Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations, 64889-64902 [2018-26968]

Agencies

• NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 242 (Tuesday, December 18, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64889-64902]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-26968]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2018-0275]


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 20, 2018 to December 3, 2018. The 
last biweekly notice was published on December 4, 2018.

DATES: Comments must be filed by January 17, 2019. A request for a 
hearing must be filed by February 19, 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-2018-0275. Address 
questions about Docket IDs in Regulations.gov to Krupskaya Castellon; 
telephone: 301-287-9221; email: Krupskaya.Castellon@nrc.gov. 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,

[[Page 64890]]

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

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments

A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2018-0275, 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-2018-0275.
     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 pdr.resource@nrc.gov. 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-2018-0275, 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.

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

[[Page 64891]]

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

B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)

    All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a 
request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition), any 
motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the 
submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and 
documents filed by interested governmental entities that request to 
participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the 
NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007, as amended at 77 FR 
46562; August 3, 2012). The E-Filing process requires participants to 
submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in 
some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Detailed 
guidance on making electronic submissions may be found in the Guidance 
for Electronic Submissions to the NRC and on the NRC website at 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 hearing.docket@nrc.gov, 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

[[Page 64892]]

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 MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, 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 (Exelon), Docket No. 50-219, Oyster 
Creek Nuclear Generating Station (OCNGS), Ocean County, New Jersey

    Date of amendment request: November 12, 2018. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18317A022.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would remove the 
existing Cyber Security Plan (CSP) requirements contained in License 
Condition 2.C.(4) of the OCNGS Renewed Facility Operating License and 
the commitment to fully implement the CSP by the Milestone 8 commitment 
date of August 31, 2021 (ADAMS Accession No. ML17289A222).
    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.
    Following cessation of power operations and removal of all spent 
fuel from the reactor, spent fuel at OCNGS will be stored in the 
spent fuel pool (SFP) and in the independent spent fuel storage 
installation (ISFSI). In this configuration, the spectrum of 
possible transients and accidents is significantly reduced compared 
to an operating nuclear power reactor. The only design basis 
accident that could potentially result in an offsite radiological 
release at OCNGS is the fuel handling accident (FHA), which is 
predicated on spent fuel being stored in the SFP. An analysis has 
been performed that concludes that once OCNGS has be[en] permanently 
shut down for 33 days, there is no longer any possibility of an 
offsite radiological release from a design basis accident that could 
exceed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Protective 
Action Guidelines (PAGs). The results of this analysis have been 
previously submitted to the NRC (ADAMS Accession No. ML17234A082) 
(Reference 5 [of Exelon's letter dated November 12, 2018]). With the 
significant reduction in radiological risk based on OCNGS being shut 
down for more than 33 days, the consequences of a cyber-attack are 
also significantly reduced.
    Additionally, per an NRC Memorandum, ``Cyber Security 
Requirements for Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants'' (Reference 4 
[of Exelon's letter dated November 12, 2018], ADAMS Accession No. 
ML16172A284), the NRC staff has determined that 10 CFR 73.54 does 
not apply to reactor licensees that have submitted certifications of 
permanent cessation of power operations and permanent removal of 
fuel under 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1), and whose certifications have been 
docketed by the NRC (10 CFR 50.82(a)(2) (References 2 and 3 [of 
Exelon's letter dated November 12, 2018], Accession Nos. ML18045A084 
and ML18268A258), once sufficient time has passed such that the 
spent fuel stored in the spent fuel pool cannot reasonably heat up 
to clad ignition temperature within 10 hours. Exelon has provided a 
site-specific analysis, ``Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station 
Zirconium Fire Analysis for Drained Spent Fuel Pool,'' in Reference 
5 [of Exelon's letter dated November 12, 2018] (ADAMS Accession No. 
ML17234A082), that provides the determination that sufficient time 
will have passed prior to the requested implementation date such 
that the spent fuel stored in the spent fuel pool cannot reasonably 
heat up to clad ignition temperature within 10 hours. Exelon has 
subsequently submitted a revised OCNGS site-specific Zirconium-Fire 
Analysis (References 7 and 8 [of Exelon's letter dated November 12, 
2018], ML18295A384 and ML18310A306) that supports that the minimum 
cooling time may be reduced to 9.38 months (235 days).
    This proposed change does not alter previously evaluated 
accident analysis assumptions, introduce or alter any initiators, or 
affect the function of facility structures, systems, and components 
(SSCs) relied upon to prevent or mitigate any previously evaluated 
accident or the manner in which these SSCs are operated, maintained, 
modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed change does not involve 
any facility modifications which affect the performance capability 
of any SSCs relied upon to prevent or mitigate the consequences of 
any previously evaluated accidents.

