Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations, 47542-47557 [2019-19331]

Agencies

• NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 175 (Tuesday, September 10, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47542-47557]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-19331]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2019-0174]


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 August 13, 2019 to August 26, 2019. The 
last biweekly notice was published on August 29, 2019.

DATES: Comments must be filed by October 10, 2019. A request for a 
hearing must be filed by November 12, 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-2019-0174. 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: 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-2019-0174, 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-2019-0174.
     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-2019-0174 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

[[Page 47543]]

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 section 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)''

[[Page 47544]]

section of this document, and should meet the requirements for 
petitions set forth in this section, except that under 10 CFR 
2.309(h)(2) a State, local governmental body, or Federally-recognized 
Indian Tribe, or agency thereof does not need to address the standing 
requirements in 10 CFR 2.309(d) if the facility is located within its 
boundaries. Alternatively, a State, local governmental body, Federally-
recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof may participate as a non-
party under 10 CFR 2.315(c).
    If a hearing is granted, any person who is not a party to the 
proceeding and is not affiliated with or represented by a party may, at 
the discretion of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited 
appearance pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person 
making a limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of 
his or her position on the issues but may not otherwise participate in 
the proceeding. A limited appearance may be made at any session of the 
hearing or at any prehearing conference, subject to the limits and 
conditions as may be imposed by the presiding officer. Details 
regarding the opportunity to make a limited appearance will be provided 
by the presiding officer if such sessions are scheduled.

B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)

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

[[Page 47545]]

participants are requested not to include copyrighted materials in 
their submission.
    For further details with respect to these license amendment 
applications, see the application for amendment which is available for 
public inspection in ADAMS and at the NRC's PDR. For additional 
direction on accessing information related to this document, see the 
``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' section of this 
document.

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

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

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

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

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

    Date of amendment request: July 8, 2019. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19189A033.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the 
technical specifications for each facility to relocate the staff 
qualification requirements to the Duke Energy Corporation quality 
assurance program description.
    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 is administrative in nature, does not make 
any physical changes to the plants, and does not alter accident 
analysis assumptions, add any initiators or affect the function of 
plant systems, or the manner in which systems are operated, 
maintained, tested, or inspected. The proposed change does not 
require any plant modifications which affect the performance 
capability of the structures, systems and components relied upon to 
mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents. The unit/facility 
staff qualification requirements remain the same and are being 
relocated from the Technical Specifications (TS) to the Duke Energy 
Quality Assurance Program Description (QAPD).
    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 amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not involve changes to unit/facility 
staff selection, qualification and training programs. The proposed 
change is administrative in nature and does not impact physical 
plant systems. The qualification standards are being relocated from 
the TS to the Duke Energy QAPD. As a result, the ability of the 
plant to respond to and mitigate accidents is unchanged by the 
proposed change. The proposed change does not alter accident 
analysis assumptions, add any initiators, or affect the function of 
plant systems or the manner in which systems are operated, 
maintained, modified, tested, or inspected.
    Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change is administrative in nature. The proposed 
change does not affect plant design, hardware, system operation, or 
procedures for accident mitigation system. The proposed change does 
not impact any plant safety margins that are established in existing 
limiting conditions for operation, limiting safety systems settings 
and specified safety limits. There is no change in the established 
safety margins of these systems. The proposed change does not impact 
the performance or proficiency requirements for licensed operators 
or unit/facility staff, since the qualification standards are not 
changing and are only being relocated from the TS to the Duke Energy 
QAPD. As a result, the ability of the plant to respond to and 
mitigate accidents is unchanged by the proposed change.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Kathryn B. Nolan, Deputy General Counsel, 
Duke Energy Corporation, 550 South Tryon Street, Mail Code DEC45A, 
Charlotte, NC 28202.
    NRC Branch Chief: Undine Shoop.

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

    Date of amendment request: December 19, 2018, as supplemented by 
letters dated April 30, 2019, and June 18, 2019. Publicly-available 
versions are in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML18353B049, ML19120A084, 
and ML19169A222, respectively.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the 
ANO-2 Technical Specifications (TSs) by establishing Actions and 
Allowable Outage Times applicable to conditions where the ANO-2 
containment building sump is inoperable. In addition, the amendment 
would add an Action Note to TS 3.6.2.3, ``Containment Cooling System,'' 
which supports the proposed new containment sump specification. The 
proposed changes are intended to support the licensee's resolution of 
Generic Safety Issue (GSI)-191, ``Assessment of Debris Accumulation on 
PWR [Pressurized-Water Reactor] Sump Performance.''
    The license amendment request was originally noticed in the Federal 
Register on March 12, 2019 (84 FR 8909). This notice is being reissued 
in its entirety to include the revised scope, description of the 
amendment request, and proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination based on the supplemental letter dated June 18, 2019.
    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 adds a new specification to the TS for the 
containment sump and adds an Action Note to Containment Cooling 
System (CCS) TS 3.6.2.3. An existing SR [Surveillance Requirement] 
on the containment sump is moved to the new specification. The new 
specification retains the existing requirements on the containment 
sump and the actions to be taken when the containment sump is 
inoperable with the exception of adding new actions to be taken when 
the containment sump is inoperable due to containment accident 
generated and transported debris exceeding the analyzed limits. The 
new action provides time to evaluate and correct the condition 
instead of requiring an immediate plant shutdown.

