[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 234 (Tuesday, December 6, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 87964-87978]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-28990]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2016-0245]


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

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Biweekly notice.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to 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.
    This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or 
proposed to be issued, from November 8 to November 21, 2016. The last 
biweekly notice was published on November 22, 2016.

DATES: Comments must be filed by January 5, 2017. A request for a 
hearing must be filed by February 6, 2017.

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 Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2016-0245. Address 
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-
3463; email: [email protected]. For technical questions, contact 
the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of 
this document.
     Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Office of Administration, 
Mail Stop: OWFN-12-H08, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, 
DC 20555-0001.
    For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting 
comments, see ``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' in the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Janet Burkhardt, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1384, email: [email protected].

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments

A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0245, 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 Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2016-0245.
     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/

[[Page 87965]]

adams.html. To begin the search, select ``ADAMS Public Documents'' and 
then select ``Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.'' For problems with ADAMS, 
please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 
1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected]. The 
ADAMS accession number for each document referenced (if it is available 
in ADAMS) is provided the first time that it is mentioned in this 
document.
     NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public 
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

B. Submitting Comments

    Please include Docket ID NRC-2016-0245, 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 posts all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as entering 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 submissions into ADAMS.

II. 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 a petition 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, which is available at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint 
North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, 
Maryland 20852. The NRC's regulations are accessible electronically 
from the NRC Library on the NRC's Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a petition is filed within 60 days, 
the Commission or a presiding officer designated by the Commission or 
by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing 
Board Panel, will rule on the petition; and the Secretary or the Chief 
Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel 
will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order.
    As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition shall set forth with 
particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how 
that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The 
petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention 
should be permitted with particular reference to the following general 
requirements: (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. The petition 
must also set forth the specific contentions which the petitioner seeks 
to have litigated at 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 shall 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 those specific sources and 
documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the petitioner 
intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion to support 
its position on the issue. The petition must include sufficient 
information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on 
a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall 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 these requirements 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, 
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the 
hearing with respect to resolution of that person's admitted 
contentions consistent with the NRC's regulations, policies, and 
procedures.
    Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 
days from the date of publication of this notice. Requests for hearing, 
petitions for leave

[[Page 87966]]

to intervene, and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions 
that are filed after the 60-day 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).
    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 decide 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 held 
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 any 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 by February 6, 2017. The petition must be filed in 
accordance with the filing instructions in the ``Electronic Submissions 
(E-Filing)'' section of this document, and should meet the requirements 
for petitions set forth in this section, except that under 10 CFR 
2.309(h)(2) a State, local governmental body, or Federally-recognized 
Indian Tribe, or agency thereof does not need to address the standing 
requirements in 10 CFR 2.309(d) if the facility is located within its 
boundaries. A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized 
Indian Tribe, or agency thereof may also have the opportunity to 
participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c).
    If a hearing is granted, any person who does not wish, or is not 
qualified, to become a party to the proceeding may, in 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 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, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or 
other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a 
request for hearing or petition to intervene (hereinafter 
``petition''), and documents filed by interested governmental entities 
participating 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. Participants may 
not submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption 
in accordance with the procedures described below.
    To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 
days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the 
Office of the Secretary by email at [email protected], or by 
telephone at 301-415-1677, to request (1) a digital identification (ID) 
certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or 
representative) to digitally sign documents and access the E-Submittal 
server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise 
the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a petition (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 Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/getting-started.html. System requirements for accessing 
the E-Submittal server are available on the NRC's public Web site at 
http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/adjudicatory-sub.html. 
Participants may attempt to use other software not listed on the Web 
site, but should note that the NRC's E-Filing system does not support 
unlisted software, and the NRC Electronic Filing Help Desk will not be 
able to offer assistance in using unlisted software.
    Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a 
docket has been created, the participant can then submit a petition. 
Submissions should be in Portable Document Format (PDF). Additional 
guidance on PDF submissions is available on the NRC's public Web site 
at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/electronic-sub-ref-mat.html. A filing 
is considered complete at the time the documents are 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 documents on those 
participants separately. Therefore, applicants and other participants 
(or their counsel or representative) must apply for and receive a 
digital ID certificate before a hearing petition to intervene is filed 
so that they can obtain access to the document via the E-Filing system.
    A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-
Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Electronic 
Filing Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC's 
public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by 
email to [email protected], or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-
7640. The NRC Electronic Filing Help Desk is available between 9 a.m. 
and 7 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:

[[Page 87967]]

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 a document 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 
http://ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the 
Commission, or the presiding officer. Participants are requested not to 
include personal privacy information, such as Social Security numbers, 
home addresses, or home phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC 
regulation or other law requires submission of such information. 
However, in some instances, a petition will require including 
information on local residence in order to demonstrate a proximity 
assertion of interest in the proceeding. 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.
    The Commission will issue a notice or order granting or denying a 
hearing request or intervention petition, designating the issues for 
any hearing that will be held and designating the Presiding Officer. A 
notice granting a hearing will be published in the Federal Register and 
served on the parties to the hearing.
    For further details with respect to these license amendment 
applications, see the application for amendment which is available for 
public inspection in ADAMS and at the NRC's PDR. For additional 
direction on accessing information related to this document, see the 
``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' section of this 
document.

