Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations, 19964-19977 [2019-08982]

Agencies

• NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 88 (Tuesday, May 7, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19964-19977]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-08982]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2019-0112]


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.

[[Page 19965]]

    This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or 
proposed to be issued, from April 9, 2019, to April 22, 2019. The last 
biweekly notice was published on April 23, 2019.

DATES: Comments must be filed by June 6, 2019. A request for a hearing 
must be filed by July 8, 2019.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods 
(unless this document describes a different method for submitting 
comments on a specific subject):
     Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2019-0112. Address 
questions about NRC docket IDs in Regulations.gov to Jennifer Borges; 
telephone: 301-287-9127; email: [email protected]. For technical 
questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT section of this document.
     Mail comments to: Office of Administration, Mail Stop: 
TWFN-7-A60M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-
0001, ATTN: Program Management, Announcements and Editing Staff.
    For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting 
comments, see ``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' in the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Janet Burkhardt, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1384; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments

A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2019-0112, 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-2019-0112.
     NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the 
ADAMS Public Documents collection at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select ``Begin Web-based ADAMS 
Search.'' For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public 
Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or 
by email to [email protected]. The ADAMS accession number for each 
document referenced (if it is available in ADAMS) is provided the first 
time that it is mentioned in this document.
     NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public 
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

B. Submitting Comments

    Please include Docket ID NRC-2019-0112, facility name, unit 
number(s), plant docket number, application date, and subject in your 
comment submission.
    The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact 
information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your 
comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at https://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into 
ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove 
identifying or contact information.
    If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons 
for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to 
include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be 
publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should 
state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to 
remove such information before making the comment submissions available 
to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.

II. Background

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

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

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

[[Page 19966]]

action. Petitions shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's 
``Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure'' in 10 CFR part 2. Interested 
persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309. The NRC's 
regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on the 
NRC's website at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. 
Alternatively, a copy of the regulations is available at the NRC's 
Public Document Room, located at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 
11555 Rockville Pike (First Floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. If a 
petition is filed, the Commission or a presiding officer will rule on 
the petition and, if appropriate, a notice of a hearing will be issued.
    As required by 10 CFR 2.309(d) the petition should specifically 
explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with 
particular reference to the following general requirements for 
standing: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the 
petitioner; (2) the nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to 
be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the 
petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; 
and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be 
entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest.
    In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f), the petition must also set 
forth the specific contentions which the petitioner seeks to have 
litigated in the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific 
statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In 
addition, the petitioner must provide a brief explanation of the bases 
for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or 
expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner 
intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The 
petitioner must also provide references to the specific sources and 
documents on which the petitioner intends to rely to support its 
position on the issue. The petition must include sufficient information 
to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant or licensee on 
a material issue of law or fact. Contentions must be limited to matters 
within the scope of the proceeding. The contention must be one which, 
if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner who 
fails to satisfy the requirements at 10 CFR 2.309(f) with respect to at 
least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
    Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, 
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene. 
Parties have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the 
hearing with respect to resolution of that party's admitted 
contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence, consistent 
with the NRC's regulations, policies, and procedures.
    Petitions must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of 
publication of this notice. Petitions and motions for leave to file new 
or amended contentions that are filed after the deadline will not be 
entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the 
filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 
CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i) through (iii). The petition must be filed in 
accordance with the filing instructions in the ``Electronic Submissions 
(E-Filing)'' section of this document.
    If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final 
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the 
Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no 
significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve 
to establish when the hearing is held. If the final determination is 
that the amendment request involves no significant hazards 
consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it 
immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any 
hearing would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final 
determination is that the amendment request involves a significant 
hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before 
the issuance of the amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent 
danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will 
issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.
    A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian 
Tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to 
participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition should 
state the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the 
proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission no later 
than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. The petition 
must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the 
``Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)'' section of this document, and 
should meet the requirements for petitions set forth in this section, 
except that under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(2) a State, local governmental body, 
or Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof does not need 
to address the standing requirements in 10 CFR 2.309(d) if the facility 
is located within its boundaries. Alternatively, a State, local 
governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof 
may participate as a non-party under 10 CFR 2.315(c).
    If a hearing is granted, any person who is not a party to the 
proceeding and is not affiliated with or represented by a party may, at 
the discretion of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited 
appearance pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person 
making a limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of 
his or her position on the issues but may not otherwise participate in 
the proceeding. A limited appearance may be made at any session of the 
hearing or at any prehearing conference, subject to the limits and 
conditions as may be imposed by the presiding officer. Details 
regarding the opportunity to make a limited appearance will be provided 
by the presiding officer if such sessions are scheduled.

B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)

    All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a 
request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition), any 
motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the 
submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and 
documents filed by interested governmental entities that request to 
participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the 
NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007, as amended at 77 FR 
46562; August 3, 2012). The E-Filing process requires participants to 
submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in 
some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Detailed 
guidance on making electronic submissions may be found in the Guidance 
for Electronic Submissions to the NRC and on the NRC website at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants may not submit 
paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in 
accordance with the procedures described below.
    To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 
days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the 
Office of the Secretary by email at [email protected], or by 
telephone at 301-415-1677, to (1) request a digital identification (ID) 
certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or 
representative) to digitally sign submissions and access the E-Filing 
system for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise 
the Secretary that the participant will be

