Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations, 40094-40105 [2019-17160]

Agencies

• NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 156 (Tuesday, August 13, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40094-40105]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-17160]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2019-0162]


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 July 16, 2019, to July 29, 2019. The last 
biweekly notice was published on July 30, 2019.

DATES: Comments must be filed by September 12, 2019. A request for a 
hearing must be filed by October 15, 2019.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2019-0162. Address 
questions about NRC dockets IDs in Regulations.gov to Jennifer Borges; 
telephone: 301-287-9127; email: [email protected]. For technical 
questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT section of this document.
     Mail comments to: Office of Administration, Mail Stop: 
TWFN-7-A60M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-
0001, ATTN: Program Management, Announcements and Editing Staff.
    For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting 
comments, see ``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' in the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lynn Ronewicz, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1927, email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments

A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2019-0162, 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-2019-0162.
     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-2019-0162, 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

[[Page 40095]]

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 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

[[Page 40096]]

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 information related to this document, see the 
``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' section of this 
document.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC and PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-277 
and 50-278, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station (Peach Bottom), Units 2 
and 3, York and Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania
    Date of amendment request: June 7, 2019. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19158A312.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the 
Peach Bottom Technical Specifications

[[Page 40097]]

(TS) Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) 3.8.4, ``DC Sources--
Operating,'' to add an additional LCO for the opposite unit's 
inoperable battery charger condition. The proposed changes are required 
to address simultaneous conflicting LCO Required Action Completion 
Times of 72 hours for one unit and 12 hours for the other unit for a 
single inoperable battery charger on one 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, with NRC staff edits shown in 
square brackets:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes clarify Required Actions and Completion 
Times for both Units when a battery charger is inoperable on one 
Unit. The DC [direct current] electrical power system, including 
associated battery chargers, is not an initiator of any accident 
sequence analyzed in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report 
(UFSAR). Operation in accordance with the proposed TS ensures that 
the DC electrical power system is capable of performing its function 
as described in the UFSAR. Therefore, the mitigative functions 
supported by the DC electrical power system will continue to provide 
the protection assumed by the analysis, and the probability of 
previously analyzed accidents will not increase by implementing 
these changes. The proposed changes permit both Units to implement 
TSTF-500 [Technical Specifications Task Force], ``DC Electrical 
Rewrite-Update to TSTF-360,'' as fully intended.
    The integrity of fission product barriers, plant configuration, 
and operating procedures as described in the UFSAR will not be 
affected by the proposed changes. Therefore, the consequences of 
previously analyzed accidents will not increase by implementing 
these changes.
    The proposed changes do not require any plant modifications 
which affect the performance capability of the structures, systems 
and components relied upon to mitigate the consequences of 