[[Page 64893]]

    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.
    This proposed change does not alter accident analysis 
assumptions, introduce or alter any initiators, or affect the 
function of facility SSCs relied upon to prevent or mitigate any 
previously evaluated accident, or the manner in which these SSCs are 
operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed 
change does not involve any facility modifications which affect the 
performance capability of any SSCs relied upon to mitigate the 
consequences of previously evaluated accidents and does not create 
the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any 
accident previously evaluated.
    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.
    Plant safety margins are established through limiting conditions 
for operation and design features specified in the OCNGS Permanently 
Defueled Technical Specifications that were approved by the NRC 
Safety Evaluation dated October 26, 2018 (Reference 11 [of Exelon's 
letter dated November 12, 2018], ADAMS Accession No. ML18227A338). 
The proposed change does not involve any changes to the initial 
conditions that establish safety margins and does not involve 
modifications to any SSCs which are relied upon to provide a margin 
of safety. Because there is no change to established safety margins 
as a result of this proposed change, no significant reduction in a 
margin of safety is involved.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

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

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

    Date of amendment request: October 19, 2018. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18292A451.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the 
LGS, 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 (PC) 
boundary instead of requiring closure of a specific PC isolation valve 
(PCIV). The proposed changes also clarify the TS action for inoperable 
isolation actuation instrumentation for the reactor enclosure manual 
isolation function.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes would modify specific TS Actions for 
inoperable PC Isolation Actuation Instrumentation to allow for 
isolation of the PC penetration flow path(s) instead of requiring 
closure of a specific PCIV. Closure of either the inboard or 
outboard PCIV provides the same safety function for isolating the PC 
penetration. The proposed changes provide for an increase in 
operational flexibility and avoid the potential for an extended 
isolation of a PC penetration. The proposed changes also modify the 
TS action for inoperable Isolation Actuation Instrumentation to 
include a clarification for the Reactor Enclosure manual isolation 
function. The change simplifies the description of the operator 
actions required to be taken and is based on the end result of 
performing the safety function for ensuring SC [secondary 
containment] integrity is maintained. These changes are consistent 
with existing LGS TS actions for inoperable PCIVs. These changes are 
also consistent with Improved Standard Technical Specifications 
(ISTS) actions for inoperable Isolation Actuation Instrumentation.
    The proposed changes do not alter the physical design of any 
plant structure, system, or component; therefore, the proposed 
changes have no adverse effect on plant operation, or the 
availability or operation of any accident mitigation equipment. The 
plant response to the design basis accidents does not change. The 
proposed changes will maintain plant operation within the bounds of 
the current analysis for the accident source term dose limits in the 
Loss of Coolant Accident (LOCA) analysis, and therefore, the changes 
do 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 changes would modify specific TS Actions for 
inoperable PC Isolation Actuation Instrumentation to allow for 
isolation of the PC penetration flow path(s) instead of requiring 
closure of a specific PCIV. Closure of either the inboard or 
outboard PCIV provides the same safety function for isolating the 
penetration. The proposed changes provide for an increase in 
operational flexibility and avoid the potential for an extended 
isolation of a PC penetration. The proposed changes also modify the 
TS action for inoperable Isolation Actuation Instrumentation to 
include a clarification for the Reactor Enclosure manual isolation 
function. The change simplifies the description of the operator 
actions required to be taken and is based on the end result of 
performing the safety function for ensuring SC integrity is 
maintained. The proposed changes will maintain plant operation 
within the bounds of the current analysis and assumptions for the 
accident and special event analysis.
    The proposed changes do not alter the plant configuration (no 
new or different type of equipment is being installed) or require 
any new or unusual operator actions. The proposed changes do not 
alter the safety limits or safety analysis assumptions associated 
with the operation of the plant. The proposed changes do not 
introduce any new failure modes that could result in a new accident. 
The proposed changes do not reduce or adversely affect the 
capabilities of any plant structure, system, or component in the 
performance of their safety function. Also, the response of the 
plant and the operators following the design basis accidents is 
unaffected by the proposed changes.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes would modify specific TS Actions for 
inoperable PC Isolation Actuation Instrumentation to allow for 
isolation of the PC penetration flow path(s) instead of requiring 
closure of a specific PCIV. Closure of either the inboard or 
outboard PCIV provides the same safety function for isolating the PC 
penetration. The proposed changes provide for an increase in 
operational flexibility and avoid the potential for an extended 
isolation of a PC penetration. The proposed changes also modify the 
TS action for inoperable Isolation Actuation Instrumentation to 
include a clarification for the Reactor Enclosure manual isolation 
function. The change simplifies the description of the operator 
actions required to be taken and is based on the end result of 
performing the safety function for ensuring SC integrity is 
maintained. The proposed changes will maintain plant operation 
within the bounds of the current analysis and assumptions for the 
accident and special event analysis.

[[Page 64894]]

    The proposed changes have no adverse effect on plant operation, 
or the availability or operation of any accident mitigation 
equipment. The plant response to the design basis accidents does not 
change. The proposed changes do not adversely affect existing plant 
safety margins or the reliability of the equipment assumed to 
operate in the safety analyses. There is no change being made to 
safety analysis assumptions, safety limits or limiting safety system 
settings that would adversely affect plant safety as a result of the 
proposed changes.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

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

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-220, Nine Mile Point 
Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Oswego County, New York

