Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations, 56478-56486 [2019-22720]

Agencies

• NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 204 (Tuesday, October 22, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56478-56486]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-22720]



[[Page 56478]]

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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2019-0201]


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 September 24, 2019 to October 8, 2019. The 
last biweekly notice was published on October 8, 2019.

DATES: Comments must be filed by November 21, 2019. A request for a 
hearing must be filed by December 23, 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-2019-0201. Address 
questions about NRC docket IDs in Regulations.gov to Anne Frost; 
telephone: 301-287-9232; 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: Janet Burkhardt, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1384, email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments

A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2019-0201, 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-2019-0201.
     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-2019-0201, facility name, unit 
number(s), plant docket number, application date, and subject in your 
comment submission.
    The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact 
information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your 
comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at 
https://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions 
into ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to 
remove identifying or contact information.
    If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons 
for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to 
include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be 
publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should 
state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to 
remove such information before making the comment submissions available 
to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.

II. Background

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

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

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

[[Page 56479]]

period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for 
example in derating or shutdown of the facility. If the Commission 
takes action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or 
the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a notice of 
issuance. If the Commission makes a final no significant hazards 
consideration determination, any hearing will take place after 
issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will 
occur very infrequently.

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

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

[[Page 56480]]

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

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

    Date of amendment request: September 11, 2019. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19254D105.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the 
technical specification surveillance requirements ultimate heat sink 
inventory verification from a level-based to a volume-based 
verification.
    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 a Technical Specifications 
Surveillance Requirement to replace the requirement to verify bottom 
level of the Ultimate Heat Sink (UHS) with a requirement to verify 
the volume of the UHS. The design basis inventory requirement is 
unchanged; the change only pertains to the method of inventory 
verification. The UHS is not an initiator of any accident 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

[[Page 56481]]

accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change revises a Technical Specifications 
Surveillance Requirement to replace the requirement to verify bottom 
level of the Ultimate Heat Sink (UHS) with a requirement to verify 
the volume of the UHS. The proposed change will not affect the 
design function or operation of any structures, systems or 
components (SSCs). No new equipment will be installed. As a result, 
the proposed change will not create any credible new failure 
mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident initiators not considered in 
the design and licensing bases.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment revises a Technical Specifications 
Surveillance Requirement to replace the requirement to verify bottom 
level of the Ultimate Heat Sink (UHS) with a requirement to verify 
the volume of the UHS. The volume of the UHS is already a 
requirement of the design analysis. This change modifies the method 
of verifying the volume, however, it does not change the required 
volume documented in the analysis of record.
    Therefore, the proposed change does 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: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel, 
Exelon Nuclear, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555.
    NRC Acting Branch Chief: Lisa M. Regner.

