Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations, 63894-63905 [2019-24748]

Agencies

• NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 223 (Tuesday, November 19, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63894-63905]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-24748]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2019-0227]


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 October 22, 2019, to November 4, 2019. The 
last biweekly notice was published on November 5, 2019.

DATES: Comments must be filed by December 19, 2019. A request for a 
hearing must be filed by January 21, 2020.

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-2019-0227. 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(s) 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-2019-0227, 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-2019-0227.
     NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-

[[Page 63895]]

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-2019-0227, 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 NRC is publishing this regular biweekly notice. 
The Act requires the Commission to publish notice of any amendments 
issued, or proposed to be issued, and grants the Commission the 
authority to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an 
operating license or combined license, as applicable, upon a 
determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no 
significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before 
the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person.

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

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

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 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

[[Page 63896]]

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). 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

[[Page 63897]]

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.

Arizona Public Service Company, et al., Docket Nos. STN 50-528, STN 50-
529, STN 50-530, and STN 72-44, Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, 
Units 1, 2, and 3 (Palo Verde, PVNGS), and Palo Verde Independent Spent 
Fuel Storage Installation, Maricopa County, Arizona

    Date of amendment request: October 18, 2019. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19291F735.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise 
certain Emergency Response Organization (ERO) positions in the Palo 
Verde Emergency Plan. Specifically, the proposed changes would revise 
certain ERO positions in accordance with guidance specified in the 
``Alternative Guidance for Licensee Emergency Response Organizations,'' 
finalized in a letter from the NRC to the Nuclear Energy Institute, 
dated June 12, 2018 (ADAMS Accession No. ML18022A352).
    The proposed changes would also relocate the non-minimum staff ERO 
personnel from the Palo Verde Emergency Plan to emergency preparedness 
implementing procedures.
    The proposed changes have been reviewed considering the 
requirements of 10 CFR 50.47, ``Emergency Plans,'' paragraph (b); 10 
CFR 50 Appendix E, ``Emergency Planning and Preparedness for Production 
and Utilization Facilities''; and other applicable emergency 
preparedness NRC guidance documents. These regulations establish 
emergency planning standards that require (1) adequate staffing, (2) 
satisfactory performance of key functional areas and critical tasks, 
and (3) timely augmentation of the response capability.
    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 PVNGS Emergency Plan do not increase 
the probability or consequences of an accident. The proposed changes 
do not impact the function of plant Structures, Systems, or 
Components (SSCs). The proposed changes do not affect accident 
initiators or accident precursors, nor do the changes alter design 
assumptions. The proposed changes do not alter or prevent the 
ability of the onsite ERO to perform their intended functions to 
mitigate the consequences of an accident or event.
    Therefore, the proposed changes to the PVNGS Emergency Plan do 
not involve a significant increase in the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes have no impact on the design, function, or 
operation of any plant SSCs. The proposed changes do not affect 
plant equipment or accident analyses. The proposed changes do not 
involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or 
different type of equipment will be installed), a change in the 
method of plant operation, or new operator actions. The proposed 
changes do not introduce failure modes that could result in a new 
accident, and the proposed changes do not alter assumptions made in 
the safety analysis.
    Therefore, the proposed changes to the PVNGS Emergency Plan do 
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.
    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 do not adversely affect existing plant 
safety margins or the reliability of the equipment assumed to 
operate in the safety analyses. 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 changes. Margins of safety are unaffected by the 
proposed changes to the ERO staffing.
    The proposed changes are associated with the PVNGS Emergency 
Plan staffing and do not impact operation of the plant or its 
response to transients or accidents. The proposed changes do 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 these proposed changes. The 
proposed changes to the Emergency Plan will continue to provide the 
necessary on-site ERO response staff.
    Therefore, the proposed changes to the PVNGS Emergency Plan do 
not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
that review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
request

[[Page 63898]]

for amendments involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Michael G. Green, Associate General Counsel, 
Nuclear and Environmental, Pinnacle West Capital Corporation, P.O. Box 
52034, Mail Station 7602, Phoenix, AZ 85072-2034.
    NRC Branch Chief: Jennifer L. Dixon-Herrity.