    Date of amendment request: June 26, 2018. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18177A044.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would modify 
Technical Specification (TS) 3.3.1, ``Oxygen Concentration,'' to 
require inerting the primary containment to less than 4 percent by 
volume oxygen concentration within 24 hours of exceeding 15 percent of 
rated thermal power (RTP), and allow de-inerting the containment 24 
hours prior to reducing thermal power to less than or equal to 15 
percent of RTP. Also, the amendment would add a new requirement to 
identify required actions if the primary containment oxygen 
concentration increases to greater than or equal to four volume percent 
while in the power operating condition.
    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 modifies the Technical Specifications (TS) 
by adopting containment inerting and de-inerting requirements that 
are consistent with the guidance of NUREG-1433, ``Standard Technical 
Specifications--General Electric BWR/4 Plants, Volume 1, Revision 
4.0,'' published April 2012. The proposed change will allow inerting 
of the primary containment within 24 hours of exceeding 15 percent 
(%) Rated Thermal Power (RTP), and de-inerting 24 hours prior to 
reducing reactor power to less than or equal to 15% RTP. Also, a new 
TS condition will be added to identify required actions if the 
primary containment oxygen concentration increases to greater than 
or equal to 4% by volume while in the power operating condition. The 
proposed change does not alter the physical configuration of the 
plant, nor does it affect any previously analyzed accident 
initiators. The accident analysis assumes that a Loss of Coolant 
Accident (LOCA) occurs at 100% RTP. The consequences of a LOCA at 
less than or equal to 15% RTP would be much less severe, and produce 
less hydrogen than a LOCA at 100% RTP.
    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 adopts the STS guidance regarding 
containment inerting/de-inerting requirements. The proposed change 
introduces no new mode of plant operation and does not involve any 
physical modification to the plant. The proposed change is 
consistent with the current safety analysis assumptions. No 
setpoints are being changed which would alter the dynamic response 
of plant equipment. Accordingly, no new failure modes are 
introduced.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change revises the Applicability presentation of 
the Oxygen Concentration TS. No safety limits are affected. The 
Oxygen Concentration TS requirements assure sufficient safety 
margins are maintained, and that the design, operation, surveillance 
methods, and acceptance criteria specified in applicable codes and 
standards (or alternatives approved for use by the NRC) will 
continue to be met as described in the plants' licensing basis. The 
proposed change does not adversely affect existing plant safety 
margins or the reliability of the equipment assumed to operate in 
the safety analysis. As such, there are no changes being made to 
safety analysis assumptions, safety limits, or limiting safety 
system settings that would adversely affect plant safety.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not result in a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

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

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

    Date of amendment request: October 22, 2018. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18295A384.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the 
effective and implementation dates of License Amendment No. 294, 
Permanently Defueled Emergency Plan (PDEP) and Emergency Action Level 
(EAL) scheme for the permanently defueled condition. On October 17, 
2018 (ADAMS Accession No. ML18221A400), the NRC approved License 
Amendment No. 294, OCNGS PDEP and Permanently Defueled EAL Scheme. The 
PDEP and Permanently Defueled EAL scheme were predicated on approval of 
request for exemptions from portions of 10 CFR 50.47(b); 10 CFR 
50.47(c)(2); and 10 CFR part 50, Appendix E, Section IV, which were 
approved on October 16, 2018 (ADAMS Accession No. ML18220A980). The 
basis for the approval of the exemptions from offsite emergency 
preparedness requirements included a site-specific analysis that showed 
that the fuel stored in the spent fuel pool (SFP) would not reach the 
zirconium ignition temperature in fewer than 10 hours from the time at 
which it was assumed a loss of both water and air cooling of the spent 
fuel (zirc-fire window). The revised adiabatic calculation provided in 
the submittal dated October 22, 2018, results in a reduced decay period 
from 365 days to 285 days for the zirc-fire window after the final 
reactor shut down.
    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.

[[Page 64895]]

    The proposed change to the effective and implementation dates of 
License Amendment No. 294, OCNGS PDEP, Permanently Shutdown EAL 
scheme, and associated Exemptions at 9.38 months (285 days) does not 
impact the function of plant structures, systems, or components 
(SSCs). The proposed change does not affect accident initiators or 
precursors, nor does it alter design assumptions. The proposed 
change does not prevent the ability of the on-shift staff and 
emergency response organization (ERO) to perform their intended 
functions to mitigate the consequences of any accident or event that 
will be credible in the permanently defueled condition.
    The probability of occurrence of previously evaluated accidents 
is not increased, since most previously analyzed accidents can no 
longer occur and the probability of the few remaining credible 
accidents are unaffected by the proposed amendment.
    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 to effective and implementation dates for 
License Amendment No. 294, PDEP, Permanently Shutdown EAL scheme, 
and associated Exemptions at 9.38 months (285 days) is commensurate 
with the hazards associated with a permanently shutdown and defueled 
facility based on the updated site-specific analysis that showed the 
fuel stored in the SFP would not reach the zirconium ignition 
temperature in fewer than 10 hours from the time at which it was 
assumed a loss of both water and air cooling of the spent fuel. The 
proposed change does not involve installation of new equipment or 
modification of existing equipment, so that no new equipment failure 
modes are introduced. In addition, the proposed change does not 
result in a change to the way that the equipment or facility is 
operated so that no new or different kinds of accident initiators 
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 amendment 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 changing the effective and implementation dates of 
License Amendment No. 294, PDEP, Permanently Shutdown EAL scheme and 
associated Exemptions; it 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 design bases 
accident analyses will be affected by the proposed changes. Safety 
analysis acceptance criteria are not affected by the proposed 
changes. The PDEP will continue to provide the necessary response 
staff with the appropriate guidance to protect the health and safety 
of 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: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel, 
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 
60555.
    NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.

