Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations, 33983-33993 [2019-14624]

Agencies

• NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 136 (Tuesday, July 16, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33983-33993]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-14624]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2019-0143]


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

[[Page 33984]]

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 June 18, 2019 to June 28, 2019. The last 
biweekly notice was published on July 2, 2019.

DATES: Comments must be filed by August 15, 2019. A request for a 
hearing must be filed by September 16, 2019.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods 
(unless this document describes a different method for submitting 
comments on a specific subject):
     Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2019-0143. Address 
questions about NRC docket IDs in Regulations.gov to Jennifer Borges; 
telephone: 301-287-9127; email: [email protected]. For technical 
questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT section of this document.
     Mail comments to: Office of Administration, Mail Stop: 
TWFN-7-A60M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-
0001, ATTN: Program Management, Announcements and Editing Staff.
    For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting 
comments, see ``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' in the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kay Goldstein, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1506, email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments

A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2019-0143 facility name, unit 
number(s), plant docket number, application date, and subject when 
contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this 
action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this 
action by any of the following methods:
     Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2019-0143.
     NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the 
ADAMS Public Documents collection at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select ``Begin Web-based ADAMS 
Search.'' For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public 
Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or 
by email to [email protected]. The ADAMS accession number for each 
document referenced (if it is available in ADAMS) is provided the first 
time that it is mentioned in this document.
     NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public 
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

B. Submitting Comments

    Please include Docket ID NRC-2019-0143 facility name, unit 
number(s), plant docket number, application date, and subject in your 
comment submission.
    The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact 
information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your 
comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at 
https://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions 
into ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to 
remove identifying or contact information.
    If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons 
for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to 
include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be 
publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should 
state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to 
remove such information before making the comment submissions available 
to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.

II. Background

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

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

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

[[Page 33985]]

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

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

B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)

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

[[Page 33986]]

[email protected], or by telephone at 301-415-1677, to (1) request 
a digital identification (ID) certificate, which allows the participant 
(or its counsel or representative) to digitally sign submissions and 
access the E-Filing system for any proceeding in which it is 
participating; and (2) advise the Secretary that the participant will 
be submitting a petition or other adjudicatory document (even in 
instances in which the participant, or its counsel or representative, 
already holds an NRC-issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this 
information, the Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the 
hearing in this proceeding if the Secretary has not already established 
an electronic docket.
    Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is 
available on the NRC's public website at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/getting-started.html. Once a participant has obtained a 
digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant 
can then submit adjudicatory documents. Submissions must be in Portable 
Document Format (PDF). Additional guidance on PDF submissions is 
available on the NRC's public website at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/electronic-sub-ref-mat.html. A filing is considered complete at the 
time the document is submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be 
timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system 
no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of 
a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends 
the submitter an email notice confirming receipt of the document. The 
E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access 
to the document to the NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any 
others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to 
participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the 
document on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and 
other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for 
and receive a digital ID certificate before adjudicatory documents are 
filed so that they can obtain access to the documents via the E-Filing 
system.
    A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-
Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC's Electronic 
Filing Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC's 
public website at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by 
email to [email protected], or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-
7640. The NRC Electronic Filing Help Desk is available between 9 a.m. 
and 6 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government 
holidays.
    Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not 
submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in 
accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing 
stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and 
requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper 
format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail 
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: 
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or 
expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and 
Adjudications Staff. Participants filing adjudicatory documents in this 
manner are responsible for serving the document on all other 
participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of 
the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or 
expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the 
provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an 
exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or 
party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines 
that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no 
longer exists.
    Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the 
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at 
https://adams.nrc.gov/ehd, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the 
Commission or the presiding officer. If you do not have an NRC-issued 
digital ID certificate as described above, click ``Cancel'' when the 
link requests certificates and you will be automatically directed to 
the NRC's electronic hearing dockets where you will be able to access 
any publicly available documents in a particular hearing docket. 
Participants are requested not to include personal privacy information, 
such as social security numbers, home addresses, or personal phone 
numbers in their filings, unless an NRC regulation or other law 
requires submission of such information. For example, in some 
instances, individuals provide home addresses in order to demonstrate 
proximity to a facility or site. With respect to copyrighted works, 
except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory 
filings and would constitute a Fair Use application, participants are 
requested not to include copyrighted materials in their submission.
    For further details with respect to these license amendment 
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 Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-293, Pilgrim Nuclear 
Power Station (PNPS), Plymouth County, Massachusetts

