Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations, 62618-62626 [2018-25728]

Agencies

• NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 233 (Tuesday, December 4, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62618-62626]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-25728]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2018-0269]


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 November 6, 2018, to November 19, 2018. The 
last biweekly notice was published on November 20, 2018.

DATES: Comments must be filed by January 3, 2019. A request for a 
hearing must be filed by February 4, 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-2018-0269. Address 
questions about Docket IDs in Regulations.gov to Jennifer Borges; 
telephone: 301-287-9127; email: [email protected]. For technical 
questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT section of this document.
     Mail comments to: May Ma, Office of Administration, Mail 
Stop: TWFN-7-A60M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001.
    For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting 
comments, see ``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' in the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lynn Ronewicz, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1927, email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments

A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2018-0269, 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-2018-0269.
     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-2018-0269, 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 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 62619]]

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 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

[[Page 62620]]

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 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 
application(s), see the application for amendment which is available 
for public inspection in ADAMS and at the NRC's PDR. For additional 
direction on accessing

[[Page 62621]]

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

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

    Date of amendment request: September 4, 2018. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18247A467.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise 
Emergency Action Levels (EALs) CA6.1, ``Cold Shutdown/Refueling System 
Malfunction--Hazardous event affecting a SAFETY SYSTEM needed for the 
current operating MODE: Alert,'' and SA9.1, ``System Malfunction--
Hazardous event affecting a SAFETY SYSTEM needed for the current 
operating MODE: Alert.'' The amendment would also add a new definition 
for the term ``Loss of Safety Function (LOSF),'' while redefining the 
term ``Visible Damage,'' and deleting the term Initiating Condition 
(IC) HG1 and associated EAL HG1.1, ``Hazard--Hostile Action resulting 
in loss of physical control of the facility: General Emergency,'' 
within the Callaway Plant's Radiological Emergency Response Plan 
(RERP).
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes to the Callaway Plant emergency action 
levels do not impact the physical function of plant structures, 
systems, or components (SSC) or the manner in which SSCs perform 
their design function. The proposed changes have no effect on 
accident initiators or precursors, nor do they alter design 
assumptions. The proposed changes do not alter or prevent the 
ability of SSCs to perform their intended function to mitigate the 
consequences of an initiating event within assumed acceptance 
limits. No operating procedures or administrative controls that 
function to prevent or mitigate accidents are affected by the 
proposed changes. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes do not involve a physical alteration of the 
plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be 
installed, and no equipment will be removed), nor do the proposed 
changes involve a change in the method of plant operation. The 
proposed changes will not introduce failure modes that could result 
in a new accident, nor do the changes alter assumptions made in the 
safety analysis. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    There is no change being made to safety analysis assumptions, 
safety limits, or limiting safety system settings that would 
adversely affect plant safety as a result of the proposed changes. 
There are no changes to setpoints or environmental conditions of any 
SSC or the mariner in which any SSC is operated. Margins of safety 
are unaffected by the proposed changes. The applicable requirements 
of 10 CFR 50.47 and 10 CFR 50, Appendix E will continue to be met. 
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve any reduction in a 
margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: John O'Neill, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw 
Pittman LLP, 2300 N Street NW, Washington, DC 20037.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323, Diablo 
Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2 (DCPP), San Luis Obispo 
County, California

    Date of amendment request: September 12, 2018. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18255A368.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would 
revise the Emergency Plan for DCPP to extend staff augmentation times 
for Emergency Response Organization (ERO) functions.
    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 increase in staff augmentation times has no effect 
on normal plant operation or on any accident initiator or precursors 
and does not impact the function of plant structures, systems, or 
components. The proposed change does not alter or prevent the 
ability of the ERO to perform their intended functions to mitigate 
the consequences of an accident or event. The ability of the ERO to 
respond adequately to radiological emergencies has been demonstrated 
as acceptable in a staffing analysis as required by 10 CFR 50 
Appendix E.IV.A.9.
    Therefore, the proposed DCPP Emergency Plan changes do not 
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of 
an accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not impact the accident analysis. The 
change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no 
new or different type of equipment will be installed), a change in 
the method of plant operation, or new operator actions. The proposed 
change does not introduce failure modes that could result in a new 
accident, and the change does not alter assumptions made in the 
safety analysis. This proposed change increases the staff 
augmentation response times in the DCPP Emergency Plan, which are 
demonstrated as acceptable through a staffing analysis as required 
by 10 CFR 50 Appendix E.IV.A.9. The proposed change does not alter 
or prevent the ability of the ERO to perform their intended 
functions to mitigate the consequences of an accident or event.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    Margin of safety is associated with confidence in the ability of 
the fission product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, reactor coolant 
system pressure boundary, and containment structure) to limit the 
level of radiation dose to the public. The proposed change is 
associated with the DCPP Emergency Plan staffing and does not impact 
operation of the plant or its response to transients or accidents. 
The change does not affect the Technical Specifications. The 
proposed change does not involve a change in the method of plant 
operation, and no accident analyses will be affected by the proposed 
change. Safety analysis acceptance criteria are not affected by this 
proposed change.
    A staffing analysis and a functional analysis were performed for 
the proposed change on the timeliness of performing major tasks for 
the functional areas of the DCPP Emergency Plan. The analyses 
concluded that an extension in staff augmentation times would not 
significantly affect the ability to perform the required Emergency 
Plan tasks. Therefore, the proposed change is determined to not 
adversely affect the ability to meet 10 CFR 50.54(q)(2), the 
requirements of 10 CFR 50 Appendix E, and the emergency

