Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments To Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations

 
CONTENT
Federal Register, Volume 84 Issue 38 (Tuesday, February 26, 2019)
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 38 (Tuesday, February 26, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6176-6183]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-02934]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2019-0058]
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 January 29, 2019, to February 11, 2019. The
last biweekly notice was published on February 12, 2019.
DATES: Comments must be filed by March 28, 2019. A request for a
hearing must be filed by April 29, 2019. Comments received after this
date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission
is able to ensure consideration only for comments received before this
date.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID INSERT: NRC-2019-0058.
Address questions about Docket IDs in Regulations.gov to Krupskaya
Castellon; telephone: 301-287-9221; email: Krupskaya.Castellon@nrc.gov.
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: Lynn.Ronewicz@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments
A. Obtaining Information
    Please refer to Docket ID INSERT: NRC-2019-0058, 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 http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID INSERT: NRC-2019-0058.
     NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the
ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://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 pdr.resource@nrc.gov. 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-2019-0058, 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 http://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
[[Page 6177]]
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 http://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
[[Page 6178]]
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 http://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 hearing.docket@nrc.gov, 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 http://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 http://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 http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by
email to MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, 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
[[Page 6179]]
in ADAMS and at the NRC's PDR. For additional direction on accessing
information related to this document, see the ``Obtaining Information
and Submitting Comments'' section of this document.
Duke Energy 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: December 14, 2018. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18353A951.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would modify
requirements for repetitive verification of the status of locked,
sealed, or secured components to allow the verification to be done by
use of administrative means consistent with Technical Specifications
Task Force (TSTF) Traveler 269, Revision 2, ``Allow Administrative
Means of Position Verification for Locked or Sealed Valves.''
    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 modifies Technical Specification (TS)
3.6.1.3, ``Primary Containment Isolation Valves (PCIVs)'' and TS
3.6.4.2, ``Secondary Containment Isolation Dampers (SCIDs).'' These
specifications require penetration flow paths with inoperable
isolation devices be isolated and periodically verified to be
isolated. Consistent with TSTF-269-A, Revision 2, notes are proposed
to be added to TS 3.6.1.3, Required Actions A.2 and C.2, and TS
3.6.4.2, Required Action A.2, to allow isolation devices that are
locked, sealed, or otherwise secured to be verified using
administrative means.
    The proposed change does not affect any plant equipment, test
methods, or plant operation, and is not an initiator of any analyzed
accident sequence. The inoperable containment penetrations will
continue to be isolated, and hence perform their isolation function.
Operation in accordance with the proposed TSs will ensure that all
analyzed accidents will continue to be mitigated as previously
analyzed. 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 does not involve a physical alteration to
the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be
installed) or a change to the methods governing normal plant
operation. Furthermore, the change does not alter the assumptions
made in the safety analysis. Therefore, the proposed change does not
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from
any accident previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change will not affect operation of plant equipment
or the function of any equipment assumed in the accident analysis.
Affected containment penetrations will continue to be isolated as
required by the existing TSs. Therefore, the proposed change does
not involve a significant reduction in safety margin.
    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Kathryn B. Nolan, Deputy General Counsel,
Duke Energy Corporation, 550 South Tryon Street, Mail Code DEC45A,
Charlotte, NC 28202.
Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-313, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit
1 (ANO-1), Pope County, Arkansas
    Date of amendment request: December 19, 2018. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18353B044.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the
ANO-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.''
    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 adds a new specification to the TS for the
reactor building sump. An existing SR [surveillance requirement] on
the reactor building sump is moved to the new specification and a
duplicative requirement to perform the SR in TS 3.5.3 is removed.
The new specification retains the existing requirements on the
reactor building sump and the actions to be taken when the reactor
building sump is inoperable with the exception of adding new actions
to be taken when the reactor building sump is inoperable due to
reactor building accident generated and transported debris exceeding
the analyzed limits. The new action provides time to evaluate and
correct the condition instead of requiring an immediate plant
shutdown.
    The reactor building sump is not an initiator of any accident
previously evaluated. The reactor building sump is a passive
component and the proposed change does not increase the likelihood
of the malfunction. As a result, the probability of an accident is
unaffected by the proposed change.