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: June 4, 2019, as supplemented by letter 
dated October 24, 2019. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS under 
Accession Nos. ML19155A037, and ML19299A010, respectively.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
revise the H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit No. 2, Technical 
Specifications (TSs) relating to alternating current (AC) surveillance 
requirements (SRs).
    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 TS 3.8.2, SR 3.8.2.1 to reflect that 
HBRSEP [H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant] SR 3.8.1.18 is not 
required to be met in the TS 3.8.2 Applicability (i.e., Modes 5 and 
6 and during movement of irradiated fuel assemblies). The proposed 
change modifies the SR 3.8.2.1 to be consistent with NUREG-1431. The 
AC power systems are not an initiator of any accident previously 
evaluated. As a result, the probability of an accident previously 
evaluated is not increased. The consequences of an accident with the 
proposed SR 3.8.2.1 listing HBRSEP SR 3.8.1.18 as an exception are 
no different than the consequences of an accident in Modes 5 or 6 or 
during the movement of irradiated fuel assemblies with the existing 
SR 3.8.2.1 that requires SR 3.8.1.18 to be met.
    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 TS 3.8.2, SR 3.8.2.1 to reflect that 
HBRSEP SR 3.8.1.18 is not required to be met in the TS 3.8.2 
Applicability (i.e., Modes 5 and 6 and during movement of irradiated 
fuel assemblies). The proposed change modifies the SR 3.8.2.1 to be 
consistent with NUREG-1431. Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) 
3.8.2 ensures that in the event of an accident during shutdown, 
sufficient capability exists to support systems necessary to 
mitigate the event and maintain the unit in the shutdown or 
refueling condition for an extended period, assuming either a loss 
of all offsite power or a loss of all onsite diesel generator power. 
SR 3.8.2.1 helps ensure that LCO 3.8.2 is met but SR 3.8.2.1 does 
not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident 
from any accident previously evaluated. Thus, not requiring SR 
3.8.1.18 to be met in the TS 3.8.2 Applicability does not alter that 
fact. The proposed change also does not alter the design, physical 
configuration or mode of operation of any plant structure, system or 
component. No physical changes are being made to any portion of the 
plant, so no new accident causal mechanisms are being introduced. 
The proposed change also does not result in any new mechanisms that 
could initiate damage to the reactor or its principal safety 
barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, reactor coolant system or primary 
containment).
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change revises TS 3.8.2, SR 3.8.2.1 to reflect that 
HBRSEP SR 3.8.1.18 is not required to be met in the TS 3.8.2 
Applicability (i.e., Modes 5 and 6 and during movement of irradiated 
fuel assemblies). The proposed change modifies the SR 3.8.2.1 to be 
consistent with NUREG-1431. Only one offsite circuit is required to 
be Operable by LCO 3.8.2 and SR 3.8.2.1 will continue to ensure that 
the LCO is met. With the proposed change, adequate AC power 
continues to be provided to mitigate events postulated during 
shutdown, such as a fuel handling accident. Furthermore, the 
proposed change does not alter any design basis or safety limit 
established in the UFSAR [Updated Final Safety Analysis Report] or 
license.
    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, DEC45A, Charlotte NC 
28202.
    NRC Branch Chief: Undine Shoop.

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

    Date of amendment request: September 12, 2019. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19255K007.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would adopt 
Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-529, ``Clarify 
Use and Application Rules,'' which would revise the Technical 
Specification (TS) requirements in Section 1.3 and Section 3.0 
regarding Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) and Surveillance 
Requirement (SR) usage.
    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 to [TS] Section 1.3 [``Completion Times''] 
and LCO 3.0.4 have no effect on the requirement for systems to be 
Operable and have no effect on the application of TS actions. The 
proposed change to SR 3.0.3 states that the allowance may only be 
used when there is a reasonable expectation the surveillance will be 
met when performed. Since the proposed changes do not significantly 
affect system Operability, they will have no significant effect on 
the initiating events for accidents previously evaluated and will 
have no significant effect on the ability of the systems to mitigate 
accidents previously evaluated.
    Therefore, it is concluded that the changes do not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change to the TS usage rules do not affect the 
design or function of any plant systems. The proposed change does 
not change the Operability requirements for plant systems or the 
actions taken when plant systems are not operable.
    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 change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change clarifies the application of Section 1.3 and 
LCO 3.0.4 and does not result in changes in plant operation. SR 
3.0.3 is revised to allow application of SR 3.0.3 when an SR has not 
been previously performed and there is reasonable expectation that 
the SR will be met when performed. This expands the use of SR 3.0.3 
while ensuring the affected system is capable of performing its 
safety function. As a result, plant safety is either improved or 
unaffected.
    Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not involve a 
significant reduction in a margin of safety.