[[Page 47546]]

    The addition of an Action Note to TS 3.6.2.3 continues to 
require inoperable Containment Cooling groups to be restored to an 
operable status with the time frames established in the current 
specification while avoiding an unnecessary shutdown when one or 
more Containment Cooling groups are inoperable coincident with the 
containment sump being inoperable solely due to containment accident 
generated and transported debris exceeding the analyzed limits.
    The containment sump and the CCS are not initiators of any 
accident previously evaluated. The containment sump is a passive 
component and the proposed change does not increase the likelihood 
of the malfunction. No physical change to the containment sump or 
CCS or change to any operation or testing requirements is involved 
with this amendment request. As a result, the probability of an 
accident is unaffected by the proposed change.
    The containment sump is used to mitigate accidents previously 
evaluated by providing a borated water source for the Emergency Core 
Cooling System (ECCS) and Containment Spray System (CSS). The CCS 
ensures that 1) the containment air temperature will be maintained 
within limits during normal operation, and 2) adequate heat removal 
capacity is available when operated in conjunction with the CSS 
during post-Loss of Coolant Accident (LOCA) conditions. The design 
and capability of the containment sump and CCS assumed in the 
accident analysis are not changed. The proposed action requires 
implementation of mitigating actions while the containment sump is 
inoperable and more frequent monitoring of reactor coolant leakage 
to detect any increased potential for an accident that would require 
the containment sump. In addition, the new TS 3.6.2.3 Action Note 
does not change the current time allowances for restoration of 
inoperable Containment Cooling groups to an operable status. The 
consequences of an accident during the proposed action are no 
different than the current consequences of an accident if the 
containment sump is inoperable.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change adds a new specification to the TS for the 
containment sump and adds an Action Note to CCS TS 3.6.2.3. An 
existing SR on the containment sump is moved to the new 
specification. The new containment sump specification retains the 
existing requirements on the containment sump and the actions to be 
taken when the containment sump is inoperable with the exception of 
adding new actions to be taken when the containment sump is 
inoperable due to containment accident generated and transported 
debris exceeding the analyzed limits. The new action provides time 
to evaluate and correct the condition instead of requiring an 
immediate plant shutdown.
    The addition of an Action Note to TS 3.6.2.3 continues to 
require inoperable Containment Cooling groups to be restored to an 
operable status with the time frames established in the current 
specification while avoiding an unnecessary shutdown when one or 
more Containment Cooling groups are inoperable coincident with the 
containment sump being inoperable solely due to containment accident 
generated and transported debris exceeding the analyzed limits.
    The proposed change does not alter the design or design function 
of the containment sump, the CCS, or the plant. No new systems are 
installed or removed as part of the proposed change. The containment 
sump is a passive component and cannot initiate a malfunction or 
accident. Likewise, the CCS is an accident mitigation system and 
cannot cause an accident condition. No new credible accident is 
created that is not encompassed by the existing accident analyses 
that assume the function of the containment sump or CCS.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from an accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change adds a new specification to the TS for the 
containment sump and adds an Action Note to CCS TS 3.6.2.3. An 
existing SR on the containment sump is moved to the new 
specification. The new specification retains the existing 
requirements on the containment sump and the actions to be taken 
when the containment sump is inoperable with the exception of adding 
new actions to be taken when the containment sump is inoperable due 
to containment accident generated and transported debris exceeding 
the analyzed limits. The new action provides time to evaluate and 
correct the condition instead of requiring an immediate plant 
shutdown.
    The addition of an Action Note to TS 3.6.2.3 continues to 
require inoperable Containment Cooling groups to be restored to an 
operable status with the time frames established in the current 
specification while avoiding an unnecessary shutdown when one or 
more Containment Cooling groups are inoperable coincident with the 
containment sump being inoperable solely due to containment accident 
generated and transported debris exceeding the analyzed limits.
    The proposed change does not affect the controlling values of 
parameters used to avoid exceeding regulatory or licensing limits. 
No Safety Limits are affected by the proposed change. The proposed 
change does not affect any assumptions in the accident analyses that 
demonstrate compliance with regulatory and licensing requirements.
    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: 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 No. 50-220, Nine Mile Point 
Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Oswego County, New York

    Date of amendment request: June 17, 2019. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19169A105.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would make several 
editorial changes (e.g., pagination, redundancy, number sequencing, 
alignment, justification, etc.) to the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, 
Unit 1, Technical Specifications.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes are administrative in nature. These changes 
do not affect possible initiating events for accidents previously 
evaluated nor do they alter the configuration or operation of the 
plant.
    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 are administrative in nature. These changes 
do not alter the design or configuration of the plant. The proposed 
changes do not involve a physical alteration of the plant and no new 
or different kind of equipment will be installed. The proposed 
changes do not alter the types of lnservice Testing performed. The 
frequency of lnservice Testing is unchanged.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes are administrative in nature. Since there 
are no changes to the operation or physical design of the plant, the 
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report design

[[Page 47547]]

basis, accident assumptions, or Technical Specification bases are 
not affected.
    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: Jason Zorn, Associate General Counsel, 
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Suite 400, 101 Constitution Ave NW, 
Washington, DC 20001.
    NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-410, Nine Mile Point 
Nuclear Station, Unit 2, Oswego County, New York

