Skip to Content

Notice

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

Comments on this document are being accepted at Regulations.gov. Submit a formal comment

Document Details

Information about this document as published in the Federal Register.

Document Statistics
Document page views are updated periodically throughout the day and are cumulative counts for this document including its time on Public Inspection. Counts are subject to sampling, reprocessing and revision (up or down) throughout the day.
Enhanced Content

Relevant information about this document from Regulations.gov provides additional context. This information is not part of the official Federal Register document.

Published Document

This document has been published in the Federal Register. Use the PDF linked in the document sidebar for the official electronic format.

Start Preamble

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 June 29, 2019, to July 15, 2019. The last biweekly notice was published on July 16, 2019.

DATES:

Comments must be filed by August 29, 2019. A request for a hearing must be filed by September 30, 2019.

ADDRESSES:

You may submit comments by any of the following methods (unless this document describes a different method for submitting comments on a specific subject):

  • Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2019-0150. Address questions about NRC docket IDs in Regulations.gov to Jennifer Borges; telephone: 301-287-9127; email: Jennifer.Borges@nrc.gov. For technical questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.
  • Mail comments to: Office of Administration, Mail Stop: TWFN-7-A60M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, ATTN: Program Management, Announcements and Editing Staff.

For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

Start Further Info

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Paula Blechman, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2242, email: Paula.Blechman@nrc.gov.

End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental Information

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments

A. Obtaining Information

Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2019-0150, 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-2019-0150.
  • NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at https://www.nrc.gov/​reading-rm/​adams.html. To begin the search, select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to 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-2019-0150, facility name, unit number(s), plant docket number, application date, and subject in your comment submission.

The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at https://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove identifying or contact information.

If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.

II. Background

Pursuant to Section 189a.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is publishing this regular biweekly notice. The Act requires the Commission to publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to be issued, and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license or combined license, as applicable, upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person.Start Printed Page 36965

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 § 50.92 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown below.

The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination.

Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period if circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. If the Commission takes action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a notice of issuance. If the Commission makes a final no significant hazards consideration determination, any hearing will take place after issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will occur very infrequently.

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

Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any persons (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition) with respect to the action. Petitions shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure” in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309. The NRC's regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's website at https://www.nrc.gov/​reading-rm/​doc-collections/​cfr/​. Alternatively, a copy of the regulations is available at the NRC's Public Document Room, located at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. If a petition is filed, the Commission or a presiding officer will rule on the petition and, if appropriate, a notice of a hearing will be issued.

As required by 10 CFR 2.309(d) the petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements for standing: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the petitioner; (2) the nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest.

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f), the petition must also set forth the specific contentions which the petitioner seeks to have litigated in the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner must provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner must also provide references to the specific sources and documents on which the petitioner intends to rely to support its position on the issue. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant or licensee on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions must be limited to matters within the scope of the proceeding. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner who fails to satisfy the requirements at 10 CFR 2.309(f) with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.

Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene. Parties have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing with respect to resolution of that party's admitted contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence, consistent with the NRC's regulations, policies, and procedures.

Petitions must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Petitions and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i) through (iii). The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document.

If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to establish when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before the issuance of the amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.

A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition should state the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” 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 Start Printed Page 36966its 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 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 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 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 application(s), see the application for amendment which is available for public inspection in ADAMS and at the NRC's PDR. For additional direction on accessing Start Printed Page 36967information related to this document, see the “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” section of this document.

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

Date of amendment request: May 29, 2019. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19149A290.

Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1, Technical Specifications (TSs) by adopting Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-563, “Revise Instrument Testing Definitions to Incorporate the Surveillance Frequency Control Program.”

Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below:

1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?

Response: No.

The proposed change revises the TS definitions of Channel Calibration and Channel Functional Test to allow the frequency for testing the components or devices in each step to be determined in accordance with the TS SFCP [Surveillance Frequency Control Program]. All components in the channel continue to be tested. The frequency at which a channel test is performed is not an initiator of any accident previously evaluated; therefore, the probability of an accident is not affected by the proposed change. The channels surveilled in accordance with the affected definitions continue to be required to be operable and the acceptance criteria of the surveillances are unchanged. As a result, any mitigating functions assumed in the accident analysis will continue to be performed.

Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?

Response: No.

The proposed change revises the TS definitions of Channel Calibration and Channel Functional Test to allow the frequency for testing the components or devices in each step to be determined in accordance with the TS SFCP. The design function or operation of the components involved are not affected and there is no physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be installed). No credible new failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident initiators not considered in the design and licensing bases are introduced. The changes do not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis. The proposed changes are consistent with the safety analysis assumptions.

Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.

3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

Response: No.

The proposed change revises the TS definitions of Channel Calibration and Channel Functional Test to allow the frequency for testing the components or devices in each step to be determined in accordance with the TS SFCP. The SFCP assures sufficient safety margins are maintained, and that the design, operation, surveillance methods, and acceptance criteria specified in applicable codes and standards (or alternatives approved for use by the NRC) will continue to be met as described in the plants' licensing basis. The proposed change does not adversely affect existing plant safety margins, or the reliability of the equipment assumed to operate in the safety analysis. As such, there are no changes being made to safety analysis assumptions, safety limits, or limiting safety system settings that would adversely affect plant safety as a result of the proposed change. Margins of safety are unaffected by method of determining surveillance test intervals under an NRC-approved licensee-controlled program.

Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

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

Attorney for licensee: Ms. Anna Vinson Jones, Senior Counsel, Entergy Services, Inc., 101 Constitution Avenue NW, Suite 200 East, Washington, DC 20001.

NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.

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

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. STN 50-454 and STN 50-455, Byron Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Ogle County, Illinois

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-237 and 50-249, Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3, Grundy County, Illinois

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-374, LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2, LaSalle County, Illinois

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-352 and No. 50-353, Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-220 and 50-410, Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Oswego County, New York

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

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-254 and 50-265, Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Rock Island County, Illinois

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

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

Date of amendment request: June 14, 2019. Publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19165A252.

Description of amendment request: The amendments would remove the Table of Contents (TOC) from the Technical Specifications (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 amendment is administrative and affects control of a document, the TOC, listing the specifications Start Printed Page 36968in the plant TS. Transferring control from the NRC to EGC [Exelon Generation Company, LLC] does not affect the operation, physical configuration, or function of plant equipment or systems. The proposed amendment does not impact the initiators or assumptions of analyzed events; nor does it impact the mitigation of accidents or transient events.

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 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) or a change in the methods governing normal plant operation. The proposed change does not alter any 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 is administrative. The TOC is not required by regulation to be in the TS. Removal does not impact any safety assumptions or have the potential to reduce a margin of safety. The proposed change involves a transfer of control of the TOC from the NRC to EGC. No change in the technical content of the TS is involved.

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 requested amendments involve no significant hazards consideration.

Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555.

NRC Acting Branch Chief: Lisa M. Regner.

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

Date of amendment request: June 13, 2019. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19170A094.

Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 3 and 4 Technical Specifications (TSs) related to Reactor Trip System instrumentation and would resolve non-conservative TSs.

Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below:

1. Do the proposed amendments involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?

Response: No.

The proposed amendments modify the mode of applicability and surveillance requirements for the Reactor Trip System (RTS) turbine trip instrumentation such that operability is required in MODE 1 when above the permissive interlock, P-7, and satisfactory surveillance testing is required prior to reaching MODE 1 above P-7 whenever the Unit has been in MODE 3. Aligning the operability requirements with the plant conditions required for the protective feature to function neither changes the manner in which operability will be determined nor the manner in which the equipment will be operated and maintained. No change to the RTS turbine trip instrumentation is proposed and the equipment will remain capable of performing as required upon implementation of the proposed amendments. No changes are proposed to any safety analysis inputs or assumptions. The proposed change additionally resolves two non-conservative TS requirements consistent with NRC Administrative Letter 98-10, and thereby cannot adversely affect the likelihood or the outcome of any design basis accident.

