Biweekly Notice: Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations, 23074-23083 [2019-10315]

Download as PDF 23074 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2019 / Notices Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 16th day of May 2019. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. John McKirgan, Chief, Spent Fuel Licensing Branch, Division of Spent Fuel Management, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. [FR Doc. 2019–10541 Filed 5–20–19; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590–01–P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [NRC–2019–0121] Biweekly Notice: Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Biweekly notice. AGENCY: Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is publishing this regular biweekly notice. The Act requires the Commission to publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to be issued, and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license or combined license, as applicable, upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person. This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or proposed to be issued, from April 23, 2019, to May 6, 2019. The last biweekly notice was published on May 7, 2019. DATES: Comments must be filed by June 20, 2019. A request for a hearing must be filed by July 22, 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 http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC–2019–0121. Address questions about NRC dockets IDs in Regulations.gov to Jennifer Borges; telephone: 301–287–9127; email: Jennifer.Borges@nrc.gov. For technical questions, contact the individual(s) 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 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:50 May 20, 2019 Jkt 247001 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: Lynn Ronewicz, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555–0001; telephone: 301–415–1927, email: Lynn.Ronewicz@nrc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Obtaining Information Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2019– 0121, 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 publiclyavailable information related to this action by any of the following methods: • Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC–2019–0121. • NRC’s Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publiclyavailable documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ adams.html. To begin the search, select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1–800–397–4209, 301– 415–4737, or by email to pdr.resource@ nrc.gov. The ADAMS accession number for each document referenced (if it is available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that it is mentioned in this document. • NRC’s PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. B. Submitting Comments Please include Docket ID NRC–2019– 0121, 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 http:// www.regulations.gov, as well as enter the comment submissions into ADAMS. PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 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 § 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 E:\FR\FM\21MYN1.SGM 21MYN1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2019 / Notices jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period if circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. If the Commission takes action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a notice of issuance. If the Commission makes a final no significant hazards consideration determination, any hearing will take place after issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will occur very infrequently. A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing and Petition for Leave To Intervene Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any persons (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition) with respect to the action. Petitions shall be filed in accordance with the Commission’s ‘‘Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure’’ in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309. The NRC’s regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC’s website at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/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. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:50 May 20, 2019 Jkt 247001 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, PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 23075 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 Federallyrecognized 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, Federallyrecognized 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 E:\FR\FM\21MYN1.SGM 21MYN1 jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES 23076 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2019 / Notices 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 EFiling 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 http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/ e-submittals.html. Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in accordance with the procedures described below. To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at hearing.docket@nrc.gov, or by telephone at 301–415–1677, to (1) request a digital identification (ID) certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or representative) to digitally sign submissions and access the E-Filing system for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a petition or other adjudicatory document (even in instances in which the participant, or its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the hearing in this proceeding if the Secretary has not already established an electronic docket. Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC’s public website at http:// 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 http://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 EFiling system time-stamps the document and sends the submitter an email notice confirming receipt of the document. The VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:50 May 20, 2019 Jkt 247001 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 http:// www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html, by email to MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a tollfree 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 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 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. Entergy Operations, Inc.; System Energy Resources, Inc.; Cooperative Energy, A Mississippi Electric Cooperative; and Entergy Mississippi, LLC, Docket No. 50–416, Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Claiborne County, Mississippi Entergy Louisiana, LLC, and Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50–458, River Bend Station, Unit 1, West Feliciana Parish, Louisiana Date of amendment request: March 7, 2019. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19070A227. Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1, and the River Bend Station, Unit 1, Technical Specifications (TSs) Safety Limit 2.1.1.2 and TS 5.6.5, ‘‘Core Operation Limits Report (COLR).’’ The proposed changes are consistent with the NRC-approved Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF–564, Revision 2, ‘‘Safety Limit MCPR [Minimum Critical Power Ratio],’’ using the consolidated line item E:\FR\FM\21MYN1.SGM 21MYN1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2019 / Notices jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES improvement process (ADAMS Package Accession No. ML18299A048). 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. Do the proposed amendments involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed amendments revise the TS SLMCPR [safety limit minimum critical power ratio] and the list of core operating limits to be included in the COLR. The SLMCPR is not an initiator of any accident previously evaluated. The revised safety limit values continue to ensure, for all accidents previously evaluated, that the fuel cladding will be protected from failure due to transition boiling. The proposed change does not affect plant operation or any procedural or administrative controls on plant operation that affect functions of preventing or mitigating any accidents previously evaluated. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Do the proposed amendments create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed amendments revise the TS SLMCPR and the list of core operating limits to be included in the COLR. The proposed change will not affect the design function or operation of any structures, systems, or components (SSCs). No new equipment will be installed. As a result, the proposed change will not create any credible new failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident initiators not considered in the design and licensing bases. Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated. 3. Do the proposed amendments involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The proposed amendments revise the TS SLMCPR and the list of core operating limits to be included in the COLR. This will result in a change to a safety limit, but will not result in a significant reduction in the margin of safety provided by the safety limit. As discussed in TSTF–564, changing the SLMCPR methodology to one based on a 95% probability with 95% confidence level that no fuel rods experience transition boiling during an anticipated transient instead of the current limit based on ensuring that 99.9% of the fuel rods are not susceptible to boiling transition, does not have a significant effect on plant response to any analyzed accident. The SLMCPR and the TS Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) on MCPR continue to provide the same level of assurance as the current limits and do not reduce margin of safety. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:50 May 20, 2019 Jkt 247001 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: Anna Vinson Jones, Senior Counsel, Entergy Services, Inc., 101 Constitution Avenue NW, Suite 200 East, Washington, DC 20001. NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli. Florida Power & Light Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50–335 and 50–389, St. Lucie Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, St. Lucie County, Florida Date of amendment request: December 20, 2018. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18354A901. Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the Technical Specifications (TSs) by allowing the performance of selected emergency diesel generator (EDG) surveillance requirements during power operation, and by relocating to licensee control two EDG surveillance requirements that are not necessary to demonstrate operability. Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed change modifies the allowable MODEs for selected EDG testing and relocates two EDG testing requirements to licensee control. EDG testing verifies the accident mitigation capabilities assumed in accident analyses. In some cases, the proposed changes could result in detectable electrical perturbations resulting from testing at-power. However, the perturbations do not exceed expected parameters or equipment capabilities, and do not trigger protective safety systems, and thereby cannot increase the likelihood of any accident. In some cases, the proposed changes could delay the ability of the EDG under test to respond to a loss of offsite power. However, the delay is insignificant, the testing would not affect redundant trains or equipment capabilities, and the plant would remain within its licensing basis in response to any postulated event. In addition, administrative controls ensure that the testing would not occur under conditions that could potentially challenge PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 23077 safe operation such as severe weather, etc. The testing selected for relocation to licensee control verify passive capabilities or capabilities verified during pre-operational testing that will not change without physical changes to the station. The proposed changes align the St. Lucie TS with the regulatory guidance of NUREG–1432, Revision 4, and industry precedent, and thereby cannot adversely affect safety. Therefore, the proposed license amendments would not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed change modifies the allowable MODEs for EDG testing and relocates two EDG testing requirements to licensee control. In some cases, the proposed change increases the length of time an EDG would be paralleled to the grid during power operation. During such testing, the EDG under test would be declared inoperable for a period well within the current licensing basis. Likewise, station response to any postulated event during such testing would be within its licensing basis. Hence, the proposed change would not introduce new accident initiators or new failure mechanisms and would not alter the expected outcome of any postulated event. The testing selected for relocation to licensee control verify passive equipment capabilities or capabilities verified during pre-operational testing that will not change without physical changes to the station. Therefore, the proposed license amendments would 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 modifies the allowable MODEs for EDG testing and relocates two EDG testing requirements to licensee control. The proposed change does not affect any fission product barrier or modify any set points for which protective actions associated with accident detection or mitigation are initiated. The proposed change neither affects the design of plant equipment nor the manner in which the plant is operated. The proposed changes cannot adversely impact any safety limits or limiting safety settings. Therefore, the proposed license amendment would 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 E:\FR\FM\21MYN1.SGM 21MYN1 23078 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2019 / Notices Blvd., MS LAW/JB, Juno Beach, FL 33408–0420. NRC Branch Chief: Undine Shoop. jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES 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: April 8, 2019. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19098B529. Description of amendment request: The amendment would adopt Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF–563, ‘‘Revise Instrument Testing Definitions to Incorporate the Surveillance Frequency Control Program.’’ TSTF–563 revises the Technical Specification (TS) definitions of Channel Calibration and Channel Functional Test. 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 revises the TS definitions of Channel Calibration and Channel Functional Test to allow the frequency for testing the components or devices in each step to be determined in accordance with the TS Surveillance Frequency Control Program. The proposed change also explicitly permits the Channel Functional Test to be performed by any series of sequential, overlapping, or total channel steps. All components in the channel continue to be calibrated and tested. The frequency at which a channel is tested or calibrated is not an initiator of any accident previously evaluated, so the probability of an accident is not affected by the proposed change. The channels surveilled in accordance with the affected definitions continue to be required to be operable and the acceptance criteria of the surveillances are unchanged. As a result, any mitigating functions assumed in the accident analysis will continue to be performed. 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 revises the TS definitions of Channel Calibration and Channel Functional Test to allow the frequency for testing the components or devices in each step to be determined in accordance with the TS Surveillance Frequency Control Program. The proposed VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:50 May 20, 2019 Jkt 247001 change also explicitly permits the Channel Functional Test to be performed by any series of sequential, overlapping, or total channel steps. All components in the channel continue to be calibrated and tested. The design function or operation of the components involved are not affected and there is no physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be installed). No credible new failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident initiators not considered in the design and licensing bases are introduced. The changes do not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis. The proposed changes are consistent with the safety analysis assumptions. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The proposed change revises the TS definitions of Channel Calibration and Channel Functional Test to allow the frequency for testing the components or devices in each step to be determined in accordance with the TS Surveillance Frequency Control Program. The proposed change also explicitly permits the Channel Functional Test to be performed by any series of sequential, overlapping, or total channel steps. All components in the channel continue to be calibrated and tested. The Surveillance Frequency Control Program assures sufficient safety margins are maintained, and that that design, operation, surveillance methods, and acceptance criteria specified in applicable codes and standards (or alternatives approved for use by the NRC) will continue to be met as described in the plants’ licensing basis. The proposed change does not adversely affect existing plant safety margins, or the reliability of the equipment assumed to operate in the safety analysis. As such, there are no changes being made to safety analysis assumptions, safety limits, or limiting safety system settings that would adversely affect plant safety as a result of the proposed change. Margins of safety are unaffected by method of determining surveillance test intervals under an NRCapproved licensee-controlled program. 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: Steven Fleischer, PSEG Services Corporation, 80 Park Plaza, T–5, Newark, NJ 07102. NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna. PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50–354, Hope Creek Generating Station, Salem County, New Jersey Date of amendment request: April 22, 2019. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19112A214. Description of amendment request: The amendment would adopt Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF–564, Revision 2, ‘‘Safety Limit MCPR [Minimum Critical Power Ratio],’’ which would revise the Hope Creek Generating Station technical specification (TS) safety limit on minimum critical power ratio (SLMCPR) to reduce the need for cyclespecific changes to the value while still meeting the regulatory requirement for a safety limit. 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 revises the TS SLMCPR and the list of individual specifications that address core operating limits to be included in the Core Operating Limits Report (COLR). The SLMCPR is not an initiator of any accident previously evaluated. The revised safety limit values continue to ensure for all accidents previously evaluated that the fuel cladding will be protected from failure due to transition boiling. The proposed change does not affect plant operation or any procedural or administrative controls on plant operation that affect the functions of preventing or mitigating any accidents previously evaluated. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed amendment revises the TS SLMCPR and the list of individual specifications that address core operating limits to be included in the COLR. The proposed change will not affect the design function or operation of any structures, systems or components (SSCs). No new equipment will be installed. As a result, the proposed change will not create any credible new failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident initiators not considered in the design and licensing bases. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated. E:\FR\FM\21MYN1.SGM 21MYN1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2019 / Notices 3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The proposed amendment revises the TS SLMCPR and the list of specifications that address core operating limits to be included in the COLR. This will result in a change to a safety limit, but will not result in a significant reduction in the margin of safety provided by the safety limit. As discussed in the application, changing the SLMCPR methodology to one based on a 95% probability with 95% confidence that no fuel rods experience transition boiling during an anticipated transient instead of the current limit based on ensuring that 99.9% of the fuel rods are not susceptible to boiling transition does not have a significant effect on plant response to any analyzed accident. The SLMCPR and the TS Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) on MCPR continue to provide the same level of assurance as the current limits and do not reduce a margin of safety. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee’s analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Attorney for licensee: Steven Fleischer, PSEG Services Corporation, 80 Park Plaza, T–5, Newark, NJ 07102. NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna. Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 50–338 and 50–339, North Anna Power Station, Units Nos. 1 and 2, Louisa County, Virginia and Docket Nos. 50–280 and 50–281, Surry Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Surry County, Virginia, and Dominion Energy Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Docket Nos. 50–245, 50–336 and 50–423, Millstone Power Station, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3, New London County, Connecticut Date of amendment request: January 4, 2019. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Package Accession No. ML19011A237. Description of amendment request: The amendments would authorize changes to the Millstone Power Station (MPS), North Anna Power Station (NAPS), and Surry Power Station (SPS) emergency plans to incorporate new Emergency Action Level (EAL) schemes prepared using the guidelines of Nuclear Energy Institute 99–01, Revision 6, ‘‘Methodology for the Development of Emergency Action Levels for Non-Passive Reactors,’’ November 2012. Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:50 May 20, 2019 Jkt 247001 licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Do the proposed amendments involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed changes affect the MPS, NAPS and SPS EALs by incorporating new EAL schemes, as well as associated revised engineering analysis, but do not alter any of the requirements of the Operating Licenses or the Technical Specifications. The proposed changes do not modify any plant equipment and do not impact any failure modes that could lead to an accident. Additionally, the proposed changes have no effect on the consequences of any analyzed accident since the changes do not affect any equipment related to accident mitigation. Based on this discussion, the proposed changes do not increase the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Do the proposed amendments create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed changes affect the MPS, NAPS and SPS EALs by incorporating new EAL schemes, as well as associated revised engineering analysis, but do not alter any of the requirements of the Operating Licenses or the Technical Specifications. The changes do not modify any plant equipment and there are no impacts on the capability of existing equipment to perform its intended design functions. No system setpoints are being modified and no new failure modes are introduced by the proposed changes. The proposed changes do not introduce any new accident initiators or malfunctions that would cause a new or different kind of accident. Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. Do the proposed amendments involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The proposed changes affect the MPS, NAPS and SPS EALs by incorporating new EAL schemes, as well as associated revised engineering analysis, but do not alter any of the requirements of the Operating Licenses or the Technical Specifications. The proposed changes do not affect any of the assumptions used in the accident analyses, nor do the proposed changes affect any operability requirements for equipment important to plant safety. Therefore, the proposed changes will 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. PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 23079 Attorney for licensee: Mr. W. S. Blair, Senior Counsel, Dominion Energy Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar Street, RS– 2, Richmond, VA 23219. NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley. Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation, Docket No. 50–482, Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit 1, Coffey County, Kansas Date of amendment request: March 18, 2019. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19086A111. Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise Technical Specification (TS) 3.3.5, ‘‘Loss of Power (LOP) Diesel Generator (DG) Start Instrumentation.’’ Specifically, the amendment would revise the degraded voltage and loss of voltage relays Allowable Values, nominal Trip Setpoints, and time delays specified in TS Surveillance Requirement 3.3.5.3, based on analysis using the guidance in Regulatory Issue Summary 2011–12, Revision 1, ‘‘Adequacy of Station Electric Distribution System Voltages’’ (ADAMS Accession No. ML113050583). 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 to the LOV [loss of voltage] and DV [degraded voltage] Functions allows the protection scheme to function as originally designed. This change will involve alteration of the nominal Trip Setpoints in the field and will also be reflected in revisions to the surveillance procedures. The proposed change does not affect the probability or consequences of any accident. Analysis was conducted and demonstrates that the proposed changes will allow the normally operating safety-related motors to not be damaged in the event of sustained degraded bus voltage during the time delay period prior to initiation of the first level LOV trip function. Therefore, these safetyrelated loads will be available to perform their design basis function should a loss-ofcoolant accident (LOCA) occur concurrent with a loss-of-offsite power (LOOP) following the DV condition. The proposed changes do not adversely affect accident initiators or precursors, and do not alter the design assumptions, conditions, or configuration or the plant or the manner in which the plant is operated or maintained. The proposed changes ensure that the 4.16kV [kilovolt] distribution system remains connected to the offsite power system when adequate offsite voltage is E:\FR\FM\21MYN1.SGM 21MYN1 23080 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2019 / Notices available and motor starting transients are considered. During an actual LOV condition, the LOV time delay will continue to isolate the 4.16kV distribution system from offsite power before the diesel generator (DG) is ready to assume the emergency loads, which is the limiting time basis for mitigating system responses to the accident. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed change involves the DV and LOV relays AV [allowable value], nominal Trip Setpoints, and time delays to satisfy existing design requirements. The proposed change does not introduce any changes or mechanisms that create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident. The proposed change does not install any new or different type of equipment, and installed equipment is not being operated in a new or different manner. No new effects on existing equipment are created nor are any new malfunctions introduced. Therefore, the proposed change will not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The proposed changes to the DV and LOV relay AVs, nominal Trip Setpoints, and time delays continue to provide margin for the protection of equipment from sustained DV conditions. During an actual LOV condition, the LOV time delays will continue to isolate the 4.16kV distribution system from offsite power before the DG is ready to assume the emergency loads. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:50 May 20, 2019 Jkt 247001 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 Progress, LLC, Docket No. 50–261, H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit No. 2 (Robinson), Darlington County, South Carolina Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Docket No. 50–400, Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1 (Harris), Wake and Chatham Counties, North Carolina Date of amendment request: October 19, 2017, as supplemented by letters dated June 5, October 15, and November 6, 2018. Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the Technical Specifications (TSs) to support the allowance of Duke Energy Progress, LLC to self-perform core reload design and safety analyses. These revisions included (1) adding the NRC-approved COPERNIC Topical Report (TR) to the list of TRs for Harris and Robinson and revised the peak fuel centerline temperature equation in Robinson TS 2.1.1.2 and Harris TS 2.1.1.b to be the equation used by COPERNIC; (2) PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 relocating several TS parameters to the Core Operating Limits Reports for Harris and Robinson, (3) revising the Robinson TS Moderator Temperature Coefficient maximum upper limit, (4) revising the Harris TS definition of Shutdown Margin consistent with Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF–248, Revision 0 (ADAMS Accession No. ML040611010), ‘‘Revise Shutdown Margin Definition for Stuck Rod Exception,’’ and (5) revising the Robinson and Harris Power Distribution Limits limiting condition of operation actions and surveillance requirements, as well as the Robinson Reactor Protection System Instrumentation Table 3.3.1–1 to allow operation of a reactor core designed using the DPC–NE–2011–P [proprietary], ‘‘Nuclear Design Methodology Report for Core Operating Limits of Westinghouse Reactors,’’ methodology. (A redacted version, designated as DPC–NE–2011, is publicly-available under ADAMS Accession No. ML16125A420.) Date of issuance: April 29, 2019. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented prior to startup following the next refueling outage at each plant. Amendment Nos.: 263 (Robinson) and 171 (Harris). A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18288A139; documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments. Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR–23 and NPF–63: The amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 2, 2018 (83 FR 166). The supplemental letter dated November 6, 2018, provided additional information that expanded the scope of the application as originally noticed and changed the NRC staff’s original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the Federal Register. Accordingly, the NRC published a second proposed no significant hazards consideration determination in the Federal Register on December 4, 2018 (83 FR 62613). This notice superseded the original notice in its entirety. The Commission’s related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated April 29, 2019. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. E:\FR\FM\21MYN1.SGM 21MYN1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2019 / Notices Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Docket Nos. 50–325 and 50–324, Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, Brunswick County, North Carolina jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES Date of amendment request: April 4, 2018, as supplemented by letters dated May 29, 2018; September 27, 2018; and December 11, 2018. Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, Technical Specifications to relocate the pressure-temperature limit curves to a licensee-controlled Pressure and Temperature Limits Report (PTLR). The amendment request was submitted in accordance with guidance provided in NRC Generic Letter 96–03, ‘‘Relocation of the Pressure Temperature Limit Curves and Low Temperature Overpressure Protections System Limits,’’ dated January 31, 1996, and Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF–419, Revision 0, ‘‘Revise PTLR Definition and References in ISTS 5.6.6, RCS PTLR,’’ dated March 21, 2002. Date of issuance: April 22, 2019. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 120 days of issuance. Amendment Nos.: 289 (Unit 1) and 317 (Unit 2). A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19035A006; documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments. Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR–71 and DPR–62: The amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 17, 2018 (83 FR 33266). The supplemental letters dated September 27, 2018, and December 11, 2018, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the NRC staff’s original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination. The Commission’s related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated April 22, 2019. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Entergy Louisiana, LLC, and Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50–458, River Bend Station, Unit 1 (River Bend), West Feliciana Parish, Louisiana Date of amendment request: February 28, 2018, as supplemented by letters dated July 10, July 24, December 17, and December 20, 2018. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:50 May 20, 2019 Jkt 247001 Brief description of amendment: The amendment modified the River Bend Technical Specifications (TSs) to allow relocation of specific surveillance frequencies to a licensee-controlled program with the implementation of Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF–425, Revision 3, ‘‘Relocate Surveillance Frequencies to Licensee Control—RITSTF [Risk Informed TSTF] Initiative 5b.’’ The amendment added a new program, the Surveillance Frequency Control Program, to TS Chapter 5.0, ‘‘Administrative Controls,’’ and required future surveillance frequency changes to be made in accordance with an NRCapproved methodology. Date of issuance: April 29, 2019. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 90 days from the date of issuance. Amendment No.: 196. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19066A008; documents related to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment. Facility Operating License No. NPF– 47: The amendment revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and TSs. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 22, 2018 (83 FR 23733). The supplemental letters dated July 10, July 24, December 17, and December 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 29, 2019. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50– 368, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2, Pope County, Arkansas Date of amendment request: February 6, 2018, as supplemented by letters dated March 26, September 7, and November 16, 2018. Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2, Technical Specifications and operating license by relocating certain surveillance frequencies to a licensee-controlled program, consistent with the NRCapproved Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Improved Standard Technical Specifications Traveler TSTF–425, Revision 3, ‘‘Relocate Surveillance Frequencies to Licensee PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 23081 Control—RITSTF [Risk-Informed TSTF] Initiative 5b.’’ Date of issuance: April 23, 2019. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 90 days from the date of issuance. Amendment No.: 315. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19063B948; documents related to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment. Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF–6: The amendment revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 5, 2018 (83 FR 26102). The supplemental letters dated September 7, 2018, and November 16, 2018, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the 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 23, 2019. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Florida Power & Light Company, et al., Docket No. 50–389, St. Lucie Plant, Unit No. 2, St. Lucie County, Florida Date of amendment request: June 29, 2018, as supplemented by letters dated August 17, 2018; November 15, 2018; and February 22, 2019. Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical Specifications (TSs) by reducing the total number of control element assemblies specified in the TSs from 91 to 87. Date of issuance: April 23, 2019. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented prior to startup from the spring 2020 refueling outage. Amendment No.: 198. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19058A492; documents related to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment. Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF–16: The amendment revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and TSs. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 9, 2018 (83 FR 50696). The supplemental letters dated November 15, 2018, and February 22, 2019, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not E:\FR\FM\21MYN1.SGM 21MYN1 23082 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2019 / Notices jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES 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 23, 2019. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. NextEra Energy, Point Beach, LLC, Docket Nos. 50–266 and 50–301, Point Beach Nuclear Plant (Point Beach), Units 1 and 2, Town of Two Creeks, Manitowoc County, Wisconsin Date of amendment request: March 30, 2018, as supplemented by letter dated November 16, 2018. Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the Point Beach Technical Specification 5.5.15, ‘‘Containment Leakage Rate Testing Program,’’ to allow extension of the 10year frequency of the Type A Integrated Leak Rate Test to 15 years on a permanent basis and to allow the extension of the Containment Isolation Valves leakage test interval (i.e., Type C tests) from its current 60 months frequency to 75 months. Date of issuance: April 25, 2019. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 90 days of issuance. Amendment Nos.: 265 (Unit 1) and 268 (Unit 2). A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19064A904; documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments. Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR–24 and DPR–27: The amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 19, 2018 (83 FR 28461). The supplemental letter dated November 16, 2018, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the NRC staff’s original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the Federal Register. The Commission’s related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated April 25, 2019. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50–354, Hope Creek Generating Station, Salem County, New Jersey Date of amendment request: March 28, 2018, as supplemented by letters VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:50 May 20, 2019 Jkt 247001 dated September 26, 2018, and February 28, 2019. Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Hope Creek Generating Station Technical Specification 3⁄4.8.1, ‘‘A.C. Sources— Operating,’’ specifically, Action b, concerning one inoperable emergency diesel generator. The change removes the Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 3, gas turbine generator and replaces it with portable diesel generators. Date of issuance: April 30, 2019. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 1 year of the date of issuance. Amendment No.: 216. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19073A073; documents related to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment. Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF–57: The amendment revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 5, 2018 (83 FR 26106). The supplemental letters dated September 26, 2018, and February 28, 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 30, 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: September 27, 2018, as supplemented by letter dated March 11, 2019. Brief description of amendment: The amendment corrected a nonconservative Technical Specification by revising the inter-cell resistance value listed in Surveillance Requirements 4.8.2.1.b.2 and 4.8.2.1.c.3. Date of issuance: April 30, 2019. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days of issuance. Amendment No.: 215. A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19080A103; documents related to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment. PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF–12: The amendment revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 20, 2018 (83 FR 58607). The supplemental letter dated March 11, 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 30, 2019. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Georgia Power Company, Oglethorpe Power Corporation, Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, City of Dalton, Georgia, Docket Nos. 50– 321 and 50–366, Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Appling County, Georgia Date of amendment request: August 6, 2018. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18218A297. Brief description of amendments: The amendments revise the Unit No. 1 and Unit No. 2 Technical Specifications (TS) requirements of TS 3.6.2.5, ‘‘Residual Heat Removal (RHR) Drywell Spray,’’ to allow the affected unit to remain in Hot Shutdown (Mode 3) instead of proceeding to Cold Shutdown (Mode 4) when the Required Actions of Condition C cannot be met for the drywell spray system. Date of issuance: April 30, 2019. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 90 days from the date of issuance. Amendment Nos.: 296 (Unit No. 1) and 241 (Unit No. 2). A publiclyavailable version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19091A291; documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments. Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR–57 and NPF–5: The amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 4, 2018 (83 FR 62618). The Commission’s related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated April 30, 2019. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. E:\FR\FM\21MYN1.SGM 21MYN1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2019 / Notices jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50–348 and 50–364, Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant (Farley), Units 1 and 2, Houston County, Alabama, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50–321 and 50–366, Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant (Hatch), Unit Nos. 1 and 2, City of Dalton, Georgia Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50–424 and 50–425, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (Vogtle), Units 1 and 2, Burke County, Georgia Date of amendment request: August 9, 2018, as supplemented by letter dated January 31, 2019. Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical Specification (TS) 5.2.2.g to eliminate a dedicated shift technical advisor (STA) position at Farley, Units 1 and 2, and Hatch, Units 1 and 2, by allowing the STA functions to be combined with one or more of the required senior licensed operator positions. The Vogtle, Units 1 and 2, TS change aligns the facilities with equivalent wording. This change also incorporated wording related to the modes of operation during which the individual meeting the requirements in TS 5.2.2.g is required and provided guidance that the same individual may provide advisory technical support for both units. Date of issuance: April 26, 2019. Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 90 days of issuance. Amendment Nos.: Farley—222 (Unit 1) and 219 (Unit 2); Hatch—295 (Unit 1) and 240 (Unit 2); and Vogtle—199 (Unit 1) and 182 (Unit 2). A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19064A774; documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments. Facility Operating License Nos. NPF– 2, NPF–5, NPF–8, NPF–68, NPF–81, and DPR–57: The amendments revised the Facility Operating Licenses and TSs. Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 23, 2018 (83 FR 53515). The supplemental letter dated January 31, 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 26, 2019. No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:50 May 20, 2019 Jkt 247001 Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 14th day of May 2019. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Craig G. Erlanger, Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. 2019–10315 Filed 5–20–19; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590–01–P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 50–409; NRC–2019–0120] LaCrosse Solutions, LLC; La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor, Vernon County, Wisconsin Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Final environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact; issuance. AGENCY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering an amendment to Possession Only License DPR–45 to add a license condition that reflects the NRC’s approval of the license termination plan (LTP) for the La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor (LACBWR) and provides criteria for when prior NRC approval is needed to make changes to the LTP. The NRC has prepared a final environmental assessment (EA) and finding of no significant impact (FONSI) for this licensing action. DATES: The final EA referenced in this document was available on May 6, 2019. ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2019–0120 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods: • Federal Rulemaking website: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC–2019–0120. Address questions about Docket IDs in Regulations.gov to Jennifer Borges; telephone: 301–287–9127; email: Jennifer.Borges@nrc.gov. For technical questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document. • NRC’s Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publiclyavailable documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://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) SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 23083 reference staff at 1–800–397–4209, 301– 415–4737, or by email to pdr.resource@ nrc.gov. For the convenience of the reader, instructions about obtaining materials referenced in this document are provided in the ‘‘Availability of Documents’’ section. • 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. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marlayna Vaaler, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, telephone: 301–415–3178, email: Marlayna.Vaaler@nrc.gov; U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555–0001. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction In June 2016, LaCrosseSolutions, LLC (LS, the licensee) submitted a license amendment request, which included the LTP for LACBWR. The LTP was updated by LS in December 2016, May 2018, and November 2018. The NRC is considering amending Possession Only License DPR–45 to add a license condition that reflects the NRC’s approval of the LTP and provides criteria for when prior NRC approval is needed to make changes to the LTP. As required by of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) part 51, ‘‘Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions,’’ the NRC prepared a final EA. Based on the results of the final EA, as described in the following sections, the NRC has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) for the LACBWR LTP amendment, and is issuing a FONSI. II. Environmental Assessment Description of the Proposed Action The proposed action is NRC review and approval of the LACBWR LTP. In its license amendment request, LS requested to add a license condition: (1) Reflecting the NRC staff’s approval of the LTP and (2) providing criteria for when prior NRC approval is needed to make changes to the LTP. If the NRC approves the LTP, the approval will be issued in the form of an amendment to the LACBWR license to add the requested license condition. The LACBWR LTP provides the details of the plan for characterizing, identifying, and remediating the remaining residual radioactivity at the LACBWR site to a level that will allow the site to be released for unrestricted use. The LACBWR LTP also describes E:\FR\FM\21MYN1.SGM 21MYN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 98 (Tuesday, May 21, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23074-23083]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-10315]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2019-0121]