[[Page 19967]]

submitting a petition or other adjudicatory document (even in instances 
in which the participant, or its counsel or representative, already 
holds an NRC-issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this 
information, the Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the 
hearing in this proceeding if the Secretary has not already established 
an electronic docket.
    Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is 
available on the NRC's public website at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/getting-started.html. Once a participant has obtained a 
digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant 
can then submit adjudicatory documents. Submissions must be in Portable 
Document Format (PDF). Additional guidance on PDF submissions is 
available on the NRC's public website at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/electronic-sub-ref-mat.html. A filing is considered complete at the 
time the document is submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be 
timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system 
no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of 
a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends 
the submitter an email notice confirming receipt of the document. The 
E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access 
to the document to the NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any 
others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to 
participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the 
document on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and 
other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for 
and receive a digital ID certificate before adjudicatory documents are 
filed so that they can obtain access to the documents via the E-Filing 
system.
    A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-
Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC's Electronic 
Filing Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC's 
public website at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by 
email to [email protected], or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-
7640. The NRC Electronic Filing Help Desk is available between 9 a.m. 
and 6 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government 
holidays.
    Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not 
submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in 
accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing 
stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and 
requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper 
format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail 
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: 
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or 
expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and 
Adjudications Staff. Participants filing adjudicatory documents in this 
manner are responsible for serving the document on all other 
participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of 
the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or 
expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the 
provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an 
exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or 
party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines 
that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no 
longer exists.
    Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the 
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at 
https://adams.nrc.gov/ehd, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the 
Commission or the presiding officer. If you do not have an NRC-issued 
digital ID certificate as described above, click cancel when the link 
requests certificates and you will be automatically directed to the 
NRC's electronic hearing dockets where you will be able to access any 
publicly available documents in a particular hearing docket. 
Participants are requested not to include personal privacy information, 
such as social security numbers, home addresses, or personal phone 
numbers in their filings, unless an NRC regulation or other law 
requires submission of such information. For example, in some 
instances, individuals provide home addresses in order to demonstrate 
proximity to a facility or site. With respect to copyrighted works, 
except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory 
filings and would constitute a Fair Use application, participants are 
requested not to include copyrighted materials in their submission.
    For further details with respect to these license amendment 
applications, see the application for amendment which is available for 
public inspection in ADAMS and at the NRC's PDR. For additional 
direction on accessing information related to this document, see the 
``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' section of this 
document.

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: February 27, 2019. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19058A768.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would 
modify Technical Specification (TS) 5.5.12 to allow extension of the 
Type A and Type C test intervals. The extension is based on the 
adoption of the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) topical report NEI 94-
01, ``Industry Guideline for Implementing Performance-Based Option of 
10 CFR part 50, Appendix J,'' Revision 3-A, dated July 2012, and 
conditions and limitations set forth in NEI 94-01, Revision 2-A, dated 
October 2008. The proposed amendments would also make administrative 
changes to TS 5.5.12.
    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 activity involves the revision of the Brunswick 
Steam Electric Plant (BSEP) Units 1 and 2 Technical Specification 
(TS) 5.5.12, Primary Containment Leakage Rate Testing Program, to 
allow the extension of the Type A integrated leakage rate test 
(ILRT) containment test interval to 15 years, and the extension of 
the Type C test interval to 75 months. Per the guidance provided in 
Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 94-01, Industry Guideline for 
Implementing Performance-Based Option of 10 CFR 50, Appendix J, 
Revision 3-A, the current Type A test interval of 120 months (i.e., 
10 years) would be extended on a permanent basis to no longer than 
15 years from the last Type A test. The current Type C test interval 
of 60 months for selected components would be extended on a 
performance basis to no longer than 75 months. Extensions of up to 
nine months for Types A, B and C tests are permissible only for non-
routine emergent conditions.
    The proposed interval extensions do not involve either a 
physical change to the plant or a change in the manner in which the 
plant is operated or controlled. The containment is designed to 
provide an essentially leak tight barrier against the uncontrolled 
release of radioactivity to the environment for postulated 
accidents. As such, the

[[Page 19968]]