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

    Date of amendment request: August 13, 2018. A publicly available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18226A189.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the 
Technical Specifications (TSs) and licensing basis for the Calvert 
Cliffs, Units 1 and 2 Renewed Facility Operating Licenses, as 
documented in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). The 
changes would incorporate use of both a deterministic and a risk-
informed approach to address safety issues discussed in Generic Safety 
Issue (GSI)-191, ``Assessment of Debris Accumulation on PWR 
[Pressurized-Water Reactor] Sump Performance,'' and close Generic 
Letter (GL) 2004-02, ``Potential Impact of Debris Blockage on Emergency 
Recirculation During Design Basis Accidents at Pressurized-Water 
Reactors,'' dated September 13, 2004 (ADAMS Accession No. ML042360586). 
New TS 3.6.9, ``Containment Emergency Sump,'' would be added, and 
administrative changes would be made to TS 3.5.2, ``ECCS [Emergency 
Core Cooling System]--Operating,'' and TS 3.5.3, ``ECCS--Shutdown.''
    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 adds a new Technical Specification (TS) for 
the Containment Emergency Sump and moves an existing surveillance 
requirement (SR) from the ECCS TS to the new Containment Emergency 
Sump TS. The proposed changes support a methodology change for 
assessment of debris effects that adds the results of a risk-
informed evaluation to the Calvert Cliffs licensing basis. The 
methodology change concludes that the ECCS and Containment System 
will have sufficient defense-in-depth and safety margin and with 
high probability will operate following a LOCA [loss-of-coolant 
accident] when considering the impacts and effects of debris 
accumulation on containment emergency recirculation sump strainer in 
recirculation mode. The methodology change also supports the changes 
to the TS.
    There is no significant increase in the probability of an 
accident previously evaluated. The proposed changes address 
mitigation of loss of coolant accidents and have no effect on the 
probability of the occurrence of a LOCA. The proposed methodology 
and TS changes do not implement any physical changes to the facility 
or any Structures Systems and Components (SSCs), and do not 
implement any changes in plant operation that could lead to a 
different kind of accident.
    The methodology change confirms that required SSCs supported by 
the emergency recirculation sumps with a high probability will 
perform their safety functions as required and does not alter or 
prevent the ability of SSCs to perform their intended function to 
mitigate the consequences of an accident previously evaluated within 
the acceptance limits. The safety analysis acceptance criteria in 
the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) continue to be met 
for the proposed methodology change. The evaluation of the changes 
determined that containment integrity will be maintained. The dose 
consequences were considered in the assessment and quantitative 
evaluation of the effects on dose using input from the risk-informed 
approach shows the increase in dose consequences is small.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of any the accident 
previously evaluated in the UFSAR.
    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 adds a new Technical Specification for the 
Containment Emergency sump and moves an existing SR from the ECCS TS 
to the new Containment Emergency Sump TS. The proposed changes are a 
methodology change for assessment of debris effects from LOCAs that 
are already evaluated in the Calvert Cliffs UFSAR, an extension of 
TS required completion time for potential LOCA debris related 
effects on ECCS and CS and associated administrative changes to the 
TS. No new or different kind

[[Page 64896]]

[of] accident is being evaluated. None of the changes install or 
remove any plant equipment, or alter the design, physical 
configuration, or mode of operation of any plant structure, system 
or component. The proposed changes do not introduce any new failure 
mechanisms or malfunctions that can initiate an accident. The 
proposed changes do not introduce failure modes, accident 
initiators, or equipment malfunctions that would cause a new or 
different kind of accident.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility 
for 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 adds a new TS for the containment emergency 
sump and moves an existing SR from the ECCS TS to the new 
Containment Emergency Sump TS. The proposed change includes a 
methodology change for assessment of debris effects from LOCAs.
    The sump strainer debris loads from a full spectrum of LOCAs of 
all piping sizes up to and including double-ended guillotine breaks 
of the largest pipe in the reactor coolant system, are analyzed. 
Appropriate redundancy and consideration of loss of offsite power 
and worst case single failure are retained, such that defense-in-
depth is maintained.
    Application of the risk-informed methodology showed that the 
increase in risk from the contribution of the analyzed debris 
effects is very small as defined by RG [Regulatory Guide] 1.174 and 
that there is adequate defense in depth and safety margin. 
Consequently, Calvert Cliffs determined that the risk-informed 
method does not involve a significant reduction in margin of safety 
and demonstrated that the containment emergency sump will continue 
to support the ability of safety related components to perform their 
design functions when the effects of debris are considered. The 
proposed change does not alter the manner in which safety limits are 
determined or acceptance criteria associated with a safety limit. 
The proposed change does not implement any changes to plant 
operation and does not significantly affect SSCs that respond to 
safely shutdown the plant and to maintain the plant in a safe 
shutdown condition. The proposed change does not affect the existing 
safety margins in the barriers for the release of radioactivity. 
There are no changes to any of the safety analyses in the UFSAR.
    Defense in depth and safety margin was extensively evaluated for 
the methodology change and the associated TS changes. The evaluation 
determined that there is substantial defense in depth and safety 
margin that provide a high level of confidence that the calculated 
risk for the methodology and TS changes is acceptable.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

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

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-317, 50-318 and 72-8, 
Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant (CCNPP), Units 1 and 2, and 
Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation, Calvert County, Maryland