[[Page 63899]]


    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: William A. Horin, Esq., Winston & Strawn, 
1700 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20006-3817.
    NRC Branch Chief: Jennifer L. Dixon-Herrity.

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

    Date of amendment request: August 8, 2019. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19220A043.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would approve the 
adoption of the alternative source term (AST), in accordance with 10 
CFR 50.67, for use in calculating the loss-of-coolant accident dose 
consequences at James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant.
    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 implementation of AST assumptions has been evaluated in 
revisions to the analysis of the loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA).
    Based upon the results of these analysis, it has been 
demonstrated that, with the requested changes, the dose consequences 
of this limiting event are within the regulatory requirements and 
guidance provided by the NRC for use with the AST. The regulatory 
requirements and guidance is presented in 10 CFR 50.67, ``Accident 
source term,'' and associated NRC Regulatory Guide 1.183 and 
Standard Review Plan Section 15.0.1. The AST is an input to 
calculations used to evaluate the consequences of an accident, and 
does not, by itself, affect the plant response, or the actual 
pathway of the radiation released from the fuel. It does, however, 
better represent the physical characteristics of the release, so 
that appropriate mitigation techniques may be applied.
    The proposed changes are also consistent with the guidance of 
Technical Specifications Task Force Traveler (TSTF) 551, ``Revise 
Secondary Containment Surveillance Requirements,'' Revision 3, which 
was approved by the NRC on September 21, 2017.
    The equipment affected by the proposed change is mitigative in 
nature and relied upon after an accident has been initiated. 
Application of the AST does not involve any physical changes to the 
plant design and is not an initiator of an accident. Removal of the 
MSLC [Main Steam Leakage Collection] system is not required by the 
four criteria specified in 10 CFR 50.36. As a result, the proposed 
changes do not affect any of the parameters or conditions that could 
contribute to the initiation of any accidents. As such, removal of 
operability requirements during the specified conditions will not 
significantly increase the probability of occurrence for an accident 
previously analyzed. Since design basis accident initiators are not 
being altered by adoption of the AST analyses, the probability of an 
accident previously evaluated is not affected. Also, the 
consequences of previously evaluated accidents remain within the 
regulatory limits.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of 
the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be 
installed and there are no physical modifications to existing 
equipment associated with the proposed change). The proposed 
changes, effectively increasing the allowable main steam isolation 
valve (MSIV) leakage and crediting the Standby Liquid Control (SLC) 
system for LOCA mitigation do not create initiators or precursors of 
a new or different kind of accident. Similarly, it does not 
physically change any structures, systems, or components involved in 
the mitigation of any accidents. Thus, no new initiators or 
precursors of a new or different kind of accident are created.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do 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.
    Safety margins and analytical conservatisms have been evaluated 
and have been found acceptable. The analyzed event has been 
carefully selected and margin has been retained to ensure that the 
analysis adequately bounds postulated event scenarios. The dose 
consequences due to design basis accidents comply with the 
requirements of 10 CFR 50.67 and the guidance of Regulatory Guide 
1.183.
    The proposed change is associated with the implementation of a 
new licensing basis for JAFNPP design basis accidents. Approval of 
the change from the original source term to a new source term taken 
from Regulatory Guide 1.183 is being requested. The results of the 
accident analysis, revised in support of the proposed license 
amendment, are subject to revised acceptance criteria. The analysis 
has been performed using conservative methodologies, as specified in 
Regulatory Guide 1.183. Safety margins have been evaluated and 
analytical conservatism has been utilized to ensure that the 
analysis adequately bounds the postulated limiting event scenario. 
The dose consequences of this design basis accident remain within 
the acceptance criteria presented in 10 CFR 50.67 and Regulatory 
Guide 1.183.
    The proposed change continues to ensure that the doses at the 
exclusion area boundary and low population zone boundary, as well as 
the Control Room, are within corresponding regulatory limits.
    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: Donald P. Ferraro, Assistant General 
Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 200 Exelon Way, Suite 305, 
Kennett Square, PA 19348.
    NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna.

