[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 21 (Thursday, January 31, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 808-816]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-00358]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2018-0287; NRC-2019-0020]


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

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Biweekly notice; extension of comment period.

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

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 December 15, 2018, to December 28, 2018. 
The last biweekly notice was published on January 2, 2019 (84 FR 20). 
The comment period for the document published in the Federal Register 
on January 2, 2019 (84 FR 20), was originally scheduled to close on 
February 1, 2019. Because this document was posted to Regulations.gov 
on January 18, 2019, the NRC has decided to extend the public comment 
period to allow more time for stakeholders to develop and submit their 
comments. Due to the Federal government shutdown, there was no biweekly 
publication on January 15, 2019.

DATES: Comments must be filed by March 4, 2019. A request for a hearing 
must be filed by April 1, 2019. The due date for comments requested in 
the document published on January 2, 2019 (84 FR 20) is extended. 
Comments should be filed no later than March 4, 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 on or before this date.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
    <bullet> Federal Rulemaking website: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2019-0020. Address 
questions about Docket IDs in Regulations.gov to Krupskaya Castellon; 
telephone: 301-287-9221; email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c18ab3b4b1b2aaa0b8a0ef82a0b2b5a4adadaeaf81afb3a2efa6aeb7"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6e251c1b1e1d050f170f402d0f1d1a0b020201002e001c0d40090118">[email protected]</span></a>. For 
technical questions, contact the individual(s) listed in the FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.
    <bullet> 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: Shirley Rohrer, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-5411, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#82d1eaebf0eee7fbacd0edeaf0e7f0c2ecf0e1ace5edf4"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="27744f4e554b425e0975484f5542556749554409404851">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments

A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2019-0020, 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:
    <bullet> Federal Rulemaking website: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2019-0020.
    <bullet> 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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a9d9cddb87dbccdac6dcdbcacce9c7dbca87cec6df"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2b5b4f5905594e58445e59484e6b455948054c445d">[email protected]</span></a>. 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.
    <bullet> 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-2019-0020, 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 the pendency before the Commission of a request for a 
hearing from any person.

[[Page 809]]

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 standing requirements in 10 CFR 2.309(d) if the facility 
is located within

[[Page 810]]

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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e28a8783908b8c85cc868d81898796a28c9081cc858d94"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4028252132292e276e242f232b2534002e32236e272f36">[email protected]</span></a>, 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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f1bca2b9b5dfa394829e84839294b19f8392df969e87"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="fdb0aeb5b9d3af988e92888f9e98bd938f9ed39a928b">[email protected]</span></a>, or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-
7640. The NRC Electronic Filing Help Desk is available between 9 a.m. 
and 6 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government 
holidays.
    Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not 
submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in 
accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing 
stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and 
requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper 
format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail 
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: 
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or 
expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and 
Adjudications Staff. Participants filing adjudicatory documents in this 
manner are responsible for serving the document on all other 
participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of 
the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or 
expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the 
provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an 
exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or 
party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines 
that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no 
longer exists.
    Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the 
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at 
https://adams.nrc.gov/ehd, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the 
Commission or the presiding officer. If you do not have an NRC-issued 
digital ID certificate as described above, click cancel when the link 
requests certificates and you will be automatically directed to the 
NRC's electronic hearing dockets where you will be able to access any 
publicly available documents in a particular hearing docket. 
Participants are requested not to include personal privacy information, 
such as social security numbers, home addresses, or personal phone 
numbers in their filings, unless an NRC regulation or other law 
requires submission of such information. For example, in some 
instances, individuals provide home addresses in order to demonstrate 
proximity to a facility or site. With respect to copyrighted works, 
except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory 
filings and would constitute a Fair Use application, participants are 
requested not to include copyrighted materials in their submission.
    For further details with respect to these license amendment 
applications, see the application for amendment which is available for 
public inspection in ADAMS and at the NRC's PDR. For additional 
direction on accessing

[[Page 811]]

information related to this document, see the ``Obtaining Information 
and Submitting Comments'' section of this document.