    Date of amendment request: April 25, 2019. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19115A225.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would remove the 
existing Cyber Security Plan (CSP) requirements contained in License 
Condition 3.G of the PNPS Renewed Facility Operating License and the 
commitment to fully implement the CSP by the Milestone 8 commitment 
date of December 31, 2020 (ADAMS Accession No. ML17290A487).
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    Following cessation of power operations and removal of all spent 
fuel from the reactor, spent fuel at PNPS will be stored in the SFP 
[spent fuel pool] and in the independent spent fuel storage 
installation (ISFSI). In this configuration, the spectrum of 
possible transients and accidents is significantly reduced compared 
to an operating nuclear power reactor. The only design basis 
accident that could potentially result in an offsite radiological 
release at PNPS is the FHA [fuel handling accident], which is 
predicated on spent fuel being stored in the SFP. An analysis has 
been performed that concludes that once PNPS has been permanently 
shut down for 46 days, there is no longer any possibility of an 
offsite radiological release from a design basis accident that could 
exceed the EPA's [Environmental Protection Agency] PAGs [protective 
action guidelines]. The results of this analysis have been 
previously submitted to the NRC (ADAMS Accession No. ML18186A635) 
(Reference 4 [of Entergy's letter dated April 25, 2019]). With the 
significant reduction in radiological risk based on PNPS being shut 
down for more

[[Page 33987]]

than 46 days, the consequences of a cyber-attack are also 
significantly reduced.
    This proposed change does not alter previously evaluated 
accident analysis assumptions, introduce or alter any initiators, or 
affect the function of facility structures, systems, and components 
(SSCs) relied upon to prevent or mitigate any previously evaluated 
accident or the manner in which these SSCs are operated, maintained, 
modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed change does not involve 
any facility modifications which affect the performance capability 
of any SSCs relied upon to prevent or mitigate the consequences of 
any previously evaluated accidents.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    This proposed change does not alter accident analysis 
assumptions, introduce or alter any initiators, or affect the 
function of facility SSCs relied upon to prevent or mitigate any 
previously evaluated accident, or the manner in which these SSCs are 
operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. The proposed 
change does not involve any facility modifications which affect the 
performance capability of any SSCs relied upon to mitigate the 
consequences of previously evaluated accidents and does not create 
the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any 
accident previously evaluated.
    Additionally, per an NRC Memorandum, Cyber Security Requirements 
for Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants (Reference 3 [of Entergy's 
letter dated April 25, 2019, ADAMS Accession No. ML16172A284, dated 
December 5, 2016]), the NRC staff has determined that 10 CFR 73.54 
does not apply to reactor licensees that have submitted 
certifications of permanent cessation of power operations and 
permanent removal of fuel under 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1), and whose 
certifications have been docketed by the NRC 10 CFR 50.82(a)(2). 
PNPS [has] permanently remove[d] all fuel under 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1) 
in June 2019 and submit[ted] the required documentation stating so 
[ADAMS Accession No. ML19161A033]. Entergy has provided a site-
specific analysis (Calculation No. PNPS-EC-73355-M1418, Adiabatic 
Heatup Analysis for Drained Spent Fuel Pool) (PNPS site-specific 
Zirconium-Fire Analysis) that provides the determination that 
sufficient time will have passed prior to the requested 
implementation date such that the spent fuel stored in the spent 
fuel pool cannot reasonably heat up to clad ignition temperature 
within 10 hours.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    Plant safety margins are established through limiting conditions 
for operation and design features specified in the PNPS Permanently 
Defueled Technical Specifications that were submitted to the NRC on 
September 13, 2018 (Reference 8 [of Entergy's letter dated April 25, 
2019, ADAMS Accession No. ML18260A085, dated September 13, 2018]). 
The NRC anticipates approval of the submittal in July 2019. The 
proposed change does not involve any changes to the initial 
conditions that establish safety margins and does not involve 
modifications to any SSCs which are relied upon to provide a margin 
of safety. Because there is no change to established safety margins 
as a result of this proposed change, no significant reduction in a 
margin of safety is involved.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

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

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Georgia Power Company, 
Oglethorpe Power Corporation, Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, 
City of Dalton, Georgia, Docket Nos. 50-32 1 and 50-366, Edwin I. Hatch 
Nuclear Plant (HNP), Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Appling County, Georgia