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

    Date of amendment request: August 29, 2016. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16252A220.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the 
Technical Specifications (TSs) to eliminate Section 5.5, ``lnservice 
Testing Program.'' A new defined term, ``lnservice Testing Program,'' 
is added to the TS Definitions section. This request is consistent with 
Technical Specification Task Force Traveler TSTF-545, Revision 3, ``TS 
lnservice Testing Program Removal & Clarify SR [Surveillance 
Requirement] Usage Rule Application to Section 5.5 Testing'' (ADAMS 
Accession No. ML15314A305).
    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 TS Chapter 5, ``Administrative 
Controls,'' Section 5.5, ``Programs and Manuals,'' by eliminating 
the ``Inservice Testing Program'' specification. Most requirements 
in the Inservice Testing Program are removed, as they are 
duplicative of requirements in the ASME [American Society of 
Mechanical Engineers] OM [Operations and Maintenance] Code, as 
clarified by Code Case OMN-20, ``Inservice Test Frequency.'' The 
remaining requirements in the Section 5.5 IST [Inservice Testing] 
Program are eliminated because the NRC has determined their 
inclusion in the TS is contrary to regulations. A new defined term, 
``Inservice Testing Program,'' is added to the TS, which references 
the requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a(f).
    Performance of inservice testing is not an initiator to any 
accident previously evaluated. As a result, the probability of 
occurrence of an accident is not significantly affected by the 
proposed change. Inservice test frequencies under Code Case OMN-20 
are equivalent to the current testing period allowed by the TS with 
the exception that testing frequencies greater than 2 years may be 
extended by up to 6 months to facilitate test scheduling and 
consideration of plant operating conditions that may not be suitable 
for performance of the required testing. The testing frequency 
extension will not affect the ability of the components to mitigate 
any accident previously evaluated as the components are required to 
be operable during the testing period extension. Performance of 
inservice tests utilizing the allowances in OMN-20 will not 
significantly affect the reliability of the tested components. As a 
result, the availability of the affected components, as well as 
their ability to mitigate the consequences of accidents previously 
evaluated, is not affected.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not alter the design or configuration 
of the plant. The proposed change does not involve a physical 
alteration of the plant; no new or different kind of equipment will 
be installed. The proposed change does not alter the types of 
inservice testing performed. In most cases, the frequency of 
inservice testing is unchanged. However, the frequency of testing 
would not result in a new or different kind of accident from any 
previously evaluated since the testing methods are not altered.
    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 eliminates some requirements from the TS in 
lieu of requirements in the ASME Code, as modified by use of Code 
Case OMN-20. Compliance with the ASME Code is required by 10 CFR 
50.55a. The proposed change also allows inservice tests with 
frequencies greater than 2 years to be extended by 6 months to 
facilitate test scheduling and consideration of plant operating 
conditions that may not be suitable for performance of the required 
testing. The testing frequency extension will not affect the ability 
of the components to respond to an accident as the components are 
required to be operable during the testing period extension. The 
proposed change will eliminate the existing TS SR 3.0.3 allowance to 
defer performance of missed inservice tests up to the duration of 
the specified testing frequency, and instead will require an 
assessment of the missed test on equipment operability. This 
assessment will consider the effect on margin of safety (equipment 
operability). Should the component be inoperable, the Technical 
Specifications provide actions to ensure that the margin of safety 
is protected. The proposed change also eliminates a statement that 
nothing in the ASME Code should be construed to supersede the 
requirements of any TS. The NRC has determined that statement to be 
incorrect. However, elimination of the statement will have no effect 
on plant operation or 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

[[Page 87968]]

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.
    Acting NRC Branch Chief: Jeanne A. Dion.

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

    Date of amendment request: September 28, 2016. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16287A415.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the 
Technical Specifications (TSs) to be consistent with Technical 
Specification Task Force Traveler TSTF-423, Revision 1, to allow, for 
some systems, entry into hot shutdown rather than cold shutdown to 
repair equipment, if risk is assessed and managed consistent with the 
program in place for complying with the requirements of 10 CFR 
50.65(a)(4). Changes proposed in TSTF-423 will be made to the Units' 
TSs for selected Required Action end states.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change allows a change to certain required end 
states when the TS Completion Times for remaining in power operation 
will be exceeded. Most of the requested TS changes are to permit an 
end state of hot shutdown (Mode 3) rather than an end state of cold 
shutdown (Mode 4) contained in the current TS. The request was 
limited to: (1) those end states where entry into the shutdown mode 
is for a short interval, (2) entry is initiated by inoperability of 
a single train of equipment or a restriction on a plant operational 
parameter, unless otherwise stated in the applicable TS, and (3) the 
primary purpose is to correct the initiating condition and return to 
power operation as soon as is practical. Risk insights from both the 
qualitative and quantitative risk assessments were used in specific 
TS assessments. Such assessments are documented in Section 6 of 
topical report NEDC-32988-A, Revision 2, ``Technical Justification 
to Support Risk-Informed Modification to Selected Required Action 
End States for BWR [Boiling-Water Reactor] Plants.'' They provide an 
integrated discussion of deterministic and probabilistic issues, 
focusing on specific TSs, which are used to support the proposed TS 
end state and associated restrictions. The NRC staff finds that the 
risk insights support the conclusions of the specific TS 
assessments. Therefore, the probability of an accident previously 
evaluated is not significantly increased, if at all. The 
consequences of an accident after adopting TSTF-423 are no different 
than the consequences of an accident prior to adopting TSTF-423. 
Therefore, the consequences of an accident previously evaluated are 
not significantly affected by this change. The addition of a 
requirement to assess and manage the risk introduced by this change 
will further minimize possible concerns.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of 
the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be 
installed). If risk is assessed and managed, allowing a change to 
certain required end states when the TS Completion Times for 
remaining in power operation are exceeded (i.e., entry into hot 
shutdown rather than cold shutdown to repair equipment) will not 
introduce new failure modes or effects and will not, in the absence 
of other unrelated failures, lead to an accident whose consequences 
exceed the consequences of accidents previously evaluated. The 
addition of a requirement to assess and manage the risk introduced 
by this change and the commitment by the licensee to adhere to the 
guidance in TSTF-IG-05-02, ``Implementation Guidance for TSTF-423, 
Revision 1, `Technical Specifications End States, NEDC-32988-A,''' 
will further minimize possible concerns.
    Thus, based on the above, this change does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from an accident 
previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change allows, for some systems, entry into hot 
shutdown rather than cold shutdown to repair equipment, if risk is 
assessed and managed. The BWROG's [BWR Owner Group's] risk 
assessment approach is comprehensive and follows NRC staff guidance 
as documented in Regulatory Guides (RG) 1.174 and 1.177. In 
addition, the analyses show that the criteria of the three-tiered 
approach for allowing TS changes are met. The risk impact of the 
proposed TS changes was assessed following the three-tiered approach 
recommended in RG 1.177. A risk assessment was performed to justify 
the proposed TS changes. The net change to the margin of safety is 
insignificant.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

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

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

    Date of amendment request: August 30, 2016. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16245A273.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would reclassify 
reactor water cleanup (RWCU) piping, valves, pumps and mechanical 
modules located outside of primary and secondary containment in the 
radwaste building from Quality Group C to Quality Group D.
    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 result in a significant increase 
in the probability of an accident because Quality Group D standards 
are considered appropriate for water containing components which are 
not part of the reactor coolant pressure boundary but may contain 
radioactive materials. The probability of a line break is not 
increased since the materials, design, and fabrication of Quality 
Group C components is comparable to Quality Group D components. 
Differences between the two quality groups are limited primarily to 
quality assurance requirements. The use of Quality Group D 
components for portions of RWCU located in the radwaste building 
provides an adequate level of quality, commensurate with the 
importance of the functions to be performed by that portion of the 
system, and ensures that the facility can be operated without undue 
risk to the health and safety of the public.
    All safety related equipment required to mitigate accidents is 
either significantly remote from, or separated by protective 
barriers from the reclassified portions of the system. The 
consequences of breaks considered in the portion of the RWCU system 
affected by this activity are calculated to not exceed regulatory 
limits for dose to control room personnel or the public.

