Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations, 36964-36972 [2019-15849]

Agencies

• NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 146 (Tuesday, July 30, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36964-36972]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-15849]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2019-0150]


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 June 29, 2019, to July 15, 2019. The last 
biweekly notice was published on July 16, 2019.

DATES: Comments must be filed by August 29, 2019. A request for a 
hearing must be filed by September 30, 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-2019-0150. 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: Paula Blechman, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2242, email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments

A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2019-0150, 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-2019-0150.
     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-2019-0150, 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.

[[Page 36965]]

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

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

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

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

[[Page 36966]]

its boundaries. Alternatively, a State, local governmental body, 
Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof may participate as 
a non-party under 10 CFR 2.315(c).
    If a hearing is granted, any person who is not a party to the 
proceeding and is not affiliated with or represented by a party may, at 
the discretion of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited 
appearance pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person 
making a limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of 
his or her position on the issues but may not otherwise participate in 
the proceeding. A limited appearance may be made at any session of the 
hearing or at any prehearing conference, subject to the limits and 
conditions as may be imposed by the presiding officer. Details 
regarding the opportunity to make a limited appearance will be provided 
by the presiding officer if such sessions are scheduled.

B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)

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

[[Page 36967]]

information related to this document, see the ``Obtaining Information 
and Submitting Comments'' section of this document.

Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-313, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 
1, Pope County, Arkansas

    Date of amendment request: May 29, 2019. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19149A290.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the 
Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1, Technical Specifications (TSs) by 
adopting Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-563, 
``Revise Instrument Testing Definitions to Incorporate the Surveillance 
Frequency Control Program.''
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed 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 SFCP [Surveillance Frequency Control 
Program]. All components in the channel continue to be tested. The 
frequency at which a channel test is performed is not an initiator 
of any accident previously evaluated; therefore, 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 SFCP. 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 SFCP. The SFCP assures sufficient safety 
margins are maintained, and that the design, operation, surveillance 
methods, and acceptance criteria specified in applicable codes and 
standards (or alternatives approved for use by the NRC) will 
continue to be met as described in the plants' licensing basis. The 
proposed change does not adversely affect existing plant safety 
margins, or the reliability of the equipment assumed to operate in 
the safety analysis. As such, there are no changes being made to 
safety analysis assumptions, safety limits, or limiting safety 
system settings that would adversely affect plant safety 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: Ms. Anna Vinson Jones, Senior Counsel, 
Entergy Services, Inc., 101 Constitution Avenue NW, Suite 200 East, 
Washington, DC 20001.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.

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

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

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

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

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-352 and No. 50-353, 
Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, Montgomery County, 
Pennsylvania

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-220 and 50-410, Nine 
Mile Point Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Oswego County, New York

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-
277 and 50-278, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3, York 
and Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania

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

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-244, R. E. Ginna Nuclear 
Power Plant, Wayne County, New York

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

    Date of amendment request: June 14, 2019. Publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19165A252.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would remove the 
Table of Contents (TOC) from the Technical Specifications (TSs) and 
place it under licensee control.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment is administrative and affects control of 
a document, the TOC, listing the specifications

[[Page 36968]]

in the plant TS. Transferring control from the NRC to EGC [Exelon 
Generation Company, LLC] does not affect the operation, physical 
configuration, or function of plant equipment or systems. The 
proposed amendment does not impact the initiators or assumptions of 
analyzed events; nor does it impact the mitigation of accidents or 
transient events.
    Therefore, the proposed 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 a physical alteration of 
the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be 
installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant 
operation. The proposed change does not alter any assumptions made 
in the safety analysis.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change is administrative. The TOC is not required 
by regulation to be in the TS. Removal does not impact any safety 
assumptions or have the potential to reduce a margin of safety. The 
proposed change involves a transfer of control of the TOC from the 
NRC to EGC. No change in the technical content of the TS 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 
requested amendments involve no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel, 
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 
60555.
    NRC Acting Branch Chief: Lisa M. Regner.