    Date of amendment request: April 24, 2019. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19114A456.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise 
certain technical specifications to remove the requirements for 
engineered safety feature (ESF) systems (e.g., secondary containment, 
secondary containment valve isolation capability, and standby gas 
treatment (SGT) system) to be operable after sufficient radioactive 
decay of irradiated fuel has occurred following a plant shutdown. The 
amendments would revise technical specification (TS) TS 3.3.6.2, 
``Secondary Containment Isolation Instrumentation;'' TS 3.6.4.1, 
``Secondary Containment;'' TS 3.6.4.2, ``Secondary Containment 
Isolation Valves;'' and TS 3.6.4.3, ``Standby Gas Treatment System.''
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment does not affect accident initiators or 
precursors nor adversely alter the design assumptions, conditions, 
and configuration of the facility. The proposed amendment does not 
alter any plant equipment or operating practices with respect to 
such initiators or precursors in a manner that the probability of an 
accident is increased.
    The proposed amendment does not involve a physical change to the 
secondary containment or spent fuel area systems, nor does it change 
the safety function of the secondary containment, secondary 
containment isolation valves, SGT system, and associated refueling 
floor exhaust radiation isolation instrumentation. The subject ESF 
systems are not assumed in the mitigation of an [fuel handling 
accident] FHA after sufficient radioactive decay of irradiated fuel 
has occurred. In addition, FHA dose analysis shows that [main 
control room] MCR dose remains below the 10 CFR 50.67(b)(2)(iii) 
dose limit and off-site dose remains below the accident dose limit 
specified in the NRC [standard review plan] SRP, which represents a 
small fraction of 10 CFR 50.67 dose limits.
    As a result, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    With respect to a new or different kind of accident, there are 
no proposed design changes to the safety related plant structures, 
systems, and components (SSCs); nor are there any changes in the 
method by which safety related plant SSCs perform their specified 
safety functions. The proposed amendment will not affect the normal 
method of plant operation or revise any operating parameters. No new 
accident scenarios, transient precursor, failure mechanisms, or 
limiting single failures will be introduced as a result of this 
proposed change and the failure modes and effects analyses of SSCs 
important to safety are not altered as a result of this proposed 
change. The proposed amendment does not alter the design or 
performance of the related SSCs, and, therefore, does not constitute 
a new type of test.
    No changes are being proposed to the procedures that operate the 
plant equipment and the change does not have a detrimental impact on 
the manner in which plant equipment operates or responds to an 
actuation signal.
    Therefore, the proposed change will not create the possibility 
of a new or different accident previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?

[[Page 33988]]