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

    Date of amendment request: August 26, 2019. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Package Accession No. ML19241A267.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
revise the technical specification (TS) requirements for the 
containment leakage rate testing program. Specifically, the licensee is 
requesting to use the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) topical report NEI 
94-01, Revision 3-A, ``Industry Guideline for Implementing Performance-
Based Option of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix J'' (ADAMS Accession No. 
ML12221A202), and the limitations and conditions specified in NEI 94-
01, Revision 2-A (ADAMS Accession No. ML100620847), for Type A and Type 
B containment leak rate testing. The proposed amendment would allow 
extension of the Type A test interval up to one test in 15 years, based 
on acceptable performance history as defined in NEI 94-01, Revision 3-
A.
    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 test interval extensions do not involve either a 
physical change to the plant or a change in the way the plant is 
operated or controlled. The containment is designed to provide an 
essentially leak tight barrier against the uncontrolled release of 
radioactivity to the environment for postulated accidents. As such, 
the containment and the testing requirements invoked to periodically 
demonstrate the integrity of the containment exist to ensure the 
plant's ability to mitigate the consequences of an accident and do 
not involve the prevention or identification of any precursors of an 
accident.
    The change in Type A test frequency to once-per-fifteen years, 
measured as an increase to the total integrated plant risk for those 
accident sequences influenced by Type A testing, based on the 
internal events probabilistic risk analysis is 0.016 person-Roentgen 
Equivalent Man (rem) per year. In Section 3.2.4.6, ``Acceptance 
Guidelines,'' of the final safety evaluation for NEI 94-01, Revision 
2, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff concluded that for the 
purposes of assessing the risk impacts of the Type A test extension 
in accordance with the Electric Power Research Institute Report 
Number 1009325, Revision 2, methodology, a small increase in 
population dose should be defined as an increase in population dose 
of less than or equal to 1.0 person-rem per year or less than or 
equal to 1 percent of the total population dose, whichever is less 
restrictive. The risk impact for the integrated leak rate test 
interval extension when compared to other severe accident risks is 
negligible.
    As documented in the NRC technical support document NUREG-1493, 
``Performance-Based Containment Leak-Test Program,'' dated September 
1995, Type B and Type C testing can detect a very large percentage 
of containment leakages, and the percentage of containment leakages 
that can be detected only by Type A testing is very small. The DBNPS 
Type A test history supports this conclusion.
    Based on the above paragraphs, the proposed test interval 
extensions do not involve a significant increase in the probability 
of an accident previously evaluated.
    The overall containment leak rate limit is maintained with the 
proposed test interval extension changes. Since the proposed changes 
do not result in a significant increase in containment leakage, the 
changes do not involve a significant increase in the consequences of 
a previously evaluated accident.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not result in 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 containment and the testing requirements to periodically 
demonstrate the integrity of the containment exist to ensure the 
plant's ability to mitigate the consequences of an accident and do 
not involve any accident precursors or initiators. The proposed 
change does not alter the design or configuration of the plant (that 
is, no physical change will be made to the plant and no new or 
different type of equipment will be installed), nor does the 
proposed change alter the manner in which the plant is operated or 
controlled.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    This amendment does not alter the way safety limits, limiting 
safety system set points, or limiting conditions for operation are 
determined. The specific requirements and conditions of the 
Technical Specification 5.5.15, ``Containment Leakage Rate Testing 
Program,'' exist to ensure that the degree of containment structural 
integrity and leak-tightness that is considered in the plant safety 
analysis is maintained. The overall containment leak rate limit is 
maintained. The design, operation, testing methods and acceptance 
criteria for Type A and B containment leakage tests specified in 
applicable codes and standards would continue to be met, with the 
acceptance of this proposed amendment, since they are not affected 
by implementation of a performance-based containment testing 
program.
    The combination of the above factors ensures that the margin of 
safety in the plant safety analysis is maintained. 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: Rick Giannantonio, General Counsel, 
FirstEnergy Corporation, Mail Stop A-

[[Page 56482]]

GO-15, 76 South Main Street, Akron, OH 44308.
    NRC Acting Branch Chief: Lisa M. Regner.

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

    Date of amendment request: August 16, 2019. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19228A241.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment request proposes to 
depart from Tier 2 information in the Updated Final Safety Analysis 
Report (UFSAR) (that includes plant-specific Design Control Document 
Tier 2 information). Specifically, the amendment request proposes 
changes to the UFSAR reflecting changes to the evaluation of the 
auxiliary building main steam safety valve vent stack openings and the 
auxiliary building Wall 11 openings for protection from tornado-
generated missiles.
    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, that is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes do not adversely affect the operation of 
any systems or equipment inside or outside the auxiliary building 
that could initiate or mitigate abnormal events, e.g., accidents, 
anticipated operational occurrences, earthquakes, floods, tornado 
missiles, and turbine missiles, or their safety or design analyses, 
evaluated in the UFSAR. The changes do not adversely affect any 
design function of the auxiliary building or the systems and 
equipment contained therein. The ability of the affected auxiliary 
building MSIV [main steam isolation valve] compartments to withstand 
the pressurization effects from the design basis pipe rupture is not 
adversely affected because the alternate relief paths are available. 
MSIV compartment temperature following the limiting pipe rupture 
remain acceptably within the envelope for environmental 
qualification of equipment in the compartments. The credit of the 
turbine building and annex building structures, equipment, and 
components to protect Wall 11 openings from the automobile tornado 
missile continues to provide adequate protection of structures, 
systems, and components (SSCs) required to safely shut down the 
plant. Case-by-case evaluations for the main steam vent stacks and 
Wall 11 openings for tornado generated missiles demonstrate that 
safe shutdown is accomplished.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes do not change the design function of the 
auxiliary building or of any of the systems or equipment in the 
auxiliary building or elsewhere within the nuclear island structure. 
These proposed changes do not introduce any new equipment or 
components that would result in a new failure mode, malfunction or 
sequence of events that could affect safety-related or non-safety-
related equipment. This activity will not allow for a new fission 
product release path, result in a new fission product barrier 
failure mode, or create a new sequence of events that would result 
in significant fuel cladding failures.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The margin of safety of the design of the auxiliary building is 
maintained through continued use of the current codes and standards 
as stated in the UFSAR and adherence to the assumptions used in the 
analyses of this structure and the events associated with this 
structure. The auxiliary building will continue to maintain a 
seismic Category I rating which preserves the current structural 
safety margins. The 3-hour fire rating requirements for the impacted 
auxiliary building walls are maintained. The ability of the affected 
auxiliary building MSIV compartments to withstand the pressurization 
effects from the design basis pipe rupture is not adversely affected 
because the alternate relief paths are available. The credit of the 
turbine building and annex building structures, equipment, and 
components to protect Wall 11 openings from the automobile tornado 
missile continues to provide adequate protection of structures, 
systems, and components (SSCs) required to safely shut down the 
plant. Case-by-case evaluations for the main steam vent stacks and 
Wall 11 openings for tornado generated missiles demonstrate that 
safe shutdown is accomplished. Thus, the requested changes will not 
adversely affect any safety-related equipment, design code, 
function, design analysis, safety analysis input or result, or 
design/safety margin. No safety analysis or design basis acceptance 
limit/criterion is challenged or exceeded by the requested change, 
thus no margin of safety is reduced.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