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: September 26, 2019. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19269C622.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise 
Technical Specification requirements for inoperable dynamic restraints 
(snubbers) consistent with NRC-approved Revision 4 to Technical 
Specification Task Force (TSTF) Standard Technical Specification Change 
Traveler, TSTF-372, ``Addition of LCO 3.0.8, Inoperability of 
Snubbers.''
    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 allows a delay time before declaring 
supported Technical Specification (TS) systems inoperable when the 
associated snubber(s) cannot perform its required safety function. 
Entrance into Actions or delaying entrance into Actions is

[[Page 63900]]

not an initiator of any accident previously evaluated. Consequently, 
the probability of an accident previously evaluated is not 
significantly increased. The consequences of an accident while 
relying on the delay time allowed before declaring a TS supported 
system inoperable and taking its Actions are no different than the 
consequences of an accident under the same plant conditions while 
relying on the existing TS supported system Actions. Therefore, the 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated are not 
significantly increased by this 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 change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change allows a delay time before declaring 
supported TS systems inoperable when the associated snubber(s) 
cannot perform its required safety function. The proposed change 
does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (no new or 
different type of equipment will be installed) or a change in the 
methods governing normal plant operation. Therefore, the proposed 
change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of 
accident from any accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change allows a delay time before declaring 
supported TS Systems inoperable when the associated snubber(s) 
cannot perform its required safety function. The proposed change 
restores an allowance in the pre-Improved Standard Technical 
Specifications (ISTS) conversion TS that was unintentionally 
eliminated by the conversion. The pre-ISTS TS were considered to 
provide an adequate margin of safety for plant operation, as does 
post-ISTS conversion TS. 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: Donald P. Ferraro, Assistant General 
Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 200 Exelon Way, Suite 305, 
Kennett Square, PA 19348.
    NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Docket No. 52-026, Vogtle Electric 
Generating Plant (Vogtle or VEGP), Unit 4, Burke County, Georgia

    Date of amendment request: August 22, 2019, as revised by letter 
dated October 25, 2019. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession Nos. ML19234A327 and ML19298D420, respectively.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the 
provided area of horizontal and vertical steel reinforcement for Vogtle 
Unit 4 Wall L from elevation 117'-6'' to 135'-3'', and would revise the 
provided area of horizontal steel reinforcement for VEGP Unit 4 Wall 
7.3 from elevation 117'-6'' to 135'-3''. The proposed changes would 
impact Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) Tier 2* information 
in UFSAR Tables 3H.5-5 and 3H.5-7, and Figures 3H.5-4 and 3H.5-12. The 
licensee's request dated August 22, 2019, was originally noticed in the 
Federal Register on September 24, 2019 (84 FR 50082). The licensee's 
supplement dated October 25, 2019, provided information regarding an 
additional non-conformance identified for Wall L that would require 
changes to Tier 2* information in the UFSAR to revise the provided area 
of vertical reinforcement. This expanded the scope of the request 
described in the original notice. Therefore, the notice is being 
reissued in its entirety to include the revised scope, description of 
the amendment request, and proposed no significant hazards 
consideration determination.
    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.
    As described in UFSAR Subsections 3H.5.1.2 and 3H.5.1.3, 
interior Wall 7.3 and Wall L are located in the auxiliary building. 
UFSAR, Section 3H.5 classifies Interior Wall on Column Line 7.3, 
from elevation (EL) 66'-6'' to 160'-6'' as a ``Critical Section.'' 
UFSAR, Section 3H.5 classifies Interior Wall on Column Line L, from 
EL 117'-6'' to 153'-0'' as a ``Critical Section.'' Deviations were 
identified in the constructed walls from the design requirements. 
The proposed changes modify the provided area of steel reinforcement 
for VEGP Unit 4 Wall L and Wall 7.3 from elevation 117'-6'' to 135'-
3''. These changes maintain conformance to American Concrete 
Institute (ACI) 349-01 and have no adverse impact on the seismic 
response of Wall L and Wall 7.3 Wall L and Wall 7.3 continue to 
withstand the design basis loads without loss of structural 
integrity or the safety-related functions. The proposed changes do 
not affect the operation of any system or equipment that initiates 
an analyzed accident or alter any structures, systems, and 
components (SSC) accident initiator or initiating sequence of 
events.
    This change does not adversely affect the design function of 
VEGP Unit 4 Wall L and Wall 7.3, or the SSCs contained within the 
auxiliary building. This change does not involve any accident 
initiating components or events, thus leaving the probabilities of 
an accident unaltered.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of a previously 
evaluated accident.
    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 modifies the provided area of steel 
reinforcement for VEGP Unit 4 Wall L and Wall 7.3 from elevation 
117'-6'' to 135'-3''. As demonstrated by the continued conformance 
to the applicable codes and standards governing the design of the 
structures, the walls withstand the same effects as previously 
evaluated. The proposed change does not affect the operation of any 
systems or equipment that may initiate a new of different kind of 
accident or alter any SSC such that a new accident initiator or 
initiating sequence of events is created. The proposed change does 
not adversely affect the design function of auxiliary building Wall 
L and Wall 7.3, or any other SSC design functions or methods of 
operation in a manner that results in a new failure mode, 
malfunction, or sequence of events that affect safety-related or 
non-safety-related equipment. This change does not allow for a new 
fission product release path, result in a new fission product 
barrier failure mode, or create a new sequence of events that 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 proposed change modifies the provided area of steel 
reinforcement for VEGP Unit 4 Wall L and Wall 7.3 from elevation 
117'-6'' to 135'-3''. This change maintains conformance to ACI 349-
01. The changes to Wall L and Wall 7.3 reinforcement from elevation 
117'-6'' to 135'-3'' do not change the performance of the affected 
portion of the auxiliary building for postulated loads. The criteria 
and requirements of ACI 349-01 provide a margin of safety to 
structural failure. The design of the auxiliary building structure 
conforms to criteria and requirements in ACI 349-01 and therefore, 
maintains the margin of safety. The change does not alter any design 
function, design analysis, or safety analysis input or result, and 
sufficient margin exists to justify departure from the Tier 2* 
requirements for the walls. As such, because the system continues to 
respond to design basis accidents in the same manner as before 
without any changes to the expected response of the structure, no 
safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is 
challenged or exceeded by the proposed changes. Accordingly, no 
significant safety margin is reduced by the change.