containment and the testing requirements invoked to periodically 
demonstrate the integrity of the containment exist to ensure the 
plant's ability to mitigate the consequences of an accident, and do 
not involve the prevention or identification of any precursors of an 
accident.
    The change in Type A test frequency to once-per-fifteen-years, 
measured as an increase to the total integrated plant risk for those 
accident sequences influenced by Type A testing, based on the 
probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) is 4.98E-03 person-rem/year for 
Unit 1 and 4.67E-03 person-rem/year for Unit 2. Electric Power 
Research Institute (EPRI) Report No. 1009325, Revision 2-A states 
that a very small population dose is defined as an increase of less 
than 1.0 person-rem per year or less than 1 percent of the total 
population dose, whichever is less restrictive for the risk impact 
assessment of the extended ILRT intervals. This is consistent with 
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Final Safety Evaluation for 
NEI 94-01 and EPRI Report No. 1009325, Revision 2A. Moreover, the 
risk impact when compared to other severe accident risks is 
negligible. Therefore, the proposed extension does not involve a 
significant increase in the probability of an accident previously 
evaluated.
    In addition, as documented in NUREG-1493, ``Performance-Based 
Containment Leak-Test Program,'' dated September 1995, Types B and C 
tests have identified a very large percentage of containment leakage 
paths, and the percentage of containment leakage paths that are 
detected only by Type A testing is very small. The BSEP Unit 1 and 
Unit 2 Type A test history supports this conclusion.
    The integrity of the containment is subject to two types of 
failure mechanisms that can be categorized as: (1) Activity based, 
and (2) time based. Activity based failure mechanisms are defined as 
degradation due to system and/or component modifications or 
maintenance. Local leak rate test requirements and administrative 
controls such as configuration management and procedural 
requirements for system restoration ensure that containment 
integrity is not degraded by plant modifications or maintenance 
activities. The design and construction requirements of the 
containment combined with the containment inspections performed in 
accordance with American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) 
Boiler and Pressure Vessel (B&PV) Code, Section XI, Rules for 
Inservice Inspection of Nuclear Power Plant Components, Containment 
Maintenance Rule Inspections, Containment Coatings Program and TS 
requirements serve to provide a high degree of assurance that the 
containment would not degrade in a manner that is detectable only by 
a Type A test (ILRT). Based on the above, the proposed test interval 
extensions do not significantly increase the consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    The proposed amendment also proposes administrative changes to 
the exceptions in Units 1 and 2 TS 5.5.12.c and f. TS exception 
5.5.12.c reference[s] NEI 94-01 Revision 0 and TS exception 5.5.12.f 
reference[s] ANSI/ANS [American National Standards Institute/
American Nuclear Society] 56.8-1994. This change proposes to update 
the referenced documents in these two TS exceptions to reflect the 
adoption of NEI 94-01, Revision 3-A and ANSI/ANS 56.8-2002, 
accordingly. This administrative change does not impact any 
accidents previously evaluated.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not result in a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment to the BSEP Units 1 and 2 TS 5.5.12, 
``Primary Containment Leakage Rate Testing Program,'' involves the 
extension of the BSEP, Units 1 and 2 Type A containment test 
interval to 15 years and the extension of the Type C test interval 
to 75 months. The containment and the testing requirements to 
periodically demonstrate the integrity of the containment exist to 
ensure the plant's ability to mitigate the consequences of an 
accident.
    The proposed change does not involve a physical modification to 
the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be 
installed) nor does it alter the design, configuration, or change 
the manner in which the plant is operated or controlled beyond the 
standard functional capabilities of the equipment.
    The proposed amendment also proposes administrative changes to 
the exceptions in Units 1 and 2 TS 5.5.12.c and f. TS exception 
5.5.12.c reference[s] NEI 94-01 Revision 0 and TS exception 5.5.12.f 
reference[s] ANSI/ANS 56.8-1994. This change proposes to update the 
referenced documents in these two TS exceptions to reflect the 
adoption of NEI 94-01, Revision 3-A and ANSI/ANS 56.8-2002, 
accordingly. This administrative change to the references listed in 
TS 5.5.12.c and f, 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 change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment to Unit 1 and Unit 2 TS 5.5.12 involves 
the extension of the BSEP Type A containment test interval to 15 
years and the extension of the Type C to 75 months. This amendment 
does not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety 
system set points, or limiting conditions for operation are 
determined. The specific requirements and conditions of the TS 
Containment Leak Rate Testing Program exist to ensure that the 
degree of containment structural integrity and leak-tightness that 
is considered in the plant safety analysis is maintained. The 
overall containment leak rate limit specified by TS is maintained.
    The proposed change involves the extension of the interval 
between Type A containment leak rate tests and Type C tests for 
BSEP, Units 1 and 2. The proposed surveillance interval extension is 
bounded by the 15-year ILRT interval and the 75-month Type C test 
interval currently authorized within NEI 94-01, Revision 3-A. 
Industry experience supports the conclusion that Type B and C 
testing detects a large percentage of containment leakage paths and 
that the percentage of containment leakage paths that are detected 
only by Type A testing is small. The containment inspections 
performed in accordance with Option B to 10 CFR 50, Appendix J and 
the overlapping inspection activities performed as part of ASME 
Section Xl, and the TS serve to provide a high degree of assurance 
that the containment would not degrade in a manner that is 
detectable only by Type A testing. The combination of these factors 
ensures that the margin of safety in the plant safety analysis is 
maintained. The design, operation, testing methods and acceptance 
criteria for Types A, B, and C containment leakage tests specified 
in applicable codes and standards would continue to be met, with the 
acceptance of this proposed change, since these are not affected by 
changes to the Type A and Type C test intervals.
    The proposed amendment also proposes administrative changes to 
the exceptions in Units 1 and 2 TS 5.5.12. Two exceptions listed in 
the Units 1 and 2 TS 5.5.12 contain references to revisions and 
years of the ANSI/ANS 56.8 and NEI 94-01. Units 1 and 2 TS 5.5.12 
exception c references NEI 94-01, Revision 0 and Units 1 and 2 TS 
5.5.12 exception f references ANSI/ANS 56.8-1994. This change 
proposes to update the referenced documents in these two TS 
exceptions to reflect the adoption of NEI 94-01, Revision 3-A and 
ANSI/ANS 56.8-2002, accordingly. This administrative change does not 
change how the unit is operated or maintained, thus there is no 
reduction in any margins of safety.
    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: Kathryn B. Nolan, Deputy General Counsel, 
550 South Tryon Street, M/C DEC45A, Charlotte, NC 28202.
    NRC Branch Chief: Undine Shoop.

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: March 4, 2019. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19063B740.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would 
modify Technical Specification Surveillance Requirements (SRs) 3.4.3.2

[[Page 19969]]

and 3.5.1.11 by replacing the current requirement to verify the safety 
relief valves (SRVs) open when manually actuated with an alternate 
requirement that verifies the SRVs are capable of being opened. 
Additionally, the proposed change would revise the frequency for 
performing these SRs to be in accordance with the Inservice Testing 
(IST) Program.
    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 does not involve a physical alteration of 
the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be 
installed). The proposed change revises SR 3.4.3.2 and SR 3.5.1.11 
by replacing the current requirement to verify the SRVs open when 
manually actuated with an alternate requirement that verifies the 
SRVs are capable of being opened through a series of overlapping 
tests and requires the testing to be completed on a frequency in 
accordance with the IST Program. The proposed SR testing will 
continue to demonstrate proper SRV operation without the need for 
in-situ testing with reactor steam. This testing fully meets the 
requirements of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) 
Code for Operation and Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants (OM Code) 
for safety and relief valves. Performing testing in accordance with 
the IST Program retains appropriate legal control over the testing 
methodology and specified frequency, since performance is required 
and is governed by a code adopted into the regulation, i.e., 10 CFR 
50.55a. Therefore, the proposed change does not adversely affect the 
ability of structures, systems and components (SSCs) to perform 
their intended safety function to mitigate the consequences of 
event. Further, the proposed change does not increase the types and 
the amounts of radioactive effluent that may be released, nor 
significantly increase individual or cumulative occupation/public 
radiation exposures.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change revises SR 3.4.3.2 and SR 3.5.1.11 by 
replacing the current requirement to verify the SRVs open when 
manually actuated with an alternate requirement that verifies the 
SRVs are capable of being opened through a series of overlapping 
tests and updating the frequency to be in accordance with the IST 
Program. It does not require any modification to the plant and it 
does not alter the design configuration, or method of operation of 
plant equipment beyond its normal functional capabilities. The 
proposed change will not introduce failure modes that could result 
in a new accident, and the change does not alter assumptions made in 
the safety analysis.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change revises SR 3.4.3.2 and SR 3.5.1.11 by 
replacing the current requirement to verify the SRVs open when 
manually actuated with an alternate requirement that verifies the 
SRVs are capable of being opened through a series of overlapping 
tests and updating the frequency to be in accordance with the IST 
Program. The proposed SR testing will continue to demonstrate proper 
SRV operation without the need for in-situ testing with reactor 
steam. It does not alter or exceed a design basis or safety limit. 
There is no change being made to safety analysis assumptions or the 
safety limits that would adversely affect plant safety as a result 
of the proposed change. Margins of safety are unaffected by the 
proposed change and the applicable requirements of 10 CFR 
50.36(c)(3) will continue to be met.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does 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 Street, M/C DEC45A, Charlotte, NC 28202.
    NRC Branch Chief: Undine Shoop.