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

    Date of amendment request: November 1, 2018. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18318A320.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the 
dose consequences for the facility, as described in the Updated Final 
Safety Analysis Report, to provide fission gas gap release fractions 
for high-burnup fuel rods that exceed the linear heat generation rate 
limit detailed in Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.183, ``Alternative 
Radiological Source Terms for Evaluating Design Basis Accidents at 
Nuclear Power Reactors'' (ADAMS Accession No. ML003716792), Table 3, 
Footnote 11. The amendments would allow a higher bounding rod power 
history and the removal of a restriction on the number of rods per 
assembly that can exceed the rod power burnup criteria of Footnote 11 
in RG 1.183.
    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?
    The proposed change involves using gap release fractions for 
high-burnup fuel rods (i.e., greater than 54 GWD/MTU [gigawatt days 
per metric ton of uranium]) that exceed the 6.3 kW/ft [kilowatt per 
foot] linear heat generation rate (LHGR) limit detailed in Table 3, 
Footnote 11 of RG 1.183. Increased gap release fractions were 
determined and accounted for in the dose analysis for ONS [Oconee 
Nuclear Station]. The dose consequences reported in the ONS Updated 
Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) were reanalyzed for fuel 
handling accidents only. Dose consequences were not reanalyzed for 
other non-fuel-handling accidents since no fuel rod that is 
predicted to enter departure from nucleate boiling (DNB) will be 
permitted to operate beyond the limits of RG 1.183, Table 3, 
Footnote 11. The current NRC requirements, as described in 10 CFR 
50.67, specifies [sic] dose acceptance criteria in terms of Total 
Effective Dose Equivalent (TEDE). The revised dose consequence 
analyses for the fuel handling events at ONS meet the applicable 
TEDE dose acceptance criteria (specified also in RG 1.183).
    The changes proposed do not affect the precursors for fuel 
handling accidents analyzed in Chapter 15 of the ONS UFSAR. The 
probability remains unchanged since the accident analyses performed 
and discussed in the basis for the UFSAR changes involve no change 
to a system, structure or component that affects initiating events 
for any UFSAR Chapter 15 accident evaluated.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
    The proposed change involves using gap release fractions for 
high-burnup fuel rods (i.e., greater than 54 GWD/MTU) that exceed 
the 6.3 kW/ft LHGR limit detailed in Table 3, Footnote 11 of RG 
1.183. Increased gap release fractions were determined for certain 
isotopes, and were accounted for in the dose analysis for ONS. The 
dose consequences reported in the ONS UFSAR were reanalyzed for fuel 
handling accidents only. Dose consequences were not reanalyzed for 
other non-fuel-handling accidents since no fuel rod that is 
predicted to enter departure from nucleate boiling (DNB) will be 
permitted to operate beyond the limits of RG 1.183, Table 3, 
Footnote 11.
    The proposed change does not involve the addition or 
modification of any plant equipment. The proposed change has the 
potential to affect future core designs for ONS. However, the impact 
will not be beyond the standard function capabilities of the 
equipment. The proposed change involves using gap release fractions 
that would allow high-burnup fuel rods (i.e., greater than 54 GWD/
MTU) to exceed the 6.3 kW/ft LHGR limit detailed in Table 3, 
Footnote 11 of RG 1.183. Accounting for these new gap release 
fractions in the dose analysis for ONS does not create the 
possibility of a new 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?
    The proposed change involves using gap release fractions for 
high-burnup fuel rods (i.e., greater than 54 GWD/MTU) that exceed 
the 6.3 kW/ft LHGR limit detailed in Table 3, Footnote 11 of RG 
1.183. Increased gap release fractions were determined for certain 
isotopes, and were accounted for in the dose analysis for ONS. The 
dose consequences reported in the ONS UFSAR were reanalyzed for fuel 
handling accidents only. Dose consequences were not reanalyzed for 
other non-fuel-handling accidents since no fuel rod that is 
predicted to enter departure from nucleate boiling (DNB) will be 
permitted to operate beyond the limits of RG 1.183, Table 3, 
Footnote 11.
    The proposed change has the potential for an increased 
postulated accident dose at ONS. However, the analysis demonstrates 
that the resultant doses are within the appropriate acceptance 
criteria. The margin of safety, as defined by 10 CFR 50.67 and 
Regulatory Guide 1.183, has been maintained. Furthermore, the 
assumptions and input used in the gap release and dose consequences 
calculations are conservative. These conservative assumptions ensure 
that the radiation doses calculated pursuant to Regulatory Guide 
1.183 and cited in this LAR are the upper bounds to radiological 
consequences of the fuel handling accidents analyzed. The analysis 
shows that with increased gap release fractions accounted for in the 
dose consequences calculations there is margin between the offsite 
radiation doses calculated and the dose limits of 10 CFR 50.67 and 
acceptance criteria of Regulatory Guide 1.183. The proposed change 
will not degrade the plant protective boundaries, will not cause a 
release of fission products to the public, and will not degrade the 
performance of any structures, systems or components important to 
safety.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Kate Nolan, Deputy General Counsel, Duke 
Energy Carolinas, 550 South Tryon Street, Charlotte, NC 28202.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