[[Page 63901]]

    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: Victor E. Hall.

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-259, 50-260, and 50-296, 
Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2 and 3, Limestone County, Alabama

    Date of amendment request: September 18, 2019. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19262F378.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would 
revise the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3, Emergency 
Plan to extend staff augmentation times for Emergency Response 
Organization functions.
    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 increase in staff augmentation times has no effect 
on normal plant operation or on any accident initiator or precursors 
and does not impact the function of plant structures, systems, or 
components (SSCs). The proposed change does not alter or prevent the 
ability of the Emergency Response Organization to perform their 
intended functions to mitigate the consequences of an accident or 
event. The ability of the emergency response organization to respond 
adequately to radiological emergencies has been demonstrated as 
acceptable through a staffing analysis as required by 10 CFR 50 
Appendix E.IV.A.9.
    Therefore, the proposed Emergency Plan 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 change does not impact the accident analysis. The 
change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no 
new or different type of equipment will be installed), a change in 
the method of plant operation, or new operator actions. The proposed 
change does not introduce failure modes that could result in a new 
accident, and the change does not alter assumptions made in the 
safety analysis. This proposed change increases the staff 
augmentation response times in the Emergency Plan, which are 
demonstrated as acceptable through a staffing analysis as required 
by 10 CFR 50 Appendix E.IV.A.9. The proposed change does not alter 
or prevent the ability of the Emergency Response Organization to 
perform their intended functions to mitigate the consequences of an 
accident or event.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    Margin of safety is associated with confidence in the ability of 
the fission product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, reactor coolant 
system pressure boundary, and containment structure) to limit the 
level of radiation dose to the public. The proposed change is 
associated with the Emergency Plan staffing and does not impact 
operation of the plant or its response to transients or accidents. 
The change does not affect the Technical Specifications. The 
proposed change does not involve a change in the method of plant 
operation, and no accident analyses will be affected by the proposed 
change. Safety analysis acceptance criteria are not affected by this 
proposed change. The revised Emergency Plan will continue to provide 
the necessary response staff with the proposed change. A staffing 
analysis and a functional analysis were performed for the proposed 
change on the timeliness of performing major tasks for the 
functional areas of Emergency Plan. The analysis concluded that an 
extension in staff augmentation times would not significantly affect 
the ability to perform the required Emergency Plan tasks. Therefore, 
the proposed change is determined to not adversely affect the 
ability to meet 10 CFR 50.54(q)(2), the requirements of 10 CFR 50 
Appendix E, and the emergency planning standards as described in 10 
CFR 50.47(b).
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

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

Virginia Electric and Power Company (Dominion Energy Virginia)--
Virginia, Docket Nos. 50-280 and 50-281, Surry Power Station, Unit Nos. 
1 and 2, Surry County, Virginia