postulated accidents; therefore, there is no impact to the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes involve restructuring the TS for the DC 
electrical power system. The DC electrical power system, including 
associated battery chargers, is not an initiator to any accident 
sequence analyzed in the UFSAR. The DC electrical power system 
provides power to equipment used to mitigate an accident.
    The proposed changes do not require any plant modifications 
which affect the performance capability of the structures, systems 
and components relied upon to mitigate the consequences of 
postulated accidents; therefore, it does not create the possibility 
of a new or different accident previously evaluated.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The margin of safety is established through equipment design, 
operating parameters, and the setpoints at which automatic actions 
are initiated. The proposed changes will not adversely affect 
operation of plant equipment. The proposed changes will not result 
in a change to the setpoints at which protective actions are 
initiated. Sufficient DC power and capacity to support operation of 
mitigation equipment is ensured. The DC electrical power subsystems 
will continue to provide adequate power to safety related equipment 
in accordance with safety analysis assumptions.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel, 
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Rd., Warrenville, IL 
60555.
    NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna.
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: June 27, 2019. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19184A070.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would 
modify technical specification (TS) requirements in TS 3.8.1, ``AC 
Sources--Operating.'' The proposed amendments would remove the TS 
requirements related to the diesel generator (DG) load test resistor 
banks because the load test resistor banks are no longer operational or 
needed for DG testing.
    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 of occurrence or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed TS change involves deletion of an SR [surveillance 
requirement]. The SR to be deleted verifies the availability of the 
DGs in a configuration that will no longer be possible. Neither the 
DGs nor the associated SR are accident initiators. The safety 
function of the DGs is to mitigate the consequences of an accident. 
The availability or unavailability of the DGs does not affect the 
likelihood that the accident they are designed to mitigate will 
occur. The presence or absence of the SR does no cause or prevent an 
accident from occurring. Therefore the probability of a previously 
evaluated accident will not be significantly increased.
    The DGs are designed to mitigate the consequences of a 
previously evaluated accident. The function of the SR to be deleted 
is solely to assure the availability of the DG when connected to its 
load test resistor bank. That configuration will no longer occur. 
The test conditions that will occur are addressed by another SR that 
is not affected by the proposed change. The unaffected SR will 
continue to provide assurance that the availability of the DG to 
mitigate the previously evaluated accident is not compromised when 
the DG is connected to the bus used for testing. Other systems, 
structures, and components required for the mitigation of an 
accident are unaffected by the proposed change.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    No new accident scenarios, failure mechanisms, or single 
failures will be introduced as a result of the proposed change to 
delete an SR. The proposed SR deletion will have no adverse effects 
on any safety-related systems or components and will not challenge 
the performance or integrity of any safety-related system. There 
will be no changes to the methods by which any safety-related plant 
system performs its safety function. The DG testing using grid and 
plant component loads does not involve operation of any structure, 
system, or component outside its established design boundaries. The 
proposed deletion of an SR will not involve a change in plant 
operational parameter.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The margin of safety applicable to the proposed change is the 
amount by which the

