Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations, 489-500 [2019-00315]

Agencies

• NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 20 (Wednesday, January 30, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 489-500]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-00315]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2019-0028]


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 December 29, 2018, to January 14, 2019. The 
last biweekly was published on January 2, 2019 (84 FR 20). Due to the 
Federal government shutdown, there was no biweekly publication on 
January 15, 2019.

DATES: Comments must be filed by March 1, 2019. A request for a hearing 
must be filed by April 1, 2019.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal Rulemaking website: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for NRC-2019-0028. 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: Office of Administration, Mail Stop: 
TWFN-7-A60M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-
0001, ATTN: Program Management, Announcements and Editing Staff.
    For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting 
comments, see ``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' in the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paula Blechman, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2242, email: Paula.Blechman@nrc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments

A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2019-0028 facility name, unit 
number(s), plant docket number, application date, and subject when 
contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this 
action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this 
action by any of the following methods:
     Federal Rulemaking website: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2019-0028.
     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-2019-0028 facility name, unit 
number(s), plant docket number, application date, and subject in your 
comment submission.
    The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact 
information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your 
comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at https://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into 
ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove 
identifying or contact information.
    If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons 
for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to 
include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be 
publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should 
state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to 
remove such information before making the comment submissions available 
to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.

II. Background

    Pursuant to Section 189a.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 
amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is 
publishing this regular biweekly notice. The Act requires the 
Commission to publish

[[Page 490]]

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 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

[[Page 491]]

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 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

[[Page 492]]

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.

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

    Date of amendment request: October 11, 2018, as supplemented by 
letter dated November 28, 2018. Publicly-available versions are in 
ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML18284A395 and ML18333A029, respectively.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the 
technical specifications to support and allow application of Advanced 
Framatome Methodologies for determining core operating limits in 
support of loading Framatome fuel type ATRIUM 11.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The probability of an evaluated accident is derived from the 
probabilities of the individual precursors to that accident. The 
proposed amendments revise the list of NRC-approved analytical 
methods used to establish core operating limits. The change does not 
require any physical plant modifications, physically affect any 
plant components, or entail changes in plant operation. Since no 
individual precursors of an accident are affected, the proposed 
amendments do not increase the probability of a previously analyzed 
event.
    The consequences of an evaluated accident are determined by the 
operability of plant systems designed to mitigate those 
consequences. The proposed amendments revise the list of NRC-
approved analytical methods used to establish core operating limits. 
The changes in methodology do not alter the assumptions of accident 
analyses. Based on the above, the proposed amendments do not 
increase the consequences of a previously analyzed accident.
    Therefore, the proposed amendments do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    Creation of the possibility of a new or different kind of 
accident requires creating one or more new accident precursors. New 
accident precursors may be created by modifications of plant 
configuration, including changes in allowable modes of operation. 
The proposed amendments revise the list of NRC-approved analytical 
methods used to establish core operating limits. The proposed 
amendments do not involve any plant configuration modifications or 
changes to allowable modes of operation thereby ensuring no new 
accident precursors are created.
    Therefore, the proposed amendments do not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendments revise the list of NRC-approved 
analytical methods used to establish core operating limits. The 
proposed change will ensure that the current level of fuel 
protection is maintained by continuing to ensure that the fuel 
design safety criteria are met.
    Therefore, the proposed amendments do not result in a 
significant reduction in the margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Kathryn B. Nolan, Deputy General Counsel, 
550 South Tryon St., M/C DEC45A, Charlotte, NC 28202.
    NRC Branch Chief: Undine Shoop.

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

    Date of amendment request: November 29, 2018. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18333A194.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the 
RBS Technical Specifications (TS) to remove the table of contents (TOC) 
from the TS and place it under the licensee's control. The TOC would 
not be eliminated, but would no longer be in the TS, and therefore, 
maintenance and updates would be Entergy's responsibility.
    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 is administrative and affects control of 
a document, the TOC, listing the specifications in the plant TS. 
Transferring control from the NRC to Entergy does not affect the 
operation, physical configuration, or function of plant equipment or 
systems. The proposed amendment does not impact the initiators or 
assumptions of analyzed events; nor does it impact the mitigation of 
accidents or transient events. Therefore, the proposed amendment 
does not involve a significant increase in the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change is administrative and does not alter the 
plant configuration, require installation of new equipment, alter 
assumptions about previously analyzed accidents, or impact the 
operation or function of plant equipment or systems. 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 is administrative. The TOC is not 
required by regulation to be in the TS. Removal does not impact any 
safety assumptions or have the potential to reduce a margin of 
safety. The proposed amendment involves a transfer of control of the 
TOC from the NRC to Entergy. No change in the technical content of 
the TS is involved. Consequently, transfer from the NRC to Entergy 
has no impact on the margin of safety. 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: Ms. Anna Vinson Jones, Senior Counsel--
Entergy Services, Inc., 101 Constitution Avenue NW, Suite 200 East, 
Washington, DC 20001.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.