Therefore, this proposed change does not represent a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

2. Do the proposed amendments create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?

Response: No.

The proposed amendments align the RTS turbine trip channel requirements with the plant conditions required for the protective feature to function (i.e., P-7). The proposed change establishes RTS turbine trip channel operability in MODE 1 when above P-7 and requires surveillance testing prior to MODE 1 above P-7 whenever the Unit has been in MODE 3. The inputs and assumptions to safety analyses remain unchanged as a result of the proposed change since no physical change to plant equipment is proposed and the requirement to demonstrate operability prior to the plant conditions necessitating the protective feature remains unchanged. As such, the proposed change cannot introduce new equipment failure modes, cannot change the types or amount of effluent that may be released off-site, and cannot increase individual or cumulative occupational exposures that would result from any accident. The proposed change additionally resolves two non-conservative requirements consistent with NRC Administrative Letter 98-10, and thereby cannot create a new or different kind of accident.

Therefore, the proposed amendments do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.

3. Do the proposed amendments involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

Response: No.

The proposed amendments align the RTS turbine trip channel requirements with the plant conditions required for the protective feature to function (i.e., P-7) by establishing RTS turbine trip channel operability in MODE 1 when above P-7 and requiring surveillance testing prior to MODE 1 above P-7 whenever the Unit has been in MODE 3. The proposed amendments additionally resolve two non-conservative TS requirements consistent with NRC Administrative Letter 98-10. The proposed changes do not affect any plant operating margins or the reliability of equipment credited in safety analyses and no changes are proposed to any safety analysis assumptions, safety limits, or limiting safety system settings.

Therefore, the proposed amendments 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: Debbie Hendell, Managing Attorney—Nuclear, Florida Power & Light Company, 700 Universe Blvd., MS LAW/JB, Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420.

NRC Branch Chief: Undine Shoop.

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: June 18, 2019. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19169A350.

Description of amendment request: The amendment proposes changes to the Combined License Appendix A Technical Specifications (TS) 3.7.11, Spent Fuel Pool Boron Concentration, Applicability and Required Actions to eliminate an allowance to exit the Applicability of Limiting Condition of Operation 3.7.11, Spent Fuel Pool Boron Concentration, once a spent fuel pool storage verification had been performed. The requested amendment also proposes to eliminate TS 3.7.11 Required Action A.2.2, which provides an option to perform a spent fuel pool storage verification in lieu of restoring spent fuel pool boron concentration to within limits.

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 Start Printed Page 36969consideration, 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 do not involve changes to current plant design or safety analysis assumptions. These changes provide Technical Specifications (TS) consistency with the approved plant design and criticality analysis assumptions and the requirements of 10 CFR 50.68(b)(4). The radioactive material source terms and release paths used in the safety analyses are unchanged, thus the radiological releases in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) accident analyses are not affected.

The changes do not affect the operation of any systems or equipment that initiate an analyzed accident or alter any structures, systems, and components (SSCs) accident initiator or initiating sequence of events. The proposed changes do not result in any increase in the probability of an analyzed accident occurring.

Meeting the 10 CFR 50.68 requirements is consistent with 10 CFR 50 Appendix A, General Design Criterion (GDC) 62, and thereby establishes that criticality in the fuel storage and handling system is prevented by physical systems or processes, and geometrically safe configurations.

Therefore, the requested amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?

Response: No.

The proposed changes do not affect the safety limits as described in the plant-specific Technical Specifications. In addition, the limiting safety system settings and limiting control settings continue to be met with the proposed changes to the plant-specific Technical Specifications. These changes provide Technical Specifications (TS) consistency with the approved plant design and criticality analysis assumptions and the requirements of 10 CFR 50.68(b)(4). The proposed changes do not affect the operation of any systems or equipment that may initiate a new or different kind of accident or alter any SSC such that a new accident initiator or initiating sequence of events is created.

The proposed changes do not affect plant protection instrumentation systems, and do not affect the design function, support, design, or operation of mechanical and fluid systems. The proposed changes do not result in a new failure mechanism or introduce any new accident precursors. No design function described in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) is affected by the proposed changes.