    The reactor building sump is used to mitigate accidents
previously evaluated by providing a borated water source for the
Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) and Reactor Building Spray
(RBS) System. The design of the reactor building sump and the
capability of the reactor building sump assumed in the accident
analysis is not changed. The proposed action requires implementation
of mitigating actions while the reactor building sump is inoperable
and more frequent monitoring of reactor coolant leakage to detect
any increased potential for an accident that would require the
reactor building sump. The consequences of an accident during the
proposed action are no different than the current consequences of an
accident if the reactor building sump is inoperable.
    The proposed change clarifies the SFDP [Safety Function
Determination Program] when a supported system is made inoperable by
the inoperability of a single TS support system. The SFDP directs
the appropriate use of TS actions and the proposed change does not
alter the current intent of the TS. The actions taken when a system
is inoperable are not an assumption in the initiation or mitigation
of any previously evaluated accident.
    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 adds a new specification to the TS for the
reactor building sump. An existing SR on the reactor building sump
is moved to the new specification and a duplicative requirement to
perform the SR in TS 3.5.3 is removed. The new specification retains
the existing requirements on the reactor building sump and the
actions to be taken when the reactor building sump is inoperable
with the exception of adding new actions to be taken when the
reactor building sump is inoperable due to reactor building accident
generated and transported debris exceeding the analyzed limits. The
new action provides time to evaluate and correct the condition
instead of requiring an immediate plant shutdown.
    The proposed change does not alter the design or design function
of the reactor
[[Page 6180]]
building sump or the plant. No new systems are installed or removed
as part of the proposed change. The reactor building sump is a
passive component and cannot initiate a malfunction or accident. No
new credible accident is created that is not encompassed by the
existing accident analyses that assume the function of the reactor
building sump.
    The proposed change clarifies the SFDP when a supported system
is made inoperable by the inoperability of a single TS support
system. The SFDP directs the appropriate use of TS actions and the
proposed change does not alter the current intent of the TS. The
proposed change to the Safety Function Determination Program will
not result in any change to the design or design function of the
reactor building sump or a method of operation of the plant.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change adds a new specification to the TS for the
reactor building sump. An existing SR on the reactor building sump
is moved to the new specification and a duplicative requirement to
perform the SR in TS 3.5.3 is removed. The new specification retains
the existing requirements on the reactor building sump and the
actions to be taken when the reactor building sump is inoperable
with the exception of adding new actions to be taken when the
reactor building sump is inoperable due to reactor building accident
generated and transported debris exceeding the analyzed limits. The
new action provides time to evaluate and correct the condition
instead of requiring an immediate plant shutdown.
    The proposed change does not affect the controlling values of
parameters used to avoid exceeding regulatory or licensing limits.
No Safety Limits are affected by the proposed change. The proposed
change does not affect any assumptions in the accident analyses that
demonstrate compliance with regulatory and licensing requirements.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Anna Vinson Jones, Senior Counsel, Entergy
Services, Inc., 101 Constitution Avenue NW, Suite 200 East, L-ENT-WDC,
Washington, DC 20001.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.
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: January 9, 2019. A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19009A431.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would temporarily
change Technical Specification (TS) TS 3.7.1, ``Residual Heat Removal
Service Water (RHRSW) System and the Ultimate Heat Sink (UHS),'' and TS
3.7.2, ``Emergency Service Water (ESW) System,'' to allow one division
of the ESW and RHRSW systems to be inoperable for a total of 14 days to
address piping degradation. The amendments would also remove the Table
of Contents (TOC) from the TSs and place it under licensee control.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change is to permit a temporary extension to
existing TS Completion Times to allow for ESW system piping
replacement. The division of the ESW and RHRSW systems that are not
being worked on will remain fully OPERABLE during the 14 day
Completion Time. Although it would not be able to be restored to a
fully OPERABLE status, the impacted division of ESW and RHRSW will
be capable of being restored to perform its safety function within
the limiting 72 hour Completion Time. The ESW and RHRSW systems and
their supported equipment function as accident mitigators. Removing
one division from service for a limited period of time does not
affect any accident initiator and, therefore, cannot change the
probability of an accident. The proposed changes and the ESW repair
evolution have been evaluated to assess their impact on the systems
affected and ensure design basis safety functions are preserved.
There is a slight increase in risk associated with having the ESW
and RHRSW systems and their supported systems out of service for
longer than currently allowed by the SSES [Susquehanna] TS. However,
Susquehanna will maintain the non-impacted division of ESW and RHRSW
fully OPERABLE throughout the repair evolution and will protect
required equipment in accordance with its protected equipment
program. The non-impacted division is capable of serving 100 percent
of the heat loads for both the online and outage units during an
accident. As such, there is no impact on consequence mitigation for
any transient or accident.