[[Page 493]]

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

    Date of amendment request: November 29, 2018. A publicly available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18333A206.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the 
James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant Technical Specifications to 
remove the Ultimate Heat Sink (UHS) Bar Rack Heaters from the UHS 
operability requirements.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes have been evaluated to determine the effect 
on the ability of the UHS to mitigate the consequences as previously 
evaluated. The resulting evaluation determined that the ability of 
the UHS to mitigate the consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated is not reduced by this change. The consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated with a subsequent loss of the Bar Rack 
Heaters are no different than the consequences of an accident with 
the Bar Rack Heaters available and in service. As a result, the 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated are not 
significantly increased.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not alter the protection system design, 
create new failure modes, or change any modes of operation. The 
proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant; 
and no new or different kind of equipment will be installed. 
Consequently, there are no new initiators that could result in a new 
or different kind of accident.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes remove the requirement of a support system 
to be operable to maintain operability of the Ultimate Heat Sink. 
The Ultimate Heat Sink is required to provide a source of cooling 
water for the purpose of long term decay heat removal. Based on 
Engineering Analysis, there is adequate flow area available, with or 
without the deicing heaters in service, to provide adequate flow for 
this purpose. The removal of the Bar Rack Heaters does not 
significantly impact the ability of the UHS to provide adequate flow 
of cooling water for decay heat removal. Therefore, the safety 
function of the Ultimate Heat Sink is not affected.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Donald P. Ferraro, Assistant General 
Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 200 Exelon Way, Suite 305, 
Kennett Square, PA 19348.
    NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. STN 50-456 and STN 50-457, 
Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, Will County, Illinois

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. STN 50-454 and STN 50-455, 
Byron Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Ogle County, Illinois

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

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-237 and 50-249, Dresden 
Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3, Grundy County, Illinois

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

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-374, LaSalle 
County Station, Units 1 and 2, LaSalle County, Illinois

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-254 and 50-265, Quad 
Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Rock Island County, 
Illinois

    Date of amendment request: November 1, 2018. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18305B401.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would 
revise the technical specifications (TS) for these facilities to 
eliminate secondary completion times. The proposed changes are based on 
Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) traveler TSTF-439, Revision 
2, ``Eliminate Second Completion Times Limiting Time from Discovery of 
Failure to Meet an LCO [Limiting Condition for Operation]'' (ADAMS 
Accession No. ML051860296). The proposed amendments would also make 
other administrative changes.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change eliminates certain Completion Times from the 
TS. Completion Times are not an initiator to any accident previously 
evaluated. Additionally, the administrative change will delete one 
obsolete footnote associated with a temporary one-time license 
amendment that is no longer applicable. As a result, the probability 
of an accident previously evaluated is not affected. The 
consequences of an accident during the revised Completion Time are 
no different than the consequences of the same accident during the 
existing Completion Times. As a result, the consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated are not affected by this change. The 
proposed change does not alter or prevent the ability of [systems, 
structures, and components] from performing their intended function 
to mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within the 
assumed acceptance limits. The proposed change does not affect the 
source term, containment isolation, or radiological release 
assumptions used in evaluating the radiological consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated. Further, the proposed change does not 
increase the types or amounts of radioactive effluent that may be 
released offsite, nor significantly increase individual or 
cumulative occupational/public radiation exposures. The proposed 
change is consistent with the safety analysis assumptions and 
resultant consequences.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of 
the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be 
installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant 
operation. The proposed change does not alter any assumptions made 
in the safety analysis.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?