[[Page 40098]]

DGs exceed the minimum capability required for them to adequately 
mitigate the consequences of an accident. The capability of the DGs 
to adequately mitigate the consequences of an accident will be 
unaffected by the proposed SR deletion. Assurance of that capability 
will continue to be verified by SR 3.8.1.21, and the other DG 
related SRs.
    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 requests involve no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Robert B. Haemer, Senior Nuclear Counsel, 
One Cook Place, Bridgman, MI 49106.
    NRC Branch Chief: Lisa M. Regner.
PSEG Nuclear LLC, and Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-
272 and 50-311, Salem Nuclear Generating Station (Salem), Unit Nos. 1 
and 2, Salem County, New Jersey
    Date of amendment request: June 28, 2019. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19179A073.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would relocate 
Salem, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 Technical Specification (TS) 3/4.9.3, ``Decay 
Time,'' and TS 3/4.9.12, ``Fuel Handling Area Ventilation,'' to the 
Salem Technical Requirements Manual (TRM).
    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 relocation of Technical Specifications 3/4.9.3 and 
3/4.9.12 to the Salem TRM does not alter the requirements for 
component operability or surveillance currently in the Technical 
Specifications. The proposed change to remove these requirements 
from the Technical Specifications and relocate the information to an 
administratively controlled document will have no impact on any 
safety related structure, system or component (SSC).
    The decay time and the Fuel Handling Area Ventilation System 
(FHAVS) are not initiators of any analyzed event in the Updated 
Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). The proposed changes do not 
alter the design of the FHAVS or any other SSC. The consequences of 
the fuel handling accident (FHA) in the fuel handling building (FHB) 
are not altered by this change. The proposed changes conform to NRC 
regulatory guidance regarding the content of plant TS, as identified 
in 10 CFR 50.36, NUREG-1431, and the NRC Final Policy Statement on 
Technical Specifications Improvements for Nuclear Power Reactors in 
58 FR 39132.
    Therefore, these proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change to the TS would relocate the decay time and 
FHAVS requirements to the Salem TRM. The proposed change does not 
involve a modification to the physical configuration of the plant or 
change in the methods governing normal plant operation. The proposed 
changes will not impose any new or different requirement or 
introduce a new accident initiator, accident precursor, or 
malfunction mechanism.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed relocation of Technical Specifications 3/4.9.3 and 
3/4.9.12 to the Salem TRM does not alter the requirements for 
component operability or surveillance currently in the Technical 
Specifications. The proposed change to remove these requirements 
from the Technical Specifications and relocate the information to an 
administratively controlled document does not alter any assumptions 
in the Salem FHA analysis in the FHB. Future revisions to the TRM 
will be subject to review pursuant to 10 CFR 50.59.
    The proposed amendment will not result in a design basis or 
safety limit being exceeded or altered. The assumptions of the FHA 
are not altered by the proposed amendment.
    Therefore, since the proposed changes do not impact the response 
of the plant to a design basis accident, the proposed changes do not 
involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Steven Fleischer, PSEG Services Corporation, 
80 Park Plaza, T-5, Newark, NJ 07102.
    NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna.
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50-354, Hope Creek Generating Station, 
Salem County, New Jersey
    Date of amendment request: June 18, 2019. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19170A070.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would adopt 
Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-563, ``Revise 
Instrument Testing Definitions to Incorporate the Surveillance 
Frequency Control Program.'' TSTF-563 revises the Technical 
Specification (TS) definitions of Channel Calibration and Channel 
Functional Test.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change revises the TS definitions of Channel 
Calibration and Channel Functional Test to allow the frequency for 
testing the components or devices in each step to be determined in 
accordance with the TS Surveillance Frequency Control Program. All 
components in the channel continue to be calibrated and tested. The 
frequency at which a channel is tested or calibrated is not an 
initiator of any accident previously evaluated, so the probability 
of an accident is not affected by the proposed change. The channels 
surveilled in accordance with the affected definitions continue to 
be required to be operable and the acceptance criteria of the 
surveillances are unchanged. As a result, any mitigating functions 
assumed in the accident analysis will continue to be performed.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change revises the TS definitions of Channel 
Calibration and Channel Functional Test to allow the frequency for 
testing the components or devices in each step to be determined in 
accordance with the TS Surveillance Frequency Control Program. All 
components in the channel continue to be calibrated and tested. The 
design function or operation of the components involved are not 
affected and there is no physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no 
new or different type of equipment will be installed). No credible 
new failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident initiators not 
considered in the design and licensing bases are introduced. The 
changes do not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis. The 
proposed changes are consistent with the safety analysis 
assumptions.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different

[[Page 40099]]

kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change revises the TS definitions of Channel 
Calibration and Channel Functional Test to allow the frequency for 
testing the components or devices in each step to be determined in 
accordance with the TS Surveillance Frequency Control Program. All 
components in the channel continue to be calibrated and tested. The 
Surveillance Frequency Control Program assures sufficient safety 
margins are maintained, and that design, operation, surveillance 
methods, and acceptance criteria specified in applicable codes and 
standards (or alternatives approved for use by the NRC) will 
continue to be met as described in the plants' licensing basis. The 
proposed change does not adversely affect existing plant safety 
margins, or the reliability of the equipment assumed to operate in 
the safety analysis. As such, there are no changes being made to 
safety analysis assumptions, safety limits, or limiting safety 
system settings that would adversely affect plant safety as a result 
of the proposed change. Margins of safety are unaffected by method 
of determining surveillance test intervals under an NRC-approved 
licensee-controlled program.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Steven Fleischer, PSEG Services Corporation, 
80 Park Plaza, T-5, Newark, NJ 07102.
    NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna.
PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50-354, Hope Creek Generating Station, 
Salem County, New Jersey
PSEG Nuclear LLC and Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-272 
and 50-311, Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Salem 
County, New Jersey
    Date of amendment request: July 8, 2019. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19189A316.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise 
certain Emergency Response Organization (ERO) positions for the 
facilities listed with the minimum staff ERO guidance specified in the 
``Alternative Guidance for Licensee Emergency Response Organizations.''
    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, which eliminates two Chemistry 
technicians from the Emergency Response Organization minimum 
staffing, has no effect on normal plant operation or on any accident 
initiator or precursors and does not impact the function of plant 
structures, systems, or components. The proposed changes do not 
alter or prevent the ability of the Emergency Response Organization 
to perform their intended functions to mitigate the consequences of 
an accident or event.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment does not impact any accident analysis. 
The change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant 
(i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be installed), a 
change in the method of plant operation, or new operator actions. 
The proposed change does not introduce failure modes that could 
result in a new accident, and the change does not alter assumptions 
made in the safety analysis. The proposed change revises the on-
shift staffing in the PSEG Nuclear Emergency Plan.
    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.
    Margin of safety is associated with confidence in the ability of 
the fission product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, reactor coolant 
system pressure boundary, and containment structure) to limit the 
level of radiation dose to the public. The proposed change is 
associated with the PSEG Emergency Plan staffing and does not impact 
operation of the plant or its response to transients or accidents. 
The change does not affect the Technical Specifications. The 
proposed change does not involve a change in the method of plant 
operation and no accident analyses will be affected by the proposed 
change. Safety analysis acceptance criteria are not affected by the 
proposed change. The revised PSEG Emergency Plan will continue to 
provide the necessary response staff.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Steven Fleischer, PSEG Services Corporation, 
80 Park Plaza, T-5, Newark, NJ 07102.
    NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-390 and 50-391, Watts Bar 
Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Rhea County, Tennessee
    Date of amendment request: June 7, 2019. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19158A398.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would modify the 
Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Technical Specifications (TSs) 
by making several administrative changes. These changes would include 
deletion of previously issued one-time TS changes that have since 
expired, replacement of site area TS figures with text descriptions, 
changes to selected Unit 2 TSs for consistency with Unit 1 TSs, and 
correction of the TS Table of Contents to reflect previously issued 
amendments.
    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 consequence of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes are all administrative in nature. 
Administrative changes such as this are not initiators of any 
accident previously evaluated. As a result, the probability of an 
accident previously evaluated is not affected. The consequences of 
an accident with the incorporation of these administrative changes 
are not different than the consequences of the same accident without 
this change. As a result, the consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated are not affected by this change.
    Based on the above, it is concluded that the proposed changes do 
not involve a significant increase in the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes do not modify the plant design, nor do the 
proposed changes alter the operation of the plant or equipment 
involved in either routine plant operation or in the mitigation of 
design basis accidents. The proposed changes are administrative 
only.

[[Page 40100]]