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

    Date of amendment request: March 8, 2019. A publicly available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19067A004.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
revise the full compliance date for the fire protection program 
transition license condition to allow an extension for the 
implementation of the remaining modifications necessary to achieve full 
compliance with 10 CFR 50.48(c).
    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 to the PNP [renewed facility operating 
license] RFOL to change the full compliance date for the fire 
protection program transition license condition to allow additional 
time for the implementation of the remaining modifications necessary 
to achieve full compliance with 10 CFR 50.48(c) is administrative in 
nature. This change does not alter accident analysis assumptions, 
add any initiators, or affect the function of plant systems or the 
manner in which systems are operated, maintained, modified, tested, 
or inspected. The proposed change does not require any plant 
modifications which affect the performance capability of the 
structures, systems, and components relied upon to mitigate the 
consequences of postulated accidents, and has no impact on the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    Therefore, this change does not involve a significant increase 
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change to the PNP RFOL [Renewed Facility Operating 
License] to change the full compliance date for the fire protection 
program transition license condition to allow additional time for 
the implementation of the remaining modifications necessary to 
achieve full compliance with 10 CFR 50.48(c) is administrative in 
nature. This proposed change does not alter accident analysis 
assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the function of plant 
systems or the manner in which systems are operated, maintained, 
modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed change does not require 
any plant modifications which affect the performance capability of 
the structures, systems, and components relied upon to mitigate the 
consequences of postulated accidents and does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    Therefore, this change does not create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from an accident previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change to the PNP RFOL to change the full 
compliance implementation date for the fire protection program 
transition license condition to allow additional time for 
implementation of the remaining modifications necessary to achieve 
full compliance with 10 CFR 50.48(c) is administrative in nature. 
Plant safety margins

[[Page 19970]]

are established through limiting conditions for operation, limiting 
safety system settings, and safety limits specified in the technical 
specifications. Because there is no change to established safety 
margins as a result of this change, the proposed change does not 
involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
    Therefore, this change does not involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Anna V. Jones, Senior Counsel, Entergy 
Services, Inc., 101 Constitution Avenue NW, Suite 200 East, Washington, 
DC 20001.
    NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. STN 50-456 and STN 50-457, 
Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, Will County, Illinois and Docket Nos. 
STN 50-454 and STN 50-455, Byron Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Ogle 
County, Illinois

    Date of amendment request: December 13, 2018, as supplemented by 
letter dated February 14, 2019. Publicly-available versions are in 
ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML18352B063 and ML19050A399, respectively.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
revise the technical specifications to permit the use of risk-informed 
completion times in accordance with Technical Specification Task Force 
(TSTF)-505, Revision 2, ``Provide Risk-Informed Extended Completion 
Times--RITSTF Initiative 4b,'' which is Attachment 3 to TSTF letter 
dated July 2, 2018 (ADAMS Accession No. ML18183A493).
    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 permit the extension of Completion Times 
provided the associated risk is assessed and managed in accordance 
with the NRC approved Risk-Informed Completion Time Program. The 
proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the 
probability of an accident previously evaluated because the changes 
involve no change to the plant or its modes of operation. The 
proposed changes do not increase the consequences of an accident 
because the design-basis mitigation function of the affected systems 
is not changed and the consequences of an accident during the 
extended Completion Time are no different from those during the 
existing Completion Time.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes do not change the design, configuration, or 
method of operation of the plant. The proposed changes do not 
involve a physical alteration of the plant (no new or different kind 
of equipment will be installed).
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes permit the extension of Completion Times 
provided that risk is assessed and managed in accordance with the 
NRC approved Risk-Informed Completion Time Program. The proposed 
changes implement a risk-informed configuration management program 
to assure that adequate margins of safety are maintained. 
Application of these new specifications and the configuration 
management program considers cumulative effects of multiple systems 
or components being out of service and does so more effectively than 
the current TS.
    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 
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. STN 50-456 and STN 50-457, 
Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, Will County, Illinois and Docket Nos. 
STN 50-454 and STN 50-455, Byron Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Ogle 
County, Illinois

    Date of amendment request: January 31, 2019. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19032A149.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
revise technical specifications (TS) for inoperable snubbers by adding 
Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) 3.0.9. The change is consistent 
with the NRC-approved Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) 
Standard Technical Specifications Change Traveler, TSTF-372, ``Addition 
of LCO 3.0.8, lnoperability of Snubbers.'' The availability of this TS 
improvement was announced in the Federal Register on May 4, 2005 (70 FR 
23252). Because Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, and Byron Station, 
Unit Nos. 1 and 2, already have a TS identified as LCO 3.0.8, adoption 
of TSTF-372 will be identified as LCO 3.0.9.
    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 allows a delay time before declaring 
supported Technical Specifications (TS) systems inoperable when the 
associated snubber(s) cannot perform its required safety function. 
Entrance into Actions or delaying entrance into Actions is not an 
initiator of any accident previously evaluated. Consequently, the 
probability of an accident previously evaluated is not significantly 
increased. The consequences of an accident while relying on the 
delay time allowed before declaring a TS supported system inoperable 
and taking its Conditions and Required Actions are no different than 
the consequences of an accident under the same plant conditions 
while relying on the existing TS supported system Conditions and 
Required Actions. Therefore, the consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated are not significantly increased by this change.
    Therefore, this 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 allows a delay time before declaring 
supported TS systems inoperable when the associated snubber(s) 
cannot perform its required safety function. The proposed change 
does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (no new or 
different type of equipment will be installed) or a change in the 
methods governing normal plant operation.
    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?

[[Page 19971]]

    Response: No.
    The proposed change allows a delay time before declaring 
supported TS systems inoperable when the associated snubber(s) 
cannot perform its required safety function. The proposed change 
restores an allowance in the pre-Improved Standard Technical 
Specifications (ISTS) conversion TS that was unintentionally 
eliminated by the conversion. The pre-ISTS TS were considered to 
provide an adequate margin of safety for plant operation, as does 
the post-ISTS conversion TS.
    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.