    Date of amendment request: May 31, 2019. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19151A537.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would increase the 
main steam isolation valve (MSIV) leakage rate and change the leakage 
rate surveillance requirement in Section 3.6.1.3, ``Primary Containment 
Isolation Valves (PCIVs),'' of the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, 
Unit 2, Technical Specifications.
    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 increase in the total MSIV leakage rate limit has been 
evaluated in a revision to the analysis of the LOCA [loss-of-coolant 
accident] radiological consequences. Based on the results of the 
analysis, it has been demonstrated that, with the requested change, 
the dose consequences of this limiting Design Basis Accident (DBA) 
are within the regulatory guidance provided by the NRC for use with 
the AST [alternative source term]. This guidance is presented in 10 
CFR 50.67, Regulatory Guide 1.183, ``Alternative Radiological Source 
Terms for Evaluating Design Basis Accidents at Nuclear Power 
Reactors,'' Regulatory Issue Summary (RIS) 2006-04, and Standard 
Review Plan (SRP) Section 15.0.1.
    The proposed changes to the MSIV leakage limit and the 
consolidation of the bypass drywell leakage do not involve physical 
change to any plant structure, system, or component. As a result, no 
new failure modes of the MSIVs have been introduced.
    The proposed changes do not affect the normal design or 
operation of the facility before the accident; rather, it affects 
leakage limit assumptions that constitute inputs to the evaluation 
of the accident consequences. The radiological consequences of the 
analyzed LOCA have been evaluated using the plant licensing basis 
for this accident. The results conclude that the control room and 
offsite doses remain within applicable regulatory limits. The effect 
of the proposed changes on Environmental Qualification (EQ) and 
vital area access doses have also been evaluated. The proposed 
increase in MSIV leak rate does not require any new components to be 
evaluated for inclusion in the EQ program and all components 
currently in the program remain qualified for their environments. 
The dose rates and doses to personnel performing vital area tasks 
post-LOCA remain within acceptance criteria with the proposed 
change.
    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 change in the MSIV leakage rate limits and the consolidation 
of the drywell bypass leakage do not affect the design, functional 
performance or normal operation of the facility. Similarly, these 
changes do not affect the design or operation of any component in 
the facility such that new equipment failure modes are created. As 
such, the proposed changes will 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.
    This proposed license amendment involves changes in the MSIV 
leakage rate limits and consolidation of the drywell bypass leakage. 
The revised leakage rate limits are used in the LOCA radiological 
analysis in conjunction with the revised inputs/methodologies 
described in Section 3.0 [of the licensee's amendment request] 
above. The delay in the drywell bypass leakage is not credited in 
the revised LOCA analysis. The analysis has been performed using 
conservative methodologies. Safety margins and analytical 
conservatisms have been evaluated and have been found acceptable. 
The analyzed LOCA event has been carefully selected and margin has 
been retained to ensure that the analysis adequately bounds the 
postulated event scenario. The dose consequences of this limiting 
event are within the acceptance criteria presented in 10 CFR 50.67, 
Regulatory Guide 1.183, and NRC SRP Section 15.0.1. The margin of 
safety is provided by meeting the applicable regulatory limits. The 
effect of the revision to the Technical Specification requirements 
has been analyzed and doses resulting from the pertinent design 
basis accident have been found to remain within the regulatory 
limits. The change continues to ensure that the doses at the 
exclusion area and low population zone boundaries, as well as the 
control room, are within the corresponding regulatory limits.
    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: Jason Zorn, Associate General Counsel, 
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 101 Constitution Ave, NW, Suite 400, 
Washington, DC 20001.
    NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna.

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

    Date of amendment request: July 23, 2019. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19204A349.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the R. 
E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Technical Specification Surveillance 
Requirement 3.7.1.1 to increase the allowable as-found main steam 
safety valve lift setpoint tolerance from +1 percent/-3 percent to +1.4 
percent/-4 percent.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below with NRC staff edits in square 
brackets:

    1. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change revises Technical Specification (TS) 
Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.7.1.1 to increase the allowable as-
found Main Steam Safety Valve (MSSV) lift setpoint tolerance from + 
1%/-3% to + 1.4%/-4%. As summarized in Section 3.0 [of the 
licensee's amendment request], increasing the applicable MSSV 
tolerance has been evaluated for the Small Break Loss Of Coolant 
Accident (SBLOCA) analysis of record but this change does not affect 
the limiting SBLOCA results. However, this change does not alter the 
manner in which the valves are operated. Consistent with current TS 
requirements, the proposed change continues to require that the 
MSSVs be adjusted to within 1% of their nominal lift 
setpoints following testing. Since the proposed change does not 
alter the manner in which the valves are operated, there is no 
significant impact on reactor operation.
    The proposed change does not involve a physical change to the 
valves, nor does it change the safety function of the valves. The

[[Page 47548]]

proposed TS revision involves no significant changes to the 
operation of any systems or components in normal or accident 
operating conditions and no changes to existing structures, systems, 
or components. The proposed amendments do not change any other 
behavior or operation of any MSSV, and therefore, has no significant 
impact on reactor operation. They also have no significant impact on 
response to any perturbation of reactor operation including 
transients and accidents previously analyzed in the Updated Final 
Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR).
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change revises TS SR 3.7.1.1 to increase the 
allowable as-found MSSV lift setpoint tolerance from + 1%/-3% to + 
1.4%/-4%. The proposed change to the setpoint tolerance does not 
adversely affect the operation of any safety-related components or 
equipment. The proposed amendments do not involve physical changes 
to the applicable MSSVs, nor do they change the safety function of 
the MSSVs. The proposed amendments do not require any physical 
change or alteration of any existing plant equipment. No new or 
different equipment is being installed, and installed equipment is 
not being operated in a new or different manner. There is no 
alteration to the parameters within which the plant is normally 
operated. This change does not alter the manner in which equipment 
operation is initiated, nor will the functional demands on credited 
equipment be changed. No alterations in the procedures that ensure 
the plant remains within analyzed limits are being proposed, and no 
changes are being made to the procedures relied upon to respond to 
an off-normal event as described in the UFSAR. As such, no new 
failure modes are being introduced. The change does not alter 
assumptions made in the safety analysis and licensing basis.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The margin of safety is established through the design of the 
plant structures, systems, and components, the parameters within 
which the plant is operated, and the establishment of the setpoints 
for the actuation of equipment relied upon to respond to an event. 
The proposed change does not modify the safety limits or setpoints 
at which protective actions are initiated, and does not change the 
requirements governing operation or availability of safety equipment 
assumed to operate to preserve the margin of safety.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    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 Road, Warrenville, IL 
60555.
    NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-289 and 50-320, Three 
Mile Island Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Dauphin County, 
Pennsylvania