Florida Power and Light Company, Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251, Turkey 
Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 3 and 4, Miami-Dade County, Florida

    Date of amendment request: June 13, 2019. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19170A094.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the 
Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 3 and 4 Technical 
Specifications (TSs) related to Reactor Trip System instrumentation and 
would resolve non-conservative TSs.
    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 modify the mode of applicability and 
surveillance requirements for the Reactor Trip System (RTS) turbine 
trip instrumentation such that operability is required in MODE 1 
when above the permissive interlock, P-7, and satisfactory 
surveillance testing is required prior to reaching MODE 1 above P-7 
whenever the Unit has been in MODE 3. Aligning the operability 
requirements with the plant conditions required for the protective 
feature to function neither changes the manner in which operability 
will be determined nor the manner in which the equipment will be 
operated and maintained. No change to the RTS turbine trip 
instrumentation is proposed and the equipment will remain capable of 
performing as required upon implementation of the proposed 
amendments. No changes are proposed to any safety analysis inputs or 
assumptions. The proposed change additionally resolves two non-
conservative TS requirements consistent with NRC Administrative 
Letter 98-10, and thereby cannot adversely affect the likelihood or 
the outcome of any design basis accident.
    Therefore, this proposed change does not represent 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 accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendments align the RTS turbine trip channel 
requirements with the plant conditions required for the protective 
feature to function (i.e., P-7). The proposed change establishes RTS 
turbine trip channel operability in MODE 1 when above P-7 and 
requires surveillance testing prior to MODE 1 above P-7 whenever the 
Unit has been in MODE 3. The inputs and assumptions to safety 
analyses remain unchanged as a result of the proposed change since 
no physical change to plant equipment is proposed and the 
requirement to demonstrate operability prior to the plant conditions 
necessitating the protective feature remains unchanged. As such, the 
proposed change cannot introduce new equipment failure modes, cannot 
change the types or amount of effluent that may be released off-
site, and cannot increase individual or cumulative occupational 
exposures that would result from any accident. The proposed change 
additionally resolves two non-conservative requirements consistent 
with NRC Administrative Letter 98-10, and thereby cannot create a 
new or different kind of accident.
    Therefore, the proposed amendments 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 align the RTS turbine trip channel 
requirements with the plant conditions required for the protective 
feature to function (i.e., P-7) by establishing RTS turbine trip 
channel operability in MODE 1 when above P-7 and requiring 
surveillance testing prior to MODE 1 above P-7 whenever the Unit has 
been in MODE 3. The proposed amendments additionally resolve two 
non-conservative TS requirements consistent with NRC Administrative 
Letter 98-10. The proposed changes do not affect any plant operating 
margins or the reliability of equipment credited in safety analyses 
and no changes are proposed to any safety analysis assumptions, 
safety limits, or limiting safety system settings.
    Therefore, the proposed amendments 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: Debbie Hendell, Managing Attorney--Nuclear, 
Florida Power & Light Company, 700 Universe Blvd., MS LAW/JB, Juno 
Beach, FL 33408-0420.
    NRC Branch Chief: Undine Shoop.

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: June 18, 2019. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19169A350.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment proposes changes to 
the Combined License Appendix A Technical Specifications (TS) 3.7.11, 
Spent Fuel Pool Boron Concentration, Applicability and Required Actions 
to eliminate an allowance to exit the Applicability of Limiting 
Condition of Operation 3.7.11, Spent Fuel Pool Boron Concentration, 
once a spent fuel pool storage verification had been performed. The 
requested amendment also proposes to eliminate TS 3.7.11 Required 
Action A.2.2, which provides an option to perform a spent fuel pool 
storage verification in lieu of restoring spent fuel pool boron 
concentration to within limits.
    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

[[Page 36969]]

consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes do not involve changes to current plant 
design or safety analysis assumptions. These changes provide 
Technical Specifications (TS) consistency with the approved plant 
design and criticality analysis assumptions and the requirements of 
10 CFR 50.68(b)(4). The radioactive material source terms and 
release paths used in the safety analyses are unchanged, thus the 
radiological releases in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report 
(UFSAR) accident analyses are not affected.
    The changes do not affect the operation of any systems or 
equipment that initiate an analyzed accident or alter any 
structures, systems, and components (SSCs) accident initiator or 
initiating sequence of events. The proposed changes do not result in 
any increase in the probability of an analyzed accident occurring.
    Meeting the 10 CFR 50.68 requirements is consistent with 10 CFR 
50 Appendix A, General Design Criterion (GDC) 62, and thereby 
establishes that criticality in the fuel storage and handling system 
is prevented by physical systems or processes, and geometrically 
safe configurations.
    Therefore, the requested amendment does not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes do not affect the safety limits as 
described in the plant-specific 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. These changes provide Technical 
Specifications (TS) consistency with the approved plant design and 
criticality analysis assumptions and the requirements of 10 CFR 
50.68(b)(4). 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.
    The proposed changes do not affect plant protection 
instrumentation systems, and do not affect the design function, 
support, design, or operation of mechanical and fluid systems. The 
proposed changes do not result in a new failure mechanism or 
introduce any new accident precursors. No design function described 
in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) is affected by 
the proposed changes.
    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 involve changes to current plant 
design or safety analysis assumptions. These changes provide 
Technical Specifications (TS) consistency with the approved plant 
design and criticality analysis assumptions and the requirements of 
10 CFR 50.68(b)(4). No safety analysis or design basis acceptance 
limit/criterion is involved.
    The criticality analysis, which meets the applicable 
requirements of 10 CFR 50.68, Paragraph b, considers the inherent 
neutron absorbing effect of the materials of construction, including 
fixed neutron absorbing ``poison'' material. Soluble boron in the 
spent fuel pool and assembly burnup is used as reactivity credits.
    Meeting the 10 CFR 50.68 requirements is consistent with 10 CFR 
50 Appendix A GDC 62, and thereby establishes that criticality in 
the fuel storage and handling system is prevented by physical 
systems or processes, and geometrically safe configurations. 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, Docket Nos. 50-390 and 50-391, Watts Bar 
Nuclear Plant (WBN), Units 1 and 2, Rhea County, Tennessee

    Date of amendment request: November 29, 2018. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18334A363.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would modify the 
WBN Facility Operating Licenses to allow for the implementation of the 
provisions of 10 CFR 50.69, ``Risk-informed categorization and 
treatment of structures, systems and components for nuclear power 
reactors.'' The provisions of 10 CFR 50.69 allow adjustment of the 
scope of equipment subject to special treatment controls (e.g., quality 
assurance, testing, inspection, condition monitoring, assessment, and 
evaluation). For equipment determined to be of low safety significance, 
alternative treatment requirements can be implemented in accordance 
with this regulation. For equipment determined to be of high safety 
significance, requirements will not be changed or will be enhanced. 
This allows improved focus on equipment that has safety significance 
resulting in improved plant safety.
    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 will permit the use of a risk-informed 
categorization process to modify the scope of structures, systems, 
and components (SSCs) subject to Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) 
special treatment requirements and to implement alternative 
treatments per the regulations. The process used to evaluate SSCs 
for changes to NRC special treatment requirements and the use of 
alternative requirements ensures the ability of the SSCs to perform 
their design function. The potential change to special treatment 
requirements does not change the design and operation of the SSCs. 
As a result, the proposed change does not significantly affect any 
initiators to accidents previously evaluated or the ability to 
mitigate any accidents previously evaluated. The consequences of the 
accidents previously evaluated are not affected because the 
mitigation functions performed by the SSCs assumed in the safety 
analysis are not being modified. The SSCs required to safely shut 
down the reactor and maintain it in a safe shutdown condition 
following an accident will continue to perform their design 
functions.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change will permit the use of a risk-informed 
categorization process to modify the scope of SSCs subject to NRC 
special treatment requirements and to implement alternative 
treatments per the regulations. The proposed change does not change 
the functional requirements, configuration, or method of operation 
of any SSC. Under the proposed change, no additional plant equipment 
will be installed.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in 
the margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change will permit the use of a risk-informed 
categorization process to

[[Page 36970]]

modify the scope of SSCs subject to NRC special treatment 
requirements and to implement alternative treatments per the 
regulations. The proposed change does not affect any safety limits 
or operating parameters used to establish the safety margin. The 
safety margins included in analyses of accidents are not affected by 
the proposed change. The regulation requires that there be no 
significant effect on plant risk due to any change to the special 
treatment requirements for SSCs and that the SSCs continue to be 
capable of performing their design basis functions, as well as to 
perform any beyond design basis functions consistent with the 
categorization process and results.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: 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 published in the Federal 
Register as indicated.
    Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that 
these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in 
accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), 
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be 
prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an 
environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 
10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, 
it is so indicated.
    For further details with respect to the action see (1) the 
applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's 
related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as 
indicated. All of these items can be accessed as described in the 
``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' section of this 
document.