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

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

    Date of amendment request: July 15, 2019. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19196A270.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the 
technical specifications to allow application of advanced Framatome 
methodologies for determining core operating limits in support of 
loading fuel type ATRIUM 11.
    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, along with NRC edits in square 
brackets:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The probability of an evaluated accident is derived from the 
probabilities of the individual precursors to that accident. The 
proposed change revises the list of NRC-approved analytical methods 
used to establish core operating limits, adjusts the low pressure SL 
[safety limit], and eliminates neutronic methods penalties on OPRM 
[Oscillation Power Range Monitor] amplitude setpoint, pin power 
distribution uncertainty, and bundle power correlation coefficient. 
The change does not require any physical plant modifications, 
physically affect any plant components, or entail changes in plant 
operation. Since no individual precursors of an accident are 
affected, the proposed amendments do not increase the probability of 
a previously analyzed event.
    The consequences of an evaluated accident are determined by the 
operability of plant systems designed to mitigate those 
consequences. The proposed change revises the list of NRC-approved 
analytical methods used to establish core operating limits, adjusts 
the low pressure SL, and eliminates neutronic methods penalties on 
OPRM amplitude setpoint, pin power distribution uncertainty, and 
bundle power correlation coefficient. The changes in methodology do 
not alter the assumptions of accident analyses. Based on the above, 
the proposed amendments do not increase the consequences of a 
previously analyzed accident.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.

[[Page 56483]]

    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    Creation of the possibility of a new or different kind of 
accident requires creating one or more new accident precursors. New 
accident precursors may be created by modifications of plant 
configuration, including changes in allowable modes of operation. 
The proposed change revises the list of NRC-approved analytical 
methods used to establish core operating limits, adjusts the low 
pressure SL, and eliminates neutronic methods penalties on OPRM 
amplitude setpoint, pin power distribution uncertainty, and bundle 
power correlation coefficient. The proposed amendments do not 
involve any plant configuration modifications or changes to 
allowable modes of operation thereby ensuring no new accident 
precursors 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 change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change revises the list of NRC-approved analytical 
methods used to establish core operating limits, adjusts the low 
pressure SL, and eliminates neutronic methods penalties on OPRM 
amplitude setpoint, pin power distribution uncertainty, and bundle 
power correlation coefficient. The proposed change will ensure that 
the current level of fuel protection is maintained by continuing to 
ensure that the fuel design safety criteria are met. The proposed 
changes will not impact the capabilities of the existing NRC-
approved CPR [Critical Power Ratio] correlations and ensure valid 
CPR calculations including applicable uncertainties for AOOs 
[Anticipated Operational Occurrence] defined in the FSAR [Final 
Safety Analysis Report]. The proposed amendment would have no impact 
on the structural integrity of the fuel cladding, reactor coolant 
pressure boundary, or containment structure. Based on the above 
considerations, the proposed amendment would not degrade the 
confidence in the ability of the fission product barriers to limit 
the level of radiation to 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: Damon D. Obie, Associate General Counsel, 
Talen Energy Supply, LLC, 835 Hamilton St., Suite 150, Allentown, PA 
18101.
    NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna.