    Based on the above, it is concluded that the proposed change 
does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of 
accident from any accident previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes are administrative in nature. The changes 
do not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety 
system settings, or limiting conditions for operation are 
determined. The safety analysis acceptance criteria are not affected 
by this change. The proposed changes will not result in plant 
operation in a configuration outside of the design basis. Therefore, 
the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 
400 West Summit Hill Drive, 6A West Tower, Knoxville, TN 37902.
    NRC Branch Chief: Undine Shoop.
Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-280 and 50-281, 
Surry Power Station (Surry), Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Surry County, Virginia
    Date of amendment request: May 15, 2019. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19143A201.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise 
Action 8.A associated with Item 18 in Surry Power Station Technical 
Specifications (TS) Table 3.7-1, ``Reactor Trip Instrument Operating 
Conditions,'' for one inoperable Reactor Trip Breaker (RTB). The 
revised Action 8.A would provide a completion time (CT) of 24 hours to 
restore an RTB to operable status in addition to the 6-hour Hot 
Shutdown requirement. Implementation of the 24-hour CT provides time to 
perform maintenance activities on a single RTB during power operation 
while minimizing risk associated with the loss of compound function.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change provides a 24-hour CT for restoration of an 
inoperable RTB: RPS [Reactor Protection System] performance will 
remain within the bounds of the previously performed accident 
analyses since no change to reactor trip instrumentation or plant 
hardware is being made. The RPS will continue to function in a 
manner consistent with the plant design basis.
    The proposed change does not modify any system interfaces and 
does not affect the probability of any event initiators. There will 
be no degradation in the performance of, or an increase in the 
number of challenges imposed on, safety-related equipment assumed to 
function during an accident situation. There is no change to normal 
plant operating parameters or accident mitigation performance.
    The determination that the results of the proposed change are 
acceptable was established in the NRC Safety Evaluation (SE) 
prepared for WCAP-15376-P-A. Implementation of the proposed change 
will result in an insignificant risk impact. Applicability of these 
conclusions has been verified through plant-specific reviews and 
implementation of the generic analysis results in accordance with 
the NRC SE conditions.
    The proposed change to add the CT reduces the potential for 
unnecessary entries into TS action statements and resultant plant 
transients and, therefore, does not increase the probability of any 
accident previously evaluated. The proposed change does not alter 
the response of the plant to any accidents. The RPS instrumentation 
and RTBs will remain highly reliable, and the proposed changes will 
not result in a significant increase to the risk of plant operation. 
The PRA [Probabilistic Risk Assessment] performed for the proposed 
CT change is based on justification presented in NRC approved WCAP-
15376. The PRA concluded that the increase in risk associated with 
the proposed change is consistent with the RG 1.174 [Regulatory 
Guide] and RG 1.177 acceptance guidelines for a permanent TS CT 
change. The PRA demonstrates that defense-in-depth will not be 
significantly impacted by allowing a single RTB to be inoperable for 
up to 24 hours.
    A detailed review of PRA importance metrics (Risk Achievement 
Worth, FussellVesely) from the Tier 1 PRA model did not reveal any 
risk significant maintenance configurations when one RTB is 
unavailable. To maintain appropriate measures of defense in depth, 
no maintenance will be planned on the AMSAC [Mitigating System 
Actuation Circuitry] system while one RTB is inoperable. No 
additional enhancements, procedure revisions or compensatory actions 
are recommended from the Tier 2 evaluation.
    Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change provides a 24-hour CT for restoration of an 
inoperable RTB. There are no hardware changes, nor are there any 
changes in the method by which any safety related plant system 
performs its safety function. The proposed change does not affect 
the normal method of plant operation and does not result in physical 
alteration to any plant system. The proposed change does not include 
any changes to instrumentation setpoints or changes to accident 
analysis assumptions. No new accident scenarios, transient 
precursors, failure mechanisms, or limiting single failures are 
introduced as a result of this change. There will be no adverse 
effects or challenges imposed on any safety-related system as a 
result of the proposed change.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change provides a 24-hour CT for restoration of an 
inoperable RTB. The proposed change does not adversely affect any 
current plant safety margins or the reliability of equipment assumed 
in the safety analysis. There are no changes being made to any 
safety analysis assumptions, safety limits, or limiting safety 
system settings that would adversely affect plant safety. 
Furthermore, as noted above, a supporting PRA was performed for the 
proposed CT. The PRA concluded that the increase in risk associated 
with the proposed change is consistent with the RG 1.174 and RG 
1.177 acceptance guidelines for a permanent TS CT change. This PRA 
demonstrates that defense-in-depth will not be significantly 
impacted by allowing a single RTB to be inoperable for up to 24 
hours.
    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: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion 
Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar St., RS-2, Richmond, VA 23219.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

IV. Previously Published Notices of Consideration of Issuance of 
Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses, 
Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and 
Opportunity for a Hearing

    The following notices were previously published as separate 
individual notices. The notice content was the same as above. They were 
published as individual notices either because time