[[Page 494]]

    Response: No.
    The proposed change to delete the second Completion Time and the 
administrative change to delete the obsolete footnote does not alter 
the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system settings 
or limiting conditions for operation are determined. The safety 
analysis acceptance criteria are not affected by this change. The 
proposed change will not result in plant operation in a 
configuration outside of the design basis.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
requested amendments involve 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: David J. Wrona.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-317 and 50-318, Calvert 
Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, Calvert County, Maryland

    Date of amendment request: November 28, 2018, as supplemented by 
letter dated November 29, 2018. Publicly-available versions are in 
ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML18333A022 and ML18337A038, respectively.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would allow the 
implementation of risk-informed categorization and treatment of 
structures, systems, and components.
    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 will permit the use of a risk-informed 
categorization process to modify the scope of Structures, Systems 
and Components (SSCs) subject to Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) 
special treatment requirements and to implement alternative 
treatments per the regulations. The process used to evaluate SSCs 
for changes to NRC special treatment requirements and the use of 
alternative requirements ensures the ability of the SSCs to perform 
their design function. The potential change to special treatment 
requirements does not change the design and operation of the SSCs. 
As a result, the proposed change does not significantly affect any 
initiators to accidents previously evaluated or the ability to 
mitigate any accidents previously evaluated. The consequences of the 
accidents previously evaluated are not affected because the 
mitigation functions performed by the SSCs assumed in the safety 
analysis are not being modified. The SSCs required to safely shut 
down the reactor and maintain it in a safe shutdown condition 
following an accident will continue to perform their design 
functions.
    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 will permit the use of a risk-informed 
categorization process to modify the scope of SSCs subject to NRC 
special treatment requirements and to implement alternative 
treatments per the regulations. The proposed change does not change 
the functional requirements, configuration, or method of operation 
of any SSC. Under the proposed change, no additional plant equipment 
will be installed.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change will permit the use of a risk-informed 
categorization process to modify the scope of SSCs subject to NRC 
special treatment requirements and to implement alternative 
treatments per the regulations. The proposed change does not affect 
any Safety Limits or operating parameters used to establish the 
safety margin. The safety margins included in analyses of accidents 
are not affected by the proposed change. The regulation requires 
that there be no significant effect on plant risk due to any change 
to the special treatment requirements for SSCs and that the SSCs 
continue to be capable of performing their design basis functions, 
as well as to perform any beyond design basis functions consistent 
with the categorization process and results.
    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.

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC), et al., Docket No. 50-
346, Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 1 (DBNPS), Ottawa 
County, Ohio

    Date of amendment request: October 22, 2018. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18295A289.
    Description of amendment request: The licensee proposes to change 
the technical specifications (TSs) for DBNPS to permit changes in plant 
operations when the plant is permanently defueled. Specifically, the 
licensee proposes to revise the TSs to support the implementation of 
the certified fuel handler and non-certified operator positions. In 
addition, certain organization, staffing, and training requirements in 
the TSs will be revised. The proposed amendment would also make other 
administrative changes.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment would not take effect until DBNPS has 
permanently ceased operation and entered a permanently defueled 
condition and the FENOC Certified Fuel Handler Training and 
Retraining Program is approved by the NRC. The proposed amendment 
would revise the DBNPS TS by deleting or modifying certain portions 
of the TS administrative controls described in Section 5.0 that are 
no longer applicable to a permanently shutdown and defueled 
facility. In addition, the terms CERTIFIED FUEL HANDLER and NON-
CERTIFIED OPERATOR would be added to Section 1.1 to define these 
positions that are applicable to permanently shutdown and defueled 
facility.
    The deletion and modification of provisions of the 
administrative controls do not directly affect the design of 
structures, systems, and components (SSCs) necessary for safe 
storage of irradiated fuel or the methods used for handling and 
storage of such fuel in the spent fuel pool. The changes to the 
administrative controls are administrative in nature and do not 
affect any accidents applicable to the safe management of irradiated 
fuel or the permanently shutdown and defueled condition of the 
reactor. Thus, the consequences of an accident previously evaluated 
are not increased.
    In a permanently defueled condition, it is expected that the 
only credible accidents are the fuel handling accident (FHA) and 
those involving radioactive waste systems remaining in service. The 
probability of

[[Page 495]]