    Response: No.
    The margin of safety is related to the ability of the fission 
product barriers to perform their design functions during and 
following an accident. These barriers include the fuel cladding, the 
reactor coolant system, and the containment.
    Instrumentation safety margin is established by ensuring the 
limiting safety system settings (LSSSs) automatically actuate the 
applicable design function to correct an abnormal situation before a 
safety limit is exceeded. Safety analysis limits are established for 
reactor trip system and ESF actuation system instrumentation 
functions related to those variables having significant safety 
functions. The proposed change does not alter the design of these 
protection systems; nor are there any changes in the method by which 
safety related plant SSCs perform their specified safety functions.
    The proposed amendment does not involve a physical change to the 
secondary containment or spent fuel area systems, nor does it change 
the safety function of the secondary containment, secondary 
containment isolation valves, SGT system, and associated refueling 
floor exhaust radiation isolation instrumentation. The subject ESF 
systems are not assumed in the mitigation of an FHA after sufficient 
radioactive decay of irradiated fuel has occurred. The HNP FHA dose 
analysis shows that MCR dose remains below the 10 CFR 
50.67(b)(2)(iii) dose limit and off-site dose remains below the 
accident dose limit specified in the NRC SRP, which represents a 
small fraction of 10 CFR 50.67 dose limits.
    The controlling parameters established to isolate or actuate 
required ESF systems during an accident or transient are not 
affected by the proposed amendment and no design basis or safety 
limit is altered as a result of the proposed change. Therefore, the 
proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin 
of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Millicent Ronnlund, Vice President and 
General Counsel, Southern Nuclear Operating Co., Inc., P.O. Box 1295, 
Birmingham, AL 35201-1295.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Georgia Power Company, 
Oglethorpe Power Corporation, Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, 
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: April 30, 2019. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19123A101.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise Unit 
1 and Unit 2 technical specification (TS) 3.3.8.1, ``Loss of Power 
(LOP) Instrumentation'' to modify the instrument allowable values for 
the Unit 1 4.16 kilovolt (kV) emergency bus degraded voltage 
instrumentation and delete the annunciation requirements for the Unit 1 
4.16 kV emergency bus under voltage instrumentation, including 
associated TS actions. These proposed amendments would also delete Unit 
1 License Condition 2.C(11) and Unit 2 License Condition 2.C(3)(i). 
Additionally, the proposed amendments would revise surveillance 
requirement (SR) 3.8.1.8 in TS 3.8.1, ``AC Sources--Operating,'' to 
increase the voltage limit in the emergency diesel generator (DG) full 
load rejection test for the Unit 1 DGs.
    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 incorporates concomitant changes to the 
[loss of power] LOP instrumentation requirements to reflect an 
electrical power system modification by deleting the unnecessary 
loss of voltage annunciation requirements and increasing the 
[allowable values] AVs for the degraded voltage protection 
instrumentation.
    The proposed license change does not involve a physical change 
to the LOP instrumentation, nor does it change the safety function 
of the LOP instrumentation or the equipment supported by the LOP 
instrumentation.
    Automatic starting of the [emergency diesel generator] DGs is 
assumed in the mitigation of a design basis event upon a loss of 
offsite power. This includes transferring the normal offsite power 
source to an alternate or emergency power source in the event of a 
sustained degraded voltage condition. The LOP instrumentation 
continues to provide this capability and is not altered by the 
proposed license change. The proposed change does not adversely 
affect accident initiators or precursors including a loss of offsite 
power or station blackout. The revised LOP degraded instrumentation 
setpoints ensure that the Class 1E electrical distribution system is 
separated from the offsite power system prior to damaging the safety 
related loads during sustained degraded voltage conditions while 
avoiding an inadvertent separation of safety-related buses from the 
offsite power system. Additionally, the degraded voltage 
instrumentation time delay will isolate the Class 1E electrical 
distribution system from offsite power before the diesel generators 
are ready to assume the emergency loads, which is the limiting time 
basis for mitigating system responses to design basis accidents.
    In addition, the proposed change includes an increase of the 
voltage limit in the DG full load rejection surveillance test for 
the Unit 1 DGs. The DGs' safety function is solely mitigative and is 
not needed unless there is a loss of offsite power. The DGs do not 
affect any accident initiators or precursors of any accident 
previously evaluated. The proposed increase in the TS SR voltage 
limit does not affect the DGs' interaction with any system whose 
failure or malfunction can initiate an accident.
    Therefore, the probability of occurrence of an accident 
previously evaluated is not significantly increased. The DG safety 
function is to provide power to safety related components needed to 
mitigate the consequences of an accident following a loss of offsite 
power.
    The purpose of the [technical specification] TS [surveillance 
requirement] SR voltage limit is to assure DG damage protection 
following a full load rejection. The technical analysis performed to 
support this proposed amendment has demonstrated that the DGs can 
withstand voltages above the proposed limit without a loss of 
protection. The proposed higher limit will continue to provide 
assurance that the DGs are protected, and the safety function of the 
DGs will be unaffected by the proposed change. Therefore, the 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated will not be 
significantly increased.
    As a result, the proposed change does not significantly alter 
assumptions relative to the mitigation of an accident or transient 
event and 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.
    With respect to a new or different kind of accident, the 
proposed change does not alter the design or performance of the LOP 
instrumentation or electrical power system; nor are there any 
changes in the method by which safety related plant structures, 
systems, and components (SSCs) perform their specified safety 
functions as a result of the proposed license amendment. The 
proposed change deletes the loss of voltage annunciation 
requirements and increases the AVs for the degraded voltage 
protection instrumentation as a result of an electrical power system 
modification, which [Southern Nuclear Company] SNC has evaluated 
independently of this proposed license amendment. The proposed 
license amendment will not affect the normal method of plant 
operation or revise any operating parameters. Additionally, there is 
no detrimental impact on the manner in which plant equipment 
operates or responds to an actuation signal as a result of the 
proposed license change. No new accident