[[Page 40101]]

did not allow the Commission to wait for this biweekly notice or 
because the action involved exigent circumstances. They are repeated 
here because the biweekly notice lists all amendments issued or 
proposed to be issued involving no significant hazards consideration.
    For details, see the individual notice in the Federal Register on 
the day and page cited. This notice does not extend the notice period 
of the original notice.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-259, 50-260, and 50-296, 
Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (Browns Ferry), Units 1, 2 and 3, Limestone 
County, Alabama
    Date of amendment request: July 3, 2019. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19184A633.
    Brief description of amendment request: The amendments would revise 
the Browns Ferry, Units 1, 2, and 3, Renewed Facility Operating 
Licenses by changing license conditions associated with the fire 
protection program controlled by 10 CFR 50.48(c), ``National Fire 
Protection Association Standard NFPA 805.'' The amendments would extend 
the implementation due dates for Modifications 102 and 106 listed in 
Item 2 under ``Transition License Conditions'' in Browns Ferry, Units 
1, 2, and 3, Renewed Facility Operating Licenses to the end of Unit 1's 
Fall 2020 outage, and April 30, 2020, respectively.
    Date of publication of individual notice in Federal Register: July 
11, 2019 (84 FR 33094).
    Expiration date of individual notice: August 12, 2019 (public 
comments); September 9, 2019 (hearing requests).

V. 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. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287, 
Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, Oconee County, South 
Carolina

    Date of amendment request: November 1, 2018, as supplemented by 
letter dated March 7, 2019.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the dose 
consequences for the facility, as described in the Updated Final Safety 
Analysis Report, to provide fission gas gap release fractions for high-
burnup fuel rods that exceed the linear heat generation rate limit 
detailed in Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.183, ``Alternative Radiological 
Source Terms for Evaluating Design Basis Accidents at Nuclear Power 
Reactors'' (ADAMS Accession No. ML003716792), Table 3, Footnote 11. The 
amendments allow a higher bounding rod power history and the removal of 
a restriction on the number of rods per assembly that can exceed the 
rod power burnup criteria of Footnote 11 in RG 1.183.
    Date of issuance: July 17, 2019.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 120 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 413 (Unit 1), 415 (Unit 2), and 414 (Unit 3). A 
publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19183A317; 
documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety 
Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
    Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-38, DPR-47 and DPR-55: The 
amendments revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical 
Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 31, 2019 (84 FR 
811). The supplemental letter dated March 7, 2019, provided additional 
information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of 
the application as originally noticed, and did not change the NRC 
staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination as published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 17, 2019.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
    Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Docket No. 50-400, Shearon Harris 
Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, Wake and Chatham Counties, North Carolina
    Date of amendment request: August 13, 2018, as supplemented by 
letter dated December 17, 2018.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Emergency 
Plan Emergency Action Level Scheme associated with the fission product 
barrier degradation Emergency Action Level thresholds and the cold 
shutdown/refueling system malfunction Emergency Action Level 
thresholds.
    Date of issuance: July 18, 2019.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 180 days.
    Amendment No.: 173. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML19108A173; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-63: The amendment 
revised the Renewed Facility Operating License to authorize revision to 
the Emergency Plan.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 6, 2018 (83 FR 
55571). The supplemental letter dated December 17, 2018, provided 
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand 
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change 
the NRC staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination as published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 18, 2019.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

[[Page 40102]]