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 changes do not involve changes to current plant design or safety analysis assumptions. These changes provide Technical Specifications (TS) consistency with the approved plant design and criticality analysis assumptions and the requirements of 10 CFR 50.68(b)(4). No safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is involved.

The criticality analysis, which meets the applicable requirements of 10 CFR 50.68, Paragraph b, considers the inherent neutron absorbing effect of the materials of construction, including fixed neutron absorbing “poison” material. Soluble boron in the spent fuel pool and assembly burnup is used as reactivity credits.

Meeting the 10 CFR 50.68 requirements is consistent with 10 CFR 50 Appendix A GDC 62, and thereby establishes that criticality in the fuel storage and handling system is prevented by physical systems or processes, and geometrically safe configurations. No safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is challenged or exceeded by the proposed changes, and no margin of safety is reduced.

Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

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

Attorney for licensee: M. Stanford Blanton, Balch & Bingham LLP, 1710 Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 35203-2015.

NRC Branch Chief: Jennifer L. Dixon-Herrity.

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-390 and 50-391, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant (WBN), Units 1 and 2, Rhea County, Tennessee

Date of amendment request: November 29, 2018. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18334A363.

Description of amendment request: The amendments would modify the WBN Facility Operating Licenses to allow for the implementation of the provisions of 10 CFR 50.69, “Risk-informed categorization and treatment of structures, systems and components for nuclear power reactors.” The provisions of 10 CFR 50.69 allow adjustment of the scope of equipment subject to special treatment controls (e.g., quality assurance, testing, inspection, condition monitoring, assessment, and evaluation). For equipment determined to be of low safety significance, alternative treatment requirements can be implemented in accordance with this regulation. For equipment determined to be of high safety significance, requirements will not be changed or will be enhanced. This allows improved focus on equipment that has safety significance resulting in improved plant safety.

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 any accident previously evaluated?

Response: No.

The proposed change will permit the use of a risk-informed categorization process to modify the scope of structures, systems, and components (SSCs) subject to Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) special treatment requirements and to implement alternative treatments per the regulations. The process used to evaluate SSCs for changes to NRC special treatment requirements and the use of alternative requirements ensures the ability of the SSCs to perform their design function. The potential change to special treatment requirements does not change the design and operation of the SSCs. As a result, the proposed change does not significantly affect any initiators to accidents previously evaluated or the ability to mitigate any accidents previously evaluated. The consequences of the accidents previously evaluated are not affected because the mitigation functions performed by the SSCs assumed in the safety analysis are not being modified. The SSCs required to safely shut down the reactor and maintain it in a safe shutdown condition following an accident will continue to perform their design functions.

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 previously evaluated?

Response: No.

The proposed change will permit the use of a risk-informed categorization process to modify the scope of SSCs subject to NRC special treatment requirements and to implement alternative treatments per the regulations. The proposed change does not change the functional requirements, configuration, or method of operation of any SSC. Under the proposed change, no additional plant equipment will be installed.

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 the margin of safety?

Response: No.

The proposed change will permit the use of a risk-informed categorization process to Start Printed Page 36970modify the scope of SSCs subject to NRC special treatment requirements and to implement alternative treatments per the regulations. The proposed change does not affect any safety limits or operating parameters used to establish the safety margin. The safety margins included in analyses of accidents are not affected by the proposed change. The regulation requires that there be no significant effect on plant risk due to any change to the special treatment requirements for SSCs and that the SSCs continue to be capable of performing their design basis functions, as well as to perform any beyond design basis functions consistent with the categorization process and results.

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.

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. 50-413 and 50-414, Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 (Catawba), York County, South Carolina

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

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

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

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

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

Date of amendment request: June 20, 2018.

Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the Emergency Action Levels (EALs) for Catawba, McGuire, Oconee, Brunswick, Harris, and Robinson consistent with Emergency Preparedness Frequently Asked Questions (EPFAQs) 2015-013 (EAL HG1.1) and 2016-002 (EALs CA6.1 and SA9.1 (SA8.1 for Brunswick)). The amendments also revised the EALs for Harris and Robinson consistent with EPFAQ 2015-014 (EAL HS6.1).