Florida Power and Light Company, Docket No. 50-250 and 50-251, Turkey 
Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 3 and 4, Miami-Dade County, Florida

    Date of amendment request: February 14, 2019. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19045A617.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the 
Technical Specifications (TS) related to certain equipment shared 
between the two units when one unit is shut down. Additionally, the 
amendments remove an inappropriate footnote that allows an exception 
from TS 4.0.4.
    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 technical specification requirements associated with the 
proposed change to the TS are not initiators of any accidents 
previously evaluated, so the probability of accidents previously 
evaluated is unaffected by the proposed change. The proposed change 
does not alter the design, function, or operation of any plant 
structure, system, or component (SSC). The capability of any 
operable TS-required SSC to perform its specified safety function is 
not impacted by the proposed change. As a result, the outcomes of 
accidents previously evaluated are unaffected. Therefore, the 
proposed change does not result in a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not challenge the integrity or 
performance of any safety-related systems. No plant equipment is 
installed or removed, and the change does not alter the design, 
physical configuration, or method of operation of any plant SSC. No 
physical changes are made to the plant, so no new causal mechanisms 
are introduced. Therefore, the proposed change to the TS 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.
    The ability of any operable SSC to perform its designated safety 
function is unaffected by the proposed change. The proposed change 
does not alter any safety analyses assumptions, safety limits, 
limiting safety system settings, or method of operating the plant. 
The change does not adversely affect plant operating margins or the 
reliability of equipment credited in the safety analyses. 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: Debbie Hendell, Managing Attorney--Nuclear, 
Florida Power & Light Company, 700 Universe Blvd. MS LAW/JB, Juno 
Beach, FL 33408-0420.
    NRC Branch Chief: Undine Shoop.

Omaha Public Power District (OPPD) Docket No. 50-285, Fort Calhoun 
Station, Unit No. 1 (FCS), Fort Calhoun, Nebraska

    Date of amendment request: February 28, 2019. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19064A758.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
replace the FCS Permanently Defueled Emergency Plan and associated 
Emergency Action Level (EAL) technical bases document with the 
Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Only Emergency Plan (IOEP) 
and its associated Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) 
EAL Technical Bases Document. The IOEP will be used at FCS during the 
period when all spent fuel is stored in the FCS ISFSI. This proposed 
change reflects the complete removal of all fuel from the spent fuel 
pool (SFP) and permits specific reductions in the size and makeup of 
the Emergency Response Organization due to the elimination of the 
remaining design basis accident related to spent fuel handling. OPPD 
expects that all spent fuel will be completely transferred to the ISFSI 
by the middle of 2020.
    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 modify the FCS facility operating 
license by revising the emergency plan and EAL scheme. FCS has 
permanently ceased power operations and is permanently defueled. The 
proposed amendment is conditioned on all spent nuclear fuel being 
removed from wet storage in the SFP and placed in dry storage within 
the ISFSI. Occurrence of postulated accidents associated with spent 
fuel stored in a SFP is no longer credible in a SFP devoid of such 
fuel. The proposed amendment has no effect on plant systems, 
structures, or components (SSC) and no effect on the capability of 
any plant SSC to perform its design function. The proposed amendment 
would not increase the likelihood of the malfunction of any plant 
SSC. The proposed amendment would have no effect on any of the 
previously evaluated accidents in the FCS [Defueled Safety Analysis 
Report] DSAR.
    Because FCS has permanently ceased power operations, the 
generation of fission products has ceased and the remaining source 
term continues to decay. This continues to significantly reduce the 
consequences of previously evaluated postulated 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 constitutes a revision of the emergency 
planning function commensurate with the ongoing and anticipated 
reduction in radiological source term at FCS.
    The proposed amendment does not involve a physical alteration of 
the plant. No new or different types of equipment will be installed 
and there are no physical modifications to existing equipment as a 
result of the

[[Page 19972]]

proposed amendment. Similarly, the proposed amendment would not 
physically change any SSC involved in the mitigation of any 
postulated accidents. Thus, no new initiators or precursors of a new 
or different kind of accident are created. Furthermore, the proposed 
amendment does not create the possibility of a new failure mode 
associated with any equipment or personnel failures. The credible 
events for the ISFSI remain unchanged.
    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.
    Because the 10 CFR part 50 license for FCS no longer authorizes 
operation of the reactor or emplacement or retention of fuel into 
the reactor vessel, as specified in 10 CFR 50.82(a)(2), the 
occurrence of postulated accidents associated with reactor operation 
is no longer credible. With all spent nuclear fuel transferred out 
of wet storage from the SFP and placed in dry storage within the 
ISFSI, a fuel handling accident is no longer credible. There are no 
credible events that would result in radiological releases beyond 
the site boundary exceeding the EPA PAG exposure levels, as detailed 
in the EPA's PAG Manual ``Protective Action Guides and Planning 
Guidance for Radiological Incidents'' dated January 2017 (EPA PAG 
Manual).
    The proposed amendment does not involve a change in the plant's 
design, configuration, or operation. The proposed amendment does not 
affect either the way in which the plant SSCs perform their safety 
function or their design margins. Because there is no change to the 
physical design of the plant, there is no change to these margins.
    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: Stephen M. Bruckner, Attorney, Fraser 
Stryker PC LLO, 500 Energy Plaza, 409 South 17th Street, Omaha, NE 
68102.
    NRC Branch Chief: Bruce A. Watson.