    Date of amendment request: July 1, 2019. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19182A182.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the 
site emergency plan (SEP) and Emergency Action Level (EAL) scheme for 
the permanently defueled condition.
    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 changes to the site emergency plan (SEP) and EAL 
scheme do not impact the function of plant structures, systems, or 
components (SSCs). The proposed changes do not affect accident 
initiators or precursors, nor does it alter design assumptions. The 
proposed changes do not prevent the ability of the on-shift staff 
and emergency response organization (ERO) to perform their intended 
functions to mitigate the consequences of any accident or event that 
will be credible in the permanently defueled condition.
    The probability of occurrence of previously evaluated accidents 
is not increased, since most previously analyzed accidents can no 
longer occur and the probability of the few remaining credible 
accidents are unaffected by the proposed amendment.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes reduce the scope of the SEP and EAL scheme 
commensurate with the hazards associated with a permanently shutdown 
and defueled facility. The proposed changes do not involve 
installation of new equipment or modification of existing equipment, 
so that no new equipment failure modes are introduced. In addition, 
the proposed changes do not result in a change to the way that the 
equipment or facility is operated so that no new or different kinds 
of accident initiators are created.
    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.
    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 changes are 
associated with the SEP and EAL scheme and do not impact operation 
of the plant or its response to transients or accidents. The change 
does not affect the Technical Specifications. The proposed changes 
do not involve a change in the method of plant operation, and no 
accident analyses will be affected by the proposed changes. Safety 
analysis acceptance criteria are not affected by the proposed 
changes. The Post Defueled Emergency Plan (PDEP) will continue to 
provide the necessary response staff with the appropriate guidance 
to protect the health and safety of the public.
    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: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel, 
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 
60555.
    NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna.

Nebraska Public Power District, Docket No. 50-298, Cooper Nuclear 
Station, Nemaha County, Nebraska

    Date of amendment request: May 23, 2019. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19171A268.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
delete the Technical Specification (TS) requirements related to 
hydrogen/oxygen monitors. The proposed changes support implementation 
of the revision to 10 CFR 50.44, ``Combustible gas control for nuclear 
power reactors,'' which became effective on October 16,

[[Page 47549]]

2003. The proposed changes are consistent with Revision 1 of NRC-
approved Industry/Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Standard 
Technical Specification Change Traveler, TSTF-447, ``Elimination of 
Hydrogen Recombiners and Change to Hydrogen and Oxygen Monitors.'' The 
notice of availability of this TS improvement was announced in the 
Federal Register on September 25, 2003 (68 FR 55416), as part of the 
consolidated line item improvement process. Post-accident hydrogen 
recombiners are not installed at Cooper Nuclear Station; therefore, 
that portion of the TSTF is not requested in this proposed amendment.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee affirmed 
the applicability of the model no significant hazards consideration 
determination, which is presented below:

    Criterion 1: The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant 
Increase in the Probability or Consequences of an Accident 
Previously Evaluated.
    The revised 10 CFR 50.44 no longer defines a design-basis loss-
of-coolant accident (LOCA) hydrogen release, and eliminates 
requirements for hydrogen control systems to mitigate such a 
release. The installation of hydrogen recombiners and/or vent and 
purge systems required by 10 CFR 50.44(b)(3) was intended to address 
the limited quantity and rate of hydrogen generation that was 
postulated from a design-basis LOCA. The Commission has found that 
this hydrogen release is not risk-significant because the design-
basis LOCA hydrogen release does not contribute to the conditional 
probability of a large release up to approximately 24 hours after 
the onset of core damage. In addition, these systems were 
ineffective at mitigating hydrogen releases from risk-significant 
accident sequences that could threaten containment integrity.
    With the elimination of the design-basis LOCA hydrogen release, 
hydrogen and oxygen monitors are no longer required to mitigate 
design-basis accidents and, therefore, the hydrogen monitors do not 
meet the definition of a safety-related component as defined in 10 
CFR 50.2. RG [Regulatory Guide] 1.97 Category 1, is intended for key 
variables that most directly indicate the accomplishment of a safety 
function for design-basis accident events. The hydrogen and oxygen 
monitors no longer meet the definition of Category 1 in RG 1.97. As 
part of the rulemaking to revise 10 CFR 50.44 the Commission found 
that Category 3, as defined in RG 1.97, is an appropriate 
categorization for the hydrogen monitors because the monitors are 
required to diagnose the course of beyond design-basis accidents. 
Also, as part of the rulemaking to revise 10 CFR 50.44, the 
Commission found that Category 2, as defined in RG 1.97, is an 
appropriate categorization for the oxygen monitors, because the 
monitors are required to verify the status of the inert containment.
    The regulatory requirements for the hydrogen and oxygen monitors 
can be relaxed without degrading the plant emergency response. The 
emergency response, in this sense, refers to the methodologies used 
in ascertaining the condition of the reactor core, mitigating the 
consequences of an accident, assessing and projecting offsite 
releases of radioactivity, and establishing protective action 
recommendations to be communicated to offsite authorities. 
Classification of the hydrogen monitors as Category 3, 
classification of the oxygen monitors as Category 2 and removal of 
the hydrogen and oxygen monitors from TS will not prevent an 
accident management strategy through the use of the SAMGs [Severe 
Accident Management Guidelines], the emergency plan (EP), the 
emergency operating procedures (EOP), and site survey monitoring 
that support modification of emergency plan protective action 
recommendations (PARs).
    Therefore, the elimination of the hydrogen recombiner 
requirements and relaxation of the hydrogen and oxygen monitor 
requirements, including removal of these requirements for TS, does 
not involve a significant increase in the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    Criterion 2: The Proposed Change Does Not Create the Possibility 
of a New or Different Kind of Accident from Any Previously 
Evaluated.
    The elimination of the hydrogen recombiner requirements and 
relaxation of the hydrogen and oxygen monitor requirements, 
including removal of these requirements from TS, will not result in 
any failure mode not previously analyzed. The hydrogen recombiner 
and hydrogen and oxygen monitor equipment was intended to mitigate a 
design-basis hydrogen release. The hydrogen recombiner and hydrogen 
and oxygen monitor equipment are not considered accident precursors, 
nor does their existence or elimination have any adverse impact on 
the pre-accident state of the reactor core or post accident 
confinement of radionuclides within the containment building.
    Therefore, this change does not create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
    Criterion 3: The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant 
Reduction in the Margin of Safety.
    The elimination of the hydrogen recombiner requirements and 
relaxation of the hydrogen and oxygen monitor requirements, 
including removal of these requirements from TS, in light of 
existing plant equipment, instrumentation, procedures, and programs 
that provide effective mitigation of and recovery from reactor 
accidents, results in a neutral impact to the margin of safety.
    The installation of hydrogen recombiners and/or vent and purge 
systems required by 10 CFR 50.44(b)(3) was intended to address the 
limited quantity and rate of hydrogen generation that was postulated 
from a design-basis LOCA. The Commission has found that this 
hydrogen release is not risk-significant because the design-basis 
LOCA hydrogen release does not contribute to the conditional 
probability of a large release up to approximately 24 hours after 
the onset of core damage.
    Category 3 hydrogen monitors are adequate to provide rapid 
assessment of current reactor core conditions and the direction of 
degradation while effectively responding to the event in order to 
mitigate the consequences of the accident. The intent of the 
requirements established as a result of the Three Mile Island MI 
[Three Mile Island Nuclear Station], Unit 2 accident can be 
adequately met without reliance on safety-related hydrogen monitors.
    Category 2 oxygen monitors are adequate to verify the status of 
an inerted containment.
    Therefore, this change does not involve a significant reduction 
in the margin of safety. The intent of the requirements established 
as a result of the TMI, Unit 2 accident can be adequately met 
without reliance on safety-related oxygen monitors. Removal of 
hydrogen and oxygen monitoring from TS will not result in a 
significant reduction in their functionality, reliability, and 
availability.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the above 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: John C. McClure, Nebraska Public Power 
District, Post Office Box 499, Columbus, NE 68602-0499.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.

Nebraska Public Power District, Docket No. 50-298, Cooper Nuclear 
Station, Nemaha County, Nebraska

    Date of amendment request: May 23, 2019. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19171A266.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
revise the Cooper Nuclear Station Technical Specifications (TSs) by 
adopting Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler 564 (TSTF-
564), ``Safety Limit MCPR [Minimum Critical Power Ratio].'' The 
proposed amendment would revise the TS safety limit on MCPR to reduce 
the need for cycle-specific changes to the value, while still meeting 
the regulatory requirement for a safety limit.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or

[[Page 47550]]

consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment revises the TS SLMCPR [safety limit 
minimum critical power ratio] and the list of core operating limits 
to be included in the COLR [core operating limits report]. The 
SLMCPR is not an initiator of any accident previously evaluated. The 
revised safety limit values continue to ensure for all accidents 
previously evaluated that the fuel cladding will be protected from 
failure due to transition boiling. The proposed change does not 
affect plant operation or any procedural or administrative controls 
on plant operation that affect the functions of preventing or 
mitigating any accidents previously evaluated.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment revises the TS SLMCPR and the list of 
core operating limits to be included in the COLR. The proposed 
change will not affect the design function or operation of any 
structures, systems or components. No new equipment will be 
installed. As a result, the proposed change will not create any 
credible new failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident 
initiators not considered in the design and licensing bases.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment revises the TS SLMCPR and the list of 
core operating limits to be included in the COLR. This will result 
in a change to a safety limit, but will not result in a significant 
reduction in the margin of safety provided by the safety limit. As 
discussed in the application, changing the SLMCPR methodology to one 
based on a 95 percent probability at a 95 percent confidence level 
that no fuel rods experience transition boiling during an 
anticipated transient, instead of the current limit based on 
ensuring that 99.9 percent of the fuel rods are not susceptible to 
boiling transition, does not have significant effect on the plant 
response to any analyzed accident. The SLMCPR and the TS Limiting 
Condition for Operation on MCPR continue to provide the same level 
of assurance as the current limits and do not reduce a margin of 
safety.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: John C. McClure, Nebraska Public Power 
District, Post Office Box 499, Columbus, NE 68602-0499.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.