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

    Date of amendment request: October 18, 2018. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18291A628.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would 
revise the allowable value associated with Function 1.b (i.e., 4.16 
kiloVolt Emergency Bus Undervoltage (Loss of Voltage)--Time Delay) of 
Table 3.3.8.1-1, ``Loss of Power Instrumentation,'' in Technical 
Specification 3.3.8.1.
    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 does not involve a physical alteration of 
the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be 
installed). The proposed change revises the Allowable Value for the 
Time Delay Loss of Voltage relays to resolve a design vulnerability 
potentially impacting the Emergency Diesel Generator (EDG) output

[[Page 812]]

breaker logic; thereby ensuring reliability of the onsite AC 
electrical sources. Therefore, the proposed change does not 
adversely affect the ability of structures, systems and components 
(SSCs) to perform their intended safety function to mitigate the 
consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance 
limits. Further, the proposed change does not increase the types and 
the amounts of radioactive effluent that may be released, nor 
significantly increase individual or cumulative occupation/public 
radiation exposures.
    Therefore, the proposed amendments do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change revises the Allowable Value for the Time 
Delay Loss of Voltage relays. It does not require any modification 
to the plant and it does not alter the design configuration, or 
method of operation of plant equipment beyond its normal functional 
capabilities. The proposed change will not introduce failure modes 
that could result in a new accident, and the change does not alter 
assumptions made in the safety analysis.
    Therefore, the proposed amendments do not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change revises the Allowable Value for the Time 
Delay Loss of Voltage relays to resolve a design vulnerability 
potentially impacting the EDG output breaker logic; thereby ensuring 
reliability of the onsite AC electrical sources. It does not alter 
or exceed a design basis or safety limit. There is no change being 
made to safety analysis assumptions or the safety limits that would 
adversely affect plant safety as a result of the proposed change. 
Margins of safety are unaffected by the proposed change and the 
applicable requirements of 10 CFR 50.36(c)(3) and 10 CFR 50, 
Appendix A will continue to be met.
    Therefore, the proposed amendments do not result in a 
significant reduction in the margin of safety.

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

Northern States Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-282 and 50-306, Prairie 
Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2 (PINGP), Goodhue County, 
Minnesota

    Date of amendment request: October 2, 2018, as supplemented by 
letter dated December 4, 2018. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS 
under Accession Nos. ML18275A370 and ML18338A431, respectively.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the 
PINGP licensing basis regarding the safety classification of certain 
fuel handling equipment. The amendments would revise the PINGP Updated 
Safety Analysis Report (USAR) regarding specific fuel handling 
equipment to relax the PINGP-specific classification scheme to allow 
them to be classified as quality assurance (QA) Type III, non-safety 
related.
    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 fuel handling accident is the only previously evaluated 
accident for the fuel handling equipment being addressed. The 
proposed amendment does not result in a significant increase in the 
probability of an accident because the change in definition of 
substantial amount of radioactivity as applied to determining the 
safety classification of the specified fuel handling equipment will 
not alter the results of fuel handling accidents analyzed in Chapter 
14 of the PINGP Updated Safety Analysis Report.
    [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 reclassification of specified refueling handling 
equipment does not alter existing system interactions or introduce 
new system interactions. The change will not affect how the 
specified equipment is operated or maintained. Neither will the 
change affect the QA requirements for equipment that is required to 
maintain integrity for seismic category II/I requirements, so no new 
potential accidents need be postulated as a result of the proposed 
change.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated in the USAR.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment revises the current licensing basis to 
apply a criterion for designating equipment as safety-related that 
is consistent with the definition of ``Comparable Off-site 
Exposures'' in [American Nuclear Standards Institute/American 
Nuclear Society (ANSl/ANS)-58.14-1993] for the purposes of equipment 
quality assurance type. The proposed amendment is consistent with 
existing regulatory guidance. The proposed amendment does not reduce 
compliance with [Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) General Design 
Criteria (GDC) 1]. 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: Peter M. Glass, Assistant General Counsel, 
Xcel Energy Services, Inc., 414 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, MN 55401.
    NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.