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

    Date of amendment request: February 14, 2019. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19045A698.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would 
revise the intake structure physical security classification in the 
DCPP Security Plan and Emergency Plan.
    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 to the Diablo Canyon Power [Nuclear] Plant 
(DCPP) emergency action levels (EALs) do not physically impact the 
plant structures, systems, or components (SSCs) or the manner in 
which SSCs perform their design function. The proposed changes 
neither adversely affect accident initiators or precursors, nor 
alter design assumptions. The proposed changes do not alter or 
prevent the ability of SSCs to perform their intended function to 
mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within assumed 
acceptance limits. No operating procedures or administrative 
controls that function to prevent or mitigate accidents are affected 
by the proposed changes. A concurrent accident with a hostile action 
is not assumed to occur.
    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 accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes do not involve a physical alteration of the 
plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be installed 
or removed) or a change in the method of plant operation. The 
proposed changes will not introduce failure modes that could result 
in a new accident, and the change[s] [do] not alter assumptions made 
in the safety analysis. The proposed changes to the DCPP EALs are 
not initiators of any accidents.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    Margin of safety is associated with 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 changes do not impact operation of the plant or its 
response to transients or accidents. The proposed changes do not 
affect the Technical Specifications or the Operating Licenses. The 
proposed changes do not involve a change in the method of plant 
operation, and no accident analyses will be affected by the proposed 
changes. Additionally, the proposed changes will not relax any 
criteria used to establish safety limits and will not relax any 
safety system settings. 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 shut down the plant and to maintain the plant in a safe 
shutdown condition. The Emergency Plan will continue to activate an 
emergency response commensurate with the extent of degradation of 
plant safety.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

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

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: March 25, 2019. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19084A309.
    Description of amendment request: The requested amendment proposes 
to change the Technical Specifications (TS) (Combined License Appendix 
A), as well as plant-specific Tier 2 information. Specifically, the 
requested amendment proposes to change TS Sections 1.0, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 
3.9, and 5.5. The Surveillance Requirements (SRs) requiring manual 
Channel Checks, Channel Operational Tests, Actuation Logic Tests and 
Actuation Logic Output Tests to be performed on Protection and Safety 
Monitoring System (PMS) components are proposed to be removed from the 
TSs. The approach for satisfying the reactor trip and engineered safety 
feature actuation system response time test SRs for the PMS racks is 
proposed to be changed.
    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 19973]]

    The proposed changes do not affect the safety limits as 
described in the plant-specific TS. In addition, the limiting safety 
system settings and limiting control settings continue to be met 
with the proposed changes to the plant-specific TS SRs. The proposed 
changes do not adversely 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.
    The proposed changes do not result in any increase in 
probability of an analyzed accident occurring and maintain the 
initial conditions and operating limits required by the accident 
analysis, and the analyses of normal operation and anticipated 
operational occurrences, so that the consequences of postulated 
accidents are not changed.
    Therefore, the requested amendment does not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes do not affect the safety limits as 
described in the plant- specific TS. In addition, the limiting 
safety system settings and limiting control settings continue to be 
met with the proposed changes to the plant-specific TS limiting 
conditions for operation, applicability, actions, and SRs. The 
proposed changes do 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.
    These proposed changes do not adversely 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 results 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 changes do not affect the safety limits as 
described in the plant- specific TS. In addition, the limiting 
safety system settings and limiting control settings continue to be 
met with the proposed changes to the plant-specific TS limiting 
conditions for operation, applicability, actions, and SRs. The 
proposed changes do not affect the initial conditions and operating 
limits required by the accident analysis, and the analyses of normal 
operation and anticipated operational occurrences, so that the 
acceptance limits specified in the Updated Final Safety Analysis 
Report (UFSAR) are not exceeded. The proposed changes satisfy the 
same safety functions in accordance with the same requirements as 
stated in the UFSAR. These changes do not adversely affect any 
design code, function, design analysis, safety analysis input or 
result, or design/safety margin.
    No safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is 
challenged or exceeded by the 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: March 28, 2019. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19087A208.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would eliminate 
the second Completion Times from certain Technical Specifications 
(TSs). The second Completion Times limit the time allowed from 
discovery of failure to meet a limiting condition for operation (LCO) 
until the LCO is met. The proposed changes are consistent with 
previously NRC-approved Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) 
Traveler TSTF-439, Revision 2, ``Eliminate Second Completion Times 
Limiting Time from Discovery of Failure to Meet an LCO.''
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below, with NRC staff edits in square 
brackets:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change eliminates second Completion Times from the 
TS. Completion Times are not an initiator to any accident previously 
evaluated. 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 structures, systems, or 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 significant 
increase [in] 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 accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change to delete the second Completion Times does 
not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system 
settings, or LCOs 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 
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.

[[Page 19974]]

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

    Date of amendment request: January 25, 2019. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19031C826.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would replace 
existing technical specification (TS) requirements related to 
operations with a potential for draining the reactor vessel (OPDRV) 
with new requirements on reactor pressure vessel (RPV) water inventory 
control (WIC) to continue to protect Safety Limit 2.1.1.3. Safety Limit 
2.1.1.3 requires reactor vessel water level to be greater than the top 
of active irradiated fuel.
    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 replaces existing TS requirements related to 
OPDRVs with new requirements on RPV WIC that will protect Safety 
Limit 2.1.1.3. Draining of RPV water inventory in Mode 4 (i.e., cold 
shutdown) and Mode 5 (i.e., refueling) is not an accident previously 
evaluated and, therefore, replacing the existing TS controls to 
prevent or mitigate such an event with a new set of controls has no 
effect on any accident previously evaluated. RPV water inventory 
control in Mode 4 or Mode 5 is not an initiator of any accident 
previously evaluated. The existing OPDRV controls or the proposed 
RPV WIC controls are not mitigating actions assumed in any accident 
previously evaluated.
    The proposed change reduces the probability of an unexpected 
draining event (which is not a previously evaluated accident) by 
imposing new requirements on the limiting time in which an 
unexpected draining event could result in the reactor vessel water 
level dropping to the top of the active fuel (TAF). These controls 
require cognizance of the plant configuration and control of 
configurations with unacceptably short drain times.
    These requirements reduce the probability of an unexpected 
draining event. The current TS requirements are only mitigating 
actions and impose no requirements that reduce the probability of an 
unexpected draining event.
    The proposed change reduces the consequences of an unexpected 
draining event (which is not a previously evaluated accident) by 
requiring an Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) subsystem to be 
operable at all times in Modes 4 and 5. The current TS requirements 
do not require any water injection systems, ECCS or otherwise, to be 
Operable in certain conditions in Mode 5. The change in requirement 
from two ECCS subsystems to one ECCS subsystem in Modes 4 and 5 does 
not significantly affect the consequences of an unexpected draining 
event because the proposed Required Actions ensure equipment is 
available within the limiting drain time that is as capable of 
mitigating the event as the current requirements. The proposed 
controls provide escalating compensatory measures to be established 
as calculated drain times decrease, such as verification of a second 
method of water injection and additional confirmations that 
containment and/or filtration would be available if needed.
    The proposed change reduces or eliminates some requirements that 
were determined to be unnecessary to manage the consequences of an 
unexpected draining event, such as automatic initiation of an ECCS 
subsystem and control room ventilation. These changes do not affect 
the consequences of any accident previously evaluated because a 
draining event in Modes 4 and 5 is not a previously evaluated 
accident and the requirements are not needed to adequately respond 
to a draining event.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change replaces existing TS requirements related to 
OPDRVs with new requirements on RPV WIC that will protect Safety 
Limit 2.1.1.3. The proposed change will not alter the design 
function of the equipment involved. Under the proposed change, some 
systems that are currently required to be operable during OPDRVs 
would be required to be available within the limiting drain time or 
to be in service depending on the limiting drain time. Should those 
systems be unable to be placed into service, the consequences are no 
different than if those systems were unable to perform their 
function under the current TS requirements.
    The event of concern under the current requirements and the 
proposed change is an unexpected draining event. The proposed change 
does not create new failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident 
initiators that would cause a draining event or a new or different 
kind of accident not previously evaluated or included in the design 
and licensing bases.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change replaces existing TS requirements related to 
OPDRVs with new requirements on RPV WIC. The current requirements do 
not have a stated safety basis and no margin of safety is 
established in the licensing basis. The safety basis for the new 
requirements is to protect Safety Limit 2.1.1.3. New requirements 
are added to determine the limiting time in which the RPV water 
inventory could drain to the top of the fuel in the reactor vessel 
should an unexpected draining event occur. Plant configurations that 
could result in lowering the RPV water level to the TAF within one 
hour are now prohibited. New escalating compensatory measures based 
on the limiting drain time replace the current controls. The 
proposed TS establish a safety margin by providing defense-in-depth 
to ensure that the Safety Limit is protected and to protect the 
public health and safety. While some less restrictive requirements 
are proposed for plant configurations with long calculated drain 
times, the overall effect of the change is to improve plant safety 
and to add safety margin.
    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: General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 
400 West Summit Hill Drive, 6A West Tower, Knoxville, TN 37902.
    NRC Branch Chief: Undine Shoop.

Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation, Docket No. 50-482, Wolf Creek 
Generating Station, Unit 1, Coffey County, Kansas

    Date of amendment request: February 25, 2019. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19064A591.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise 
Technical Specification (TS) 3.6.3, ``Containment Isolation Valves,'' 
to remove use of a blind flange to meet Limiting Condition for 
Operation (LCO) 3.6.3, Required Action D.1. In addition, a change to 
Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.6.3.1 is proposed to remove use of a 
blind flange.
    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 to TS LCO 3.6.3 and SR 3.6.3.1 have no 
effect on the requirement for systems to be OPERABLE and have no 
effect on the application of TS actions. Since the proposed change 
does not significantly

[[Page 19975]]

affect system OPERABILITY the proposed change will have no 
significant effect on the initiating events for accidents previously 
evaluated and will have no significant effect on the ability of the 
systems to mitigate accidents previously evaluated.
    Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change to update the TS does not affect the design 
or function of any plant systems. The proposed change does not 
change the Operability requirements for plant systems or the actions 
taken when plant systems are not OPERABLE.
    Therefore, it is concluded that this 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 updates TS LCO 3.6.3, Required Action D.1 to 
remove use of a blind flange. It does not result in changes in plant 
operation. The proposed change to SR 3.6.3.1 removes the use of a 
blind flange. As a result, plant safety is either improved or 
unaffected.
    Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not involve a 
significant reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Jay Silberg, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw 
Pittman LLP, 1200 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20036.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.

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

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

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414, Catawba 
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 (Catawba), York County, South Carolina

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

Duke Energy Progress, Inc., Docket No. 50-400; Shearon Harris Nuclear 
Power Plant, Unit 1 (Harris), Wake County, North Carolina

Duke Energy Progress, Inc., Docket No. 50-261, H. B. Robinson Steam 
Electric Plant, Unit No. 2 (Robinson), Darlington County, South 
Carolina

    Date of amendment request: May 10, 2018.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments modified the 
Technical Specifications (TSs) for Catawba, McGuire, Harris, and 
Robinson. Specifically, ventilation system heaters will be removed from 
Catawba TSs 3.6.10, ``Annulus Ventilation System (AVS)''; 3.7.10, 
``Control Room Area Ventilation System (CRAVS)''; 3.7.12, ``Auxiliary 
Building Filtered Ventilation Exhaust System (ABFVES)''; 3.7.13, ``Fuel 
Handling Ventilation Exhaust System (FHVES)''; 3.9.3, ``Containment 
Penetrations''; 5.5.11, ``Ventilation Filter Testing Program (VFTP)''; 
and 5.6.6, ``Ventilation Systems Heater Report''; and McGuire TSs 
3.6.10, ``Annulus Ventilation System (AVS)''; 3.7.9, ``Control Room 
Area Ventilation System (CRAVS)''; 5.5.11, ``Ventilation Filter Testing 
Program (VFTP)''; and 5.6.6, ``Ventilation Systems Heater Failure 
Report.'' The specified relative humidity for charcoal testing in the 
ventilation system Surveillance Requirement (for Harris) and 
Ventilation Filter Testing Program (for Robinson) is revised from 70 
percent to 95 percent and the ventilation system heaters will be 
removed from the Harris TSs \3/4\.7.6, ``Control Room Emergency 
Filtration System''; \3/4\.7.7, ``Reactor Auxiliary Building (RAB) 
Emergency Exhaust System''; and \3/4\.9.12, ``Fuel Handling Building 
Emergency Exhaust System''; and Robinson TSs 3.7.11, ``Fuel Building 
Air Cleanup System (FBACS),'' and 5.5.11, ``Ventilation Filter Testing 
Program (VFTP).'' The proposed changes are consistent with Technical 
Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-522, ``Revise 
Ventilation System Surveillance Requirements to Operate for 10 Hours 
per Month,'' Revision 0. Additionally, an administrative error is being 
corrected in McGuire's TS 5.5.11, ``Ventilation Filter Testing Program 
(VFTP).''
    Date of issuance: April 18, 2019.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 120 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos: 301/297 (Catawba), 313/292 (McGuire), 170 (Harris), 
and 262 (Robinson). A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML19050A297; documents related to these amendments are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-35 and NPF-52 (Catawba), NPF-63 
(Harris), NPF-9 and NPF-17 (McGuire), and DPR-23 (Robinson): The 
amendments revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical 
Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 23, 2018 (83 FR 
53511).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated April 18, 2019.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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: April 20, 2018.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the Calvert 
Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, Technical Specifications to 
remove an