    Date of amendment request: September 19, 2019. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19269B775.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise 
Technical Specifications (TSs) for the Surry Power Station (Surry), 
Units 1 and 2. The proposed change would revise TS Figure 3.1-1, 
``Surry Units 1 and 2 Reactor Coolant System Heatup Limitations,'' and 
Figure 3.1-2, ``Surry Units 1 and 2 Reactor Coolant System Cooldown 
Limitations,'' to update the cumulative core burnup applicability limit 
and to revise and relocate the limiting material property basis from 
the TS figures to the TS Bases. The proposed changes would be 
implemented as a result of evaluations performed for the Surry 
subsequent license renewal application.
    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 Surry Units 1 and 2 TS RCS 
[Reactor Coolant System] Heatup and Cooldown Limitations figures to 
reflect an increase in the cumulative core burnup applicability 
limit to 68 EFPY [Effective Full Power Years]. The existing Surry TS 
RCS P-T Limits, LTOPS [Low Temperature Overpressure Protection 
System] Setpoint, and T-enable value remain valid and conservative 
for cumulative core burnup up to 68 EFPY, thus increasing the 
cumulative core burnup applicability limit for RCS P-T Limits, LTOPS 
Setpoints and LTOPS T-enable to 68 EFPY has no bearing on the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 
These evaluations address the LTOPS design basis mass addition 
accident (inadvertent charging pump start), heat addition accident 
(Reactor Coolant Pump (RCP) start with a secondary-to-primary 
temperature difference of 50 [deg]F) and Pressurized Thermal Shock 
(PTS) events, the analysis of which is covered by 10 CFR 50.61.
    The increased cumulative core burnup applicability is 
accomplished through application of improved analytical margins 
using the Klc reference stress intensity factor, instead 
of the older, more conservative Kla reference stress 
intensity factor. Dominion Energy Virginia assessed the effect of 
use of the analytical margins and determined that the existing TS 
limits (RCS P-T Limits,

[[Page 63902]]

LTOPS Setpoints and LTOPS T-enable) governing reactor vessel 
integrity remain valid and conservative for cumulative core burnup 
to 68 EFPY. No changes to plant systems, structures or components 
are proposed, and no new operating modes are established.
    Therefore, there is no increase in the probability or 
consequences of any accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the [proposed] change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    No changes to plant operating conditions, operating limits or 
setpoints are being proposed and no changes to plant systems, 
structures or components are being implemented. The existing Surry 
TS RCS P-T Limits, LTOPS Setpoints, and LTOPS T-enable value remain 
valid and conservative for cumulative core burnups up to 68 EFPY. 
Analysis supporting the increased cumulative core burnup 
applicability limit was performed in accordance with applicable 
regulatory guidance and confirms that design functions (i.e., 
ensuring that combined pressure and thermal stresses under normal 
operating heatup and cooldown conditions and under design basis 
accident conditions at low temperature) are maintained.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of any accident or malfunction of a different type previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The increased cumulative core burnup applicability limit is 
accomplished through application of improved analytical margins 
provided by using the Klc reference stress intensity 
factor, instead of the older, more conservative Kla 
reference stress intensity factor. Dominion Energy Virginia assessed 
the effect of the use of the analytical margins and determined that 
the existing TS P-T Limits, LTOPS Setpoint, and LTOPS T-enable value 
governing reactor vessel integrity remain valid and conservative for 
cumulative core burnups up to 68 EFPY. No Changes to plant systems, 
structures or components are proposed, and no new operating modes 
are established. Furthermore, plant operating limits and setpoints 
are not being changed. Consequently, the TS P-T Limits, LTOPS 
Setpoint, and LTOPS T-enable value provide acceptable margin to 
vessel fracture under both normal operation and LTOPS design basis 
(mass addition and heat addition) accident conditions for cumulative 
core burnups up to 68 EFPY.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not result in 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: W.S. Blair, Senior Counsel, Dominion Energy 
Services Inc., 120 Tredegar St., RS-2, Richmond, VA 23219.
    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 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: September 14, 2018, as supplemented by 
letters dated January 24, 2019, and July 31, 2019.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the Updated 
Final Safety Analysis Report regarding tornado licensing basis to allow 
credit for the Standby Shutdown Facility to mitigate a tornado with the 
assumed initial conditions of loss of all alternating current power to 
all units with significant tornado damage to one unit, approval for the 
use of tornado missile probabilistic methodology, and approval for 
elimination of the spent fuel pool to high pressure injection flow path 
for reactor coolant makeup.
    Date of issuance: October 31, 2019.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
by the completion of the following refueling outages: 1EC33 (Fall 2024) 
for Unit 1, 2EC32 (Fall 2025) for Unit 2, and 3EC33 (Spring 2026) for 
Unit 3.
    Amendment Nos.: 415 (Unit 1), 417 (Unit 2), and 416 (Unit 3). A 
publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19260E084; 
documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety 
Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
    Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-38, DPR-47, and DPR-55: The 
amendments revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Updated Final 
Safety Analysis Report.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 2, 2019 (84 FR 
12641). The supplemental letter dated July 31, 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 October 31, 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 30, 2018.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments added new required 
actions and completion times for three inoperable control room air 
conditioning subsystems to Technical Specification 3.7.4, ``Control 
Room Air Conditioning (AC) System.''
    Date of issuance: October 25, 2019.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 120 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 294 (Unit 1) and 322 (Unit 2). A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession

[[Page 63903]]

No. ML19254E076; 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 
Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 6, 2018 (83 FR 
55571).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated October 25, 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: October 18, 2018, as supplemented by 
letter dated April 3, 2019.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the 
allowable value associated with Function 1.b (i.e., 4.16 kV Emergency 
Bus Undervoltage (Loss of Voltage)--Time Delay) in Table 3.3.8.1-1, 
``Loss of Power Instrumentation,'' of Technical Specification 3.3.8.1.
    Date of issuance: October 31, 2019.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
prior to the end of the 2023 Unit 2 refueling outage.
    Amendment Nos.: 295 (Unit 1) and 323 (Unit 2). A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19268A054; 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 
Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 31, 2019 (84 FR 
811). The letter dated April 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 October 31, 2019.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-313 and 50-368, Arkansas 
Nuclear One, Units 1 and 2, Pope County, Arkansas

    Date of amendment request: September 5, 2019.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendments extended the 
implementation dates for Amendment Nos. 263 and 314, ``Revision to the 
Emergency Action Level Scheme,'' which were issued on January 17, 2019, 
for Arkansas Nuclear One, Units 1 and 2, respectively. Amendment Nos. 
263 and 314 were effective on the date of issuance (i.e., January 17, 
2019) and were required to be implemented on or before October 30, 
2019. Amendment Nos. 267 and 317 for Arkansas Nuclear One, Units 1 and 
2, respectively, extend the implementation dates from October 30, 2019, 
to January 14, 2020.
    Date of issuance: October 22, 2019.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
by January 14, 2020.
    Amendment Nos.: 267 (Unit 1) and 317 (Unit 2). A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19269B672; documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with 
the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-51 and NPF-6: The 
amendments revised the Emergency Plan.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 19, 2019 (84 
FR 49349).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments and final 
determination of no significant hazards consideration is contained in a 
Safety Evaluation dated October 22, 2019.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: April 12, 2018, as supplemented by 
letters dated June 13, 2018; January 19, 2019; and July 11, 2019.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment approved the use of 
the TRANFLOW code for determining pressure drops across the steam 
generator secondary side internal components.
    Date of issuance: October 24, 2019.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
30 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 256. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML19275D438; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-38: The amendment 
revised the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 4, 2018 (83 
FR 44919). The supplements dated January 19, 2019, and July 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 amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated October 24, 2019.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: April 26, 2019, as supplemented by 
letters dated May 23, 2019, and July 24, 2019.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the Peach 
Bottom, Units 2 and 3, Technical Specifications (TSs) to support a 
temporary one-time extension of the completion time for TS 3.8.1, ``AC 
Power--Operating,'' Required Action A.3, from 7 days to 21 days. This 
temporary one-time TS change was needed to allow sufficient time to 
perform physical modification work to replace 27 electrical cables from 
the transformer to the junction box serving the feed switchgear.
    Date of issuance: October 29, 2019.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance.
    Amendments Nos.: 328 (Unit 2) and 331 (Unit 3). A publicly-
available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19266A622; 
documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety 
Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-44 and DPR-56: The 
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 18, 2019 (84 FR 
28345). The supplemental letters dated May 23, 2019, and July 24, 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

[[Page 63904]]

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 October 29, 2019.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: January 15, 2019.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the R. E. 
Ginna Nuclear Power Plant emergency response organization (ERO) 
positions identified in the emergency plan, including the on-shift, 
minimum, and full-augmentation ERO staffing requirements. The proposed 
revisions include eliminating ERO positions; adding ERO positions; 
changing position descriptions, duties, and duty locations; and 
relocating certain position descriptions to other parts of the 
emergency plan or to implementing procedures.
    Date of issuance: October 29, 2019.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
on or before December 31, 2019.
    Amendment No.: 134. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML19252A246; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-18: The amendment 
revised the Renewed Facility Operating License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 23, 2019 (84 FR 
16894). The supplemental letter dated May 23, 2019, provided additional 
information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of 
the application as originally noticed, and did not change the 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 October 29, 2019.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Holtec Pilgrim, LLC and Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC, 
Docket No. 50-293, Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, Plymouth County, 
Massachusetts