    Date of amendment request: August 30, 2018. A publicly available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18242A067.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would relocate and 
consolidate the Emergency Operations Facility (EOF) and Joint 
Information Center (JIC) for CCNPP with the existing Exelon Generation 
Company, LLC joint EOF and JIC located at 175 North Caln Road, 
Coatesville, Pennsylvania. (This facility in Coatesville, Pennsylvania, 
is currently used as an EOF/JIC for Limerick Generating Station, Units 
1 and 2 (LGS); Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3 
(PBAPS); and Three Mile Island Nuclear Station (TMI).)
    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 relocates the CCNPP EOF/JIC from its present 
location to the existing Coatesville EOF/JIC. This EOF/JIC facility 
currently functions as the EOF/JIC for LGS, PBAPS, and TMI. The 
functions and capabilities of the relocated CCNPP EOF/JIC will 
continue to meet the applicable regulatory requirements. The 
proposed changes have no effect on normal plant operation. The 
proposed changes do not affect accident initiators or accident 
precursors, nor do the changes alter design assumptions. The 
proposed changes do not impact the function of plant Structures, 
Systems, or Components (SSCs). The proposed changes do not alter or 
prevent the ability of the emergency response organization to 
perform its intended functions to mitigate the consequences of an 
accident or 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 change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change only impacts the implementation of the CCNPP 
Emergency Plan by relocating and consolidating its EOF/JIC with the 
established Coatesville EOF/JIC. The functions and capabilities of 
the relocated CCNPP EOF/JIC will continue to meet the applicable 
regulatory requirements. The proposed change has no impact on the 
design, function, or operation of any plant SSCs. The proposed 
change does not affect plant equipment or accident analyses. The 
proposed 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 proposed change does not 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 change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change only impacts the implementation of the CCNPP 
Emergency Plan by relocating its current EOF/JIC to the existing 
Coatesville EOF/JIC. The functions and capabilities of the relocated 
EOF/JIC will continue to meet the applicable regulatory 
requirements.
    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 Emergency Plans for CCNPP and does not impact 
operation of the plant or its response to transients or accidents. 
The proposed 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. The 
proposed change does not adversely affect existing plant safety 
margins, or the reliability of the equipment assumed to operate in 
the safety analyses. There are no changes being made to safety 
analysis assumptions, safety limits, or limiting safety system 
settings that would adversely affect plant safety as a result of the 
proposed change.
    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.

[[Page 64897]]

    Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel, 
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 
60555.
    NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna.

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

    Date of amendment request: October 30, 2018. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18304A191.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise 
Technical Specification (TS) 3.3.7.4, ``Remote Shutdown System 
Instrumentation and Controls,'' to make the HCGS requirements 
consistent with Improved Standard Technical Specification 3.3.4, 
``Remote Shutdown System.'' The change would increase the allowed 
outage time for inoperable remote shutdown system components to a time 
that is more consistent with their safety significance. Also, the 
amendment would delete Tables 3.3.7.4-1, 3.3.7.4-2, and 4.3.7.4-1, and 
relocate them to the Technical Requirements Manual, where they would be 
directly controlled by HCGS.
    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 TS amendment does not involve potential accident 
initiators; therefore, there is no significant increase in the 
probability of an accident previously evaluated. There is no 
proposed change to the design basis or configuration of the plant 
and the extension of the allowed outage time of the Remote Shutdown 
System functions is consistent with the low probability of an event 
requiring control room evacuation during the allowed outage time and 
does not have a significant effect on safety.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment does not involve physical alteration of 
the HCGS. No new equipment is being introduced, and installed 
equipment is not being operated in a new or different manner. There 
is no change being made to the parameters within which the HCGS is 
operated. There are no setpoints at which protective or mitigating 
actions are initiated that are affected by this proposed action. The 
change does not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis. This 
proposed action will not alter the manner in which equipment 
operation is initiated, nor will the functional demands on credited 
equipment be changed. No alteration is proposed to the procedures 
that ensure the HCGS remains within analyzed limits, and no change 
is being made to procedures relied upon to respond to an off-normal 
event. As such, no new failure modes are being introduced.
    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 amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    Margin of safety is related to the confidence in the ability of 
the fission product barriers to perform their design functions 
during and following an accident. These barriers include the fuel 
cladding, the reactor coolant system, and the containment system. 
The proposed change, which makes the HCGS TS for Remote Shutdown 
System consistent with the requirements of NUREG-1433, does not 
exceed or alter a setpoint, design basis or safety limit.
    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: Steven Fleischer, PSEG Services Corporation, 
80 Park Plaza, T-5, Newark, NJ 07101.
    NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna.

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-259, 50-260, and 50-296, 
Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN), Units 1, 2, and 3, Limestone County, 
Alabama