Biweekly Notice: Applications and Amendments to Facility 
Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant 
Hazards Considerations

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Biweekly notice.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the 
Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is publishing this 
regular biweekly notice. The Act requires the Commission to publish 
notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to be issued, and grants 
the Commission the authority to issue and make immediately effective 
any amendment to an operating license or combined license, as 
applicable, upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment 
involves no significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the 
pendency before the Commission of a request for a hearing from any 
person.
    This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or 
proposed to be issued, from April 23, 2019, to May 6, 2019. The last 
biweekly notice was published on May 7, 2019.

DATES: Comments must be filed by June 20, 2019. A request for a hearing 
must be filed by July 22, 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 http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2019-0121. Address 
questions about NRC dockets IDs in Regulations.gov to Jennifer Borges; 
telephone: 301-287-9127; email: [email protected]. For technical 
questions, contact the individual(s) 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: Lynn Ronewicz, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1927, email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments

A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2019-0121, 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 http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2019-0121.
     NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the 
ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select ``Begin Web-based ADAMS 
Search.'' For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public 
Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or 
by email to pdr.resou[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-2019-0121, 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 http://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

[[Page 23075]]

expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The 
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment 
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the 
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period if circumstances change during the 30-day comment 
period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for 
example in derating or shutdown of the facility. If the Commission 
takes action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or 
the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a notice of 
issuance. If the Commission makes a final no significant hazards 
consideration determination, any hearing will take place after 
issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will 
occur very infrequently.

A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing and Petition for Leave To Intervene

    Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any 
persons (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by this action may 
file a request for a hearing and petition for leave to intervene 
(petition) with respect to the action. Petitions shall be filed in 
accordance with the Commission's ``Agency Rules of Practice and 
Procedure'' in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult a 
current copy of 10 CFR 2.309. The NRC's regulations are accessible 
electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's website at http://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

[[Page 23076]]

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 http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. 
Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they 
seek an exemption in accordance with the procedures described below.
    To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 
days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the 
Office of the Secretary by email at [email protected], or by 
telephone at 301-415-1677, to (1) request a digital identification (ID) 
certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or 
representative) to digitally sign submissions and access the E-Filing 
system for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise 
the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a petition or 
other adjudicatory document (even in instances in which the 
participant, or its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-
issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the 
Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the hearing in this 
proceeding if the Secretary has not already established an electronic 
docket.
    Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is 
available on the NRC's public website at http://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 http://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 http://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.

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

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

    Date of amendment request: March 7, 2019. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19070A227.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the 
Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1, and the River Bend Station, Unit 1, 
Technical Specifications (TSs) Safety Limit 2.1.1.2 and TS 5.6.5, 
``Core Operation Limits Report (COLR).'' The proposed changes are 
consistent with the NRC-approved Technical Specifications Task Force 
(TSTF) Traveler TSTF-564, Revision 2, ``Safety Limit MCPR [Minimum 
Critical Power Ratio],'' using the consolidated line item

[[Page 23077]]

improvement process (ADAMS Package Accession No. ML18299A048).
    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. Do the proposed amendments involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendments revise the TS SLMCPR [safety limit 
minimum critical power ratio] and the list of core operating limits 
to be included in the COLR. The SLMCPR is not an initiator of any 
accident previously evaluated. The revised safety limit values 
continue to ensure, for all accidents previously evaluated, that the 
fuel cladding will be protected from failure due to transition 
boiling. The proposed change does not affect plant operation or any 
procedural or administrative controls on plant operation that affect 
functions of preventing or mitigating any accidents previously 
evaluated.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Do the proposed amendments create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendments revise the TS SLMCPR and the list of 
core operating limits to be included in the COLR. The proposed 
change will not affect the design function or operation of any 
structures, systems, or components (SSCs). No new equipment will be 
installed. As a result, the proposed change will not create any 
credible new failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident 
initiators not considered in the design and licensing bases.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
    3. Do the proposed amendments involve a significant reduction in 
a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendments revise the TS SLMCPR and the list of 
core operating limits to be included in the COLR. This will result 
in a change to a safety limit, but will not result in a significant 
reduction in the margin of safety provided by the safety limit. As 
discussed in TSTF-564, changing the SLMCPR methodology to one based 
on a 95% probability with 95% confidence level that no fuel rods 
experience transition boiling during an anticipated transient 
instead of the current limit based on ensuring that 99.9% of the 
fuel rods are not susceptible to boiling transition, does not have a 
significant effect on plant response to any analyzed accident. The 
SLMCPR and the TS Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) on MCPR 
continue to provide the same level of assurance as the current 
limits and do not reduce margin 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: Anna Vinson Jones, Senior Counsel, Entergy 
Services, Inc., 101 Constitution Avenue NW, Suite 200 East, Washington, 
DC 20001.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.