[[Page 62622]]

planning standards as described in 10 CFR 50.47 (b).
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Jennifer Post, Pacific Gas and Electric 
Company, P.O. Box 7442, San Francisco, CA 94120.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.

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

    Date of amendment request: June 29, 2018. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18180A396.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the 
Technical Specification (TS) requirements for the Hatch Nuclear Plant, 
Unit Nos. 1 and 2. Specifically, the amendments would increase the 
allowable values (AV) specified in TS Table 3.3.5.1-1 for automatic 
transfer of the high pressure coolant injection (HPCI) pump suction 
alignment from the condensate storage tank (CST) to the suppression 
pool for Unit Nos. 1 and 2. The proposed change would also increase the 
AV specified in TS Table 3.3.5.2-1 for automatic transfer of the 
reactor core isolation cooling (RCIC) pump suction alignment from the 
CST to the suppression pool for Unit No. 1.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change ensures the HPCI and RCIC pump automatic 
suction transfer functions from the CST to the suppression pool 
occur without introducing the possibility of vortex formation or air 
intrusion in the HPCI or RCIC pump suction path. The water level of 
the CST on automatic suction transfer of the HPCI and RCIC systems 
to the suppression pool is not an initiator or precursor to any 
accident previously evaluated. The CST water source is not assumed 
to mitigate the consequences for any design basis accident, but is 
assumed as a water source for the RCIC when mitigating a station 
blackout event. The revised AV will ensure the RCIC can perform this 
function.
    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 ensures the HPCI and RCIC pump automatic 
suction transfer functions from the CST to the suppression pool 
occur without introducing the possibility of vortex formation or air 
intrusion in the HPCI or RCIC pump suction path. HPCI, RCIC, and CST 
design functions are unaffected by this change. The change to the 
HPCI and RCIC automatic suction transfer functions would not create 
the possibility of any credible failure mechanism not considered in 
the design and licensing basis. Additionally, no new credible 
failure modes for the CST are introduced by the proposed changes.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change ensures the HPCI and RCIC pump automatic 
suction transfer functions from the CST to the suppression pool 
occur without introducing the possibility of vortex formation or air 
intrusion in the HPCI or RCIC pump suction path. The applicable 
margins of safety are the AVs for the HPCI and RCIC pump automatic 
suction transfer functions. The proposed change increases the margin 
of safety by revising the affected AVs to address more severe 
circumstances than considered in the current AVs. The proposed 
change does not exceed or alter a design basis or safety limit.
    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: Millicent Ronnlund, Vice President and 
General Counsel, Southern Nuclear Operating Co., Inc., P.O. Box 1295, 
Birmingham, AL 35201-1295.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.; Georgia Power Company; 
Oglethorpe Power Corporation; Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia; 
and 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: August 6, 2018. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18218A297.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the 
technical specification (TS) end state for the required actions of the 
drywell spray function of the residual heat removal system for the 
Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2. Specifically, TS 3.6.2.5, 
``Residual Heat Removal (RHR) Drywell Spray,'' would be revised to 
modify the required end state of Cold Shutdown (Mode 4) to the new 
required end state of Hot Shutdown (Mode 3) if the needed action 
statements are not met for Unit Nos. 1 and 2.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below, with NRC staff edits in square 
brackets:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The RHR drywell spray function is not an initiator of any 
accident previously evaluated but is assumed to mitigate some 
accidents previously evaluated. However, the proposed change does 
not alter the design or safety function of the RHR system, including 
the drywell spray mode. The proposed change revises the end state 
when the time allowed by TS to continue operation is exceeded for 
the drywell spray mode of the RHR system. This request is limited to 
an end state where entry into the shutdown mode is for a short 
interval and the primary purpose is to correct the initiating 
condition and return to power operation as soon as practical. Risk 
insights from both the qualitative and quantitative risk assessment 
were used to support a change in end state for similar boiling water 
reactor (BWR) systems as summarized in GE [General Electric] topical 
report NEDC-32988. These assessments provide an integrated 
discussion of deterministic and probabilistic issues focusing on 
specific TSs used to support similar TS end states and associated 
restrictions. SNC [Southern Nuclear Operating Company] finds that 
the risk insights also support the conclusion of the proposed change 
to the RHR drywell spray TS. Therefore, the probability of an 
accident previously evaluated is not significantly increased, if at 
all.
    The consequences of accidents previously evaluated that assume 
the drywell spray