    Date of amendment request: October 18, 2018. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18295A109.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the 
BFN licensing basis regarding the National Fire Protection Association 
(NFPA) 805 program to delete Modification 85 from Table S-2 ``Plant 
Modifications Committed,'' and to extend due dates for Modifications 
102 and 106 in Table S-2 for 4 months and 6 months, respectively.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment adds the reference to this letter to the 
BFN RFOL [Renewed Facility Operating License] License Condition, 
Transition Condition 2, paragraphs 2.C.(13), 2.C.(14), and 2.C.(7) 
for BFN Units 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The change encompassed by 
the proposed amendment is to delete Modification 85 in Attachment S, 
Table S-2 of the BFN NFPA 805 Transition Report, and to extend the 
due dates of Modifications 102 and 106.
    The proposed changes do not adversely affect accident initiators 
or precursors nor alter the design assumptions, conditions, and 
configuration of the facility or the manner in which the plant is 
operated and maintained. The proposed change does not affect the 
ability of structures, systems and components (SSCs) to perform 
their intended safety function to mitigate the consequences of an 
initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits.
    Therefore, these proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability of consequences of an accident 
previously identified.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment adds the reference to this letter to the 
BFN RFOL License Condition, Transition Condition 2, paragraphs 
2.C.(13), 2.C.(14), and 2.C.(7) for BFN Units 1, 2, and 3, 
respectively. The changes encompassed by the proposed amendment are 
to delete Modification 85 in Attachment S, Table S-2 of the BFN NFPA 
805 Transition Report, and extend the due dates of Modifications 102 
and 106.
    There is no risk impact to Core Damage Frequency (CDF) or Large 
Early Release Frequency (LERF) because these proposed changes do not 
impact the FPRA [fire probabilistic risk assessment] results. These 
proposed changes are an NFPA 805 Chapter 3 compliance issue only and 
do not require a change to the FPRA. This level of detail is not 
modeled in the FPRA.
    The proposed change does not result in any new or different 
kinds of accident from that previously evaluated because it does not 
change any precursors or equipment that is previously credited for 
accident mitigation.
    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 amendment adds the reference to this letter to the 
BFN RFOL License Condition, Transition Condition 2, paragraphs 
2.C.(13), 2.C.(14), and 2.C.(7) for BFN Units 1, 2, and 3, 
respectively. The change encompassed by the proposed amendment is to 
delete Modification 85 in

[[Page 64898]]

Attachment S, Table S-2 of the BFN NFPA 805 Transition Report, and 
extend the due dates of Modifications 102 and 106.
    The proposed change deletes Modification 85 in its entirety from 
Table S-2. Modification 85 would have installed pneumatic pre-
discharge alarms and pneumatic time delays in the CO2 
systems to meet NFPA 12, 2008 Edition. NFPA 12, 2008 Edition 
requires pneumatic predischarge alarms and pneumatic time delays for 
CO2 systems. The CO2 system predischarge 
alarms and time delays are currently electric and meet the NFPA 12, 
1966 Edition code of record.
    The deletion of Modification 85 does not affect the Fire PRA or 
the fire suppression system currently in place at BFN. This proposed 
change does not affect other items listed in Attachment S or 
adversely affect the BFN implementation of NFPA 805 at BFN.
    The proposed changes associated with Modifications 85, 102, and 
106 do not involve any licensing basis analyses. Therefore, the 
safety margin inherent in the analyses for fire events has been 
preserved.
    These proposed changes will not result in any new or different 
kinds of accident from that previously evaluated because it does not 
change any precursors or equipment that is previously credited for 
accident mitigation.
    Therefore, based on the above discussion, these proposed changes 
do not involve a 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: General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 
400 West Summit Hill Drive, 6A West Tower, Knoxville, TN 37902.
    NRC Branch Chief: Undine Shoop.

IV. Previously Published Notices of Consideration of Issuance of 
Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses, 
Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and 
Opportunity for a Hearing

    The following notices were previously published as separate 
individual notices. The notice content was the same as above. They were 
published as individual notices either because time did not allow the 
Commission to wait for this biweekly notice or because the action 
involved exigent circumstances. They are repeated here because the 
biweekly notice lists all amendments issued or proposed to be issued 
involving no significant hazards consideration.
    For details, see the individual notice in the Federal Register on 
the day and page cited. This notice does not extend the notice period 
of the original notice.

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

    Date of amendment request: October 31, 2018.
    Brief description of amendment request: The proposed amendment 
would revise the completion date for License Condition 2.C.(5) for the 
Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 2, regarding the completion of action to 
resolve the issues identified in Bulletin 2012-01, ``Design 
Vulnerability in Electric Power System'' (ADAMS Accession No. 
ML12074A115), from December 31, 2018, to December 31, 2019, to align 
with the remainder of the Tennessee Valley Authority fleet and with the 
nuclear industry.
    Date of publication of individual notice in Federal Register: 
November 14, 2018 (83 FR 56876).
    Expiration date of individual notice: December 14, 2018 (public 
comments); January 14, 2019 (hearing requests).

V. 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. 50-413 and 50-414, Catawba 
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, York County, South Carolina

    Date of amendment request: September 14, 2017, as supplemented by 
letters dated May 8, August 17, September 20, October 29, and November 
15, 2018.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical 
Specification 3.7.8, ``Nuclear Service Water System (NSWS).'' A new 
Condition D was added, along with other corresponding changes, for one 
NSWS pond return header being inoperable due to the NSWS being aligned 
for single pond return header operation with a Completion Time of 30 
days.
    Date of issuance: November 28, 2018.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 120 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 300 (Unit 1) and 296 (Unit 2). A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18275A278; documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with 
the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-35 and NPF-52: The 
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and 
Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 13, 2018 (83 FR 
10914). The supplemental letters dated May 8, August 17, September 20, 
October 19, and November 15, 2018, provided additional information that 
clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application 
as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed 
no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the 
Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated November 28, 2018.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: Yes. One 
comment from a member of the public was received, however it was not 
related to the no significant hazards consideration determination or 
the license amendment request.