    Additionally, Susquehanna proposes an administrative change to
remove the TOC from the TS and place it under licensee control. This
has no impact on the design or operation of the plant and cannot
impact the probability of an accident in any way.
    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 is to permit a temporary extension to
existing TS Completion Times to allow for ESW system piping
replacement. The change does not involve a physical alteration of
the plant (i.e., no different equipment will be installed) or a
change in the methods governing normal plant operations. The
proposed change does not alter assumptions made in the safety
analysis. During the replacement evolution, one division of the ESW
and RHRSW systems will not be capable of performing their safety
function. However, the other division of ESW and RHRSW are capable
of providing the necessary cooling in the event of an accident.
Furthermore, the ability to perform the safety function for the
impacted division can always be recovered within the existing TS
Completion Times and the systems will be fully restored to OPERABLE
status following the pipe replacement. The proposed change does not
introduce new failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident
initiators not considered in the design and licensing basis.
    Additionally, Susquehanna proposes an administrative change to
remove the TOC from the TS and place it under licensee control. This
has no impact on the design or operation of the plant and cannot
create a new or different kind of accident.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change is to permit a temporary extension to
existing TS Completion Times to allow for ESW system piping
replacement. The proposed change does not alter the manner in which
safety limits, limiting safety settings, or limiting conditions for
operation are determined. The safety analysis assumptions and
acceptance criteria are not affected by this change. The change will
ultimately result in an increase in a margin of safety due to
installation of the new piping.
    Additionally, Susquehanna proposes an administrative change to
remove the TOC from the TS and place it under licensee control. This
has no impact on the design or operation of the plant and cannot
impact any safety margins.
    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
[[Page 6181]]
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.
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.
Indiana Michigan Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-315 and 50-316, Donald
C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Berrien County, Michigan
    Date of amendment request: September 5, 2018.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the Donald
C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Technical Specification
5.5.15, ``Battery Monitoring and Maintenance Program,'' to align with
the latest Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
Standard (Std.) for maintenance and testing of the safety-related
batteries. Specifically, the amendments replaced all the references of
the IEEE Std. 450-1995, ``IEEE Recommended Practice for Maintenance,
Testing, and Replacement of Vented Lead-Acid Batteries for Stationary
Applications,'' with the updated IEEE Std. 450-2010, as endorsed, with
certain regulatory positions, in Regulatory Guide 1.129, Revision 3,
``Seismic Design Classification.''
    Date of issuance: February 5, 2019.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 343 (Unit No. 1) and 325 (Unit No. 2). A publicly-
available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18346A358;
documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety
Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
    Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-58 and DPR-74: The amendments
revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and Technical
Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 6, 2018 (83 FR
55574).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 5, 2019.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
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: July 20, 2018, as supplemented by letter
dated December 3, 2018.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments consisted of
changes to Combined License Appendix A, Technical Specifications (TSs),
and revised operability requirements for the Engineered Safety Feature
Actuation System Spent Fuel Pool Level--Low 2 and In-Containment
Refueling Water Storage Tank Wide Range Level--Low instrumentation
functions for Refueling Cavity and Spent Fuel Pool Cooling System (SFS)
Isolation. Additional changes added TS operability requirements for the
SFS containment isolation valves in MODES 5 and 6.
    Date of issuance: January 15, 2019.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 150 (Unit 3) and 149 (Unit 4). A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Package Accession No. ML18351A189; 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: September 11, 2018 (83
FR 45986). The supplement dated December 3, 2018, provided additional
information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of
the application as originally noticed, and did not change the NRC
staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated January 15, 2019.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
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 10, 2018.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments consisted of
changes to Combined License Appendix A, Technical Specifications (TSs),
and revised TS Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) 3.1.8, ``Physics
Tests Exception--Mode 2,'' to include Function 4 as one of the LCO
3.3.1, ``Reactor Trip System (RTS) Instrumentation,'' functions where
the number of required channels may be reduced to three during the
performance of physics tests. Additionally, LCO 3.8.3, ``Inverters--
Operating,'' was revised to make an editorial nomenclature change from
``constant voltage source transformer'' to ``voltage regulating
transformer.''