[[Page 62623]]

function in accident mitigation are based on the plant operating 
with the reactor critical and at power. A DBA in hot shutdown would 
be considerably less severe than a DBA [design-basis accident] 
occurring during power operation since hot shutdown is associated 
with lower initial energy level and reduced decay heat load. The 
risk and defense-in-depth reasoning, provided in GE topical report 
NEDC-32988, supports the conclusion that hot shutdown is as safe as 
cold shutdown (if not safer) for repairing an inoperable RHR 
subsystem. SNC concludes the proposed change is acceptable in light 
of defense-in-depth considerations and because the time spent in hot 
shutdown to perform the repair is infrequent and limited. Therefore, 
the consequences of any accident that assumes the drywell spray 
function are not significantly affected by this change.
    Consequently, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not change the design function or 
operation of the RHR drywell spray function. No plant modifications 
or changes to the plant configuration or method of operation are 
involved. If risk is assessed and managed, allowing a change to the 
end state for the RHR drywell spray TS when the allowed time for 
remaining in power operation with one or more RHR drywell spray 
subsystem inoperable is exceeded, i.e., entry into hot shutdown 
rather than cold shutdown to repair equipment, will not introduce 
new failure modes or effects and will not, in the absences of other 
unrelated failures, lead to an accident whose consequences exceed 
the consequences of accidents previously evaluated. The addition of 
a requirement to assess and manage the risk introduced by this 
change and the commitment to adhere to the industry guidance related 
to TS end states further minimizes possible concerns.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not affect any of the controlling 
values of parameters used to avoid exceeding regulatory or licensing 
limits. The proposed change does not exceed or alter the design 
basis or safety limits, or any limiting safety system settings. The 
requirement for the drywell spray mode of the RHR system to perform 
its designated safety function is unaffected. The risk assessment 
approach used in the GE topical report NEDC-32988 is comprehensive 
and follows NRC staff guidance. The risk assessment, summarized in 
GE topical report NEDC-32988, included evaluations of systems with 
similar functions as the drywell spray function of the RHR system. 
In addition, the NEDC-32988 risk analyses show that the criteria of 
the three-tiered approach for allowing TS changes, in accordance 
with NRC staff guidance, are met. The risk assessments used to 
justify TS changes associated with containment heat removal systems 
are also applicable [to] the RHR drywell spray TS because these 
systems perform an equivalent function as the drywell spray mode of 
the RHR system and there are no unique aspects of the RHR drywell 
spray containment heat removal function that would change the 
conclusion that a hot shutdown end state is acceptable. The risk 
assessment used to justify the TS change associated with fission 
product cleanup systems is also applicable to the RHR drywell spray 
TS because the systems are functionally similar and there are no 
aspects of the HNP [Hatch Nuclear Plant] RHR drywell spray fission 
product cleanup function that would change the conclusion that a hot 
shutdown end state is acceptable. Therefore, SNC has determined that 
the acceptability of hot shutdown end state for systems previously 
evaluated with similar functions is also acceptable for the HNP RHR 
drywell spray TS. As such, the net change to the margin of safety as 
a result of the proposed change is insignificant.
    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.

