter the manner in which SLs [safety limits],
limiting safety system settings or limiting conditions for operation
are determined. The proposed change ensures that the SDM assumed in
determining SLs, limiting safety system settings, or limiting
conditions for operation is correct for all BWR [Boiling Water
Reactor] fuel types at all times during the fuel cycle.
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: Damon D. Obie, Associate General Counsel,
Talen Energy Supply, LLC, 835 Hamilton St., Suite 150, Allentown, PA
18101.
NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna.
Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation, Docket No. 50-482, Wolf Creek
Generating Station, Unit 1, Coffey County, Kansas
Date of amendment request: August 29, 2019. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19247C062.
Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise
Technical Specification (TS) 3.7.5, ``Auxiliary Feedwater (AFW)
System,'' to add additional conditions to the limiting conditions for
operation such that one supply of essential service water (ESW) to the
turbine-driven AFW (TDAFW) pump can be inoperable for up to 72 hours
while still considering the TDAFW pump train operable.
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 allows the TDAFW pump to remain operable for
up to 72 hours with one ESW supply isolated. This is consistent with
the allowed outage time for one AFW train being inoperable, and for
one train of ESW being inoperable. These systems are not accident
initiators (i.e., their malfunction cannot initiate an accident or
transient). As there are no modifications to
[[Page 56484]]
the plant or change in plant control systems, this change would not
significantly increase accident probability. Since the change is
consistent with existing allowed outage times of either one AFW
train or one ESW train, the consequences of a secondary system pipe
break accident are bounded by the current analyses as documented in
the Updated Safety Analysis Report. As a result, the proposed change
does not alter assumptions relative to the mitigation of an accident
or transient event.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change allows the TDAFW pump to remain operable for
up to 72 hours with one ESW supply isolated. This is consistent with
the allowed outage time for one AFW train being inoperable, and for
one train of ESW being inoperable. With respect to any new or
different kind of accident, there are no proposed design changes nor
are there any changes in the method by which any safety-related
plant structures, systems, or components performs their specified
safety function. The proposed change will not affect the normal
method of plant operation or change any operating parameters. No new
accident scenarios, transient precursors, failure mechanisms, or
limiting single failures will be introduced as a result of this
amendment.
Therefore, the proposed change will 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 allows the TDAFW pump to remain operable for
up to 72 hours with one ESW supply isolated. This is consistent with
the. allowed outage time for AFW train being inoperable, and for one
train of ESW being inoperable. The proposed change does not
adversely affect any current plant safety margins, or the
reliability of the equipment assumed in the safety analysis.
Therefore, there are no changes being made to any safety analysis
assumptions, safety limits or limiting safety system settings that
would adversely affect plant safety as a result of the proposed
change.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in the margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Jay Silberg, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw
Pittman LLP, 1200 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20036.
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 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: February 12, 2018, as supplemented by
letters dated August 8, 2018, and August 23, 2018.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the Duke
Energy Physical Security Plan for Oconee Nuclear Station to include
additional protective measures during a specific infrequent short-term
operating state, including a modification that provides additional
access restriction.
Date of issuance: September 30, 2019.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 1 year of receipt of all external agency approvals.
Amendment Nos.: 414 (Unit 1), 416 (Unit 2), and 415 (Unit 3). A
publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19056A086;
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: The
amendments revised the Duke Energy Physical Security Plan.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 2, 2018 (83 FR
49590). The supplemental letter dated August 23, 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 and public
comments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated September 30, 2019.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: Yes.
Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Docket No. 50-261, H. B. Robinson Steam
Electric Plant, Unit No. 2, Darlington County, South Carolina
Date of amendment request: April 5, 2018, as supplemented by
letters dated June 6, 2018, November 13, 2018, and May 6, 2019.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment added a new license
condition to the renewed facility operating license to permit the
implementation of 10 CFR 50.69, ``Risk-informed categorization and
treatment of structures, systems and components for nuclear power
reactors.''