[[Page 64899]]

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370, McGuire 
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina

    Date of amendment request: May 31, 2018.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments modified Technical 
Specification 3.1.7, ``Rod Position Indication,'' to add a new 
Condition for more than one inoperable digital rod position indication 
(DRPI) per rod group, and revise the Actions Note and to clarify the 
wording of current Required Actions A.1 and B.1. This change is 
consistent with NRC-approved Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) 
Traveler TSTF-234-A, ``Add Action for More Than One [D]RPI 
Inoperable,'' Revision 1.
    Date of issuance: November 19, 2018.
    Effective date: These license amendments are effective as of its 
date of issuance and shall be implemented within 30 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 310 (Unit 1) and 289 (Unit 2). A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18277A322; documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with 
the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-9 and NPF-17: The 
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and 
Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 28, 2018 (83 FR 
43904).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated November 19, 2018.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: October 10, 2017.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical 
Specification (TS) \3/4\.1.1, ``Reactivity Control Systems Boration 
Control,'' and TS \3/4\.1.3, ``Reactivity Control Systems Movable 
Control Assemblies Group Height,'' to align more closely to the 
improved Standard TSs for rod control and to the initial conditions in 
the HNP safety analyses.
    Date of issuance: November 19, 2018.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 168. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML18262A303; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-63: The amendment 
revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 2, 2018 (83 FR 
167).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated November 19, 2018.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-293, Pilgrim Nuclear 
Power Station, Plymouth County, Massachusetts

    Date of amendment request: January 12, 2018, as supplemented by 
letter dated May 23, 2018.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment consisted of changes 
to the Emergency Response Organization's on-shift and augmented 
staffing changes to the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station Site Emergency 
Plan.
    Date of issuance: November 30, 2018.
    Effective date: This license amendment is effective upon submittal 
of the certification of permanent removal of fuel from the reactor 
vessel in accordance with 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1)(ii), and shall be 
implemented within 90 days of the effective date.
    Amendment No.: 248. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML18284A375; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-35: The amendment 
revised the Site Emergency Plan.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 27, 2018 (83 FR 
13149). The supplemental letter dated May 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 is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated November 30, 2018.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: November 20, 2017, as supplemented by 
letters dated August 1, and October 10, 2018.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the ANO-2 
Technical Specifications (TSs) to replace the current pressure-
temperature limits for heatup, cooldown, and the inservice leak 
hydrostatic tests for the reactor coolant system presented in TS 3.4.9, 
which expire at 32 Effective Full Power Years (EFPY), with limitations 
that extend out to 54 EFPY.
    Date of issuance: November 27, 2018.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 311. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML18298A012; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-6: The amendment revised 
the Renewed Facility Operating License and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 27, 2018 (83 
FR 8514). The supplemental letters dated August 1, and October 10, 
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 27, 2018.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

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

    Date of amendment request: September 21, 2017, as supplemented by 
letter dated November 15, 2018.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments for Arkansas 
Nuclear One, Units 1 and 2, revised Renewed Facility

[[Page 64900]]

Operating License Nos. DPR-51 and NPF-6 to reflect a new limited 
liability company, Entergy Arkansas, LLC, as owner, as a result of the 
license transfer. The amendment for Grand Gulf, Unit 1, revised Renewed 
Facility Operating License No. NPF-29 to reflect a newly formed entity 
with antitrust responsibilities, Entergy Mississippi, LLC, as a result 
of the license transfer.
    Date of issuance: November 30, 2018.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment Nos: 262 (Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1), 312 (Arkansas 
Nuclear One, Unit 2), and 215 (Grand Gulf, Unit 1). A publicly-
available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18306A513; 
documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety 
Evaluation enclosed with the letter dated August 1, 2018 (ADAMS 
Accession No. ML18177A236).
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-51, NPF-6, and NPF-29: 
The amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses for 
Arkansas Nuclear One, Units 1 and 2, and revised the Renewed Facility 
Operating License and the antitrust conditions for Grand Gulf, Unit 1.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 29, 2017 (82 
FR 61800). The supplemental letter dated November 15, 2018, provided 
additional information that clarified the application and did not 
expand the scope of the application as originally noticed.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated August 1, 2018.

Exelon FitzPatrick, LLC and Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 
50-333, James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant (FitzPatrick), Oswego 
County, New York

    Date of amendment request: January 31, 2018, as supplemented by 
letter dated July 12, 2018.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the emergency 
plan by changing the emergency action level schemes to those based on 
the Nuclear Energy Institute's (NEI's) guidance in NEI-99-01, Revision 
6, ``Development of Emergency Action Levels for Non-Passive Reactors,'' 
dated November 2012, which was endorsed by the NRC by letter dated 
March 28, 2013.
    Date of issuance: November 28, 2018.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be 
implemented on or before December 31, 2019.
    Amendment No.: 323. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML18289A432; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-59: The amendment 
revised the FitzPatrick emergency plan.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 17, 2018 (83 FR 
33267). The supplement dated July 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 amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated November 28, 2018.
    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: January 29, 2018, as supplemented by 
letter dated June 11, 2018.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments lowered the 
Technical Specification (TS) Standby Liquid Control System (SLCS) 
Surveillance Requirement (SR) (TS \3/4\.1.5) pump flow rate value, 
raised the TS SLCS SR Boron-10 enrichment value of the sodium 
pentaborate added to the SLCS tank, and expanded the operating range in 
the sodium pentaborate solution temperature/concentration requirements 
figure.
    Date of issuance: November 27, 2018.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 232 (Unit 1) and 195 (Unit 2). A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18255A278; 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: March 27, 2018 (83 FR 
13150). The supplemental letter dated June 11, 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 27, 2018.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: December 15, 2018, as supplemented by 
letters dated July 26, and October 18, 2018.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the emergency 
action level (EAL) scheme to one based on the Nuclear Energy Institute 
(NEI) document NEI 99-01, Revision 6, ``Development of Emergency Action 
Levels for Non-Passive Reactors,'' dated November 21, 2012.
    Date of issuance: November 30, 2018.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 365 days.
    Amendment No.: 308. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML18292A566; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-49: The amendment 
revised the Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-49.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 13, 2018 (83 FR 
10920). The supplemental letters dated July 26, and October 18, 2018, 
provided additional information that clarified the application, did not 
expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not 
change the 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 30, 2018.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