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

    Date of amendment request: November 20, 2018. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18324A823.
    Description of amendment request: The requested amendment proposes 
to depart from information in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report 
(UFSAR) (which includes the plant-specific Design Control Document Tier 
2 information) and involves related changes to plant-specific Tier 1 
information, with corresponding changes to the associated Combined 
License (COL) Appendix C information. Specifically, the requested 
amendment proposes changes that are editorial in nature to promote 
consistency with the licensing basis.
    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 consistency and editorial changes to Tier 2 
information in the UFSAR, COL Appendix C (and associated plant-
specific Tier 1) information, and COL Appendix A Technical 
Specifications do not

[[Page 813]]

involve a technical change (e.g., there is no design parameter or 
requirement, calculation, analysis, function or qualification 
change). No structure, system, or component (SSC) design or function 
would be affected. No design or safety analysis would be affected. 
The proposed changes do not affect any accident initiating event or 
component failure, thus the probabilities of the accidents 
previously evaluated are not affected. No function used to mitigate 
a radioactive material release and no radioactive material release 
source term is involved, thus the radioactive releases in the 
accident analyses are not affected.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed consistency and editorial changes to Tier 2 
information in the UFSAR, COL Appendix C (and associated plant-
specific Tier 1) information, and COL Appendix A Technical 
Specifications do not change the design of safety-related SSCs. The 
proposed changes do not affect plant electrical systems, and does 
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 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 consistency and editorial changes to Tier 2 
information in the UFSAR, COL Appendix C (and associated plant-
specific Tier 1) information, and COL Appendix A Technical 
Specifications do not involve any change to the design as described 
in the COL. There would be no change to an existing design basis, 
design function, regulatory criterion, or analyses. No safety 
analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is involved.
    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: Mr. M. Stanford Blanton, Balch & Bingham 
LLP, 1710 Sixth Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203-2015.
    NRC Branch Chief: Jennifer L. Dixon-Herrity.

IV. Previously Published Notices of Consideration of Issuance of 
Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses, 
Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and 
Opportunity for a Hearing

    The following notices were previously published as separate 
individual notices. The notice content was the same as above. They were 
published as individual notices either because time did not allow the 
Commission to wait for this biweekly notice or because the action 
involved exigent circumstances. They are repeated here because the 
biweekly notice lists all amendments issued or proposed to be issued 
involving no significant hazards consideration.
    For details, see the individual notice in the Federal Register on 
the day and page cited. This notice does not extend the notice period 
of the original notice.

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

    Date of amendment request: September 17, 2018. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18260A307.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would recapture 
low-power testing time to extend the full-power operating license 
(FPOL) to expire on April 17, 2027, instead of the current expiration 
date of September 29, 2026.
    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 amendment does not involve a significant increase 
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated because it does not involve a change to the design 
configuration or operation of the facility. The proposed change does 
not affect the source term, containment isolation or radiological 
release assumptions used in evaluating the radiological consequences 
of an accident previously analyzed in the CPS Updated Safety 
Analysis Report (USAR).
    CPS was designed and constructed to ensure at least a 40-year 
service life. Design features provide for inspection of structures, 
systems, and components during this service life. Surveillance, 
inspection, and maintenance practices, which have been implemented 
in accordance with the American Society of Mechanical Engineers 
(ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code and the CPS Technical 
Specifications, provide assurance that any degradation in plant 
safety-related equipment will be identified and corrected to ensure 
continued safe operation of the unit throughout the duration of the 
facility operating license.
    The low-power testing recapture period requested by this 
amendment is for 6.5 months. This time period is insignificant from 
an aging effects perspective, particularly when considered in 
conjunction with the surveillance, inspection, and maintenance 
programs described above.
    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 amendment would revise the expiration date of the 
facility operating license to base it upon the issuance date of the 
FPOL and not the issuance date of the low-power testing license. The 
proposed change does not involve physical alteration of plant 
systems, structures, or components, or changes in parameters 
governing the manner in which the plant is operated and maintained.
    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 amendment would revise the expiration date of the 
facility operating license to base it upon the issuance date of the 
FPOL and not the issuance date of the low-power testing license. No 
physical changes are being made to the design features or operation 
of the facility.
    Margin of safety is associated with confidence in the ability of 
the fission produce barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, reactor coolant 
system pressure boundary, and containment structure) to limit the 
radiological dose to the public and control room operators in the 
event of an accident. The proposed amendment to the facility 
operating license has no impact on the margin of safety and 
robustness provided in the design and construction of the facility. 
In addition, the proposed amendment will not relax any of the 
criteria used to establish safety limits, nor will the proposed 
amendment relax safety system settings or limiting conditions for 
operation as defined in the Technical Specifications.
    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.