occurrence of previously evaluated accidents is not increased 
because extended operation in a defueled condition will be the only 
operation allowed. This mode of operation is bounded by the existing 
analyses. In addition, the occurrence of postulated accidents 
associated with reactor operation is no longer credible in a 
permanently defueled reactor. This significantly reduces the scope 
of applicable accidents.
    Therefore, the proposed 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 has no impact on facility SSCs affecting 
the safe storage of irradiated fuel, or on the methods of operation 
of such SSCs, or on the handling and storage of irradiated fuel 
itself. The administrative removal or modifications of the TS that 
are related only to administration of the facility cannot result in 
different or more adverse failure modes or accidents than previously 
evaluated because the reactor will be permanently shutdown and 
defueled, and DBNPS will no longer be authorized to operate the 
reactor or retain or place fuel in the reactor vessel.
    The proposed amendment to the DBNPS TS does not affect systems 
credited in the accident analysis for the FHA or radioactive waste 
system upsets at DBNPS. The proposed TS will continue to require 
proper control and monitoring of safety significant parameters and 
activities. The proposed amendment does not result in any new 
mechanisms that could initiate damage to the remaining relevant 
safety barriers for defueled plants (fuel cladding and spent fuel 
pool cooling). Extended operation in a defueled condition will be 
the only operation allowed, and it is bounded by the existing 
analyses, therefore such a condition does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident.
    The proposed amendment does not involve any physical alterations 
to the facility.
    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.
    Because the 10 CFR 50 license for DBNPS will no longer authorize 
operation of the reactor or emplacement or retention of fuel into 
the reactor vessel once the certifications required by 10 CFR 
50.82(a)(1) are docketed, as specified in 10 CFR 50.82(a)(2), the 
occurrence of postulated accidents associated with reactor operation 
is no longer credible. The only remaining credible accidents are a 
FHA and those involving radioactive waste systems remaining in 
service. The proposed amendment does not adversely affect the inputs 
or assumptions of any of the design basis analyses that impact these 
analyzed conditions.
    The proposed changes are limited to those portions of the TS 
that are not related to the SSCs that are important to the safe 
storage of spent nuclear fuel. The requirements that are proposed to 
be added, revised, or deleted from the DBNPS TS are not credited in 
the existing accident analysis for the remaining applicable 
postulated accidents; and, therefore, do not contribute to the 
margin of safety associated with the accident analysis. Postulated 
design basis accidents involving the reactor are no longer possible 
because the reactor will be permanently shutdown and defueled, and 
DBNPS will no longer be authorized to operate the reactor or retain 
or place fuel in the reactor vessel.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in the margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Rick Giannantonio, General Counsel, 
FirstEnergy Corporation, Mail Stop A-GO-15, 76 South Main Street, 
Akron, OH 44308.
    NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.

South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, South Carolina Public Service 
Authority, Docket No. 50-395, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 
No. 1, Fairfield County, South Carolina

    Date of amendment request: December 12, 2018. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18346A595.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
remove an expired one-time extension to Technical Specification 
Surveillance Frequency 4.3.3.6, which describes the Surveillance 
Requirements for the Accident Monitoring Instrumentation. Additionally, 
this proposed change will remove the Index from the Technical 
Specifications and place them under licensee control.
    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.
    This LAR [license amendment request] proposes administrative 
non-technical changes only. These proposed changes do not adversely 
affect accident initiators or precursors nor alter the design 
assumptions, conditions, or configurations of the facility. The 
proposed changes do not alter or prevent the ability of structures, 
systems and components (SSCs) to, perform their intended function to 
mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within the assumed 
acceptance limits.
    Therefore, it is concluded the proposed amendment does not 
significantly increase 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 LAR proposes administrative non-technical changes only. The 
proposed changes will not alter the design requirements of any 
Structure, System or Component (SSC) or its function during accident 
conditions. No new or different accidents result from the proposed 
changes. The changes do not involve a physical alteration of the 
plant or any changes in methods governing normal plant operation. 
The changes do not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis.
    Therefore, it is concluded the proposed amendment does not 
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from 
any accident previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    This LAR proposes administrative non-technical changes only. The 
proposed changes do not alter the manner in which safety limits, 
limiting safety system settings or limiting conditions for operation 
are determined. The safety analysis acceptance criteria are not 
affected by these changes. The proposed changes will not result in 
plant operation in a configuration outside the design basis. The 
proposed changes do not adversely affect systems that respond to 
safely shutdown the plant and to maintain the plant in a safe 
shutdown condition.
    Therefore, it is concluded the proposed amendment does not 
involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Kathryn M. Sutton, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius 
LLP, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

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

    Date of amendment request: November 29, 2018. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18333A350.