[[Page 19976]]

exception to the minimum education requirements for shift technical 
advisors. Specifically, Technical Specification Section 5.2.2.g.3 
related to specific requirements for shift technical advisor personnel 
education and training has been deleted.
    Date of issuance: April 19, 2019.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 329 (Unit 1); 307 (Unit 2). A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19053A588; documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with 
the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-53 and DPR-69: The 
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical 
Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 3, 2018 (83 FR 
31183).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated April 19, 2019.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-289, Three Mile Island 
Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania

    Date of amendment request: March 19, 2018, as supplemented by 
letters dated August 13, 2018, and November 20, 2018.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the on-shift 
staffing and the emergency response organization in the site emergency 
plan for the post-shutdown and permanently defueled condition.
    Date of issuance: April 18, 2019.
    Effective date: Upon the licensee's submittal of the certifications 
required by 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1)(i) and (ii) and shall be implemented 
within 90 days of the effective date of the amendment, but may not 
exceed December 31, 2019.
    Amendment No.: 296. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML19065A114; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-50: The amendment 
revised the emergency plan.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 17, 2018 (83 FR 
33268). The supplemental letters dated August 13, 2018, and November 
20, 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 April 18, 2019.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: May 4, 2018.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the CNP, 
Units 1 and 2, technical specification (TS) usage rules for completion 
times, limiting conditions for operation (LCOs), and surveillance 
requirements (SRs) based on Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) 
Traveler TSTF-529, ``Clarify Use and Application Rules,'' Revision 4. 
Specifically, the licensee proposed changes to TS Section 1.3, 
``Completion Time,'' and LCO 3.0.4 and SR 3.0.3 in TS Section 3.0, 
``Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) Applicability.''
    Date of issuance: April 10, 2019.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 344 (Unit 1) and 326 (Unit 2). A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19031B966; documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with 
the amendments.
    Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-58 and DPR-74: The amendments 
revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and Technical 
Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 17, 2018 (83 FR 
33269).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated April 10, 2019.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: November 12, 2018.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the safety 
limit minimum critical power ratio for two recirculation loop and 
single recirculation loop operation. The amendment also revised 
Technical Specifications 2.1.1 and 5.6.3 to remove outdated and 
duplicate information.
    Date of issuance: April 22, 2019.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
prior to the startup from the spring 2019 refueling outage.
    Amendment No.: 201. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML19074A269; 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: February 5, 2019 (84 FR 
1803).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated April 22, 2019.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: March 15, 2018, as supplemented by 
letter dated September 17, 2018.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendments revised the 
technical specifications to adopt Technical Specifications Task Force 
(TSTF) Standard Technical Specifications (STS) Change Traveler TSTF-
425, Revision 3, ``Relocate Surveillance Frequencies to Licensee 
Control-RITSTF [Risk-Informed TSTF] Initiative 5b,'' requiring future 
surveillance frequency changes to be made in accordance with NEI 04-10, 
an approved methodology.
    Date of issuance: April 16, 2019.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 120 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 226--Unit 1; 214--Unit 2. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19045A480; documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with 
the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-42 and DPR-60: The 
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and 
Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 22, 2018 (83 FR 
23735). The supplemental letter dated September 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 staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination as published in the Federal Register.

[[Page 19977]]

    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated April 16, 2019.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

PSEG Nuclear LLC and Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-272 
and 50-311, Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Salem 
County, New Jersey

    Date of amendment request: June 29, 2018.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments deleted duplicative 
technical specification (TS) requirements for the refueling water 
storage tank in TS 3.1.2.6, ``Borated Water Sources--Operating,'' and 
revised TS 3.5.5, ``Refueling Water Storage Tank,'' to ensure 
compliance with assumptions used in the design-basis accident and 
containment response analyses and to make Salem Nuclear Generating 
Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, TS requirements for the refueling water 
storage tank, consistent with NUREG-1431, Revision 4, ``Standard 
Technical Specifications--Westinghouse Plants.''
    Date of issuance: April 11, 2019.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 328 (Unit No. 1) and 309 (Unit No. 2). A publicly-
available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19077A336; 
documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety 
Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-70 and DPR-75: The 
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and 
Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 28, 2018 (83 FR 
43907).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated April 11, 2019.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment removed an expired 
one-time extension to Technical Specification (TS) Surveillance 
Requirement 4.3.3.6 and removes the Index from the TSs, placing it 
under licensee control. These changes are administrative and non-
technical.
    Date of issuance: April 10, 2019.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 214. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML19074A222, documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-12: Amendment revised 
the Renewed Facility Operating License and the Technical 
Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 30, 2019 (84 FR 
495).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated April 10, 2019.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: March 9, 2018, as supplemented by 
letters dated January 23, February 8, and March 7, 2019.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment added new Technical 
Specification (TS) 3.7.20, ``Class 1E Electrical Equipment Air 
Conditioning (A/C) System,'' to the Callaway TSs. New TS 3.7.20 
includes (1) a Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) statement, (2) an 
Applicability statement, during which the LCO must be met, (3) ACTIONS 
to be applied when the LCO is not met, including Conditions, Required 
Actions, and Completion Times, and (4) Surveillance Requirements with a 
specified Frequency to demonstrate that the LCO is met for the Class 1E 
Electrical Equipment A/C System trains at Callaway. The change enhanced 
the capability of one Class 1E electrical equipment A/C train to 
provide adequate area cooling for both trains of Class 1E electrical 
equipment during normal and accident conditions.
    Date of issuance: April 18, 2019.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 120 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 219. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML19073A001; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-30: The amendment 
revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical 
Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 3, 2018 (83 FR 
31194). The supplements dated January 23, February 8, and March 7, 
2019, provided additional information that clarified the application, 
did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and 
did not change the NRC staff's original proposed no significant hazards 
consideration determination as published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated April 18, 2019.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th day of April 2019.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Kathryn M. Brock,
Deputy Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of 
Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2019-08982 Filed 5-6-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7590-01-P