[[Page 87969]]

Calculated results are not significantly different than those 
reported for the existing instrument line break analysis in [the 
Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR)] Chapter 15.
    [Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.]
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    A postulated failure in the RWCU system piping would result in a 
high-energy line break (HELB) accident. High energy line breaks are 
already postulated and analyzed at various locations for portions of 
the RWCU system located in the reactor building. The existing 
instrument line break analysis was determined to bound a postulated 
worst case RWCU HELB. Since the offsite and onsite consequences of a 
postulated break in the reclassified portion of the RWCU is bounded 
by the existing instrument line break analyses, a new or different 
accident has not been created.
    [Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.]
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety. As noted in the technical and regulatory 
evaluation above, the reclassified portions of the system perform no 
active safety functions and will not result in radiological safety 
impact beyond that already assumed within the existing plant safety 
analyses.
    [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: William A. Horin, Esq., Winston & Strawn, 
1700 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20006-3817.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.

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

    Date of amendment request: October 7, 2016. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16281A174.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the 
Byron Station licensing basis for protection from tornado-generated 
missiles. Specifically, the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report 
(UFSAR) would be revised to identify the TORMIS Computer Code as the 
methodology used for assessing tornado-generated missile protection of 
unprotected plant structures, systems, and components (SSCs) and to 
describe the results of the Byron Station site-specific tornado hazard 
analysis.
    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 NRC TORMIS Safety Evaluation Report states the following:

    ``The current Licensing criteria governing tornado missile 
protection are contained in [NUREG-0800] Standard Review Plan (SRP) 
Section 3.5.1.4, [Missiles Generated by Natural Phenomena] and 3.5.2 
[Structures, Systems and Components to be Protected from Externally 
Generated Missiles]. These criteria generally specify that safety-
related systems be provided positive tornado missile protection 
(barriers) from the maximum credible tornado threat. However, SRP 
Section 3.5.1.4 includes acceptance criteria permitting relaxation 
of the above deterministic guidance, if it can be demonstrated that 
the probability of damage to unprotected essential safety-related 
features is sufficiently small.''

    As permitted by these SRP sections, the combined probability 
will be maintained below an allowable level, i.e., an acceptance 
criterion threshold, which reflects an extremely low probability of 
occurrence. SRP Section 2.2.3, ``Evaluation of Potential 
Accidents,'' established this threshold as approximately 1.0E-06 per 
year if, when combined with reasonable qualitative arguments, the 
realistic probability can be shown to be lower. The Byron Station 
analysis approach assumes that if the sum of the individual 
probabilities calculated for tornado missiles striking and damaging 
portions of safety-significant SSCs is greater than or equal to 
1.0E-06 per year per unit, then installation of tornado missile 
protection barriers would be required for certain components to 
lower the total cumulative damage probability below the acceptance 
criterion of 1.0E-06 per year per unit. Conversely, if the total 
cumulative damage probability remains below the acceptance criterion 
of 1.0E-06 per year per unit, no additional tornado missile 
protection barriers would be required for any of the unprotected 
safety-significant components.
    With respect to the probability of occurrence or the 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated in the UFSAR, the 
possibility of a tornado impacting the Byron Station site and 
causing damage to plant SSCs is a licensing basis event currently 
addressed in the UFSAR. The change being proposed (i.e., the use of 
the TORMIS methodology for assessing tornado-generated missile 
protection of unprotected plant SSCs), does not affect the 
probability of a tornado strike on the site; however, from a 
licensing basis perspective, the proposed change does affect the 
probability that missiles generated by a tornado will strike and 
damage certain safety-significant plant SSCs. There are a defined 
number of safety-significant components that could theoretically be 
struck and damaged by tornado-generated missiles. The probability of 
tornado-generated missile hits on these ``important'' systems and 
components is calculated using the TORMIS probabilistic methodology. 
The combined probability of damage for unprotected safety-
significant equipment will be maintained below the acceptance 
criterion of 1.0E-06 per year per unit to ensure adequate equipment 
remains available to safely shutdown the reactors, and maintain 
overall plant safety, should a tornado strike occur. Consequently, 
the proposed change does not constitute a significant increase in 
the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident 
based on the extremely low probability of damage caused by tornado-
generated missiles and the commensurate extremely low probability of 
a radiological release.
    Finally, the use of the TORMIS methodology will have no impact 
on accident initiators or precursors; does not alter the accident 
analysis assumptions or the manner in which the plant is operated or 
maintained; and does not affect the probability of operator error.
    Based on the above discussion, the proposed change does not 
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of 
an accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The impact of a tornado strike on the Byron Station site is a 
licensing basis event that is explicitly addressed in the UFSAR. The 
proposed change simply involves recognition of the acceptability of 
using an analysis tool (i.e., the TORMIS methodology) to perform 
probabilistic tornado missile damage calculations in accordance with 
approved regulatory guidance. The proposed change does not result in 
the creation of any new accident precursors; does not result in 
changes to any existing accident scenarios; and does not introduce 
any operational changes or mechanisms that would create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident.
    Therefore, the proposed change will not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident than those previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The existing Byron Station licensing basis regarding tornado 
missile protection of safety-significant SSCs assumes that missile 
protection barriers are provided for safety-

[[Page 87970]]

significant SSCs; or the unprotected component is assumed to be 
unavailable post-tornado. The results of the Byron Station TORMIS 
analysis have demonstrated that there is an extremely low 
probability, below an established regulatory acceptance limit, that 
these ``important'' SSCs could be struck and subsequently damaged by 
tornado-generated missiles. The change in licensing basis from 
protecting safety-significant SSCs from tornado missiles, to 
demonstrating that there is an extremely low probability that 
safety-significant SSCs will be struck and damaged by tornado-
generated missiles, does not constitute a significant decrease in 
the margin of safety.
    Therefore, the proposed change to use the TORMIS methodology 
does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
requested amendments involve no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel, 
Exelon Nuclear, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555.
    Acting NRC Branch Chief: G. Edward Miller.