[[Page 33989]]

scenarios, transient precursor, failure mechanisms, or limiting 
single failures will be introduced as a result of this proposed 
change and the failure modes and effects analyses of SSCs important 
to safety are not altered as a result of this proposed change.
    The process of operating and testing the LOP instrumentation 
uses current procedures, methods, and processes already established 
and currently in use and is not being altered by the proposed 
license amendment. Therefore, the proposed change does not 
constitute a new type of test.
    With respect to a new or different kind of accident for the 
increase of the voltage limit in the DG full load rejection 
surveillance test for the Unit 1 DGs, there are no new DG failure 
modes created and the DGs are not an initiator of any new or 
different kind of accident. The proposed increase in the TS SR 
voltage limit does not affect the interaction of the DGs with any 
system whose failure or malfunction can initiate an accident. The 
proposed amendment will not affect the normal method of plant 
operation or revise any operating parameters. No new accident 
scenarios, transient precursor, failure mechanisms, or limiting 
single failures will be introduced as a result of this proposed 
change and the failure modes and effects analyses of the DGs are not 
altered as a result of this proposed change.
    Accordingly, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    Margin of safety is provided by the performance capability of 
plant equipment in preventing or mitigating challenges to fission 
product barriers under postulated operational transient and accident 
conditions. The proposed license change deletes the loss of voltage 
annunciation requirements and increases the AVs for the degraded 
voltage protection instrumentation as a result of an electrical 
power system modification, which SNC has evaluated independently of 
this proposed license amendment. The proposed deletion of the loss 
of voltage annunciation requirements is offset by the more 
restrictive degraded voltage instrumentation AVs thereby providing 
an automatic emergency bus transfer to the alternate or emergency 
power supply in the event of a sustained degraded voltage condition.
    The increase in the TS SR voltage limit will not affect the 
ability of the DGs to perform their safety function. The technical 
analysis performed to support this amendment demonstrates that this 
ability will be unaffected and an increase in the TS SR voltage 
limit will not affect this ability.
    Therefore, the margin associated with a design basis or safety 
limit parameter are not adversely impacted by the proposed amendment 
and, thus the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Millicent Ronnlund, Vice President and 
General Counsel, Southern Nuclear Operating Co., Inc., P.O. Box 1295, 
Birmingham, AL 35201-1295.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

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

    Date of amendment request: May 17, 2019. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19137A314.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment proposes changes to 
the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) and the Combined 
License Appendix A, Technical Specifications definition for Channel 
Calibration to allow a qualitative check (i.e., sensor resistance and 
insulation resistance tests) as an acceptable means to perform channel 
calibration for the reactor coolant pump (RCP) speed sensors. An 
additional change is proposed to the UFSAR to allow the use of a 
conservatively allocated response time in lieu of measurement for the 
RCP speed sensors and preamplifiers.
    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 create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes would revise the licensing basis, including 
the plant specific Technical Specifications, to allow a qualitative 
check (i.e., sensor resistance and insulation resistance tests) as 
an acceptable means to perform channel calibration for the reactor 
coolant pump (RCP) speed sensors and to allow the use of a 
conservatively allocated response time in lieu of measurement for 
the RCP speed sensors and preamplifiers to satisfy the Response Time 
test Surveillance Requirement.
    The proposed changes do not affect the safety limits as 
described in the plant specific Technical Specifications. In 
addition, the limiting safety system settings and limiting control 
settings continue to be met with the proposed changes to the plant-
specific Technical Specifications surveillance requirements. The 
proposed changes do not adversely affect the operation of any 
systems or equipment that initiate an analyzed accident or alter any 
structures, systems, and components (SSCs) accident initiator or 
initiating sequence of events and continue to maintain the initial 
conditions and operating limits required by the accident analysis, 
and the analyses of normal operation and anticipated operational 
occurrences. Therefore, the proposed changes do not result in any 
increase in probability of an analyzed accident occurring.
    The proposed changes do not involve a change to any mitigation 
sequence or the predicted radiological releases due to postulated 
accident conditions, thus, the consequences of the accidents 
evaluated in the UFSAR are not affected.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes do not affect the safety limits as 
described in the plant specific Technical Specifications. In 
addition, the limiting safety system settings and limiting control 
settings continue to be met with the proposed changes to the plant-
specific Technical Specifications limiting conditions for operation, 
applicability, actions, and surveillance requirements. The proposed 
changes do not affect the operation of any systems or equipment that 
may initiate a new or different kind of accident or alter any SSC 
such that a new accident initiator or initiating sequence of events 
is created.
    These proposed changes do not adversely affect any other SSC 
design functions or methods of operation in a manner that results in 
a new failure mode, malfunction, or sequence of events that affect 
safety-related or nonsafety-related equipment. Therefore, this 
activity does not allow for a new fission product release path, 
result in a new fission product barrier failure mode, or create a 
new sequence of events that results in significant fuel cladding 
failures.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes do not affect the safety limits as 
described in the plant specific Technical Specifications. In 
addition, the limiting safety system settings and limiting control 
settings continue to be met with the proposed changes to the plant-
specific Technical Specifications limiting conditions for operation, 
applicability, actions, and surveillance requirements. The proposed 
changes do not affect the initial conditions and operating limits 
required by the accident analysis, and the analyses of normal 
operation and anticipated operational occurrences, so that the 
acceptance limits specified in the UFSAR are not exceeded. The 
proposed changes satisfy the same safety functions in accordance 
with the same requirements as stated in the UFSAR. These changes do 
not adversely affect any design code, function, design analysis, 
safety