Date of issuance: July 1, 2019.

Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 180 days of issuance.

Amendment Nos.: 303 and 299, for Catawba; 315 and 294, for McGuire; 412, 414, and 413, for Oconee; 291 and 319, for Brunswick; 172, for Harris; and 264, for Robinson. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19058A632; documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.

Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-35, NPF-52, NPF-9, NPF-17, DPR-38, DPR-47, DPR-55, DPR-71, DPR-62, NPF-63, and DPR-23: Amendments revised the Facility Emergency Plans.

Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 14, 2018 (83 FR 40346).

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated July 1, 2019.

No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

Date of amendment requests: May 2, 2017, as supplemented by letters dated July 20 and November 21, 2017; July 10 and December 3, 2018; and March 7 and April 8, 2019.

Brief description of amendments: The amendments modified McGuire's Technical Specifications (TSs) to extend the Completion Time of TS 3.8.1, “AC [Alternating Current] Sources—Operating,” Required Action B.6 (existing Required Action B.4, numbered as B.6) for an inoperable emergency diesel generator from 72 hours to 14 days. To support this amendment, the licensee added a supplemental power source (i.e., two supplemental diesel generators per station) with the capability to power any emergency bus. The supplemental diesel generators have the capacity to bring the affected unit to cold shutdown. Additionally, the amendments modified TS 3.8.1 to add new two limiting conditions for operation (LCOs), TS LCO 3.8.1.c and TS LCO 3.8.1.d, to ensure that at least one train of shared components has an operable emergency power supply. Corresponding Conditions, Required Actions and Completion Times of TS 3.8.1 are revised to account for the new supplemental AC power source.

Date of issuance: June 28, 2019.

Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 120 days of issuance.

Amendment Nos.: 314 (Unit 1) and 293 (Unit 2). A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19126A030; documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.Start Printed Page 36971

Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-9 and NPF-17: Amendments revised the Renewed Licenses and Technical Specifications.

Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 27, 2017 (83 FR 8512). The supplemental letters dated July 20 and November 21, 2017; July 10 and December 3, 2018; and March 7 and April 8, 2019, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the NRC staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the Federal Register.

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated June 28, 2019.

No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

Date of amendment request: March 26, 2018, as supplemented by letters dated May 17, 2018, and February 15, 2019.

Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Waterford 3 Technical Specification (TS) 3/4.7.4, “Ultimate Heat Sink.” Specifically, the amendment corrected the wet cooling tower basin level discrepancy, revised requirements for cooling fan operation described in TS 3.7.4 ACTION Statements, revised Surveillance Requirement 4.7.4, and revised Table 3.7-3, “Ultimate Heat Sink Minimum Fan Requirements Per Train.”

Date of issuance: June 28, 2019.

Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days from the date of issuance.

Amendment No.: 254. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19164A001; 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 Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.

Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 31, 2018 (83 FR 36976). The supplemental letter dated February 15, 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 June 28, 2019.

No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

Date of amendment request: October 2, 2018.

Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant Technical Specification 3.1.2, “Reactivity Anomalies,” to change the method used to perform the reactivity anomaly surveillance. Specifically, the amendment allows performance of the surveillance based on the difference between the monitored (i.e., actual) core reactivity and the predicted core reactivity. The surveillance was previously performed based on the difference between the monitored control rod density and the predicted control rod density.

Date of issuance: July 11, 2019.

Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be implemented within 90 days.

Amendment No.: 325. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19157A203; documents related to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.

Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-59: The amendment revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.

Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 20, 2018 (83 FR 58610).

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated July 11, 2019.

No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Florida Power and Light Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389, St. Lucie Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, St. Lucie County, Florida

Date of amendment request: December 5, 2014; as supplemented by letters dated July 8 and July 22, 2016; February 25, 2017; and February 1, March 15, June 7, September 18, November 9, and November 30, 2018.

Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the Technical Specification (TS) requirements related to Completion Times for Required Actions to provide the option to calculate longer, risk-informed Completion Times. The amendments also added a new program, the Risk Informed Completion Time Program, to TS Section 6.0, “Administrative Controls.”