[[Page 496]]

    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would 
revise certain Technical Specifications (TSs) to remove the 
requirements for engineered safety feature (ESF) systems to be operable 
after sufficient radioactive decay of irradiated fuel has occurred 
following a plant shutdown; revise certain TSs actions that are not 
needed to mitigate accidents postulated during shutdown; revise the 
licensing basis to Fuel Handing Accident (FHA) analysis; partially 
adopt Standard Technical Specifications (STS) Change Traveler Technical 
Specifications Task Force (TSTF)-51-A, ``Revise Containment 
Requirements During Handling Irradiated Fuel and Core Alterations,'' 
Revision 2; and, partially adopt STS Change Traveler TSTF-471-A, 
``Eliminate Use Of Term CORE ALTERATIONS in ACTIONS and Notes,'' 
Revision 1.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment does not affect accident initiators or 
precursors nor adversely alter the design assumptions, conditions, 
and configuration of the facility. The proposed amendment does not 
alter any plant equipment or operating practices with respect to 
such initiators or precursors in a manner that the probability of an 
accident is increased.
    The proposed amendment does not involve a physical change to the 
containment or spent fuel area systems, nor does it change the 
safety function of the containment, containment purge and exhaust 
ventilation system, or PRF [penetration room filtration] system, or 
associated instrumentation. The subject ESF systems are not assumed 
in the mitigation of an FHA after sufficient radioactive decay of 
irradiated fuel has occurred. The revised FHA dose analysis shows 
that MCR [main control room] dose remains below the 10 CFR 
50.67(b)(2)(iii) dose limit and off-site dose remains below the 
accident dose limit specified in the NRC SRP [standard review plan], 
which represents a small fraction of the 10 CFR 50.67 dose limits.
    Elimination of the action to suspend core alterations in the 
event boron concentration is not within the required limit in 
refueling condition does not alter the initiation or consequences of 
a boron dilution event and the required actions continue to prohibit 
positive reactivity additions until reactor core shutdown margin can 
be restored to within the required limit.
    Permitting fuel assemblies, sources, and reactivity control 
components to be moved to restore an inoperable source range neutron 
flux monitor to operable status when one or more required source 
range neutron flux monitors are inoperable does not significantly 
alter the probability or consequences of any previously evaluated 
refueling accident or transient. The required actions continue to 
minimize actions that could result in reactivity changes within the 
core, while providing the ability to safely restore source range 
neutron monitoring capability.
    As a result, 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 accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    With respect to a new or different kind of accident, there are 
no proposed design changes to the safety related plant structures, 
systems, and components (SSCs); nor are there any changes in the 
method by which safety related plant SSCs perform their specified 
safety functions. The proposed amendment will not affect the normal 
method of plant operation or revise any operating parameters. No new 
accident scenarios, transient precursor, failure mechanisms, or 
limiting single failures will be introduced as a result of this 
proposed change and the failure modes and effects analyses of SSCs 
important to safety are not altered as a result of this proposed 
change. The proposed amendment does not alter the design or 
performance of the related SSCs, and, therefore, does not constitute 
a new type of test.
    No changes are being proposed to the procedures that operate the 
plant equipment and the change does not have a detrimental impact on 
the manner in which plant equipment operates or responds to an 
actuation signal.
    Therefore, the proposed change will not create the possibility 
of a new or different accident previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The margin of safety is related to 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.
    Instrumentation safety margin is established by ensuring the 
limiting safety system settings (LSSSs) automatically actuate the 
applicable design function to correct an abnormal situation before a 
safety limit is exceeded. Safety analysis limits are established for 
reactor trip system and ESF actuation system instrumentation 
functions related to those variables having significant safety 
functions. The proposed change does not alter the design of these 
protection systems; nor are there any changes in the method by which 
safety related plant SSCs perform their specified safety functions.
    The proposed amendment does not involve a physical change to the 
containment or spent fuel area systems, nor does it change the 
safety function of the containment, containment purge and exhaust 
ventilation system, or PRF system, or associated instrumentation. 
The subject ESF systems are not assumed in the mitigation of an FHA 
after sufficient radioactive decay of irradiated fuel has occurred. 
The revised FNP FHA dose analysis shows that MCR dose remains below 
the 10 CFR 50.67(b)(2)(iii) dose limit and off-site dose remains 
below the accident dose limit specified in the NRC SRP, which 
represents a small fraction of the 10 CFR 50.67 dose limits.
    Elimination of the action to suspend core alterations does not 
reduce the margin of safety in the event boron concentration is not 
within the required limit in refueling condition because the 
remaining required actions continue to prohibit positive reactivity 
additions until reactor core shutdown margin can be restored to 
within the required limit.
    Permitting fuel assemblies, sources, and reactivity control 
components to be moved to restore an inoperable source range neutron 
flux monitor to operable status when one or more required source 
range neutron flux monitors are inoperable does not significantly 
reduce the margin of safety. The required actions continue to 
minimize actions that could result in reactivity changes within the 
core, while providing the ability to safely restore source range 
neutron monitoring capability.
    The controlling parameters established to isolate or actuate 
required ESF systems during an accident or transient are not 
affected by the proposed amendment and no design basis or safety 
limit is altered 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.
    Attorney for licensee: Millicent Ronnlund, Vice President and 
General Counsel, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., P.O. Box 
1295, Birmingham, AL 35201-1295.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