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-364, 
Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Houston County, Alabama
    Date of amendment request: November 29, 2018.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments changed Technical 
Specifications (TSs) by revising certain TSs to remove the requirements 
for engineered safety feature systems to be operable after sufficient 
radioactive decay of irradiated fuel has occurred following a plant 
shutdown; revising certain TSs actions that are not needed to mitigate 
accidents postulated during shutdown; revising the licensing basis to 
Fuel Handling Accident analysis; partially adopting Standard Technical 
Specifications (STS) Change Traveler Technical Specifications Task 
Force (TSTF)-51, ``Revise containment requirements during handling 
irradiated fuel and core alterations,'' Revision 2; and partially 
adopting STS Change Traveler TSTF-471, ``Eliminate use of term CORE 
ALTERATIONS in ACTIONS and Notes,'' Revision 1.
    Date of issuance: July 16, 2019.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 223 (Unit 1) and 220 (Unit 2). A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19071A138; documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with 
the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-2 and NPF-8: The 
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 30, 2019 (84 FR 
495).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 16, 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: March 28, 2019.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the 
Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2, Technical 
Specifications to eliminate second completion times from required 
actions regarding the operation of alternating current sources in 
alignment with Technical Specifications Task Force Traveler (TSTF) 439, 
Revision 2, ``Eliminate Second Completion Times Limiting Time from 
Discovery of Failure to Meet an LCO [Limiting Condition for 
Operation].'' Specifically, the amendments revised Technical 
Specification 3.8.7.
    Date of issuance: July 16, 2019.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 273 (Unit 1) and 255 (Unit 2). A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19155A264; 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: May 7, 2019 (84 FR 
19973).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 16, 2019.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-390 and 50-391, Watts Bar 
Nuclear Plant (Watts Bar), Units 1 and 2, Rhea County, Tennessee
    Date of amendment request: July 23, 2018.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the Watts 
Bar, Units 1 and 2, Technical Specifications 4.2.1, ``Fuel 
Assemblies,'' and 5.9.5, ``Core Operating Limits Report (COLR),'' to 
allow the use of Optimized ZIRLOTM fuel rod cladding 
material.
    Date of issuance: July 25, 2019.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 127 (Unit 1) and 30 (Unit 2). A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19112A004; documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with 
the amendments.
    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-90 and NPF-96: The amendments 
revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 6, 2018 (83 FR 
55576).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 25, 2019.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

VI. Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and 
Combined Licenses and Final Determination of No Significant Hazards 
Consideration and Opportunity for a Hearing (Exigent Public 
Announcement or Emergency Circumstances)

    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 for the 
amendment 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.
    Because of exigent or emergency circumstances associated with the 
date the amendment was needed, there was not time for the Commission to 
publish, for public comment before issuance, its usual notice of 
consideration of issuance of amendment, proposed no significant hazards 
consideration determination, and opportunity for a hearing.
    For exigent circumstances, the Commission has either issued a 
Federal Register notice providing opportunity for public comment or has 
used local media to provide notice to the public in the area 
surrounding a licensee's facility of the licensee's application and of 
the Commission's proposed determination of no significant hazards 
consideration. The Commission has provided a reasonable opportunity for 
the public to comment, using its best efforts to make available to the 
public means of communication for the public to respond quickly, and in 
the case of telephone comments, the comments have been recorded or 
transcribed as appropriate and the licensee has been informed of the 
public comments.
    In circumstances where failure to act in a timely way would have 
resulted, for example, in derating or shutdown of a nuclear power plant 
or in prevention of either resumption of operation or of increase in 
power output up to the plant's licensed power level, the Commission may 
not have had an opportunity to provide for public comment on its no 
significant hazards consideration determination. In such case, the 
license amendment has been issued without opportunity for comment. If 
there has been some time for public comment but less than 30

[[Page 40103]]

days, the Commission may provide an opportunity for public comment. If 
comments have been requested, it is so stated. In either event, the 
State has been consulted by telephone whenever possible.
    Under its regulations, the Commission may issue and make an 
amendment immediately effective, notwithstanding the pendency before it 
of a request for a hearing from any person, in advance of the holding 
and completion of any required hearing, where it has determined that no 
significant hazards consideration is involved.
    The Commission has applied the standards of 10 CFR 50.92 and has 
made a final determination that the amendment involves no significant 
hazards consideration. The basis for this determination is contained in 
the documents related to this action. Accordingly, the amendments have 
been issued and made effective 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 51.12(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 
application for amendment, (2) the amendment to Facility Operating 
License or Combined License, as applicable, 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.

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

    The Commission is also offering an opportunity for a hearing with 
respect to the issuance of the amendment. 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).