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

    Date of amendment request: August 11, 2016. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16229A278.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed change would 
eliminate the on-shift positions not needed for storage of the spent 
fuel in the spent fuel pool during the initial decommissioning period 
and the emergency response organization (ERO) positions not needed to 
respond to credible events. Additionally the licensee is proposing to 
revise the emergency action levels (EALs) to reflect those conditions 
applicable when the unit is in a permanently defueled condition.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes to the CPS Emergency Plan do not impact the 
function of plant Structures, Systems, or Components (SSCs). The 
proposed changes do not involve the modification of any plant 
equipment or affect plant operation. The proposed changes do not 
affect accident initiators or precursors, nor do the proposed 
changes alter design assumptions. The proposed changes do not 
prevent the ability of the on-shift staff and ERO to perform their 
intended functions to mitigate the consequences of any accident or 
event that will be credible in the permanently defueled condition. 
The proposed changes only remove positions and remove certain EALs 
that will no longer be needed or credited in the Emergency Plan in 
the permanently defueled condition.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes reduce the number of on-shift and ERO 
positions commensurate with the hazards associated with a 
permanently shutdown and defueled facility. The proposed changes 
also remove EALs which are no longer applicable to CPS in a 
permanently defueled condition. The proposed changes do not involve 
installation of new equipment or modification of existing equipment, 
so that no new equipment failure modes are introduced. Also, the 
proposed changes do not result in a change to the way that the 
equipment or facility is operated so that no new accident initiators 
are created.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    Margin of safety is associated with confidence in the ability of 
the fission product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, reactor coolant 
system pressure boundary, and containment structure) to limit the 
level of radiation dose to the public. The proposed changes do not 
adversely affect existing plant safety margins or the reliability of 
the equipment assumed to operate in the safety analyses. There are 
no changes being made to safety analysis assumptions, safety limits, 
or limiting safety system settings that would adversely affect plant 
safety as a result of the proposed changes. The proposed changes are 
associated with the Emergency Plan and staffing and EAL schemes and 
do not impact operation of the plant or its response to transients 
or accidents.
    The proposed changes do not affect the Technical Specifications. 
The proposed changes do not involve a change in the method of plant 
operation, and no accident analyses will be affected by the proposed 
changes. Safety analysis acceptance criteria are not affected by the 
proposed changes and margins of safety are maintained. The revised 
Emergency Plan will continue to provide the necessary response staff 
with the proposed changes.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel, 
Exelon Nuclear, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555.
    Acting NRC Branch Chief: G. Edward Miller.

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

    Date of amendment request: October 20, 2016. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16294A203.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment request 
supports the deletion, modification, and addition to the organization, 
staffing, and training requirements contained in Sections 1.0 and 5.0 
of the Technical Specifications (TSs) after the license no longer 
authorizes operation of the reactor or placement or retention of fuel 
in the reactor pressure vessel. This proposed amendment also supports 
implementation of the Certified Fuel Handler training 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 changes would not take effect until QCNPS has 
permanently ceased operation and entered a permanently defueled 
condition. The proposed changes would revise the QCNPS TS by 
deleting or modifying certain portions of the TS administrative 
controls described in Section 5.0 of the TS that are no longer 
applicable to a permanently shutdown and defueled facility.
    The proposed changes do not involve any physical changes to 
plant structures, systems, and components (SSCs) or the manner in 
which SSCs are operated, maintained, modified, tested, or inspected. 
The proposed changes do not involve a change to any safety limits, 
limiting safety system settings, limiting control settings, limiting 
conditions for operation, surveillance requirements, or design 
features.
    The deletion and modification of provisions of the facility 
administrative

[[Page 87971]]

controls do not affect the design of SSCs necessary for safe storage 
of spent irradiated fuel or the methods used for handling and 
storage of such fuel in the Spent Fuel Pool (SFP). The proposed 
changes are administrative in nature and do not affect any accidents 
applicable to the safe management of spent irradiated fuel or the 
permanently shutdown and defueled condition of the reactor.
    In a permanently defueled condition, the only credible accidents 
are the Design Basis Fuel Handling Accidents Inside Containment (the 
specific concern is dropping a fuel bundle over the Spent Fuel Pool; 
not the Reactor Vessel) and Spent Fuel Storage Buildings and 
Postulated Liquid Releases Due to Liquid Tank Failures. Other 
accidents such as Loss of Coolant Accident, Loss of Feedwater, and 
Reactivity and Power Distribution Anomalies will no longer be 
applicable to a permanently defueled reactor plant.
    The probability of occurrence of previously evaluated accidents 
is not increased, since extended operation in a permanently defueled 
condition will be the only operation allowed, and therefore, bounded 
by the existing analyses. Additionally, the occurrence of postulated 
accidents associated with reactor operation is no longer credible in 
a permanently defueled reactor. This significantly reduces the scope 
of applicable accidents.
    The proposed changes in the administrative controls do not 
affect the ability to successfully respond to previously evaluated 
accidents and do not affect radiological assumptions used in the 
evaluations. The proposed changes narrow the focus of nuclear safety 
concerns to those associated with safely maintaining spent nuclear 
fuel. These changes remove the implication that QCNPS can return to 
operation once the final certification required by 10 CFR 
50.82(a)(1)(ii) is submitted to the NRC. Any event involving safe 
storage of spent irradiated fuel or the methods used for handling 
and storage of such fuel in the SFP would evolve slowly enough that 
no immediate response would be required to protect the health and 
safety of the public or station personnel. Adequate communications 
capability is provided to allow facility personnel to safely manage 
storage and handling of irradiated fuel. As a result, no changes to 
radiological release parameters are involved. There is no effect on 
the type or amount of radiation released, and there is no effect on 
predicted offsite doses in the event of an accident.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequence 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 to delete and/or modify certain TS 
administrative controls have no impact on facility SSCs affecting 
the safe storage of spent irradiated fuel, or on the methods of 
operation of such SSCs, or on the handling and storage of spent 
irradiated fuel itself. The proposed changes do not result in 
different or more adverse failure modes or accidents than previously 
evaluated because the reactor will be permanently shut down and 
defueled and QCNPS will no longer be authorized to operate the 
reactor. The proposed changes will continue to require proper 
control and monitoring of safety significant parameters and 
activities.
    The proposed changes do not result in any new mechanisms that 
could initiate damage to the remaining relevant safety barriers in 
support of maintaining the plant in a permanently shutdown and 
defueled condition (e.g., fuel cladding and SFP cooling). Since 
extended operation in a defueled condition will be the only 
operation allowed, and therefore bounded by the existing analyses, 
such a condition does not create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident.
    The proposed changes do not alter the protection system design 
or create new failure modes. The proposed changes do not involve a 
physical alteration of the plant, and no new or different kind of 
equipment will be installed. Consequently, there are no new 
initiators that could result in a new or different kind of accident.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes involve deleting and/or modifying certain 
TS administrative controls once the QCNPS facility has been 
permanently shutdown and defueled. As specified in 10 CFR 
50.82(a)(2), the 10 CFR 50 license for QCNPS will no longer 
authorize operation of the reactor or emplacement or retention of 
fuel into the reactor vessel following submittal of the 
certifications required by 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1). As a result, the 
occurrence of certain design basis postulated accidents are no 
longer considered credible when the reactor is permanently defueled.
    The only remaining credible accidents are the Design Basis Fuel 
Handling Accidents Inside Containment and Spent Fuel Storage 
Buildings (the specific concern is dropping a fuel bundle over the 
Spent Fuel Pool; not the Reactor Vessel) and the Postulated Liquid 
Releases Due to Liquid Tank Failures. The proposed changes do not 
adversely affect the inputs or assumptions of any of the design 
basis analyses that impact the Design Basis Fuel Handling Accidents.
    The proposed changes are limited to those portions of the TS 
administrative controls that are not related to the safe storage and 
maintenance of spent irradiated fuel.
    These proposed changes do not directly involve any physical 
equipment limits or parameters. The requirements that are proposed 
to be revised and/or deleted from the QCNPS TS are not credited in 
the existing accident analysis for the remaining applicable 
postulated accidents; therefore, they do not contribute to the 
margin of safety associated with the accident analysis. Certain 
postulated DBAs [design-basis accidents] involving the reactor are 
no longer possible because the reactor will be permanently shut down 
and defueled and QCNPS will no longer be authorized to operate the 
reactor.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
reduction in the margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
requested amendments involve no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel, 
Exelon Nuclear, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555.
    Acting NRC Branch Chief: G. Edward Miller.