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

    Date of amendment request: July 15, 2019. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19196A270.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the 
technical specification definition of ``Shutdown Margin'' (SDM) to 
require calculation of the SDM at a reactor moderator temperature of 68 
degrees Fahrenheit or a higher temperature that represents the most 
reactive state throughout the operating cycle. The proposed changes are 
based on Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-535, 
Revision 0, ``Revise Shutdown Margin Definition to Address Advanced 
Fuel Designs.''
    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, along with NRC edits in square 
brackets:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change revises the definition of SDM. SDM is not an 
initiator of any accident previously evaluated. Accordingly, the 
proposed change to the definition of SDM has no effect on the 
probability of any accident previously evaluated. SDM is an 
assumption in the analysis of some previously evaluated accidents 
and inadequate SDM could lead to an increase in the consequences for 
those accidents. However, the proposed change revises the SDM 
definition to ensure that the correct SDM is determined for all fuel 
types at all times during the fuel cycle. As a result, the proposed 
change does not adversely affect the consequences of any accident 
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 change revises the definition of SDM. The change 
does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or 
different type of equipment will be installed) or a change in the 
methods governing normal plant operations. The change does not alter 
the assumptions made in the safety analysis regarding SDM.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change revises the definition of SDM. The proposed 
change does not alter the manner in which SLs [safety limits], 
limiting safety system settings or limiting conditions for operation 
are determined. The proposed change ensures that the SDM assumed in 
determining SLs, limiting safety system settings, or limiting 
conditions for operation is correct for all BWR [Boiling Water 
Reactor] fuel types at all times during the fuel cycle.
    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: Damon D. Obie, Associate General Counsel, 
Talen Energy Supply, LLC, 835 Hamilton St., Suite 150, Allentown, PA 
18101.
    NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna.

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

    Date of amendment request: August 29, 2019. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19247C062.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise 
Technical Specification (TS) 3.7.5, ``Auxiliary Feedwater (AFW) 
System,'' to add additional conditions to the limiting conditions for 
operation such that one supply of essential service water (ESW) to the 
turbine-driven AFW (TDAFW) pump can be inoperable for up to 72 hours 
while still considering the TDAFW pump train operable.
    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 allows the TDAFW pump to remain operable for 
up to 72 hours with one ESW supply isolated. This is consistent with 
the allowed outage time for one AFW train being inoperable, and for 
one train of ESW being inoperable. These systems are not accident 
initiators (i.e., their malfunction cannot initiate an accident or 
transient). As there are no modifications to

[[Page 56484]]

the plant or change in plant control systems, this change would not 
significantly increase accident probability. Since the change is 
consistent with existing allowed outage times of either one AFW 
train or one ESW train, the consequences of a secondary system pipe 
break accident are bounded by the current analyses as documented in 
the Updated Safety Analysis Report. As a result, the proposed change 
does not alter assumptions relative to the mitigation of an accident 
or transient event.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change allows the TDAFW pump to remain operable for 
up to 72 hours with one ESW supply isolated. This is consistent with 
the allowed outage time for one AFW train being inoperable, and for 
one train of ESW being inoperable. With respect to any new or 
different kind of accident, there are no proposed design changes nor 
are there any changes in the method by which any safety-related 
plant structures, systems, or components performs their specified 
safety function. The proposed change will not affect the normal 
method of plant operation or change any operating parameters. No new 
accident scenarios, transient precursors, failure mechanisms, or 
limiting single failures will be introduced as a result of this 
amendment.
    Therefore, the proposed change will not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in the margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change allows the TDAFW pump to remain operable for 
up to 72 hours with one ESW supply isolated. This is consistent with 
the. allowed outage time for AFW train being inoperable, and for one 
train of ESW being inoperable. The proposed change does not 
adversely affect any current plant safety margins, or the 
reliability of the equipment assumed in the safety analysis. 
Therefore, there are no changes being made to any safety analysis 
assumptions, safety limits or limiting safety system settings that 
would adversely affect plant safety as a result of the proposed 
change.
    Therefore, the proposed change does 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: Jay Silberg, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw 
Pittman LLP, 1200 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20036.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.

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

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

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

    Date of amendment request: February 12, 2018, as supplemented by 
letters dated August 8, 2018, and August 23, 2018.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the Duke 
Energy Physical Security Plan for Oconee Nuclear Station to include 
additional protective measures during a specific infrequent short-term 
operating state, including a modification that provides additional 
access restriction.
    Date of issuance: September 30, 2019.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 1 year of receipt of all external agency approvals.
    Amendment Nos.: 414 (Unit 1), 416 (Unit 2), and 415 (Unit 3). A 
publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19056A086; 
documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety 
Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
    Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-38, DPR-47, and DPR-55: The 
amendments revised the Duke Energy Physical Security Plan.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 2, 2018 (83 FR 
49590). The supplemental letter dated August 23, 2018, provided 
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand 
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change 
the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination as published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment and public 
comments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated September 30, 2019.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: Yes.