[[Page 40104]]

    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.
Florida Power & Light Company, et al., Docket No. 50-335, St. Lucie 
Plant, Unit No. 1, St. Lucie County, Florida
    Date of amendment request: July 19, 2019, as supplemented by 
letters dated July 24, 2019, and July 25, 2019.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment modified Technical 
Specification 3/4.8.1, ``A.C. [Alternating Current] Sources,'' Action 
b, to allow for

[[Page 40105]]

a one-time extension of the allowed outage time for an emergency diesel 
generator from 14 days to 30 days.
    Date of issuance: July 26, 2019.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
immediately.
    Amendment No.: 248. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML19203A166; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-67: The amendment 
revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical 
Specifications.
    Public comments requested as to proposed no significant hazards 
consideration (NSHC): Yes. The notice appeared on July 23, 2019, and 
July 24, 2019, in the Treasure Coast Newspapers, St. Lucie County, 
Florida. The notice provided an opportunity to submit comments on the 
Commission's proposed NSHC determination. No comments were received.
    By letter dated July 24, 2019, the licensee supplemented its 
license amendment request dated July 19, 2019, to request the deferral 
of certain surveillance requirements on the remaining emergency diesel 
generators until after the completion of the proposed extended allowed 
outage time. By letter dated July 25, 2019, the licensee withdrew its 
request to defer performance of the surveillance requirements based on 
the current repair schedule for the inoperable emergency diesel 
generator. The licensee stated that its July 25, 2019, letter replaced 
the July 24, 2019, letter in its entirety. As a result, the NRC staff 
only reviewed the changes requested in the licensee's July 19, 2019, 
request, as supplemented by the licensee's letter dated July 25, 2019.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment, finding of 
exigent circumstances, State consultation, and final NSHC determination 
are contained in a Safety Evaluation dated July 26, 2019.
    Attorney for licensee: Debbie Hendell, Managing Attorney--Nuclear, 
Florida Power & Light, 700 Universe Blvd., MS LAW/JB, Juno Beach, FL 
33408-0420.
    NRC Branch Chief: Undine Shoop.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 50-328, Sequoyah Nuclear Plant 
(Sequoyah), Unit 2, Hamilton County, Tennessee
    Date of amendment request: July 14, 2019.
    Description of amendment: The amendment approved a one-time change 
to Sequoyah, Unit 2, Technical Specification Table 3.3.3-1, ``Post 
Accident Monitoring Instrumentation,'' Function 15c, to permit the 
reactor vessel level instrumentation system (RVLIS) upper range level 
channels to not be operable for the remainder of Operating Cycle 23 
under certain compensatory actions. Sequoyah, Unit 2, is scheduled to 
start the Cycle 23 refueling outage in Spring 2020.
    The licensee also added License Condition 2.C.(26) to the Renewed 
Facility Operating License to implement the compensatory measures 
described in Section 3.8, ``Additional Compensatory Measures,'' of the 
enclosure during the timeframe the RVLIS upper range level channels are 
not required to be operable for the remainder of Cycle 23. If the RVLIS 
upper range level channels are returned to operable status prior to the 
end of Cycle 23, then these compensatory measures will no longer be 
required.
    Date of issuance: July 18, 2019.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
immediately.
    Amendment No.: 338. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML19196A221; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License DPR-79: The amendment revised 
the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
    Public comments requested as to proposed no significant hazards 
consideration (NSHC): Yes. The notice appeared on July 17, 2019, in the 
Chattanooga Times Free Press, Hamilton County, Tennessee. The notice 
provided an opportunity to submit comments on the Commission's proposed 
NSHC determination. No comments have been received.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment, finding of 
exigent circumstances, State consultation, and final NSHC determination 
are contained in a Safety Evaluation dated July 18, 2019.
    Attorney for licensee: General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 
400 West Summit Hill Drive, 6A West Tower, Knoxville, TN 37902.
    NRC Branch Chief: Undine Shoop.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 6th day of August, 2019.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Blake D. Welling,
Deputy Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of 
Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2019-17160 Filed 8-12-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7590-01-P