    Date of issuance: January 30, 2019.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 153 (Unit 3) and 152 (Unit 4). A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Package Accession No. ML18354B207; documents
related to these amendments
[[Page 6182]]
are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
    Facility Combined Licenses Nos. NPF-91 and NPF-92: The amendments
revised the facility Combined Licenses.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 25, 2018 (83
FR 48467).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated January 30, 2019.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-390 and 50-391, Watts Bar
Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 (Watts Bar), Rhea County, Tennessee
    Date of amendment request: January 5, 2018.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical
Specification (TS) 3.6.3, ``Containment Isolation Valves,'' and
Surveillance Requirement 3.6.3.5 to change the frequency in accordance
with the Watts Bar Containment Leakage Rate Testing Program, which is
described in TS 5.7.2.19. The changes allow leak rate testing of the
containment purge system containment isolation valves to be performed
at least once every 30 months, as prescribed in Regulatory Guide 1.163,
``Performance-Based Containment Leak-Test Program.''
    Date of issuance: January 28, 2019.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 123 (Unit 1) and 24 (Unit 2). A publicly-available
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18327A005; documents related
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with
the amendments.
    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-90 and NPF-96: The amendments
revised the Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 13, 2018 (83 FR
10924).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated January 28, 2019.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
V. Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and
Combined Licenses and Final Determination of No Significant Hazards
Consideration and Opportunity for a Hearing (Exigent Public
Announcement or Emergency Circumstances)
    During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice,
the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has
determined for each of these amendments that the application for the
amendment complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules
and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as
required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10
CFR chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.
    Because of exigent or emergency circumstances associated with the
date the amendment was needed, there was not time for the Commission to
publish, for public comment before issuance, its usual notice of
consideration of issuance of amendment, proposed no significant hazards
consideration determination, and opportunity for a hearing.
    For exigent circumstances, the Commission has either issued a
Federal Register notice providing opportunity for public comment or has
used local media to provide notice to the public in the area
surrounding a licensee's facility of the licensee's application and of
the Commission's proposed determination of no significant hazards
consideration. The Commission has provided a reasonable opportunity for
the public to comment, using its best efforts to make available to the
public means of communication for the public to respond quickly, and in
the case of telephone comments, the comments have been recorded or
transcribed as appropriate and the licensee has been informed of the
public comments.
    In circumstances where failure to act in a timely way would have
resulted, for example, in derating or shutdown of a nuclear power plant
or in prevention of either resumption of operation or of increase in
power output up to the plant's licensed power level, the Commission may
not have had an opportunity to provide for public comment on its no
significant hazards consideration determination. In such case, the
license amendment has been issued without opportunity for comment. If
there has been some time for public comment but less than 30 days, the
Commission may provide an opportunity for public comment. If comments
have been requested, it is so stated. In either event, the State has
been consulted by telephone whenever possible.
    Under its regulations, the Commission may issue and make an
amendment immediately effective, notwithstanding the pendency before it
of a request for a hearing from any person, in advance of the holding
and completion of any required hearing, where it has determined that no
significant hazards consideration is involved.
    The Commission has applied the standards of 10 CFR 50.92 and has
made a final determination that the amendment involves no significant
hazards consideration. The basis for this determination is contained in
the documents related to this action. Accordingly, the amendments have
been issued and made effective as indicated.
    Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that
these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in
accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b),
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be
prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an
environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in
10 CFR 51.12(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment,
it is so indicated.
    For further details with respect to the action see (1) The
application for amendment, (2) the amendment to Facility Operating
License or Combined License, as applicable, and (3) the Commission's
related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment, as
indicated. All of these items can be accessed as described in the
``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' section of this
document.
Northern States Power Company--Minnesota, Docket No. 50-306, Prairie
Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Unit 2, Goodhue County, Minnesota
    Date of amendment request: January 29, 2019.
    Description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical
Specification 3.8.1, Condition E, to allow a one-time extension to the
completion time for two diesel generators out of service.
    Date of issuance: January 29, 2019.
    Effective date: January 29, 2019.
    Amendment No: 213. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under
Accession No. ML19029A094;
[[Page 6183]]
documents related to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation
enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-60: The amendment
revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical
Specifications.
    Public comments requested as to proposed no significant hazards
consideration: No.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment, finding of
emergency circumstances, State consultation, and final no significant
hazards consideration determination are contained in a Safety
Evaluation dated January 29, 2019.
    Attorney for licensee: Peter M. Glass, Assistant General Counsel,
Xcel Energy Services, Inc., 414 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, MN 55401.
    NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.
    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 15th day of February, 2019.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Craig G. Erlanger,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2019-02934 Filed 2-25-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7590-01-P