Florida Power & Light Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389, 
St. Lucie Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, St. Lucie County, Florida

    Date of amendment request: December 20, 2018. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18354A901.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the 
Technical Specifications (TSs) by allowing the performance of selected 
emergency diesel generator (EDG) surveillance requirements during power 
operation, and by relocating to licensee control two EDG surveillance 
requirements that are not necessary to demonstrate operability.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change modifies the allowable MODEs for selected 
EDG testing and relocates two EDG testing requirements to licensee 
control. EDG testing verifies the accident mitigation capabilities 
assumed in accident analyses. In some cases, the proposed changes 
could result in detectable electrical perturbations resulting from 
testing at-power. However, the perturbations do not exceed expected 
parameters or equipment capabilities, and do not trigger protective 
safety systems, and thereby cannot increase the likelihood of any 
accident. In some cases, the proposed changes could delay the 
ability of the EDG under test to respond to a loss of offsite power. 
However, the delay is insignificant, the testing would not affect 
redundant trains or equipment capabilities, and the plant would 
remain within its licensing basis in response to any postulated 
event. In addition, administrative controls ensure that the testing 
would not occur under conditions that could potentially challenge 
safe operation such as severe weather, etc. The testing selected for 
relocation to licensee control verify passive capabilities or 
capabilities verified during pre-operational testing that will not 
change without physical changes to the station. The proposed changes 
align the St. Lucie TS with the regulatory guidance of NUREG-1432, 
Revision 4, and industry precedent, and thereby cannot adversely 
affect safety.
    Therefore, the proposed license amendments would not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change modifies the allowable MODEs for EDG testing 
and relocates two EDG testing requirements to licensee control. In 
some cases, the proposed change increases the length of time an EDG 
would be paralleled to the grid during power operation. During such 
testing, the EDG under test would be declared inoperable for a 
period well within the current licensing basis. Likewise, station 
response to any postulated event during such testing would be within 
its licensing basis. Hence, the proposed change would not introduce 
new accident initiators or new failure mechanisms and would not 
alter the expected outcome of any postulated event. The testing 
selected for relocation to licensee control verify passive equipment 
capabilities or capabilities verified during pre-operational testing 
that will not change without physical changes to the station.
    Therefore, the proposed license amendments would 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 modifies the allowable MODEs for EDG testing 
and relocates two EDG testing requirements to licensee control. The 
proposed change does not affect any fission product barrier or 
modify any set points for which protective actions associated with 
accident detection or mitigation are initiated. The proposed change 
neither affects the design of plant equipment nor the manner in 
which the plant is operated. The proposed changes cannot adversely 
impact any safety limits or limiting safety settings.
    Therefore, the proposed license amendment would 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

[[Page 23078]]

Blvd., MS LAW/JB, Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420.
    NRC Branch Chief: Undine Shoop.

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: April 8, 2019. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19098B529.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would adopt 
Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-563, ``Revise 
Instrument Testing Definitions to Incorporate the Surveillance 
Frequency Control Program.'' TSTF-563 revises the Technical 
Specification (TS) definitions of Channel Calibration and Channel 
Functional Test.
    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 revises the TS definitions of Channel 
Calibration and Channel Functional Test to allow the frequency for 
testing the components or devices in each step to be determined in 
accordance with the TS Surveillance Frequency Control Program. The 
proposed change also explicitly permits the Channel Functional Test 
to be performed by any series of sequential, overlapping, or total 
channel steps. All components in the channel continue to be 
calibrated and tested. The frequency at which a channel is tested or 
calibrated is not an initiator of any accident previously evaluated, 
so the probability of an accident is not affected by the proposed 
change. The channels surveilled in accordance with the affected 
definitions continue to be required to be operable and the 
acceptance criteria of the surveillances are unchanged. As a result, 
any mitigating functions assumed in the accident analysis will 
continue to be performed.
    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 revises the TS definitions of Channel 
Calibration and Channel Functional Test to allow the frequency for 
testing the components or devices in each step to be determined in 
accordance with the TS Surveillance Frequency Control Program. The 
proposed change also explicitly permits the Channel Functional Test 
to be performed by any series of sequential, overlapping, or total 
channel steps. All components in the channel continue to be 
calibrated and tested. The design function or operation of the 
components involved are not affected and there is no physical 
alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment 
will be installed). No credible new failure mechanisms, 
malfunctions, or accident initiators not considered in the design 
and licensing bases are introduced. The changes do not alter 
assumptions made in the safety analysis. The proposed changes are 
consistent with the safety analysis assumptions.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change revises the TS definitions of Channel 
Calibration and Channel Functional Test to allow the frequency for 
testing the components or devices in each step to be determined in 
accordance with the TS Surveillance Frequency Control Program. The 
proposed change also explicitly permits the Channel Functional Test 
to be performed by any series of sequential, overlapping, or total 
channel steps. All components in the channel continue to be 
calibrated and tested. The Surveillance Frequency Control Program 
assures sufficient safety margins are maintained, and that that 
design, operation, surveillance methods, and acceptance criteria 
specified in applicable codes and standards (or alternatives 
approved for use by the NRC) will continue to be met as described in 
the plants' licensing basis. The proposed change does not adversely 
affect existing plant safety margins, or the reliability of the 
equipment assumed to operate in the safety analysis. As such, there 
are no changes being made to safety analysis assumptions, safety 
limits, or limiting safety system settings that would adversely 
affect plant safety as a result of the proposed change. Margins of 
safety are unaffected by method of determining surveillance test 
intervals under an NRC-approved licensee-controlled program.
    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: Steven Fleischer, PSEG Services Corporation, 
80 Park Plaza, T-5, Newark, NJ 07102.
    NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna.

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

    Date of amendment request: April 22, 2019. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19112A214.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would adopt 
Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-564, Revision 
2, ``Safety Limit MCPR [Minimum Critical Power Ratio],'' which would 
revise the Hope Creek Generating Station technical specification (TS) 
safety limit on minimum critical power ratio (SLMCPR) to reduce the 
need for cyclespecific changes to the value while still meeting the 
regulatory requirement for a safety limit.
    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 revises the TS SLMCPR and the list of 
individual specifications that address core operating limits to be 
included in the Core Operating Limits Report (COLR). The SLMCPR is 
not an initiator of any accident previously evaluated. The revised 
safety limit values continue to ensure for all accidents previously 
evaluated that the fuel cladding will be protected from failure due 
to transition boiling. The proposed change does not affect plant 
operation or any procedural or administrative controls on plant 
operation that affect the functions of preventing or mitigating any 
accidents previously evaluated.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment revises the TS SLMCPR and the list of 
individual specifications that address core operating limits to be 
included in the COLR. The proposed change will not affect the design 
function or operation of any structures, systems or components 
(SSCs). No new equipment will be installed. As a result, the 
proposed change will not create any credible new failure mechanisms, 
malfunctions, or accident initiators not considered in the design 
and licensing bases.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.

[[Page 23079]]

    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment revises the TS SLMCPR and the list of 
specifications that address core operating limits to be included in 
the COLR. This will result in a change to a safety limit, but will 
not result in a significant reduction in the margin of safety 
provided by the safety limit. As discussed in the application, 
changing the SLMCPR methodology to one based on a 95% probability 
with 95% confidence that no fuel rods experience transition boiling 
during an anticipated transient instead of the current limit based 
on ensuring that 99.9% of the fuel rods are not susceptible to 
boiling transition does not have a significant effect on plant 
response to any analyzed accident. The SLMCPR and the TS Limiting 
Condition for Operation (LCO) on MCPR continue to provide the same 
level of assurance as the current limits and do not reduce a margin 
of 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 request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Steven Fleischer, PSEG Services Corporation, 
80 Park Plaza, T-5, Newark, NJ 07102.
    NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna.

Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-338 and 50-339, 
North Anna Power Station, Units Nos. 1 and 2, Louisa County, Virginia 
and Docket Nos. 50-280 and 50-281, Surry Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 
2, Surry County, Virginia, and Dominion Energy Nuclear Connecticut, 
Inc., Docket Nos. 50-245, 50-336 and 50-423, Millstone Power Station, 
Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3, New London County, Connecticut

    Date of amendment request: January 4, 2019. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Package Accession No. ML19011A237.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would authorize 
changes to the Millstone Power Station (MPS), North Anna Power Station 
(NAPS), and Surry Power Station (SPS) emergency plans to incorporate 
new Emergency Action Level (EAL) schemes prepared using the guidelines 
of Nuclear Energy Institute 99-01, Revision 6, ``Methodology for the 
Development of Emergency Action Levels for Non-Passive Reactors,'' 
November 2012.
    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. Do the proposed amendments involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes affect the MPS, NAPS and SPS EALs by 
incorporating new EAL schemes, as well as associated revised 
engineering analysis, but do not alter any of the requirements of 
the Operating Licenses or the Technical Specifications. The proposed 
changes do not modify any plant equipment and do not impact any 
failure modes that could lead to an accident. Additionally, the 
proposed changes have no effect on the consequences of any analyzed 
accident since the changes do not affect any equipment related to 
accident mitigation. Based on this discussion, the proposed changes 
do not increase the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Do the proposed amendments create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes affect the MPS, NAPS and SPS EALs by 
incorporating new EAL schemes, as well as associated revised 
engineering analysis, but do not alter any of the requirements of 
the Operating Licenses or the Technical Specifications. The changes 
do not modify any plant equipment and there are no impacts on the 
capability of existing equipment to perform its intended design 
functions. No system setpoints are being modified and no new failure 
modes are introduced by the proposed changes. The proposed changes 
do not introduce any new accident initiators or malfunctions that 
would cause a new or different kind of accident. Therefore, the 
proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different 
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
    3. Do the proposed amendments involve a significant reduction in 
a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes affect the MPS, NAPS and SPS EALs by 
incorporating new EAL schemes, as well as associated revised 
engineering analysis, but do not alter any of the requirements of 
the Operating Licenses or the Technical Specifications. The proposed 
changes do not affect any of the assumptions used in the accident 
analyses, nor do the proposed changes affect any operability 
requirements for equipment important to plant safety. Therefore, the 
proposed changes will 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: Mr. W. S. Blair, Senior Counsel, Dominion 
Energy Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar Street, RS-2, Richmond, VA 23219.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

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

    Date of amendment request: March 18, 2019. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19086A111.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise 
Technical Specification (TS) 3.3.5, ``Loss of Power (LOP) Diesel 
Generator (DG) Start Instrumentation.'' Specifically, the amendment 
would revise the degraded voltage and loss of voltage relays Allowable 
Values, nominal Trip Setpoints, and time delays specified in TS 
Surveillance Requirement 3.3.5.3, based on analysis using the guidance 
in Regulatory Issue Summary 2011-12, Revision 1, ``Adequacy of Station 
Electric Distribution System Voltages'' (ADAMS Accession No. 
ML113050583).
    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 to the LOV [loss of voltage] and DV 
[degraded voltage] Functions allows the protection scheme to 
function as originally designed. This change will involve alteration 
of the nominal Trip Setpoints in the field and will also be 
reflected in revisions to the surveillance procedures. The proposed 
change does not affect the probability or consequences of any 
accident.
    Analysis was conducted and demonstrates that the proposed 
changes will allow the normally operating safety-related motors to 
not be damaged in the event of sustained degraded bus voltage during 
the time delay period prior to initiation of the first level LOV 
trip function. Therefore, these safety-related loads will be 
available to perform their design basis function should a loss-of-
coolant accident (LOCA) occur concurrent with a loss-of-offsite 
power (LOOP) following the DV condition.
    The proposed changes do not adversely affect accident initiators 
or precursors, and do not alter the design assumptions, conditions, 
or configuration or the plant or the manner in which the plant is 
operated or maintained. The proposed changes ensure that the 4.16kV 
[kilovolt] distribution system remains connected to the offsite 
power system when adequate offsite voltage is

[[Page 23080]]

available and motor starting transients are considered. During an 
actual LOV condition, the LOV time delay will continue to isolate 
the 4.16kV distribution system from offsite power before the diesel 
generator (DG) is ready to assume the emergency loads, which is the 
limiting time basis for mitigating system responses to the accident.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change involves the DV and LOV relays AV [allowable 
value], nominal Trip Setpoints, and time delays to satisfy existing 
design requirements. The proposed change does not introduce any 
changes or mechanisms that create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident. The proposed change does not install any 
new or different type of equipment, and installed equipment is not 
being operated in a new or different manner. No new effects on 
existing equipment are created nor are any new malfunctions 
introduced.
    Therefore, the proposed change will not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes to the DV and LOV relay AVs, nominal Trip 
Setpoints, and time delays continue to provide margin for the 
protection of equipment from sustained DV conditions. During an 
actual LOV condition, the LOV time delays will continue to isolate 
the 4.16kV distribution system from offsite power before the DG is 
ready to assume the emergency loads.
    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: 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 Progress, LLC, Docket No. 50-261, H. B. Robinson Steam 
Electric Plant, Unit No. 2 (Robinson), Darlington County, South 
Carolina

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

    Date of amendment request: October 19, 2017, as supplemented by 
letters dated June 5, October 15, and November 6, 2018.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the 
Technical Specifications (TSs) to support the allowance of Duke Energy 
Progress, LLC to self-perform core reload design and safety analyses. 
These revisions included (1) adding the NRC-approved COPERNIC Topical 
Report (TR) to the list of TRs for Harris and Robinson and revised the 
peak fuel centerline temperature equation in Robinson TS 2.1.1.2 and 
Harris TS 2.1.1.b to be the equation used by COPERNIC; (2) relocating 
several TS parameters to the Core Operating Limits Reports for Harris 
and Robinson, (3) revising the Robinson TS Moderator Temperature 
Coefficient maximum upper limit, (4) revising the Harris TS definition 
of Shutdown Margin consistent with Technical Specifications Task Force 
(TSTF) Traveler TSTF-248, Revision 0 (ADAMS Accession No. ML040611010), 
``Revise Shutdown Margin Definition for Stuck Rod Exception,'' and (5) 
revising the Robinson and Harris Power Distribution Limits limiting 
condition of operation actions and surveillance requirements, as well 
as the Robinson Reactor Protection System Instrumentation Table 3.3.1-1 
to allow operation of a reactor core designed using the DPC-NE-2011-P 
[proprietary], ``Nuclear Design Methodology Report for Core Operating 
Limits of Westinghouse Reactors,'' methodology. (A redacted version, 
designated as DPC-NE-2011, is publicly-available under ADAMS Accession 
No. ML16125A420.)
    Date of issuance: April 29, 2019.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
prior to startup following the next refueling outage at each plant.
    Amendment Nos.: 263 (Robinson) and 171 (Harris). A publicly-
available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18288A139; 
documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety 
Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-23 and NPF-63: The 
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 2, 2018 (83 FR 
166). The supplemental letter dated November 6, 2018, provided 
additional information that expanded the scope of the application as 
originally noticed and changed the NRC staff's original proposed no 
significant hazards consideration determination as published in the 
Federal Register. Accordingly, the NRC published a second proposed no 
significant hazards consideration determination in the Federal Register 
on December 4, 2018 (83 FR 62613). This notice superseded the original 
notice in its entirety.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated April 29, 2019.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

[[Page 23081]]