Florida Power & 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: April 4, 2016, as supplemented by 
letters dated September 1, 2016, and November 10, 2016. Publicly-
available versions are in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML16110A266, 
ML16260A399, and ML16323A313, respectively.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the 
Technical Specification (TS) requirements for snubbers and add a new TS 
to the Administrative Controls section of the TSs describing the 
licensee's Snubber Testing Program. The amendments would revise the 
snubber TS surveillance requirements (SRs) by deleting specific 
requirements from the TS SRs and replacing them with a requirement to 
demonstrate snubber operability in accordance with the licensee-
controlled Snubber Testing Program. The proposed changes include 
additions to, deletions from, and conforming administrative changes to 
the TSs.
    The license amendment request was originally noticed in the Federal 
Register (FR) on July 5, 2016 (81 FR 43652). The notice is being 
reissued in its entirety because the licensee's supplement dated 
November 10, 2016, expanded the scope of the application by proposing 
to delete a portion of the snubber SR that requires inspections per 
another TS that is no longer applicable to snubbers.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:


[[Page 87972]]


    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes would revise TS SR 4.7.6 to conform the TS 
to the revised surveillance program for snubbers. Snubber 
examination, testing and service life monitoring will continue to 
meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a(g).
    Snubber examination, testing and service life monitoring is not 
an initiator of any accident previously evaluated. Therefore, the 
probability of an accident previously evaluated is not significantly 
increased.
    Snubbers will continue to be demonstrated OPERABLE by 
performance of a program for examination, testing and service life 
monitoring in compliance with 10 CFR 50.55a or authorized 
alternatives. The proposed change to the TS 3.7.6 Action for 
inoperable snubbers is administrative in nature and is required for 
consistency with the proposed change to TS SR 4.7.6. The proposed 
change does not adversely affect plant operations, design functions 
or analyses that verify the capability of systems, structures, and 
components to perform their design functions[;] therefore, the 
consequences of accidents previously evaluated are not significantly 
increased.
    Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes do not involve any physical alteration of 
plant equipment. The proposed changes do not alter the method by 
which any safety-related system performs its function. As such, no 
new or different types of equipment will be installed, and the basic 
operation of installed equipment is unchanged. The methods governing 
plant operation and testing remain consistent with current safety 
analysis assumptions.
    Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes ensure snubber examination, testing and 
service life monitoring will continue to meet the requirements of 10 
CFR 50.55a(g). Snubbers will continue to be demonstrated OPERABLE by 
performance of a program for examination, testing and service life 
monitoring in compliance with 10 CFR 50.55a or authorized 
alternatives.
    The proposed change to the TS 3.7.6 Action for inoperable 
snubbers is administrative in nature and is required for consistency 
with the proposed change to TS SR 4.7.6.
    Therefore, it is concluded that 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: William S. Blair, Managing Attorney--
Nuclear, Florida Power & Light Company, 700 Universe Blvd., MS LAW/JB, 
Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420.
    Acting NRC Branch Chief: Jeanne A. Dion.

Florida Power & 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: September 16, 2016. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16271A181.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the 
Unit 1 and Unit 2 Technical Specifications (TSs) by removing certain 
process radiation monitors and placing their requirements in a 
licensee-controlled manual. The amendments would also change the Unit 2 
containment particulate radiation monitor range.
    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 effluent radiation monitors are not event initiators, nor 
are they credited in the mitigation of any event or credited in the 
PRA [Probabilistic Risk Assessment]. Relocating the monitors to the 
ODCM [Offsite Dose Calculation Manual] does not adversely impact the 
monitor function, and does not affect the accident analyses in any 
manner.
    The Unit 2 containment atmosphere particulate radiation monitor 
is credited in the Leak-Before-Break analyses, where it states that 
``the leakage detection systems are capable of detecting the 
specified leak rate'' and that the leakage detection systems ``are 
consistent with Regulatory Guide 1.45.'' Correcting the TS 
instrument range for the monitor does not adversely impact the 
monitor function, i.e., its capability to detect leakage. This 
change does not affect the accident analyses in any manner.
    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 previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes correct a legacy error in the Unit 2 TS, 
and the TS removal of effluent monitors and their subsequent 
relocation to the ODCM do not change the function or capabilities of 
any equipment, and do not involve the addition or modification of 
any plant equipment. Also, the proposed change does not alter the 
design, configuration, or method of operation of the plant. The 
subject monitors remain capable of performing their design 
functions.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes remove select effluent monitors from the 
TSs and relocate their requirements to the ODCM and correct a legacy 
error in the Unit 2 TSs, and do not involve the addition or 
modification of any plant equipment. The changes do not modify the 
plant or plant equipment, and do not change the manner in which 
structures, systems or components are design[ed] or evaluated.
    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 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: William S. Blair, Managing Attorney--
Nuclear, Florida Power & Light Company, 700 Universe Boulevard, MS LAW/
JB, Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420.
    Acting NRC Branch Chief: Jeanne A. Dion.