[[Page 814]]

    Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel, 
Exelon Generation Company, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555.
    NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.

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

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

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

    Date of amendment request: October 20, 2017, as supplemented by 
letters dated June 15, July 20, and September 21, 2018.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revise the Updated 
Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) to provide off-nominal success 
criteria for maintaining the reactor in a safe shutdown condition when 
using the Standby Shutdown Facility (SSF) to mitigate a Turbine 
Building Flood occurring when an Oconee Unit is not at nominal full 
power conditions. The amendments also revise the UFSAR to allow the use 
of the Main Steam Atmospheric Dump Valves, when available, to enhance 
SSF mitigation capabilities.
    Date of issuance: December 17, 2018.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 410, 412, and 411. A publicly-available version is 
in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18311A134; documents related to these 
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 
amendments.
    Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-38, DPR-47 and DPR-55: 
Amendments revised the UFSAR.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 3, 2018 (83 FR 
31193), as corrected by a notice published on July 10, 2018 (83 FR 
31979), that changed the period for filing petitions to account for a 
Federal holiday. The supplemental letters dated June 15, July 20, and 
September 21, 2018, provided additional information that clarified the 
application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally 
noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no 
significant hazards consideration determination as published in the 
Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 17, 2018.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Entergy Louisiana, LLC, and Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-
458, River Bend Station, Unit 1 (RBS), West Feliciana Parish, Louisiana

    Date of amendment request: January 29, 2018, as supplemented by 
letters dated June 21, August 15, and November 13, 2018.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the RBS 
Updated Safety Analysis Report to reflect the relocation of the reactor 
core isolation cooling injection point from the reactor vessel head 
spray nozzle to the `A' Feedwater line via the `A' Residual Heat 
Removal shutdown cooling return line.
    Date of issuance: December 21, 2018.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 194. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML18345A342; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-47: The amendment revised the 
Updated Safety Analysis Report.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 22, 2018 (83 FR 
23732). The supplemental letters dated June 21, August 15, and November 
13, 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 amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 21, 2018.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-286, Indian Point 
Nuclear Generating Unit No. 3 (Indian Point 3), Westchester County, New 
York

    Date of amendment request: December 8, 2017, as supplemented by 
letter dated July 3, 2018.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical 
Specification 5.5.15, ``Containment Leakage Rate Testing Program,'' to 
extend the frequency of the primary containment integrated leak rate 
test, or Type A test, at Indian Point 3. Specifically, the amendment 
allows for a one-time extension of the integrated leak rate test 
frequency from 15 years to no later than the plant restart after the 
Indian Point 3 Spring 2021 (3R21) Refueling Outage (i.e., approximately 
16 years).
    Date of issuance: December 20, 2018.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be 
implemented within 30 days.
    Amendment No.: 265. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML18337A422; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Amended Facility Operating License No. DPR-64: The amendment 
revised the Amended Facility Operating License and Technical 
Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 13, 2018 (83 FR 
10916). The supplemental letter dated July 3, 2018, provided additional 
information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of 
the application as originally noticed, and did not change

[[Page 815]]