Date of issuance: September 24, 2019.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days of issuance.
Amendment No.: 266. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML19205A289; documents related to the amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-23: The amendment
revised the renewed facility operating license.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 5, 2018 (83 FR
26101).
[[Page 56485]]
The supplemental letters dated June 6, 2018, November 13, 2018, and May
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 September 24, 2019.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-325 and 50-324, Brunswick
Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, Brunswick County, North Carolina
Date of amendment request: August 14, 2018, as supplemented by
letters dated February 8, 2019, and May 16, 2019.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments adopted Technical
Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-439, ``Eliminate Second
Completion Times Limiting Time from Discovery of Failure to Meet an LCO
[Limiting Condition for Operation].'' The change deleted second
completion times from the affected required actions contained in the
technical specifications (TSs), removed the example contained in TS
Section 1.3, and added a discussion about alternating between
conditions.
Date of issuance: September 23, 2019.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 120 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 293 (Unit 1) and 321 (Unit 2). A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19233A073; 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 TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 9, 2018 (83 FR
50695). The letters dated February 8 and May 16, 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 September 23, 2019.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-313, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit
1, Pope County, Arkansas
Date of amendment request: December 19, 2018, as supplemented by
letter dated June 18, 2019.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Arkansas
Nuclear One, Unit 1, technical specifications (TSs) to adopt Technical
Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-567, Revision 1, ``Add
Containment Sump TS to Address GSI [Generic Safety Issue]-191 Issues.''
Date of issuance: September 27, 2019.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 266. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML19220A938; documents related to this amendment are
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-51: Amendment revised
the renewed facility operating license and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 26, 2019 (84
FR 6179). The supplemental letter dated June 18, 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 September 27, 2019.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-461, Clinton Power
Station, Unit No. 1, DeWitt County, Illinois
Date of amendment request: September 28, 2018.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment changed technical
specifications (TSs) to be consistent with NRC-approved Industry
Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Standard Technical
Specification Change Traveler, TSTF-476, Revision 1. The availability
of this TS improvement was announced in the Federal Register on May 23,
2007 (72 FR 29004).
Date of issuance: September 30, 2019.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment No.: 226. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML19238A308. Documents related to the amendment are
listed in the related Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
Facility Operating License No. NPF-62: The amendment revised the
license and the TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 20, 2018 (83
FR 58611).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 30, 2019.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353, Limerick
Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania
Date of amendment request: October 19, 2018.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the
Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, technical specification
(TS) requirements for inoperable isolation actuation instrumentation to
allow for isolation of the flow path(s) that penetrate the primary
containment boundary instead of requiring closure of specific primary
containment isolation valves. The amendments also clarified the TS
action for inoperable isolation actuation instrumentation for the
reactor enclosure manual isolation function.
Date of issuance: October 3, 2019.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days.
Amendment Nos.: 237 (Unit 1) and 200 (Unit 2). A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19207A006; documents related
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with
the amendments.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-39 and NPF-85: The
amendments revised the renewed facility operating licenses and TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 18, 2018 (83
FR 64893).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated October 3, 2019.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
[[Page 56486]]
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.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments consist of changes
to the plant-specific emergency planning (EP) Inspections, Tests,
Analyses, and Acceptance Criteria (ITAAC) in Appendix C of the VEGP
Units 3 and 4 combined licenses (COLs). The amendments revised COL
Appendix C of the VEGP Units 3 and 4 COLs, by deleting redundant plant-
specific EP ITAAC that were either bounded by other ITAAC or were
redundant to document submittal regulatory requirements.
Date of issuance: September 5, 2019.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 163 (Unit 3) and 161 (Unit 4). A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Package Accession No. ML19213A288; documents
related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation
enclosed with the amendments.
Facility Combined Licenses Nos. NPF-91 and NPF-92: The amendments
revised the facility COLs.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 2, 2019 (84 FR
31629).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 5, 2019.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day of October, 2019.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Craig G. Erlanger,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2019-22720 Filed 10-21-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P