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

    Date of amendment request: October 18, 2016. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16294A257.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed changes would revise 
Technical Specification 5.5.14, ``Containment Leakage Rate Testing 
Program,'' to clarify the containment leak rate testing pressure 
criteria.
    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 of

[[Page 87973]]

occurrence or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes do not involve changes to the installed 
structures, systems or components of the facility. The proposed 
change is consistent with Westinghouse Owners Group Standard 
Technical Specification language for the Containment Leak Rate 
Program.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not introduce a new mode of plant 
operation and does not involve physical modification to the plant. 
The change does not introduce new accident initiators or impact 
assumptions made in the safety analysis. Testing requirements 
continue to demonstrate that the Limiting Conditions for Operation 
are met and the system components are functional.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not exceed or alter a design basis or 
safety limit, so there is no significant reduction in the margin of 
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: Robert B. Haemer, Senior Nuclear Counsel, 
One Cook Place, Bridgman, MI 49106.
    NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323, Diablo 
Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2 (DCPP), San Luis Obispo 
County, California

    Date of amendment request: October 25, 2016. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16315A184.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would 
revise the Emergency Plan (E-Plan) for DCPP to adopt the Nuclear Energy 
Institute's (NEI's) revised Emergency Action Level (EAL) scheme 
described in NEI 99-01, Revision 6, ``Development of Emergency Action 
Levels for Non-Passive Reactors,'' November 2012 (ADAMS Accession No. 
ML12326A805). NEI-99-01, Revision 6, has been endorsed by the NRC by 
letter dated March 28, 2013 (ADAMS Accession No. ML12346A463). 
Currently approved E-Plan EAL schemes for DCPP are based on the 
guidance established in NEI 99-01, Revision 4, ``Methodology for 
Development of Emergency Action Levels,'' January 2003 (ADAMS Accession 
No. ML030230250), except for security-related EALs, which are based on 
the guidance established in NEI 99-01, Revision 5, ``Methodology for 
Development of Emergency Action Levels,'' February 2008 (ADAMS 
Accession No. ML080450149).
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes to the Diablo Canyon Power Plant (DCPP) 
emergency action levels (EALs) do not impact the physical function 
of plant structures, systems, or components (SSCs) or the manner in 
which SSCs perform their design function. The proposed changes 
neither adversely affect accident initiators or precursors, nor 
alter design assumptions. The proposed changes do not alter or 
prevent the ability of SSCs to perform their intended function to 
mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within assumed 
acceptance limits. No operating procedures or administrative 
controls that function to prevent or mitigate accidents are affected 
by the proposed changes.
    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 accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes do not involve a physical alteration of the 
plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be installed 
or removed) or a change in the method of plant operation. The 
proposed changes will not introduce failure modes that could result 
in a new accident, and the change does not alter assumptions made in 
the safety analysis. The proposed changes to the DCPP EALs are not 
initiators of any accidents.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    Margin of safety is associated with the ability of the fission 
product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, reactor coolant system 
pressure boundary, and containment structure) to limit the level of 
radiation dose to the public.
    The proposed changes do not impact operation of the plant or its 
response to transients or accidents. The proposed changes do not 
affect the Technical Specifications or the Operating License. The 
proposed changes do not involve a change in the method of plant 
operation, and no accident analyses will be affected by the proposed 
changes. Additionally, the proposed changes will not relax any 
criteria used to establish safety limits and will not relax any 
safety system settings. The safety analysis acceptance criteria are 
not affected by these changes. The proposed changes will not result 
in plant operation in a configuration outside the design basis. The 
proposed changes do not adversely affect systems that respond to 
safely shut down the plant and to maintain the plant in a safe 
shutdown condition. The E-Plan will continue to activate an 
emergency response commensurate with the extent of degradation of 
plant 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 requests involve no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Jennifer Post, Esq., Pacific Gas and 
Electric Company, P.O. Box 7442, San Francisco, California 94120.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-
364, Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant (Farley), Units 1 and 2, Houston 
County, Alabama

    Date of amendment request: October 11, 2016. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16285A351.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would add Technical 
Specification (TS) requirements for unavailable barriers by adding 
Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) 3.0.9, consistent with NRC-
approved Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Improved Standard 
Technical Specifications Change Traveler TSTF-427, Revision 2, 
``Allowance for Non-Technical Specification Barrier Degradation on 
Supported System OPERABILITY.'' The availability of this TS improvement 
was published in the Federal Register on October 3, 2006 (71 FR 58444), 
as part of the consolidated line item improvement process (CLIIP).

[[Page 87974]]

    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 by confirming the applicability of the Farley, Units 1 
and 2, to the model proposed no significant hazards consideration 
published on October 3, 2006, as part of the CLIIP, as referenced 
below:

Criterion 1--The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant 
Increase in the Probability or Consequences of an Accident Previously 
Evaluated

    The proposed change allows a delay time for entering a supported 
system technical specification (TS) when the inoperability is due 
solely to an unavailable barrier if risk is assessed and managed. 
The postulated initiating events which may require a functional 
barrier are limited to those with low frequencies of occurrence, and 
the overall TS system safety function would still be available for 
the majority of anticipated challenges. Therefore, the probability 
of an accident previously evaluated is not significantly increased, 
if at all. The consequences of an accident while relying on the 
allowance provided by proposed LCO 3.0.9 are no different than the 
consequences of an accident while relying on the TS required actions 
in effect without the allowance provided by proposed LCO 3.0.9. 
Therefore, the consequences of an accident previously evaluated are 
not significantly affected by this change. The addition of a 
requirement to assess and manage the risk introduced by this change 
will further minimize possible concerns. Therefore, this change does 
not involve a significant increase in the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

Criterion 2--The Proposed Change Does Not Create the Possibility of a 
New or Different Kind of Accident From any Previously Evaluated

    The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of 
the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed). 
Allowing delay times for entering supported system TS when 
inoperability is due solely to an unavailable barrier, if risk is 
assessed and managed, will not introduce new failure modes or 
effects and will not, in the absence of other unrelated failures, 
lead to an accident whose consequences exceed the consequences of 
accidents previously evaluated. The addition of a requirement to 
assess and manage the risk introduced by this change will further 
minimize possible concerns. Thus, this change does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from an accident 
previously evaluated.

Criterion 3--The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant 
Reduction in the Margin of Safety

    The proposed change allows a delay time for entering a supported 
system TS when the inoperability is due solely to an unavailable 
barrier, if risk is assessed and managed. The postulated initiating 
events which may require a functional barrier are limited to those 
with low frequencies of occurrence, and the overall TS system safety 
function would still be available for the majority of anticipated 
challenges. The risk impact of the proposed TS changes was assessed 
following the three-tiered approach recommended in RG [Regulatory 
Guide] 1.177. A bounding risk assessment was performed to justify 
the proposed TS changes. This application of LCO 3.0.9 is predicated 
upon the licensee's performance of a risk assessment and the 
management of plant risk. The net change to the margin of safety is 
insignificant as indicated by the anticipated low levels of 
associated risk (ICCDP [incremental conditional core damage 
probability] and ICLERP [incremental conditional large early release 
probability]) as shown in Table 1 of Section 3.1.1 in the Safety 
Evaluation. Therefore, this 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: Jennifer M. Buettner, Associate General 
Counsel, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 40 Inverness Center 
Parkway, Birmingham, AL 35201.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation (WCNOC), Docket No. 50-482, 
Wolf Creek Generating Station (WCGS), Coffey County, Kansas