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 December 20, 2018.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: December 14, 2017.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the technical 
specification (TS) requirements in ANO-2 TS 3.3.3.6, ``Post-Accident 
Instrumentation,'' to ensure both Category 1 and Type A Regulatory 
Guide 1.97, Revision 3, ``Instrumentation for Light-Water-Cooled 
Nuclear Power Plants to Assess Plant and Environs Conditions During and 
Following an Accident,'' instrumentation is included in the 
specification (unless already addressed within another specification) 
and gains greater consistency with NUREG-1432, Revision 4, ``Standard 
Technical Specifications, Combustion Engineering Plants.''
    Date of issuance: December 19, 2018.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 313. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML18317A382; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-6: The amendment revised 
the Renewed Facility Operating License and TS.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 27, 2018 (83 
FR 8515).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 19, 2018.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: February 27, 2018.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendments revised the LSCS 
Technical Specification 3.4.4, ``Safety/Relief Valves (S/RVs).'' 
Specifically, the amendments change the as-found tolerances with 
respect to the lift setpoint lower tolerance limit for the S/RVs as 
delineated in Surveillance Requirement 3.4.4.1 from -3 percent to -5 
percent. The as-found tolerances are used for determining operability 
and to increase sample sizes for S/RV testing should the tolerance be 
exceeded.
    Date of issuance: December 19, 2018.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 45 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: Unit 1--232; Unit 2--218. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18278A030; documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with 
the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-11 and NPF-18: The 
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and 
Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 10, 2018 (83 FR 
15416).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 19, 2018.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-289, Three Mile Island 
Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania

    Date of amendment request: November 10, 2017, as supplemented by 
letters dated October 10, 2018, and October 29, 2018.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Section 6.0, 
``Administrative Controls,'' of the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, 
Unit 1, Technical Specifications, which makes changes to the 
organization, staffing, and training requirements. The amendment also 
revised Section 1.0, ``Definitions,'' of the Technical Specifications 
to add two new positions for Certified Fuel Handler and Non-Certified 
Operator.
    Date of issuance: December 14, 2018.
    Effective date: The amendment will be effective upon the licensee's 
submittal of the certifications required by 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1)(i) and 
(ii), and shall be implemented within 60 days of the effective date of 
the amendment, but may not exceed December 31, 2019.
    Amendment No.: 295. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML18305B419; documents related to this amendment is 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-50: The amendment 
revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical 
Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 13, 2018 (83 
FR 6225). The supplemental letters dated October 10, 2018, and October 
29, 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 amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 14, 2018.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

PSEG Nuclear LLC and Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-272 
and 50-311, Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Salem 
County, New Jersey

    Date of amendment request: December 18, 2017.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical 
Specification 3/4.3.1, ``Reactor Trip System Instrumentation,'' and 
Technical Specification 3/4.3.2, ``Engineered Safety Feature Actuation 
System Instrumentation,'' to increase the completion times and bypass 
test times at Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2. 
These changes are consistent with the NRC-approved Technical 
Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Travelers TSTF-411, Revision 1, 
``Surveillance Test Interval Extension for Components of the Reactor 
Protection System (WCAP-15376-P),'' and TSTF-418, Revision 2, ``RPS 
[Reactor Protection System] and ESFAS [Engineered Safety Feature 
Actuation System] Test Times and Completion Times (WCAP-14333),'' or 
are supported by plant-specific analysis.
    Date of issuance: December 19, 2018.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 325 (Unit No. 1) and 306 (Unit No. 2). A publicly-
available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML18318A266; 
documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety 
Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-70 and DPR-75: The 
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and 
Technical Specifications.

[[Page 816]]

    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 13, 2018 (83 FR 
10921). The supplemental letters dated February 9, 2018 and July 17, 
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 December 19, 2018.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket No. 50-391, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, 
Unit 2, Rhea County, Tennessee

    Date of amendment request: October 31, 2018.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the 
completion date for License Condition 2.C.(5) for the Watts Bar Nuclear 
Plant, Unit 2, regarding the completion of action to resolve the issues 
identified in NRC Bulletin 2012-01, ``Design Vulnerability in Electric 
Power System'' (ADAMS Accession No. ML12074A115), from December 31, 
2018, to December 31, 2019, to align with the remainder of the 
Tennessee Valley Authority fleet and with the nuclear industry.
    Date of issuance: December 21, 2018.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
immediately.
    Amendment No.: 23. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML18334A333; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-96: The amendment revised the 
Facility Operating License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 14, 2018 (83 
FR 56876).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment and final 
determination of no significant hazards consideration is contained in a 
Safety Evaluation dated December 21, 2018.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: One comment 
was received on December 14, 2018. The public comment and the NRC staff 
response are provided in the Safety Evaluation.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 25th day of January 2019.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Gregory F. Suber,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2019-00358 Filed 1-30-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7590-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>