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

    Date of amendment request: March 5, 2018. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18064A192.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise WBN 
Unit 2 Operating License (OL) Condition 2.C(4) to permit the use of the 
PAD4TCD computer program to continue to establish core operating limits 
until the WBN Unit 2 steam generators (SGs) are replaced with SGs 
equivalent to those in WBN Unit 1. The proposed change to allow the 
continued use of PAD4TCD to establish core operating limits until the 
installation of the WBN Unit 2 replacement SGs reflects TVA's plan for 
transitioning to PAD5 as part of the full spectrum loss-of-coolant 
accident (LOCA) Evaluation Methodology.
    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 Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) response to a large 
break LOCA as described in the WBN Unit 2 dual-unit Updated Final 
Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) Section 15.4.1 incorporated an 
explicit evaluation of the effects of TCD [thermal conductivity 
degradation]. The UFSAR evaluation considered fuel burn-up values 
that represent multi-cycle cores where the effects of TCD would be 
more evident. These analyses showed that the criteria specified in 
Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Sec.  50.46 are 
met. The core design process evaluates each reload core to verify 
that no fuel rods exceed the peaking limits shown in the WBN dual-
unit UFSAR Table 15.4-24. This ensures that the LOCA analysis in the 
WBN Unit 2 dual-unit UFSAR remains bounding for future operating 
cycles.
    The change to WBN Unit 2 OL Condition 2.C(4) does not change the 
safety analysis or any plant feature or design. Thus, it is 
concluded that a significant increase in the consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated will not occur as a result of the 
proposed change.
    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 does not create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 
The proposed change to WBN Unit 2 OL condition 2.C(4) does not 
change or modify the plant design, introduce any new modes of plant 
operation, change or modify the design of the ECCS, or change or 
modify the accident analyses presented in the UFSAR.
    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 LOCA safety analysis for WBN Unit 2 as described in the 
UFSAR explicitly accounts for the effect of TCD. The results of this 
analysis has established that WBN Unit 2 can operate safely in the 
unlikely event that a design basis LOCA event occurs, there are 
large margins to the regulatory limits when explicitly accounting 
for TCD. This proposed change to OL condition 2.C(4) does not change 
this analysis or its conclusions. Thus, the proposed change does not 
result in a significant reduction in a margin of safety.


[[Page 62624]]


    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 
400 West Summit Hill Drive, 6A West Tower, Knoxville, TN 37902.
    NRC Branch Chief: Undine Shoop.

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

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

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: February 1, 2018, as supplemented by 
letters dated July 9, 2018, and August 3, 2018. Publicly-available 
versions are in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML18036A227, ML18191B304, 
and ML18215A421, respectively.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the 
licensing basis for protection from tornado-generated missiles by 
identifying the TORMIS Computer Code as the methodology used for 
assessing tornado-generated missile protection of unprotected plant 
structures, systems, and components.
    Date of issuance: November 8, 2018.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment Nos: 199 (Unit 1) and 199 (Unit 2). A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18291A980; documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the related Safety Evaluation 
enclosed with the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-72 and NPF-77: The 
amendments revised the licensing basis.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 22, 2018 (83 FR 
23734). The supplemental letters dated July 9, 2018, and August 3, 
2018, provided additional information that clarified the application, 
did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and 
did not change the NRC staff's original proposed no significant hazards 
consideration determination as published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated November 8, 2018.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-317 and 50-318, Calvert 
Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant (Calvert Cliffs), Units 1 and 2, Calvert 
County, Maryland; Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-220 
and 50-410, Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station (Nine Mile Point), Units 1 
and 2, Oswego County, New York; Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket 
No. 50-244, R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant (Ginna), Wayne County, New 
York

    Date of amendment request: March 26, 2018.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the 
licenses to eliminate the Nuclear Advisory Committee requirements for 
each facility.
    Date of issuance: November 15, 2018.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of the date of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 327 (Calvert Cliffs, Unit 1), 305 (Calvert Cliffs, 
Unit 2), 232 (Nine Mile Point, Unit 1), 173 (Nine Mile Point, Unit 2), 
and 133 (Ginna). A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML18309A301. Documents related to these amendments are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-53, DPR-69, DPR-63, 
NPF-69, and DPR-18: The amendments revised the Renewed Facility 
Operating Licenses.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 8, 2018 (83 FR 
20861).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a safety evaluation dated November 15, 2018.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: December 18, 2017.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Section 4.2 
of Appendix B, ``Environmental Protection Plan (Nonradiological),'' of 
the Columbia Generating Station Renewed Facility Operating License to 
incorporate the terms and conditions of the incidental take statement 
included in the biological opinion issued by the National Marine 
Fisheries Service on March 10, 2017.
    Date of issuance: November 8, 2018.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 252. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML18283A125; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-21: The amendment 
revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and Environmental 
Protection Plan.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 13, 2018 (83 FR 
10916).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated November 8, 2018.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

[[Page 62625]]