Date of issuance: July 2, 2019.

Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 180 days of issuance.

Amendment Nos.: 247 and 199. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19113A099; documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.

Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-67 and NPF-16: The amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications.

Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 14, 2018 (83 FR 40349). The supplements dated September 18, November 9, and November 30, 2018, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the NRC staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the Federal Register.

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated July 2, 2019.

No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Indiana Michigan Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-315 and 50-316, Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Berrien County, Michigan

Date of amendment request: February 26, 2019.

Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the Technical Specifications (TSs) to adopt Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler-563, “Revise Instrument Testing Definitions to Incorporate the Surveillance Frequency Control Program.” TSTF-563 revises the TS definitions of Channel Calibration, Channel Operational Test, and Trip Actuating Device Operational Test.

Date of issuance: July 11, 2019.

Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days of issuance.

Amendment Nos.: 345 (Unit 1) and 327 (Unit 2). A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19134A355; documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.

Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-58 and DPR-74: The amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications.Start Printed Page 36972

Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 9, 2019 (84 FR 14151).

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated July 11, 2019.

No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Oyster Creek Environmental Protection, LLC and Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC, Docket No. 50-219, Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Ocean County, New Jersey

Date of amendment request: August 31, 2018.

Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-16 to reflect the direct transfer of the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-16, and the general license for the Oyster Creek Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation from Exelon Generation Company, LLC to Oyster Creek Environmental Protection, LLC as the licensed owner and to Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC as the licensed decommissioning operator.

Date of issuance: July 1, 2019.

Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be implemented within 30 days of issuance.

Amendment No.: 297. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19164A155; documents related to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the letter dated June 20, 2019 (ADAMS Accession No. ML19095A454).

Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-16: The amendment revised the Renewed Facility Operating License.

Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 19, 2018 (83 FR 53119).

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in the Safety Evaluation dated June 20, 2019.

SHINE Medical Technologies, LLC, Docket No. 50-608, SHINE Medical Isotope Production Facility, Rock County, Wisconsin

Date of amendment request: December 11, 2018, as supplemented by letter dated March 8, 2019.

Brief description of amendment: The amendment modified Construction Permit No. CPMIF-001 to reflect SHINE Medical Technologies, LLC converting from a corporation into a single-member limited liability company, owned and controlled by Illuminated Holdings, Inc.

Date of issuance: July 1, 2019.

Effective date: As of the date of issuance.

Amendment No.: 1. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under ADAMS Accession No. ML19162A024; documents related to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the letter dated May 20, 2019 (ADAMS Accession No. ML19102A321).

Construction Permit No. CPMIF-001: Amendment revised the Construction Permit.

Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 20, 2019 (84 FR 5116). The supplemental letter dated March 8, 2019, provided additional information that clarified the application and did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed.

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 20, 2019.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Georgia Power Company, Oglethorpe Power Corporation, Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, City of Dalton, Georgia, Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366, Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Appling County, Georgia

Date of amendment request: June 29, 2018, as supplemented by letter dated June 12, 2019.

Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the Allowable Values specified in Technical Specification (TS) Table 3.3.5.1-1 for automatic transfer of the High Pressure Coolant Injection pump suction alignment from the condensate storage tank to the suppression pool for Units 1 and 2. The amendments also increased the Allowable Value specified in TS Table 3.3.5.3-1 for automatic transfer of the Reactor Core Isolation Cooling pump suction alignment from the condensate storage tank to the suppression pool for Unit 1.

Date of issuance: July 8, 2019.

Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 90 days of issuance.

Amendment Nos.: 297 and 242. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML19177A166; documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.

Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-57 and NPF-5: Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications.

Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 4, 2018 (83 FR 62622). The supplemental letter dated June 12, 2019, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the NRC staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the Federal Register.

The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated July 8, 2019.

No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Start Signature

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd day of July 2019.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Craig G. Erlanger,

Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

End Signature End Supplemental Information

[FR Doc. 2019-15849 Filed 7-29-19; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P