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

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

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287, 
Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 (Oconee), Oconee County, 
South Carolina

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

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

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

    Date of amendment request: June 20, 2018.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the 
Emergency Action Levels (EALs) for Catawba, McGuire, Oconee, Brunswick, 
Harris, and Robinson consistent with Emergency Preparedness Frequently 
Asked Questions (EPFAQs) 2015-013 (EAL HG1.1) and 2016-002 (EALs CA6.1 
and SA9.1 (SA8.1 for Brunswick)). The amendments also revised the EALs 
for Harris and Robinson consistent with EPFAQ 2015-014 (EAL HS6.1).
    Date of issuance: July 1, 2019.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 180 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 303 and 299, for Catawba; 315 and 294, for McGuire; 
412, 414, and 413, for Oconee; 291 and 319, for Brunswick; 172, for 
Harris; and 264, for Robinson. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS 
under Accession No. ML19058A632; documents related to these amendments 
are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-35, NPF-52, NPF-9, NPF-
17, DPR-38, DPR-47, DPR-55, DPR-71, DPR-62, NPF-63, and DPR-23: 
Amendments revised the Facility Emergency Plans.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 14, 2018 (83 FR 
40346).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 1, 2019.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment requests: May 2, 2017, as supplemented by letters 
dated July 20 and November 21, 2017; July 10 and December 3, 2018; and 
March 7 and April 8, 2019.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments modified McGuire's 
Technical Specifications (TSs) to extend the Completion Time of TS 
3.8.1, ``AC [Alternating Current] Sources--Operating,'' Required Action 
B.6 (existing Required Action B.4, numbered as B.6) for an inoperable 
emergency diesel generator from 72 hours to 14 days. To support this 
amendment, the licensee added a supplemental power source (i.e., two 
supplemental diesel generators per station) with the capability to 
power any emergency bus. The supplemental diesel generators have the 
capacity to bring the affected unit to cold shutdown. Additionally, the 
amendments modified TS 3.8.1 to add new two limiting conditions for 
operation (LCOs), TS LCO 3.8.1.c and TS LCO 3.8.1.d, to ensure that at 
least one train of shared components has an operable emergency power 
supply. Corresponding Conditions, Required Actions and Completion Times 
of TS 3.8.1 are revised to account for the new supplemental AC power 
source.
    Date of issuance: June 28, 2019.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 120 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 314 (Unit 1) and 293 (Unit 2). A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19126A030; documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with 
the amendments.

[[Page 36971]]

    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-9 and NPF-17: 
Amendments revised the Renewed Licenses and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 27, 2017 (83 
FR 8512). The supplemental letters dated July 20 and November 21, 2017; 
July 10 and December 3, 2018; and March 7 and April 8, 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 amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated June 28, 2019.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-382, Waterford Steam Electric 
Station, Unit 3 (Waterford 3), St. Charles Parish, Louisiana