[[Page 33990]]

analysis input or result, or design/safety margin.
    No safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is 
challenged or exceeded by the proposed changes, and no margin of 
safety is reduced.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: M. Stanford Blanton, Balch & Bingham LLP, 
1710 Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 35203-2015.
    NRC Branch Chief: Jennifer L. Dixon-Herrity.

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

    Date of amendment request: February 7, 2019. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19038A483.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the 
technical specifications (TS) to extend, on a one-time basis, the 
allowed Completion Time (CT) to restore one Essential Raw Cooling Water 
(ERCW) system train to operable status from 72 hours to 7 days. The 
change is needed to support performance of maintenance on 6.9 kiloVolt 
Shutdown Board 1A-A and associated 480 Volt boards and motor control 
centers. A longer CT under certain plant conditions will allow the 
necessary flexibility to perform the maintenance with one unit 
defueled, while minimizing risk to the operating unit.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change adds a one-time use new Condition A to TS 
3.7.8 for WBN Unit 2. The proposed change will extend the allowed 
completion time to restore ERCW System train to operable status from 
72 hours to seven days for planned maintenance when Unit 1 is 
defueled and UHS [ultimate heat sink] Temperature is less than or 
equal to 71 [deg]F. This change does not result in any physical 
changes to plant safety-related structures, systems, or components 
(SSCs). The UHS and associated ERCW system function is to remove 
plant system heat loads during normal and accident conditions. As 
such, the UHS and ERCW system are not design basis accident 
initiators, but instead perform accident mitigation functions by 
serving as the heat sink for safety-related equipment to ensure the 
conditions and assumptions credited in the accident analyses are 
preserved. During operation under the proposed change with one ERCW 
train inoperable, the other ERCW train will continue to perform the 
design function of the ERCW system. Therefore, the proposed change 
does not involve a significant increase in the probability of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    Accordingly, as demonstrated by TVA design heat transfer and 
flow modeling calculations, operation with one ERCW System 
inoperable for seven days for planned maintenance when WBN Unit 1 is 
defueled, the fuel cladding, Reactor Coolant System (RCS) pressure 
boundary, and containment integrity limits are not challenged during 
worst-case post-accident conditions. Accordingly, the conclusions of 
the accident analyses will remain as previously evaluated such that 
there will be no significant increase in the post-accident dose 
consequences.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not involve any physical changes to 
plant safety related SSCs or alter the modes of plant operation in a 
manner that is outside the bounds of the current UHS and ERCW system 
design heat transfer and flow modeling analyses. The proposed change 
adds a one-time use new Condition A to TS 3.7.8, which would extend 
the allowed completion time to restore ERCW System train to operable 
status from 72 hours to seven days for planned maintenance when Unit 
1 is defueled and UHS Temperature is less than or equal to 71 
[deg]F. Therefore, although the specified ERCW System alignments 
result in reduced heat transfer flow capability, the plant's overall 
ability to reject heat to the UHS during normal operation, normal 
shutdown, and hypothetical worst-case accident conditions will not 
be significantly affected by this proposed change. Because the 
safety and design requirements continue to be met and the integrity 
of the RCS pressure boundary is not challenged, no new credible 
failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident initiators are 
created, and there will be no effect on the accident mitigating 
systems in a manner that would significantly degrade the plant's 
response to an accident.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in 
the margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change adds a one-time use new Condition A to TS 
3.7.8, which would extend the allowed completion time to restore 
ERCW System train to operable status from 72 hours to seven days for 
planned maintenance when Unit 1 is defueled and UHS Temperature is 
less than or equal to 71 [deg]F. As demonstrated by TVA design basis 
heat transfer and flow modeling calculations, the design limits for 
fuel cladding, RCS pressure boundary, and containment integrity are 
not exceeded under both normal and post-accident conditions. As 
required, these calculations include evaluation of the worst-case 
combination of meteorology and operational parameters, and establish 
adequate margins to account for measurement and instrument 
uncertainties. While operating margins have been reduced by the 
proposed change in order to support necessary maintenance 
activities, the current limiting design basis accidents remain 
applicable and the analyses conclusions remain bounding such that 
the accident safety margins are maintained. Accordingly, the 
proposed change will not significantly degrade the margin of safety 
of any SSCs that rely on the UHS and ERCW System for heat removal to 
perform their safety related functions.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