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

    Date of amendment request: November 29, 2018. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18333A337.
    Description of amendment request: The requested amendment proposes 
changes to information in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report 
(UFSAR) in the form of departures from plant-specific Tier 1 
information, with corresponding changes to the associated

[[Page 497]]

Combined License (COL) Appendix C information. Specifically, the 
requested amendment proposes changes to plant-specific Tier 1 
information to clarify that when the Design Commitment or Inspections, 
Tests, Analyses, and Acceptance Criteria (ITAAC) provides that an item 
or activity must comply with the American Society of Mechanical 
Engineers (ASME) Code Section III, this means compliance with the ASME 
Section III Code, as incorporated by reference in 10 CFR 50.55a with 
specific conditions, or in accordance with alternatives authorized by 
the NRC pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a. Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 
52.63(b)(1), an exemption from elements of the design as certified in 
the 10 CFR part 52, Appendix D, design certification rule is also 
requested for the plant-specific DCD Tier 1 material departures.
    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 clarifies that when the Design Commitment or 
ITAAC provides that an item or activity must comply with ASME Code 
Section III, this means compliance with the ASME Section III Code, 
as incorporated by reference in 10 CFR 50.55a with specific 
conditions, or in accordance with alternatives authorized by the NRC 
pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a. This change is administrative in nature 
and consistent with NRC authorized use of alternatives to ASME 
Section III as allowed by 10 CFR 50.55a. The proposed change does 
not affect the operation of any of the systems impacted by this 
change. These systems continue to maintain their structural 
integrity as evidenced by meeting the ASME Section III requirements 
or an NRC-authorized alternative in accordance with 10 CFR 
50.55a(z).
    The proposed change does not affect the operation of any systems 
or equipment that initiate an analyzed accident or alter any 
structures, systems, and components (SSCs) accident initiator or 
initiating sequence of events. Therefore, the probabilities of 
accidents previously evaluated are not affected.
    The proposed change does not affect the prevention and 
mitigation of other abnormal events (e.g., anticipated operational 
occurrences, earthquakes, floods, and turbine missiles), or their 
safety or design analyses. Therefore, the consequences of the 
accidents evaluated in the UFSAR are not affected.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change clarifies that when the Design Commitment or 
ITAAC provides that an item or activity must comply with ASME Code 
Section III, this means compliance with the ASME Section III Code, 
as incorporated by reference in 10 CFR 50.55a with specific 
conditions, or in accordance with alternatives authorized by the NRC 
pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a. This change is administrative in nature 
and consistent with NRC authorization for use of alternatives to 
ASME Section III as allowed by 10 CFR 50.55a. The proposed change 
does not affect the operation of any systems or equipment that may 
initiate a new or different kind of accident, or alter any SSC such 
that a new accident initiator or initiating sequence of events is 
created.
    The proposed change does not affect any other SSC design 
functions or methods of operation in a manner that results in a new 
failure mode, malfunction, or sequence of events that affect safety-
related or nonsafety-related equipment. Therefore, this activity 
does not allow for a new fission product release path, result in a 
new fission product barrier failure mode, or create a new sequence 
of events that result in significant fuel cladding failures.
    Therefore, the requested amendment does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change clarifies that when the Design Commitment or 
ITAAC provides that an item or activity must comply with ASME Code 
Section III, this means compliance with the ASME Section III Code, 
as incorporated by reference in 10 CFR 50.55a with specific 
conditions, or in accordance with alternatives authorized by the NRC 
pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a. This change is administrative in nature 
and consistent with NRC authorization for use of alternatives to 
ASME Section III as allowed by 10 CFR 50.55a. The proposed change 
does not have any effect on the ability of the safety-related SSCs 
to perform their design basis functions. These systems continue to 
maintain their structural integrity as evidenced by meeting the ASME 
Section III construction requirements or an NRC-authorized 
alternative to the ASME Section III requirements.
    No safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is 
challenged or exceeded by the proposed changes, and no margin of 
safety is reduced. Therefore, the requested 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: Mr. M. Stanford Blanton, Balch & Bingham 
LLP, 1710 Sixth Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203-2015.
    NRC Branch Chief: Jennifer L. Dixon-Herrity.