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

    Date of amendment request: June 11, 2018.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments allow for deviation 
from National Fire Protection Association 805 requirements to allow the 
use of performance-based methods for flexible metallic conduit in 
configurations other than to connect components, and for flexible 
metallic conduit in lengths greater than short lengths.
    Date of issuance: November 16, 2018.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 342 (Unit 1) and 324 (Unit 2). A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18284A254; documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with 
the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-58 and DPR-74: The 
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 28, 2018 (83 FR 
43905).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated November 16, 2018.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: November 7, 2017, as supplemented by 
letters dated January 19, 2018, and August 14, 2018.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the 
Emergency Plan to move the Technical Support Center to a different 
location in a new facility located within the existing protected area.
    Date of issuance: November 13, 2018.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 180 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 341 (Unit No. 1) and 323 (Unit No. 2). A publicly-
available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18249A019; 
documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety 
Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-58 and DPR-74: The 
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 2, 2018 (83 FR 
169). The supplemental letters dated January 19, 2018, and August 14, 
2018, provided additional information that clarified the application, 
did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and 
did not change the 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 November 13, 2018.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: December 21, 2017, as supplemented by 
letter dated June 7, 2018.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments change Technical 
Specification (TS) 3.3.2, ``Engineered Safety Feature Actuation System 
(ESFAS) Instrumentation,'' by adding TS Actions that allow time to 
restore one high steam flow channel per steam line to Operable status 
before requiring a unit shutdown in the event two channels in one or 
more steam lines are discovered inoperable due to the trip setting not 
within Allowable Value.
    Date of issuance: November 7, 2018.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 221 (Unit 1) and 218 (Unit 2). A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18271A207; documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with 
the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-2 and NPF-8: The 
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 31, 2018 (83 FR 
36977).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated November 7, 2018.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-244, R. E. Ginna Nuclear 
Power Plant, Wayne County, New York

    Date of amendment request: November 16, 2017.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the R. E. 
Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Technical Specifications for selected Reactor 
Trip System (RTS) and Engineered Safety Feature Actuation System 
(ESFAS) instrumentation channels. The change allows selected RTS (Table 
3.3.1-1) and ESFAS instrumentation channels (Table 3.3.2-1) to be 
bypassed during surveillance testing. Additionally, the change allows 
RTS and ESFAS input relays to be excluded from the Channel Operational 
Test. The change allows testing of Nuclear Instrumentation System power 
range functions, which are part of the RTS, with a permanently 
installed bypass capability, while other RTS and ESFAS functions will 
be capable of being bypassed utilizing permanent connections in the 
racks to connect a portable test box.
    Date of issuance: November 13, 2018.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 132. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML18213A369; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-18: The amendment 
revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical 
Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 6, 2018 (83 FR 
5281).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated November 13, 2018.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: November 15, 2017, as supplemented by 
letter dated April 26, 2018.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the River 
Bend Station, Unit 1, Technical Specifications by replacing the 
existing specifications related to ``operations with a potential for 
draining the reactor vessel'' with revised requirements for reactor 
pressure vessel water inventory control to protect Safety Limit 
2.1.1.3. Safety Limit 2.1.1.3 requires reactor vessel water level to be 
greater than the top of active irradiated fuel. The amendment adopted 
changes with variations, as noted in the license amendment request, and 
was based on the NRC-approved safety evaluation for Technical 
Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-542, Revision 2, 
``Reactor Pressure Vessel Water

[[Page 62626]]

Inventory Control,'' dated December 20, 2016.
    Date of issuance: November 7, 2018.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 120 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 193. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML18267A341; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-47: The amendment revised the 
Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 30, 2018 (83 FR 
4292). The supplemental letter dated April 26, 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 November 7, 2018.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Florida Power & Light Company, Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251, Turkey 
Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 3 and 4, Miami-Dade County, Florida

    Date of amendment request: December 21, 2017, as supplemented by 
letter dated June 12, 2018.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the 
Technical Specifications (TSs) pertaining to the Engineered Safety 
Features Actuation System instrumentation to resolve non-conservative 
actions associated with the Containment ventilation isolation and the 
Control Room ventilation isolation functions. In addition, the 
amendments revised the Control Room ventilation isolation function to 
no longer credit Containment radiation monitoring instrumentation, 
eliminated redundant radiation monitoring instrumentation requirements, 
eliminated select core alterations applicability requirements, 
relocated radiation monitoring and Reactor Coolant System leakage 
detection requirements within the TSs to align with their respective 
functions, and relocated the Spent Fuel Pool area monitoring 
requirements to licensee-controlled documents.
    Date of issuance: November 14, 2018.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 283 (Unit No. 3) and 277 (Unit No. 4). A publicly-
available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18255A360; 
documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety 
Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-31 and DPR-41: The 
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 27, 2018 (83 
FR 8516). The supplemental letter dated June 12, 2018, provided 
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand 
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change 
the NRC staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination as published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated November 14, 2018.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated November 14, 2018.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, on November 20, 2018.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Craig G. Erlanger,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2018-25728 Filed 12-3-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7590-01-P