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

    Date of amendment request: April 5, 2018, as supplemented by 
letters dated June 6, 2018, November 13, 2018, and May 6, 2019.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment added a new license 
condition to the renewed facility operating license to permit the 
implementation of 10 CFR 50.69, ``Risk-informed categorization and 
treatment of structures, systems and components for nuclear power 
reactors.''
    Date of issuance: September 24, 2019.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 266. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML19205A289; 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.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 5, 2018 (83 FR 
26101).

[[Page 56485]]

The supplemental letters dated June 6, 2018, November 13, 2018, and May 
6, 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 September 24, 2019.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: August 14, 2018, as supplemented by 
letters dated February 8, 2019, and May 16, 2019.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments adopted Technical 
Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-439, ``Eliminate Second 
Completion Times Limiting Time from Discovery of Failure to Meet an LCO 
[Limiting Condition for Operation].'' The change deleted second 
completion times from the affected required actions contained in the 
technical specifications (TSs), removed the example contained in TS 
Section 1.3, and added a discussion about alternating between 
conditions.
    Date of issuance: September 23, 2019.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 120 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 293 (Unit 1) and 321 (Unit 2). A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19233A073; documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with 
the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-71 and DPR-62: The 
amendments revised the renewed facility operating licenses and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 9, 2018 (83 FR 
50695). The letters dated February 8 and May 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 amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 23, 2019.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: December 19, 2018, as supplemented by 
letter dated June 18, 2019.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Arkansas 
Nuclear One, Unit 1, technical specifications (TSs) to adopt Technical 
Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-567, Revision 1, ``Add 
Containment Sump TS to Address GSI [Generic Safety Issue]-191 Issues.''
    Date of issuance: September 27, 2019.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 266. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML19220A938; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-51: Amendment revised 
the renewed facility operating license and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 26, 2019 (84 
FR 6179). The supplemental letter dated June 18, 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 September 27, 2019.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-461, Clinton Power 
Station, Unit No. 1, DeWitt County, Illinois

    Date of amendment request: September 28, 2018.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment changed technical 
specifications (TSs) to be consistent with NRC-approved Industry 
Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Standard Technical 
Specification Change Traveler, TSTF-476, Revision 1. The availability 
of this TS improvement was announced in the Federal Register on May 23, 
2007 (72 FR 29004).
    Date of issuance: September 30, 2019.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 226. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML19238A308. Documents related to the amendment are 
listed in the related Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-62: The amendment revised the 
license and the TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 20, 2018 (83 
FR 58611).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 30, 2019.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353, Limerick 
Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania

    Date of amendment request: October 19, 2018.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the 
Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, technical specification 
(TS) requirements for inoperable isolation actuation instrumentation to 
allow for isolation of the flow path(s) that penetrate the primary 
containment boundary instead of requiring closure of specific primary 
containment isolation valves. The amendments also clarified the TS 
action for inoperable isolation actuation instrumentation for the 
reactor enclosure manual isolation function.
    Date of issuance: October 3, 2019.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days.
    Amendment Nos.: 237 (Unit 1) and 200 (Unit 2). A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19207A006; documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with 
the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-39 and NPF-85: The 
amendments revised the renewed facility operating licenses and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 18, 2018 (83 
FR 64893).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated October 3, 2019.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

[[Page 56486]]

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

    Date of amendment request: May 10, 2019.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments consist of changes 
to the plant-specific emergency planning (EP) Inspections, Tests, 
Analyses, and Acceptance Criteria (ITAAC) in Appendix C of the VEGP 
Units 3 and 4 combined licenses (COLs). The amendments revised COL 
Appendix C of the VEGP Units 3 and 4 COLs, by deleting redundant plant-
specific EP ITAAC that were either bounded by other ITAAC or were 
redundant to document submittal regulatory requirements.
    Date of issuance: September 5, 2019.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 163 (Unit 3) and 161 (Unit 4). A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Package Accession No. ML19213A288; documents 
related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation 
enclosed with the amendments.
    Facility Combined Licenses Nos. NPF-91 and NPF-92: The amendments 
revised the facility COLs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 2, 2019 (84 FR 
31629).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 5, 2019.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day of October, 2019.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Craig G. Erlanger,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2019-22720 Filed 10-21-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P