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

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

[[Page 33991]]

published in the Federal Register as indicated.
    Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that 
these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in 
accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), 
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be 
prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an 
environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 
10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, 
it is so indicated.
    For further details with respect to the action see (1) the 
applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's 
related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as 
indicated. All of these items can be accessed as described in the 
``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' section of this 
document.

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

    Date of amendment requests: July 19, 2018.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Catawba 
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 (Catawba), Updated Final Safety Analysis 
Report (UFSAR), Section 6.2.4.2.2, ``Containment Valve Injection Water 
System [NW],'' to remove NW supply from specified Containment Isolation 
Valves (CIVs), and to exempt these CIVs from Type-C Local Leak Rate 
Testing. Additionally, the amendments would modify UFSAR, Table 6-77, 
``Containment Isolation Valve Data,'' to make corresponding changes.
    Date of issuance: June 17, 2019.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 120 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 302 (Unit 1) and 298 (Unit 2). A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19121A551; documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with 
the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-35 and NPF-52: 
Amendments revised the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November, 20, 2018 (83 
FR 58610).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 17, 2019.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: November 29, 2018.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the River 
Bend Station, Unit 1 Technical Specifications (TSs) to remove the Table 
of Contents and place it under the licensee's control. The Table of 
Contents is not eliminated but is no longer in the TSs, and therefore, 
maintenance and updates are now Entergy's responsibility.
    Date of issuance: June 19, 2019.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
90 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 198. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML19071A299; 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 Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 30, 2019 (84 FR 
492).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 19, 2019.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: June 12, 2018, as supplemented by letter 
dated August 7, 2018.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the renewed 
facility operating license and the technical specifications, including 
editorial changes and the removal of obsolete information.
    Date of issuance: June 20, 2019.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 253. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML19063A579; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-21: The amendment 
revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical 
Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 11, 2018 (83 
FR 45984).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 20, 2019.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: November 3, 2017, as supplemented by 
letters dated December 6, 2017, January 22, 2018, October 24, 2018, and 
January 23, 2019.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Grand 
Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Updated Final Safety Analysis Report to 
incorporate the Tornado Missile Risk Evaluator (TMRE) Methodology 
contained in Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 17-02, Revision 1, 
``Tornado Missile Risk (TMRE) Industry Guidance Document,'' September 
2017. This methodology can only be applied to discovered conditions 
where tornado missile protection is not currently provided and cannot 
be used to avoid providing tornado missile protection in the plant 
modification process.
    Date of issuance: June 18, 2019.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
90 days of issuance.
    Amendment No: 220. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML19123A014; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-29: The amendment 
revised the Renewed Facility Operating License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 27, 2018 (83 
FR 8516). The supplemental letters dated October 24, 2018, and January 
23, 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 June 18, 2019.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: April 19, 2018, as supplemented by 
letters dated

[[Page 33992]]