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: April 4, 2018, as supplemented by 
letters dated May 29, 2018; September 27, 2018; and December 11, 2018.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the 
Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, Technical Specifications 
to relocate the pressure-temperature limit curves to a licensee-
controlled Pressure and Temperature Limits Report (PTLR). The amendment 
request was submitted in accordance with guidance provided in NRC 
Generic Letter 96-03, ``Relocation of the Pressure Temperature Limit 
Curves and Low Temperature Overpressure Protections System Limits,'' 
dated January 31, 1996, and Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) 
Traveler TSTF-419, Revision 0, ``Revise PTLR Definition and References 
in ISTS 5.6.6, RCS PTLR,'' dated March 21, 2002.
    Date of issuance: April 22, 2019.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 120 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 289 (Unit 1) and 317 (Unit 2). A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19035A006; documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with 
the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-71 and DPR-62: The 
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and 
Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 17, 2018 (83 FR 
33266). The supplemental letters dated September 27, 2018, and December 
11, 2018, provided additional information that clarified the 
application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally 
noticed, and did not change the NRC staff's original proposed no 
significant hazards consideration determination.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated April 22, 2019.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: February 28, 2018, as supplemented by 
letters dated July 10, July 24, December 17, and December 20, 2018.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment modified the River 
Bend Technical Specifications (TSs) to allow relocation of specific 
surveillance frequencies to a licensee-controlled program with the 
implementation of Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler 
TSTF-425, Revision 3, ``Relocate Surveillance Frequencies to Licensee 
Control--RITSTF [Risk Informed TSTF] Initiative 5b.'' The amendment 
added a new program, the Surveillance Frequency Control Program, to TS 
Chapter 5.0, ``Administrative Controls,'' and required future 
surveillance frequency changes to be made in accordance with an NRC-
approved methodology.
    Date of issuance: April 29, 2019.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
90 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 196. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML19066A008; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-47: The amendment revised the 
Renewed Facility Operating License and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 22, 2018 (83 FR 
23733). The supplemental letters dated July 10, July 24, December 17, 
and December 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 29, 2019.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: February 6, 2018, as supplemented by 
letters dated March 26, September 7, and November 16, 2018.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Arkansas 
Nuclear One, Unit 2, Technical Specifications and operating license by 
relocating certain surveillance frequencies to a licensee-controlled 
program, consistent with the NRC-approved Technical Specifications Task 
Force (TSTF) Improved Standard Technical Specifications Traveler TSTF-
425, Revision 3, ``Relocate Surveillance Frequencies to Licensee 
Control--RITSTF [Risk-Informed TSTF] Initiative 5b.''
    Date of issuance: April 23, 2019.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 315. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML19063B948; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-6: The amendment revised 
the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 5, 2018 (83 FR 
26102). The supplemental letters dated September 7, 2018, and November 
16, 2018, provided additional information that clarified the 
application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally 
noticed, and did not change the 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 23, 2019.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Florida Power & Light Company, et al., Docket No. 50-389, St. Lucie 
Plant, Unit No. 2, St. Lucie County, Florida

    Date of amendment request: June 29, 2018, as supplemented by 
letters dated August 17, 2018; November 15, 2018; and February 22, 
2019.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical 
Specifications (TSs) by reducing the total number of control element 
assemblies specified in the TSs from 91 to 87.
    Date of issuance: April 23, 2019.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
prior to startup from the spring 2020 refueling outage.
    Amendment No.: 198. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML19058A492; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-16: The amendment 
revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 9, 2018 (83 FR 
50696). The supplemental letters dated November 15, 2018, and February 
22, 2019, provided additional information that clarified the 
application, did not

[[Page 23082]]

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 23, 2019.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: March 30, 2018, as supplemented by 
letter dated November 16, 2018.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the Point 
Beach Technical Specification 5.5.15, ``Containment Leakage Rate 
Testing Program,'' to allow extension of the 10-year frequency of the 
Type A Integrated Leak Rate Test to 15 years on a permanent basis and 
to allow the extension of the Containment Isolation Valves leakage test 
interval (i.e., Type C tests) from its current 60 months frequency to 
75 months.
    Date of issuance: April 25, 2019.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 265 (Unit 1) and 268 (Unit 2). A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19064A904; documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with 
the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-24 and DPR-27: The 
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and 
Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 19, 2018 (83 FR 
28461).
    The supplemental letter dated November 16, 2018, provided 
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand 
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change 
the NRC staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination as published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated April 25, 2019.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: March 28, 2018, as supplemented by 
letters dated September 26, 2018, and February 28, 2019.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Hope 
Creek Generating Station Technical Specification \3/4\.8.1, ``A.C. 
Sources--Operating,'' specifically, Action b, concerning one inoperable 
emergency diesel generator. The change removes the Salem Nuclear 
Generating Station, Unit 3, gas turbine generator and replaces it with 
portable diesel generators.
    Date of issuance: April 30, 2019.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 1 year of the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 216. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML19073A073; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-57: The amendment 
revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical 
Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 5, 2018 (83 FR 
26106). The supplemental letters dated September 26, 2018, and February 
28, 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 30, 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: September 27, 2018, as supplemented by 
letter dated March 11, 2019.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment corrected a non-
conservative Technical Specification by revising the inter-cell 
resistance value listed in Surveillance Requirements 4.8.2.1.b.2 and 
4.8.2.1.c.3.
    Date of issuance: April 30, 2019.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 215. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML19080A103; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-12: The amendment 
revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical 
Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 20, 2018 (83 
FR 58607). The supplemental letter dated March 11, 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 30, 2019.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: August 6, 2018. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18218A297.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revise the Unit No. 
1 and Unit No. 2 Technical Specifications (TS) requirements of TS 
3.6.2.5, ``Residual Heat Removal (RHR) Drywell Spray,'' to allow the 
affected unit to remain in Hot Shutdown (Mode 3) instead of proceeding 
to Cold Shutdown (Mode 4) when the Required Actions of Condition C 
cannot be met for the drywell spray system.
    Date of issuance: April 30, 2019.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 296 (Unit No. 1) and 241 (Unit No. 2). A publicly-
available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19091A291; 
documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety 
Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-57 and NPF-5: The 
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 4, 2018 (83 FR 
62618).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated April 30, 2019.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

[[Page 23083]]

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-
364, Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant (Farley), Units 1 and 2, Houston 
County, Alabama, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 
50-321 and 50-366, Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant (Hatch), Unit Nos. 1 
and 2, City of Dalton, Georgia

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-
425, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (Vogtle), Units 1 and 2, Burke 
County, Georgia

    Date of amendment request: August 9, 2018, as supplemented by 
letter dated January 31, 2019.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical 
Specification (TS) 5.2.2.g to eliminate a dedicated shift technical 
advisor (STA) position at Farley, Units 1 and 2, and Hatch, Units 1 and 
2, by allowing the STA functions to be combined with one or more of the 
required senior licensed operator positions. The Vogtle, Units 1 and 2, 
TS change aligns the facilities with equivalent wording. This change 
also incorporated wording related to the modes of operation during 
which the individual meeting the requirements in TS 5.2.2.g is required 
and provided guidance that the same individual may provide advisory 
technical support for both units.
    Date of issuance: April 26, 2019.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: Farley--222 (Unit 1) and 219 (Unit 2); Hatch--295 
(Unit 1) and 240 (Unit 2); and Vogtle--199 (Unit 1) and 182 (Unit 2). A 
publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19064A774; 
documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety 
Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-2, NPF-5, NPF-8, NPF-68, NPF-
81, and DPR-57: The amendments revised the Facility Operating Licenses 
and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 23, 2018 (83 FR 
53515). The supplemental letter dated January 31, 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 26, 2019.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 14th day of May 2019.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Craig G. Erlanger,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2019-10315 Filed 5-20-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7590-01-P