    Date of amendment request: September 30, 2016. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16279A377.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the 
emergency action level (EAL) scheme used at WCGS. The currently 
approved EAL scheme is based on Nuclear Management and Resources 
Council/National Environmental Studies Project (NUMARC/NESP)-007, 
Revision 2, ``Methodology for Development of Emergency Action Levels,'' 
January 1992 (ADAMS Accession No. ML041120174). The proposed change 
would allow WCNOC to adopt an EAL scheme which is based on the guidance 
established in Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 99-01, Revision 6, 
``Development of Emergency Action levels for Non-Passive Reactors,'' 
November 2012 (ADAMS Accession No. ML12326A805). NEI 99-01, Revision 6 
has been endorsed by the NRC by letter dated March 28, 2013 (ADAMS 
Accession No. ML12346A463).
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes to the WCGS EALs do not impact the physical 
function of plant structures, systems or components [(SSCs)] or the 
manner in which SSCs perform their design function. The proposed 
changes neither adversely affect accident initiators or precursors, 
nor alter design assumptions. The proposed changes do not alter or 
prevent the ability of SSCs to perform their intended function to 
mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within assumed 
acceptance limits. No operating procedures or administrative 
controls that function to prevent or mitigate accidents are affected 
by the proposed changes.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes do not involve a physical alteration of the 
plant (i.e., no new or different types of equipment will be 
installed or removed) or a change in the method of plant operation. 
The proposed changes will not introduce failure modes that could 
result in a new accident, and the changes do not alter assumptions 
made in the safety analysis. The proposed changes to the WCGS EALs 
are not initiators of any accidents.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    Margin of safety is associated with the ability of the fission 
product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, reactor coolant system 
pressure boundary, and containment structure) to limit the level of 
radiation dose to the public. The proposed changes do not impact 
operation of the plant or its response to transients or accidents. 
The changes do not affect the Technical Specifications or the 
operating license. The proposed changes do not involve a change in 
the method of plant operation, and no accident analyses will be 
affected by the proposed changes. Additionally, the proposed changes 
will not relax any criteria used to establish safety limits and will 
not relax any safety system settings. The safety analysis acceptance 
criteria are not affected by these changes. The proposed changes 
will not result in plant operation in a configuration outside the 
design basis. The proposed changes do not adversely affect systems 
that respond to safely shut down the plant and to maintain

[[Page 87975]]

the plant in a safe shutdown condition. The emergency plan will 
continue to activate an emergency response commensurate with the 
extent of degradation of plant safety.
    [Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.]

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Jay Silberg, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw 
Pittman LLP, 2300 N Street NW., Washington, DC 20037.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.

III. 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.

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-247 and 50-286, Indian 
Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3, Westchester County, New 
York

    Date of amendment request: December 10, 2015, as supplemented by 
letters dated March 2, July 7, and October 6, 2016.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical 
Specification (TS) 3.1.3, ``Moderator Temperature Coefficient (MTC),'' 
and TS 5.6.5, ``Core Operating Limits Report (COLR),'' to allow 
exemption from the normally required near end-of-life MTC measurement 
by placing a set of conditions on reactor core operation. If these 
conditions are met, the MTC measurement could be replaced by a 
calculated value.
    Date of issuance: November 15, 2016.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be 
implemented within 30 days.
    Amendment Nos.: Unit 2-285; Unit 3-261. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16215A243; documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with 
the amendments.
    Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-26 and DPR-64: The amendments 
revised the Facility Operating Licenses and the TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 5, 2016 (81 FR 
19647). The supplemental letters dated March 2, July 7, and October 6, 
2016, 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 November 15, 2016.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: December 3, 2015, as supplemented by 
letters dated June 9, 2016, August 2, 2016, and November 8, 2016.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the 
technical specification (TS) surveillance requirements associated with 
the emergency diesel generator (EDG) fuel oil transfer system. 
Specifically, the amendments allow for the crediting of manual actions, 
in lieu of automatic actions, without having to declare the EDGs 
inoperable.
    Date of issuance: November 16, 2016.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 120 days of issuance.
    Amendments Nos.: Unit 2-311; Unit 3-315. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16292A188; documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with 
the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-44 and DPR-56: The 
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 2, 2016 (81 FR 
5498). The supplemental letters dated June 9, 2016, August 2, 2016, and 
November 8, 2016, 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 amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated November 16, 2016.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-364, 
Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Houston County, Alabama

    Date of amendment request: November 20, 2015, as supplemented by 
letters dated January 12, April 11, and June 30, 2016.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the 
setpoint requirements in Technical Specification (TS) 3.3.5, ``Loss of 
Power (LOP) Diesel Generator (DG) Start Instrumentation.'' The change 
was requested to fulfill a license condition to eliminate the manual 
actions in lieu of automatic degraded voltage protection to assure 
adequate voltage to safety-related equipment during design-basis 
events.
    Date of issuance: November 17, 2016.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: Unit 1-206; Unit 2-202. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16196A161; documents related 
to

[[Page 87976]]

these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 
amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-2 and NPF-8: The 
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 16, 2016 (81 
FR 7842). The supplemental letters dated April 11, 2016, and June 30, 
2016, 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 amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated November 17, 2016.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

IV. Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and 
Combined Licenses and Final Determination of No Significant Hazards 
Consideration and Opportunity for a Hearing (Exigent Public 
Announcement or Emergency Circumstances)

    During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, 
the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has 
determined for each of these amendments that the application for the 
amendment complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic 
Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules 
and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as 
required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 
CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.
    Because of exigent or emergency circumstances associated with the 
date the amendment was needed, there was not time for the Commission to 
publish, for public comment before issuance, its usual notice of 
consideration of issuance of amendment, proposed no significant hazards 
consideration determination, and opportunity for a hearing.
    For exigent circumstances, the Commission has either issued a 
Federal Register notice providing opportunity for public comment or has 
used local media to provide notice to the public in the area 
surrounding a licensee's facility of the licensee's application and of 
the Commission's proposed determination of no significant hazards 
consideration. The Commission has provided a reasonable opportunity for 
the public to comment, using its best efforts to make available to the 
public means of communication for the public to respond quickly, and in 
the case of telephone comments, the comments have been recorded or 
transcribed as appropriate and the licensee has been informed of the 
public comments.
    In circumstances where failure to act in a timely way would have 
resulted, for example, in derating or shutdown of a nuclear power plant 
or in prevention of either resumption of operation or of increase in 
power output up to the plant's licensed power level, the Commission may 
not have had an opportunity to provide for public comment on its no 
significant hazards consideration determination. In such case, the 
license amendment has been issued without opportunity for comment. If 
there has been some time for public comment but less than 30 days, the 
Commission may provide an opportunity for public comment. If comments 
have been requested, it is so stated. In either event, the State has 
been consulted by telephone whenever possible.
    Under its regulations, the Commission may issue and make an 
amendment immediately effective, notwithstanding the pendency before it 
of a request for a hearing from any person, in advance of the holding 
and completion of any required hearing, where it has determined that no 
significant hazards consideration is involved.
    The Commission has applied the standards of 10 CFR 50.92 and has 
made a final determination that the amendment involves no significant 
hazards consideration. The basis for this determination is contained in 
the documents related to this action. Accordingly, the amendments have 
been issued and made effective as indicated.
    Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that 
these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in 
accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), 
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be 
prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an 
environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 
10 CFR 51.12(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, 
it is so indicated.
    For further details with respect to the action see (1) the 
application for amendment, (2) the amendment to Facility Operating 
License or Combined License, as applicable, and (3) the Commission's 
related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment, as 
indicated. All of these items can be accessed as described in the 
``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' section of this 
document.