Susquehanna Nuclear, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-387 and 50-388, Susquehanna 
Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania

    Date of amendment request: December 4, 2018. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18339A002.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise 
Technical Specification (TS) 3.8.3, ``Diesel Fuel Oil, Lube Oil, and 
Starting Air,'' Surveillance Requirement 3.8.3.1, by relocating the 
current stored diesel fuel oil numerical requirements from the TS to 
the TS Bases so that it may be modified under licensee control. The 
proposed changes are based on Technical Specifications Task Force 
(TSTF) Traveler TSTF-501, Revision 1, ``Relocate Stored Fuel Oil and 
Lube Oil Volume Values to Licensee Control,'' dated February 20, 2009.
    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 revise the TS by removing the current 
stored diesel fuel oil numerical volume requirements from the TS and 
replacing them with diesel operating time requirements. The 
numerical values will be placed in the TS Bases so that they may be 
modified under licensee control. For Diesel Generators A-D, the 
specific volume of fuel oil equivalent to a 7 and 6-day supply is 
calculated using the NRC-approved methodology described in 
Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.137, Revision 0, ``Fuel-Oil Systems for 
Standby Diesel Generators,'' and ANSI [American National Standards 
Institute]-N195 1976, ``Fuel Oil Systems for Standby Diesel-
Generators.'' For Diesel Generator E, the specific volume of fuel 
oil is calculated using the NRC-approved methodology described in RG 
1.137, Revision 1 and ANSI-N195 1976. Because the requirement to 
maintain a 7-day supply of diesel fuel oil is not changed and is 
consistent with the assumptions in the accident analyses, and the 
actions taken when the volume of fuel oil is less than a 6-day 
supply have not changed, neither the probability nor the 
consequences

[[Page 498]]

of any accident previously evaluated will be affected.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant 
(i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a 
change in the methods governing normal plant operation. The change 
does not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis but ensures 
that the diesel generator operates as assumed in the accident 
analysis. The proposed change is consistent with the safety analysis 
assumptions.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes revise the TS by removing the current 
stored diesel fuel oil numerical volume requirements from the TS and 
replacing them with diesel operating time requirements. The 
numerical values will be placed in the TS Bases so that they may be 
modified under licensee control. As the basis for the existing 
limits on diesel fuel oil are not changed, no change is made to the 
accident analysis assumptions and no margin of safety is reduced as 
part of this change.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Damon D. Obie, Associate General Counsel, 
Talen Energy Supply, LLC, 835 Hamilton St., Suite 150, Allentown, PA 
18101.
    NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna.

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

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

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

    Date of amendment request: March 14, 2018.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment modified the 
technical specification definition of ``Shutdown Margin'' (SDM) to 
require calculation of the SDM at a reactor moderator temperature of 68 
degrees Fahrenheit or a higher temperature that represents the most 
reactive state throughout the operating cycle. This change is needed to 
address new boiling-water reactor fuel designs, which may be more 
reactive at shutdown temperatures above 68 degrees Fahrenheit.
    Date of issuance: January 7, 2019.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 45 days.
    Amendment No.: 213. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML18306A451; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-43: Amendment revised 
the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 14, 2018 (83 FR 
40346).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated January 7, 2019.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: January 23, 2018.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical 
Specification 3.6.4.1, ``Secondary Containment,'' Surveillance 
Requirement 3.6.4.1.2, to allow for the temporary opening of the inner 
and outer doors of secondary containment for the purpose of entry and 
exit. The changes are consistent with NRC-approved Technical 
Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-551, Revision 3, 
``Revise Secondary Containment Surveillance Requirements.''
    Date of issuance: January 7, 2019.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 120 days.
    Amendment Nos.: 287 (Unit 1) and 315 (Unit 2). A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18264A260; documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with 
the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-71 and DPR-62: The 
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and 
Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 19, 2018 (83 FR 
28458).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated January 7, 2019.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: January 23, 2018.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the 
Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, Technical Specifications 
to adopt Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-208, 
Revision 0, ``Extension of Time to Reach Mode 2 in LCO [Limiting 
Condition for Operation] 3.0.3.''
    Date of issuance: January 9, 2019.