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

NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC, Docket No. 50-443, Seabrook Station, Unit 
No. 1 (Seabrook), Rockingham County, New Hampshire

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

    Date of amendment request: March 18, 2019. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19079A240.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the 
Technical Specifications (TS) to adopt TSTF-563, ``Revise Instrument 
Testing Definitions to Incorporate the Surveillance Frequency Control 
Program.'' TSTF-563 revises the TS definitions of Channel Calibration, 
Channel Operational Test (COT), and Trip Actuating Device Operational 
Test (TADOT) in the Point Beach TSs; and Channel Calibration, Analog 
COT, Digital COT, and TADOT in the Seabrook and Turkey Point TSs. The 
Seabrook and Turkey Point definitions of Analog COT, Digital COT, and 
TADOT are revised to explicitly permit performance by means of any 
series of sequential, overlapping, or total channel steps. The Channel 
Calibration, COT, Analog COT, Digital COT, and TADOT definitions are 
revised to allow the required frequency for testing the components or 
devices in each step to be determined in accordance with the TS 
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 change 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, COT, Analog COT, Digital COT, and TADOT in the Point 
Beach, Seabrook, and Turkey Point TS to allow the frequency for 
testing the components or devices in each step to be determined in 
accordance with the TS Surveillance Frequency Control Program. The 
proposed change also explicitly permits the Seabrook and Turkey 
Point Analog COT, Digital COT, and TADOT to be performed by any 
series of sequential, overlapping, or total channel steps. 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, 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 change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change revises the TS definitions of Channel 
Calibration, COT, Analog COT, Digital COT, and TADOT in the Point 
Beach, Seabrook, and Turkey Point TS to allow the frequency for 
testing the components or devices in each step to be determined in 
accordance with the TS Surveillance Frequency Control Program. The 
proposed change also explicitly permits the Seabrook and Turkey 
Point Analog COT, Digital COT, and TADOT to be performed by any 
series of sequential, overlapping, or total channel steps. 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[middot] 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, COT, Analog COT, Digital COT, and TADOT in the Point 
Beach, Seabrook, and Turkey Point TS to allow the frequency for 
testing the components or devices in each step to be determined in 
accordance with the TS Surveillance Frequency Control Program. The 
proposed change also explicitly permits the Seabrook and Turkey 
Point Analog COT, Digital COT, and TADOT to be performed by any 
series of sequential, overlapping, or total channel steps. The 
Surveillance Frequency

[[Page 47551]]

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: Debbie Hendell, Managing Attorney--Nuclear, 
Florida Power & Light Company, P.O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, FL 33408-
0420.
    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 29, 2019. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19210C880.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the 
operating licenses to delete certain license conditions that impose 
specific requirements on the decommissioning trust agreement on the 
basis that upon approval of the amendments, the provisions of 10 CFR 
50.75(h) that specify the regulatory requirements for decommissioning 
trust funds would apply to PSEG Nuclear LLC. The amendments would also 
remove legacy financial requirements associated with the license 
transfer from PSE&G to PSEG Nuclear LLC relative to maintaining 
available funding for an extended shutdown.
    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 requested changes delete License Conditions which pertain to 
the decommissioning trust funds for Salem Generating Station (SGS) 
and Hope Creek Generating Station (HCGS) and to funding an extended 
plant shutdown.
    These requests involve changes that are administrative in 
nature. No actual plant equipment or accident analyses will be 
affected by the proposed changes.
    Therefore, the proposed amendments do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Do the proposed amendments create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    This request involves administrative changes to the Renewed 
Facility Operating Licenses (FOLs) of SGS Units 1 and 2 and HCGS 
relating to the terms and conditions of the decommissioning trust 
agreements and to funding an extended plant shutdown. The proposed 
changes will be consistent with the NRC's regulations at 10 CFR 
50.75(h).
    No actual plant equipment or accident analyses will be affected 
by the proposed changes and no failure modes not bounded by 
previously evaluated accidents will be created.
    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.
    This request involves administrative changes to the SGS Units 1 
and 2 and HCGS FOLs that will be consistent with the NRC's 
regulations set forth in 10 CFR 50.75(h). The request also involves 
removal of extended shutdown funding requirements for both stations 
that are historical in nature and are no longer warranted.
    The changes being proposed are administrative in nature. Margins 
of safety are associated with confidence in the ability of the 
fission product barriers to limit the level of potential dose to the 
public. No actual plant equipment or accident analyses will be 
affected by the proposed change. Additionally, the proposed changes 
will not relax any criteria used to establish safety limits, will 
not relax any safety systems settings, nor will they relax the bases 
for any limiting conditions of operation.
    Therefore, the proposed amendments do not involve a significant 
reduction in the margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Steven Fleischer, PSEG Services Corporation, 
80 Park Plaza, T-5, Newark, NJ 07102.
    NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.; Georgia Power Company; 
Oglethorpe Power Corporation; Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia; 
and 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: July 23, 2019. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19204A240.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the 
Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant (Hatch), Units 1 and 2, Technical 
Specifications (TSs). The amendments would adopt TSTF-566, ``Revise 
Actions for Inoperable [Residual Heat Removal] RHR Shutdown Cooling 
Subsystems,'' which is an approved change to the Improved Standard 
Technical Specifications, into the Hatch, Units 1 2, TSs. The 
amendments would revise TS 3.4.7 and TS 3.4.8 Conditions, Required 
Actions, and Completion Times when an RHR shutdown cooling subsystem is 
inoperable.
    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 actions to be taken when an RHR 
shutdown cooling subsystem is inoperable. The RHR System in the 
shutdown cooling mode performs the important safety function of 
removing decay heat from the reactor coolant system during shutdown. 
The RHR System in the shutdown cooling mode is not an initiator of 
any accident previously evaluated or assumed to mitigate any 
accident previously evaluated. The design and function of the RHR 
System are not affected by the proposed change.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change revises the actions to be taken when an RHR 
shutdown cooling subsystem is inoperable. The proposed