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

    The Commission is also offering an opportunity for a hearing with 
respect to the issuance of the amendment.
    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 a petition 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, which is available at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint 
North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, 
Maryland 20852. The NRC's regulations are accessible electronically 
from the NRC Library on the NRC's Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a petition is filed within 60 days, 
the Commission or a presiding officer designated by the Commission or 
by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing 
Board Panel, will rule on the petition; and the Secretary or the Chief 
Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel 
will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order.
    As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition shall set forth with 
particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how 
that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The 
petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention 
should be permitted with particular reference to the following general 
requirements: (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. The petition 
must also set forth the specific contentions which the petitioner seeks 
to have litigated at 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 shall provide a

[[Page 87977]]

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 those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is 
aware and on which the petitioner intends to rely to establish those 
facts or expert opinion to support its position on the issue. The 
petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine 
dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. 
Contentions shall 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 these 
requirements 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, 
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the 
hearing with respect to resolution of that person's admitted 
contentions consistent with the NRC's regulations, policies, and 
procedures.
    Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 
days from the date of publication of this notice. Requests for hearing, 
petitions for leave to intervene, and motions for leave to file new or 
amended contentions that are filed after the 60-day 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).
    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 decide 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 held 
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 any 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 by February 6, 2017. The petition must be filed in 
accordance with the filing instructions in the ``Electronic Submissions 
(E-Filing)'' section of this document, and should meet the requirements 
for petitions set forth in this section, except that under 10 CFR 
2.309(h)(2) a State, local governmental body, or Federally-recognized 
Indian Tribe, or agency thereof does not need to address the standing 
requirements in 10 CFR 2.309(d) if the facility is located within its 
boundaries. A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized 
Indian Tribe, or agency thereof may also have the opportunity to 
participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c).
    If a hearing is granted, any person who does not wish, or is not 
qualified, to become a party to the proceeding may, in 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 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, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or 
other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a 
request for hearing or petition to intervene (hereinafter 
``petition''), and documents filed by interested governmental entities 
participating 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. Participants may 
not submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption 
in accordance with the procedures described below.
    To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 
days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the 
Office of the Secretary by email at [email protected], or by 
telephone at 301-415-1677, to request (1) a digital identification (ID) 
certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or 
representative) to digitally sign documents and access the E-Submittal 
server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise 
the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a petition (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 Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/getting-started.html. System requirements for accessing 
the E-Submittal server are available on the NRC's public Web site at 
http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/adjudicatory-sub.html. 
Participants may attempt to use other software not listed on the Web 
site, but should note that the NRC's E-Filing system does not support 
unlisted software, and the NRC Electronic Filing Help Desk will not be 
able to offer assistance in using unlisted software.
    Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a 
docket has been created, the participant can then submit a petition. 
Submissions should be in Portable Document Format (PDF). Additional 
guidance on PDF submissions is available on the NRC's public Web site 
at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/electronic-sub-ref-mat.html. A filing 
is considered complete at the time the documents are 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

[[Page 87978]]

proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the documents on those 
participants separately. Therefore, applicants and other participants 
(or their counsel or representative) must apply for and receive a 
digital ID certificate before a hearing petition to intervene is filed 
so that they can obtain access to the document via the E-Filing system.
    A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-
Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Electronic 
Filing Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC's 
public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by 
email to [email protected], or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-
7640. The NRC Electronic Filing Help Desk is available between 9 a.m. 
and 7 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 a document 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 
http://ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the 
Commission, or the presiding officer. Participants are requested not to 
include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers, 
home addresses, or home phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC 
regulation or other law requires submission of such information. 
However, in some instances, a petition will require including 
information on local residence in order to demonstrate a proximity 
assertion of interest in the proceeding. 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.
    The Commission will issue a notice or order granting or denying a 
hearing request or intervention petition, designating the issues for 
any hearing that will be held and designating the Presiding Officer. A 
notice granting a hearing will be published in the Federal Register and 
served on the parties to the hearing.

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: September 30, 2016, as supplemented by 
letter dated November 8, 2016.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments revised the LSCS 
licensing basis related to Alternate Source Term Analysis in the 
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report to allow operation with and 
movement of irradiated Atrium-10 fuel bundles containing part length 
rods that have been in operation above 62,000 megawatt days per metric 
ton of uranium (MWD/MTU), which is the current rod average burnup limit 
specified in Footnote 11 of NRC Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.183, 
``Alternative Radiological Source Terms for Evaluating Design Basis 
Accidents at Nuclear Power Reactors,'' to which LSCS is committed. In 
addition, the change allows use of the release fractions listed in 
Table 1 of RG 1.183 for these Atrium-10 partial length rods that are 
currently in the LSCA, Unit 2, Cycle 16, reactor core for the remainder 
of the current operating cycle.
    Date of issuance: November 18, 2016.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 10 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: Unit 1--221; Unit 2--207. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16320A182; documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with 
the amendments.
    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-11 and NPF-18: The amendments 
revised the licensing basis related to Alternate Source Term in the 
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report.
    Public comments requested as to proposed no significant hazards 
consideration (NSHC): Yes. Public notice of the proposed amendment was 
published in The Ottawa Times on November 15 and November 16, 2016. The 
notice provided an opportunity to submit comments on the Commission's 
proposed NSHC determination. No comments have been received.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment, finding of 
exigent circumstances, state consultation, and final NSHC determination 
are contained in a safety evaluation dated November 18, 2016.
    Attorney for licensee: Bradley J. Fewell, Associate General 
Counsel, Exelon Nuclear, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555.
    NRC Acting Branch Chief: Edward G. Miller.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 23rd day of November 2016.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Anne T. Boland,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2016-28990 Filed 12-5-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7590-01-P