    Date of amendment request: March 26, 2018, as supplemented by 
letters dated May 17, 2018, and February 15, 2019.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Waterford 3 
Technical Specification (TS) 3/4.7.4, ``Ultimate Heat Sink.'' 
Specifically, the amendment corrected the wet cooling tower basin level 
discrepancy, revised requirements for cooling fan operation described 
in TS 3.7.4 ACTION Statements, revised Surveillance Requirement 4.7.4, 
and revised Table 3.7-3, ``Ultimate Heat Sink Minimum Fan Requirements 
Per Train.''
    Date of issuance: June 28, 2019.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 254. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML19164A001; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-38: The amendment 
revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical 
Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 31, 2018 (83 FR 
36976). The supplemental letter dated February 15, 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 28, 2019.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: October 2, 2018.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised James A. 
FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant Technical Specification 3.1.2, 
``Reactivity Anomalies,'' to change the method used to perform the 
reactivity anomaly surveillance. Specifically, the amendment allows 
performance of the surveillance based on the difference between the 
monitored (i.e., actual) core reactivity and the predicted core 
reactivity. The surveillance was previously performed based on the 
difference between the monitored control rod density and the predicted 
control rod density.
    Date of issuance: July 11, 2019.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be 
implemented within 90 days.
    Amendment No.: 325. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML19157A203; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-59: The amendment 
revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical 
Specifications.
    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 July 11, 2019.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Florida Power and 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 5, 2014; as supplemented by 
letters dated July 8 and July 22, 2016; February 25, 2017; and February 
1, March 15, June 7, September 18, November 9, and November 30, 2018.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the 
Technical Specification (TS) requirements related to Completion Times 
for Required Actions to provide the option to calculate longer, risk-
informed Completion Times. The amendments also added a new program, the 
Risk Informed Completion Time Program, to TS Section 6.0, 
``Administrative Controls.''
    Date of issuance: July 2, 2019.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 180 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 247 and 199. A publicly-available version is in 
ADAMS under Accession No. ML19113A099; documents related to these 
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 
amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-67 and NPF-16: The 
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and 
Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 14, 2018 (83 FR 
40349). The supplements dated September 18, November 9, and November 
30, 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 July 2, 2019.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: February 26, 2019.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the 
Technical Specifications (TSs) to adopt Technical Specifications Task 
Force (TSTF) Traveler-563, ``Revise Instrument Testing Definitions to 
Incorporate the Surveillance Frequency Control Program.'' TSTF-563 
revises the TS definitions of Channel Calibration, Channel Operational 
Test, and Trip Actuating Device Operational Test.
    Date of issuance: July 11, 2019.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 345 (Unit 1) and 327 (Unit 2). A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19134A355; documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with 
the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-58 and DPR-74: The 
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and 
Technical Specifications.

[[Page 36972]]

    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 9, 2019 (84 FR 
14151).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 11, 2019.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Oyster Creek Environmental Protection, LLC and Holtec Decommissioning 
International, LLC, Docket No. 50-219, Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating 
Station, Ocean County, New Jersey

    Date of amendment request: August 31, 2018.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Renewed 
Facility Operating License No. DPR-16 to reflect the direct transfer of 
the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station Renewed Facility Operating 
License No. DPR-16, and the general license for the Oyster Creek 
Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation from Exelon Generation 
Company, LLC to Oyster Creek Environmental Protection, LLC as the 
licensed owner and to Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC as the 
licensed decommissioning operator.
    Date of issuance: July 1, 2019.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be 
implemented within 30 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 297. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML19164A155; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the letter dated June 20, 
2019 (ADAMS Accession No. ML19095A454).
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-16: The amendment 
revised the Renewed Facility Operating License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 19, 2018 (83 FR 
53119).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in the Safety Evaluation dated June 20, 2019.

SHINE Medical Technologies, LLC, Docket No. 50-608, SHINE Medical 
Isotope Production Facility, Rock County, Wisconsin

    Date of amendment request: December 11, 2018, as supplemented by 
letter dated March 8, 2019.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment modified Construction 
Permit No. CPMIF-001 to reflect SHINE Medical Technologies, LLC 
converting from a corporation into a single-member limited liability 
company, owned and controlled by Illuminated Holdings, Inc.
    Date of issuance: July 1, 2019.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 1. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
ADAMS Accession No. ML19162A024; documents related to this amendment 
are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the letter dated May 
20, 2019 (ADAMS Accession No. ML19102A321).
    Construction Permit No. CPMIF-001: Amendment revised the 
Construction Permit.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 20, 2019 (84 
FR 5116). The supplemental letter dated March 8, 2019, provided 
additional information that clarified the application and did not 
expand the scope of the application as originally noticed.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated May 20, 2019.

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: June 29, 2018, as supplemented by letter 
dated June 12, 2019.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the 
Allowable Values specified in Technical Specification (TS) Table 
3.3.5.1-1 for automatic transfer of the High Pressure Coolant Injection 
pump suction alignment from the condensate storage tank to the 
suppression pool for Units 1 and 2. The amendments also increased the 
Allowable Value specified in TS Table 3.3.5.3-1 for automatic transfer 
of the Reactor Core Isolation Cooling pump suction alignment from the 
condensate storage tank to the suppression pool for Unit 1.
    Date of issuance: July 8, 2019.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 297 and 242. A publicly-available version is in 
ADAMS under Accession No. ML19177A166; 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: 
Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and 
Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 4, 2018 (83 FR 
62622). The supplemental letter dated June 12, 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 July 8, 2019.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd day of July 2019.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Craig G. Erlanger,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2019-15849 Filed 7-29-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7590-01-P