[[Page 47552]]

change does not affect the design function or operation of the RHR 
shutdown cooling subsystems. No new equipment is being installed as 
a result of the proposed change. The proposed change only affects 
the actions taken when an RHR shutdown cooling subsystem is 
inoperable, so no new failure mechanisms are created.
    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 amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change revises the actions to be taken when an RHR 
shutdown cooling subsystem is inoperable. The proposed change does 
not change any specific values or controlling parameters that define 
margin in the design or licensing basis. No safety limits are 
affected by the proposed change. The RHR System in the shutdown 
cooling mode removes decay heat from the reactor coolant system 
during shutdown. The proposed change does not affect any design or 
safety limits associated with the RHR System.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

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

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

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

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

    Date of amendment request: April 16, 2018, as supplemented by 
letters dated September 25, 2018; November 13, 2018; and July 16, 2019.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Robinson 
Technical Specifications (TSs) by relocating specific surveillance 
frequencies to a licensee-controlled program with the implementation of 
Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 04-10, ``Risk-Informed Technical 
Specification Initiative 5b, Risk-Informed Method for Control of 
Surveillance Frequencies.'' Additionally, the change added a new 
program, the Surveillance Frequency Control Program, to TS Section 5.0, 
``Administrative Controls.''
    Date of issuance: August 15, 2019.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 120 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 265. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML19158A307; documents related to the amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-23: The amendment 
revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical 
Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 23, 2018 (83 FR 
53512). The supplemental letters dated November 13, 2018, and July 16, 
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 August 15, 2019.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment requests: November 1, 2018, and March 8, 2019, as 
supplemented by letter dated May 28, 2019.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment canceled 6 
modifications and clarified 10 modifications as described in Table S-2, 
``Plant Modifications Committed,'' which is referenced in the fire 
protection program transition license condition 2.C.(3)(c)2. The 
amendment also extended the full compliance date for the fire 
protection program transition license condition.
    Date of issuance: August 20, 2019.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 269. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML19198A080; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-20: The amendment 
revised the Renewed Facility Operating License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 5, 2019 (84 FR 
1804), and May 7, 2019 (84 FR 19969). The supplemental letter dated May 
28, 2019, provided additional information that clarified the 
application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally 
noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no 
significant hazards consideration determinations as published in the 
Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated August 20, 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: March 7, 2019.

[[Page 47553]]

    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the James A. 
FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant Technical Specification requirements 
regarding ventilation system testing in accordance with Technical 
Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler, TSTF-522, Revision 0, 
``Revise Ventilation System Surveillance Requirements to Operate for 10 
hours per Month.'' Specifically, Surveillance Requirement 3.6.4.3.1 of 
Technical Specification 3.6.4.3, ``Standby Gas Treatment (SGT) 
System,'' was revised to require operating the ventilation system for 
at least 15 continuous minutes with the heaters operating at a 
frequency controlled in accordance with the Surveillance Frequency 
Control Program.
    Date of issuance: August 19, 2019.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days.
    Amendment No.: 326. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML19189A084; 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: April 23, 2019 (84 FR 
16893).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated August 19, 2019.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-317 and 50-318, Calvert 
Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, Calvert County, Maryland

    Date of amendment request: August 30, 2018, as supplemented by 
letter dated January 11, 2019.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments approved the 
relocation and consolidation of the Emergency Operations Facility (EOF) 
and Joint Information Center (JIC) for the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power 
Plant with the existing Exelon Generation Company, LLC joint EOF and 
JIC located at 175 North Caln Road, Coatesville, Pennsylvania. This 
facility in Coatesville, Pennsylvania, also serves as the EOF/JIC for 
Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, Peach Bottom Atomic Power 
Station, Units 2 and 3, and Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1.
    Date of issuance: August 26, 2019.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
no later than April 30, 2020.
    Amendment Nos.: 330 (Unit 1) and 308 (Unit 2). A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19165A247; documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with 
the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-53 and DPR-69: The 
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 18, 2018 (83 
FR 64896). The supplemental letter dated January 11, 2019, provided 
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand 
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change 
the NRC staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination as published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated August 26, 2019.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, Docket No. 50-440, Perry Nuclear 
Power Plant, Unit No. 1, Lake County, Ohio

    Date of amendment request: November 28, 2018.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised certain 
aspects of the Perry Nuclear Power Plant Emergency Plan emergency 
response organization staffing.
    Date of issuance: August 14, 2019.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 186. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML19163A023; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-58: The amendment revised the 
Facility Operating License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 2, 2019 (84 FR 
23).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated August 14, 2019.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Florida Power & 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: May 3, 2018, as supplemented by letter 
August 14, 2019.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the 
Technical Specifications by changing the Safety Limit 2.1.1.b peak fuel 
centerline temperature to reflect the fuel centerline melt temperature 
specified in Topical Report WCAP-17642-P-A, Revision 1, ``Westinghouse 
Performance Analysis and Design Model (PAD5).'' A non-proprietary 
version of WCAP-17642-P-A, Revision 1, can be found in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML17338A396.
    Date of issuance: August 15, 2019.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
for the Unit 3 Cycle 32 and Unit 4 Cycle 32 reload campaigns currently 
scheduled for the fall of 2021 and the fall of 2020, respectively.
    Amendment Nos.: 288 (Unit 3) and 282 (Unit 4). A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19031C891; documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with 
the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-31 and DPR-41: The 
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and 
Technical Specifications.:
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register July 3, 2018 (83 FR 
31185) (corrected July 10, 2018 (83 FR 31981)). The supplemental letter 
dated August 14, 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 August 15, 2019.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: September 12, 2018, as supplemented by 
letters dated May 2, 2019, and July 3, 2019.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the 
Emergency

[[Page 47554]]