NextEra Energy Point Beach, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-266 and 50-301, Point 
Beach Nuclear Plant (PBNP), Units 1 and 2, Town of Two Creeks, 
Manitowoc County, Wisconsin

    Date amendment request: August 31, 2017, as supplemented by letters 
dated October 26, 2017, August 10, and September 28, 2018.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the Renewed 
Facility Operating Licenses for PBNP, Units 1 and 2, to add a new 
license

[[Page 64901]]

condition to allow the implementation of 10 CFR 50.69, ``Risk-informed 
categorization and treatment of structures, systems and components for 
nuclear power reactors.''
    Date of issuance: November 26, 2018.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 262 (Unit 1) and 265 (Unit 2). A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18289A378; documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with 
the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-24 and DPR-27: The 
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 13, 2018 (83 
FR 6226). The supplemental letters dated August 10, and September 28, 
2018, provided additional information that clarified the application, 
did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and 
did not change the 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 26, 2018.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC, Docket No. 50-443, Seabrook Station, Unit 
No. 1, Rockingham County, New Hampshire

    Date of amendment request: December 1, 2017.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment revised certain 18-
month Technical Specification (TS) surveillance requirements to 
eliminate the condition that testing be conducted ``during shutdown'' 
and revised the administrative portion of the TSs regarding plant staff 
and responsibilities.
    Date of issuance: November 27, 2018.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days.
    Amendment No.: 158. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML18247A538; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-86: The amendment revised the 
Facility Operating License and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 13, 2018 (83 
FR 6227).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated November 27, 2018.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Northern States Power Company--Minnesota, Docket No. 50-263, Monticello 
Nuclear Generating Plant, Wright County, Minnesota

    Date of amendment request: July 3, 2018.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment changed the Technical 
Specifications to adopt Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) 
traveler, TSTF-551, Revision 3, ``Revise Secondary Containment 
Surveillance Requirements.''
    Date of issuance: November 26, 2018.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 199. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML18291B214; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-22: The amendment 
revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical 
Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 28, 2018 (83 FR 
43906).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated November 26, 2018.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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: May 18, 2018.
    Description of amendments: These amendments authorized changes to 
Technical Specifications Limiting Condition for Operation 3.3.8, 
Engineered Safety Feature Actuation System (ESFAS) Instrumentation, 
related to Safeguard Actuation Functions. Various ESFAS Functions 
require applicability and corresponding action changes to more 
accurately reflect their operation and related safety analysis 
assumptions.
    Date of issuance: November 13, 2018.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 148 (Unit 3) and 147 (Unit 4). A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Package Accession No. ML18296A412; 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 Combined License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 17, 2018 (83 FR 
33270).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in the Safety Evaluation dated November 13, 2018.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: January 22, 2018, as supplemented by 
letter dated March 26, 2018.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the North 
Anna Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Technical Specification (TS) 
3.7.10, ``Main Control Room/Emergency Switchgear Room (MCR/ESGR) 
Emergency Ventilation System (EVS),'' and TS 3.7.12, ``Emergency Core 
Cooling System (ECCS) Pump Room Exhaust Air Cleanup System (PREACS),'' 
to adopt the Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-
522, Revision 0, ``Revise Ventilation System Surveillance Requirements 
to Operate for 10 hours per Month.'' The amendments further revised TS 
5.5.10, ``Ventilation Filter Testing Program (VFTP),'' to remove the 
electric heater output test and to increase the specified relative 
humidity (RH) for the charcoal testing for the MCR/ESGR EVS from the 
current 70 percent to 95 percent RH. Additionally, the amendments made 
an administrative change to the Environmental Protection Plan to 
reflect updated references to 10 CFR.
    Date of issuance: November 27, 2018.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 280 and 263. A publicly-available version is in 
ADAMS under Accession No. ML18290A852; documents related to these 
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 
amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-4 and NPF-7: The 
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 11, 2018 (83 
FR 45988).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated November 27, 2018.

[[Page 64902]]

    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Vistra Operations Company LLC, Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446, Comanche 
Peak Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 (CPNPP), Somervell County, 
Texas

    Date of amendment request: March 29, 2018.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical 
Specification 3.3.2, ``Engineered Safety Feature Actuation System 
(ESFAS) Instrumentation,'' to change the applicability of when the 
automatic auxiliary feedwater actuation due to the trip of all main 
feedwater pumps is required to be operable at CPNPP.
    Date of issuance: November 30, 2018.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: Unit 1-171; Unit 2-171. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18304A487; documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with 
the amendments.
    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-87 and NPF-89: The amendments 
revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 5, 2018 (83 FR 
26107).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated November 30, 2018.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 10th day of December 2018.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Kathryn M. Brock,
Deputy Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of 
Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2018-26968 Filed 12-17-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7590-01-P