[[Page 499]]

    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 120 days.
    Amendment Nos.: 288 and 316. A publicly-available version is in 
ADAMS under Accession No. ML18291B322; documents related to these 
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 
amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-71 and DPR-62: The 
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and 
Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 19, 2018 (83 FR 
28459).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated January 9, 2019.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: January 9, 2018, as supplemented by 
letter dated August 29, 2018.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment incorporated a 
revised alternative source term dose calculation resulting from the 
removal of a reduction factor credit for dual remote Control Room 
outside air intakes that had been previously misapplied. The loss-of-
coolant accident (LOCA) dose calculation, the subsequent calculation 
results as described in the CPS Updated Safety Analysis Report, and the 
affected CPS technical specifications are revised.
    Date of issuance: January 3, 2019.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No: 221. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML18303A313; documents related to the amendment are 
listed in the related Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-62: The amendment revised the 
Facility Operating License, Technical Specifications, and Licensing 
Basis.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 13, 2018 (83 FR 
10918).
    The supplemental letter dated August 29, 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 January 3, 2019.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-374, LaSalle 
County Station (LSCS), Units 1 and 2, LaSalle County, Illinois

    Date of amendment request: January 24, 2018, as supplemented by 
letters dated June 11, 2018, and July 16, 2018.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendments revised the LSCS 
Technical Specification (TS) 3.7.2, ``Diesel Generator Cooling Water 
(DGCW) System''; TS 3.8.1, ``AC [Alternating Current] Sources-
Operating''; and the associated TS Bases to allow an extended period to 
install isolation valves to support replacing degraded core standby 
cooling system piping.
    The changes modified TS 3.7.2 to include a 7-day Completion Time 
(CT) when one or more required DGCW subsystem(s) are inoperable. The 
changes to TS 3.8.1 included a 7-day CT when a Division 2 diesel 
generator (DG) and the required opposite unit Division 2 DG are 
inoperable. The changes will only be used during four refueling 
outages, two for Unit 1 prior to July 1, 2024, and two for Unit 2 prior 
to July 1, 2023. The current planned schedule for the refueling 
outages, subject to change, is 2019 and 2021 for Unit 2, and 2020 and 
2022 for Unit 1.
    Date of issuance: January 2, 2019.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: Unit 1-233; Unit 2-219. A publicly-available version 
is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18311A265; documents related to these 
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 
amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-11 and NPF-18: The 
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and 
Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 13, 2018 (83 FR 
10919). The supplemental letters dated June 11, 2018, and July 16, 
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 January 2, 2019.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: February 9, 2018, as supplemented by 
letter dated August 17, 2018.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Boraflex 
credit from the two remaining Boraflex storage racks located in the 
spent fuel pool. The change eliminates reliance on Boraflex for spent 
fuel pool reactivity control.
    Date of issuance: January 11, 2019.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
during the spent fuel pool cleanup plan scheduled to begin after the 
2019 refuel outage.
    Amendment No.: 234. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML18344A452; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-63: The amendment 
revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical 
Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 3, 2018 (83 FR 
31184) and July 10, 2018 (83 FR 31981) (comment date correction from 
September 3, 2018, to September 4, 2018). The supplemental letter dated 
August 17, 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 January 11, 2019.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

NorthStar Nuclear Decommissioning Company, LLC and NorthStar Vermont 
Yankee, LLC, Docket No. 50-271, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, 
Windham County, Vermont

    Date of amendment request: February 9, 2017.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Renewed 
Facility Operating License No. DPR-28 to reflect the direct transfer of 
the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (Vermont Yankee) license and 
the general license for the Vermont Yankee Independent Spent Fuel 
Storage Installation (ISFSI) from Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. to

[[Page 500]]

NorthStar Nuclear Decommissioning Company, LLC; the indirect transfer 
of control of Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC's (ENVY) ownership 
interests in Vermont Yankee and the Vermont Yankee ISFSI to NorthStar 
Decommissioning Holdings, LLC, and its parents NorthStar Group 
Services, Inc., LVI Parent Corp., and NorthStar Group Holdings, LLC; 
and the name change for ENVY from ENVY to NorthStar Vermont Yankee, 
LLC.
    Date of issuance: January 11, 2019.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be 
implemented within 30 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 271. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML18347B358; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the letter dated October 
11, 2018 (ADAMS Package Accession No. ML18242A638).
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-28: The amendment 
revised the Renewed Facility Operating License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 24, 2017 (82 FR 
23845).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in the Safety Evaluation dated October 11, 2018.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 25th day of January, 2019.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Kathryn M. Brock,
Deputy Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of 
Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2019-00315 Filed 1-29-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7590-01-P