April 12, 2019, April 24, 2019, and May 23, 2019.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendments revised the licenses 
and the technical specifications (TSs) as follows:
Division 3 Battery Surveillance Testing
    The proposed amendments would revise TSs 3.8.4, ``DC Sources-
Operating,'' and TS 3.8.6, ``Battery Parameters,'' by removing the Mode 
restrictions for performance of TS surveillance requirements (SRs) 
3.8.4.3 and 3.8.6.6 for the Division 3 direct current (DC) electrical 
power subsystem battery. The Division 3 DC electrical power subsystem 
feeds emergency DC loads associated with the high-pressure core spray 
(HPCS) system. SR 3.8.4.3 verifies that the battery capacity is 
adequate for the battery to perform its required functions. SR 3.8.6.6 
verifies battery capacity is >=80 percent of the manufacturer's rating 
when subjected to a performance discharge test (or a modified 
performance discharge test). The proposed amendments would remove these 
Mode restrictions for the Division 3 battery, allowing performance of 
SR 3.8.4.3 and SR 3.8.6.6 for the Division 3 battery during Mode 1 or 
2, potentially minimizing impact on HPCS unavailability. Eliminating 
the requirement to perform SR 3.8.4.3 and SR 3.8.6.6 only during Mode 
3, 4, or 5 (hot shutdown, cold shutdown, or refueling conditions) will 
provide greater flexibility in scheduling Division 3 battery testing 
activities by allowing the testing to be performed during non-outage 
times.
High Pressure Core Spray Diesel Generator Surveillance Testing
    The proposed amendments would revise TS 3.8.1, ``AC Sources-
Operating,'' by revising certain SRs pertaining to the Division 3 
diesel generator (DG). The Division 3 DG is an independent source of 
onsite alternating current (AC) power dedicated to the HPCS system. The 
TSs currently prohibit performing the testing required by SRs 3.8.1.9, 
3.8.1.10, 3.8.1.11, 3.8.1.12, 3.8.1.13, 3.8.1.16, 3.8.1.17, and 
3.8.1.19, in Modes 1 or 2. The proposed amendments would remove these 
Mode restrictions and allow all eight of the identified SRs to be 
performed in any operating Mode for the Division 3 DG. The Mode 
restrictions will remain applicable to the other two safety-related 
(Division 1 and Division 2) DGs.
    The proposed change will provide greater flexibility in scheduling 
Division 3 DG testing activities by allowing the testing to be 
performed during non-outage times. Having a completely tested Division 
3 DG available for the duration of a refueling outage will reduce the 
number of system re-alignments and operator workload during an outage.
    Date of issuance: June 24, 2019.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: Unit 1--237; Unit 2--223. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19121A505; documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with 
the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-11 and NPF-18: The 
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and 
Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 14, 2018 (83 FR 
40348). The supplemental letters dated April 12, 2019, April 24,2019, 
and May 23, 2019, provided additional information that clarified the 
application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally 
noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no 
significant hazards consideration determination as published in the 
Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 24, 2019.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: December 16, 2015, as supplemental 
letters dated February 2, March 7, July 28, and December 16, 2016; 
January 17, June 16, and October 9, 2017; April 2, September 11, and 
November 20, 2018; and May 13, 2019.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Davis-
Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 1, license and technical 
specifications to establish and maintain a risk-informed, performance-
based fire protection program in accordance with 10 CFR 50.48(c).
    Date of issuance: June 21, 2019.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
in accordance with paragraph 2.C(4) of the license.
    Amendment No.: 298. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML19100A306; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safely Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-3: The amendment revised 
the renewed facility operating license and technical specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 12, 2016 (81 FR 
21599). The supplemental letters dated July 28 and December 16, 2016; 
January 17, June 16, and October 9, 2017; April 2, September 11, and 
November 20, 2018; and May 13, 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 June 21, 2019.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: December 19, 2018, as supplemented by 
letter dated April 30, 2019.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the 
Conditions, Required Actions, and Completion Times in the Technical 
Specification (TS) for the Condition where one steam supply to the 
turbine-driven Auxiliary Feedwater (AFW) pump is inoperable concurrent 
with an inoperable motor-driven AFW train. In addition, the amendments 
revised the TS that establish specific Actions: (1) For when two motor-
driven AFW trains are inoperable at the same time and; (2) for when the 
turbine-driven AFW train is inoperable either (a) due solely to one 
inoperable steam supply, or (b) due to reasons other than one 
inoperable steam supply. The amendments were consistent with U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission-approved Technical Specification Task 
Force (TSTF) Traveler, TSTF-412, Revision 3, ``Provide Actions for One 
Steam Supply to Turbine Driven AFW/EFW Pump Inoperable.'' The 
availability of this TSTF improvement was announced in the Federal 
Register on July 17, 2007, as part of the consolidated line item 
improvement process.
    Date of issuance: June 24, 2019.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 200/183. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS 
under Accession No. ML19046A088; documents related to these amendments

[[Page 33993]]

are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-68 and NPF-81: Amendments 
revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 12, 2019, (84 FR 
8911). The supplemental letter dated April 30, 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 June 24, 2019.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: December 4, 2018.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the 
Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2, Technical 
Specifications to replace the current stored diesel fuel oil numerical 
volume requirements with duration-based diesel operating time 
requirements.
    Date of issuance: June 24, 2019.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 272 (Unit 1) and 254 (Unit 2). A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19154A060; documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with 
the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-14 and NPF-22: The 
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and 
Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 30, 2019 (84 FR 
497).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 24, 2019.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day of July, 2019.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Blake D. Welling,
Acting Deputy Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office 
of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2019-14624 Filed 7-15-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P