    Date of amendment request: September 13, 2018, as supplemented by 
letters dated January 10, February 8, March 14, and July 16, 2019.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Pilgrim 
Nuclear Power Station Renewed Facility Operating License and the 
associated Technical Specifications to Permanently Defueled Technical 
Specifications, consistent with the permanent cessation of operations 
and permanent removal of fuel from the reactor vessel.
    Date of issuance: October 28, 2019.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days.
    Amendment No.: 250. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML19275E425; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-35: The amendment 
revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical 
Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 6, 2018 (83 FR 
55572). The supplemental letters dated January 10, February 8, March 
14, 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 October 28, 2019.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: February 28, 2019.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Cooper 
Nuclear Station Technical Specifications to define a new time limit for 
restoring inoperable reactor coolant system (RCS) leakage detection 
instrumentation to operable status and establish alternate methods of 
monitoring RCS leakage when one or more required monitors are 
inoperable. These changes are consistent with NRC-approved Technical 
Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Standard Technical Specifications 
Change Traveler TSTF-514, Revision 3, ``Revise BWR [Boiling Water 
Reactor] Operability Requirements and Actions for RCS Leakage 
Instrumentation,'' as part of the consolidated line item improvement 
process.
    Date of issuance: October 30, 2019.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 263. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML19238A007; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-46: Amendment revised 
the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 4, 2019 (84 FR 
25838).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated October 30, 2019.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: April 26, 2019.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the 
Combined License (COL) Nos. NPF-91 and NPF-92 for Vogtle, Units 3 and 
4, and the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report in the form of 
departures from the incorporated plant-specific Design Control Document 
Tier 2* and Tier 2 information related to the design-specific pre-
operational Automatic Depressurization System (ADS) Blowdown Test. The 
amendments authorized changes to credit the previously completed ADS 
Blowdown first three plant tests as described in the licensing basis 
documents, including COL Condition 2.D.(2)(a). Specifically, the 
changes revised the COL, License Condition 2.D.(2)(a)2, by removing the 
requirement to perform the ADS Blowdown first three plant tests during 
pre-operational testing.
    Date of issuance: October 22, 2019.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 165 (Unit 3) and 163 (Unit 4). A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Package Accession No. ML19262F850; documents 
related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation 
enclosed with the amendments.
    Facility Combined License Nos. NPF-91 and NPF-92: The amendments 
revised the Facility Combined Licenses.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 18, 2019 (84 FR 
28346).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a

[[Page 63905]]

Safety Evaluation dated October 22, 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: April 24, 2019.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical 
Specification (TS) Tables 2.2-1, 3.3-1, and 4.3-1 to change the 
description of the P-13 permissive interlock for the Reactor Trip 
System instrumentation. The current phrases, ``Turbine Impulse Chamber 
Pressure'' and ``Turbine Impulse Pressure,'' are replaced with the 
phrase, ``Turbine Inlet Pressure,'' throughout the TSs, resulting in a 
more generic P-13 description that does not specify a particular 
turbine design.
    Date of issuance: October 24, 2019.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 217 (Unit 1) and 203 (Unit 2). A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19217A060; 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 TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 4, 2019 (84 FR 
25840).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated October 24, 2019.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Vistra Operations Company LLC, Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446, Comanche 
Peak Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Somervell County, Texas

    Date of amendment request: October 31, 2018, as supplemented by 
letters dated March 28, 2019, and June 3, 2019.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the 
Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Emergency Plan by 
changing the Emergency Response Organization (ERO) staff augmentation 
times and reducing the required number of ERO positions.
    Date of issuance: November 4, 2019.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 180 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 172 (Unit 1) and 172 (Unit 2). A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19267A018; documents related 
to the amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 
amendments.
    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-87 and NPF-89: The amendments 
revised the Emergency Plan.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 2, 2019 (84 FR 
26). The supplemental letters dated March 28, 2019, and June 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 November 4, 2019.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 8th day of November, 2019.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Jamie M. Heisserer,
Acting Deputy Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office 
of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2019-24748 Filed 11-18-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7590-01-P