Plan for Diablo Canyon, Units 1 and 2, to revise the Emergency Response 
Organization staffing composition and extend staff augmentation times 
for the Emergency Response Organization functions.
    Date of issuance: August 21, 2019.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 180 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: Unit 1 (233) and Unit 2 (235). A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19196A309; documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with 
the amendments.
    Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-80 and DPR-82: The amendments 
revised the Emergency Plan.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 4, 2018 (83 FR 
62621). The supplemental letters dated May 2, 2019, and July 3, 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 August 21, 2019.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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: July 27, 2018, as supplemented by 
letters dated May 3, 2019; May 17, 2019; and June 27, 2019.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments modified the 
Technical Specifications to permit the use of Risk-Informed Completion 
Times (RICTs) in accordance with Topical Report Nuclear Energy 
Institute (NEI) 06-09, ``Risk-Informed Technical Specifications 
Initiative 4b, Risk-Managed Technical Specifications (RMTS) 
Guidelines,'' Revision 0-A.
    Date of issuance: August 23, 2019.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 180 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 225 (Unit 1) and 222 (Unit 2). A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19175A243; 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 
Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 25, 2018 (83 
FR 48466). By supplemental letters dated May 3, 2019, and May 17, 2019, 
the licensee provided additional information that expanded the scope of 
the amendment request as originally noticed in the Federal Register. 
Accordingly, the NRC staff published a second proposed no significant 
hazards consideration determination in the Federal Register on June 4, 
2019 (84 FR 25840), which superseded the original determination in its 
entirely. The supplemental letter dated June 27, 2019, provided 
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand 
the scope of the application as noticed, and did not change the NRC 
staff's second 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 August 23, 2019.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

STP Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 50-498 and 50-499, South 
Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, Matagorda County, Texas

    Date of amendment request: March 27, 2018, as supplemented by 
letters dated December 6, 2018; May 16, 2019; and June 25, 2019.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised certain 
minimum voltage and frequency acceptance criteria for steady-state 
standby diesel generator surveillance requirement testing. 
Specifically, the amendments revised several subsections of Technical 
Specification \3/4\.8.1, ``AC [Alternating Current] Sources, 
Operating,'' to correct non-conservative acceptance criteria.
    Date of issuance: August 20, 2019.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: (216) Unit 1 and 202 (Unit 2). A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19213A147; documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with 
the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-76 and NPF-80: The 
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and 
Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 31, 2018 (83 FR 
36978). The supplemental letters dated December 6, 2018; May 16, 2019; 
and June 25, 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 August 20, 2019.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendments revised the Renewed 
Facility Operating Licenses (RFOLs) by changing license conditions for 
Browns Ferry, Units 1, 2, and 3, associated with the fire protection 
program controlled by 10 CFR 50.48(c), ``National Fire Protection 
Association Standard NFPA 805.'' The amendments extended the 
implementation due dates for Modifications 102 and 106 listed in Item 2 
under ``Transition License Conditions'' in each unit's RFOL to the end 
of Browns Ferry Unit 1's Fall 2020 outage, and April 30, 2020, 
respectively. Accordingly, these amendments revised RFOLs paragraphs 
2.C.(13) of Unit 1, 2.C.(14) of Unit 2, and 2.C.(7) of Unit 3 for 
Browns Ferry, Units 1, 2, and 3, respectively.
    Date of issuance: August 13, 2019.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
immediately.
    Amendment Nos.: 308 (Unit 1), 331 (Unit 2), and 291 (Unit 3). A 
publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19198A001; 
documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety 
Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-33, DPR-52, and DPR-68: 
The amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 11, 2019 (84 FR 
33094).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated August 13, 2019.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: One comment 
was

[[Page 47555]]

received on August 12, 2019. The public comment and the NRC staff 
response are provided in the Safety Evaluation dated August 13, 2019.

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

    Date of amendment request: January 23, 2019, as supplemented by 
letters dated March 11, 2019, and August 8, 2019.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical 
Specification (TS) requirements in Section 1.3, ``Completion Times,'' 
and Section 3.0, ``Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) 
Applicability,'' and ``Surveillance Requirement (SR) Applicability,'' 
to clarify and expand the use and application of the Wolf Creek 
Generating Station, Unit 1, TS usage rules. The TS changes are 
consistent with NRC-approved Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) 
Traveler TSTF-529, Revision 4, ``Clarify Use and Application Rules.''
    Date of issuance: August 19, 2019.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 222. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML19182A345; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-42. The amendment 
revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 9, 2019 (84 FR 
14154). The supplemental letter dated August 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 amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated August 19, 2019.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

V. 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 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

[[Page 47556]]

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

B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)

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

[[Page 47557]]

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.

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

    Date of amendment request: August 15, 2019, as supplemented by 
letters dated August 16, 2019; August 19, 2019; and August 20, 2019.
    Description of amendment: The amendment added a one-time extension 
to the Completion Time of Technical Specification Action 3.8.7.A from 8 
hours to 16 hours.
    Date of issuance: August 26, 2019.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
from the issuance date until 0800 Pacific Standard Time on September 
14, 2019.
    Amendment No.: 254. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML19234A016; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-21: The amendment 
revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical 
Specifications.
    Public comments requested as to proposed no significant hazards 
consideration (NSHC): Yes. Public notice of the proposed amendment was 
published in the Tri-City Herald located in Kennewick, Washington, from 
August 18, 2019, through August 20, 2019. 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 August 26, 2019.
    Attorney for licensee: William A. Horin, Esq., Winston & Strawn, 
1700 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20006-3817.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.

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

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Jamie M. Heisserer,
Acting Deputy Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office 
of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2019-19331 Filed 9-9-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P