[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 244 (Tuesday, December 20, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 92863-92880]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-30438]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2016-0256]


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 22, 2016, to December 5, 2016. The 
last biweekly notice was published on December 6, 2016.

DATES: Comments must be filed by January 19, 2017. A request for a 
hearing must be filed by February 21, 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-2016-0256. 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: Shirley Rohrer, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-5411, email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments

A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0256, 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-2016-0256.
     NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the 
ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select ``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-2016-0256, facility name, unit 
number(s), plant docket number, application date, and subject in your 
comment submission.
    The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact 
information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your 
comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into 
ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove 
identifying or contact information.
    If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons 
for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to 
include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be 
publicly disclosed in their comment submission.

[[Page 92864]]

Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment 
submissions to remove such information before making the comment 
submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.

II. 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 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).

[[Page 92865]]

    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 21, 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: 
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

[[Page 92866]]

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

    Date of amendment request: September 26, 2016. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16287A421.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the 
Safety Limit Minimum Critical Power Ratio (SLMCPR) values contained in 
the Technical Specifications (TSs) for two recirculation loop operation 
and for single loop recirculation operation.
    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 SLMCPR values have been determined using NRC-
approved methods discussed in AREVA Topical Report ANP-10307PA, 
Revision 0, AREVA MCPR Safety Limit Methodology for Boiling Water 
Reactors, June 2011, as augmented by the associated TS Appendix B 
Additional Condition related to channel bow model uncertainty. 
Establishing a two recirculation loop SLMCPR value of >=1.07 and a 
single recirculation loop SLMCPR value of >=1.09 ensures that the 
acceptance criteria continues to be met (i.e., at least 99.9 percent 
of all fuel rods in the core do not experience transition boiling).
    The probability of an evaluated accident is derived from the 
probabilities of the individual precursors to that accident. The 
proposed license amendments do not involve any plant modifications 
or operational changes that could affect system reliability or 
performance, or that could affect the probability of operator error. 
As such, the proposed changes do not affect any postulated accident 
precursors. Since no individual precursors of an accident are 
affected, the proposed license amendments do not involve a 
significant increase in the probability of a previously analyzed 
event.
    The consequences of an evaluated accident are determined by the 
operability of plant systems designed to mitigate those 
consequences. The basis for the SLMCPR calculation is to ensure that 
during normal operation and during anticipated operational 
occurrences, at least 99.9 percent of all fuel rods in the core do 
not experience transition boiling if the safety limit is not 
exceeded.
    Based on these considerations, the proposed changes do not 
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of 
previously analyzed accident.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    Creation of the possibility of a new or different kind of 
accident requires creating one or more new accident precursors. New 
accident precursors may be created by modifications of plant 
configuration, including changes in allowable modes of operation. 
The SLMCPR is a TS numerical value calculated for two recirculation 
loop operation and single recirculation loop operation to ensure at 
least 99.9 percent of all fuel rods in the core do not experience 
transition boiling if the safety limit is not exceeded. SLMCPR 
values are calculated using NRC-approved methodology identified in 
the TS. The proposed SLMCPR values do not involve any new modes of 
plant operation or any plant modifications and do not directly or 
indirectly affect the failure modes of any plant systems or 
components. 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 change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The SLMCPR provides a margin of safety by ensuring that at least 
99.9 percent of the fuel rods do not experience transition boiling 
during normal operation and anticipated operational occurrences if 
the MCPR Safety Limit is not exceeded. Revision of the SLMCPR values 
in Technical Specification 2.1.1.2, using NRC-approved methodology, 
will ensure that the current level of fuel protection is maintained 
by continuing to ensure that the fuel design safety criterion is met 
(i.e., that no more than 0.1 percent of the rods are expected to be 
in boiling transition if the MCPR Safety Limit is not exceeded). 
Therefore, the proposed amendments do not result in a significant 
reduction in the margin of safety.

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

Entergy Operations, Inc., System Energy Resources, Inc., South 
Mississippi Electric Power Association, and Entergy Mississippi, Inc., 
Docket No. 50-416, Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Claiborne 
County, Mississippi

    Date of amendment request: October 26, 2016. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS, under Accession No. ML16301A150.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
change the Technical Specifications (TS) to revise requirements for 
unavailable barriers by adding new Limiting Condition for Operation 
(LCO) 3.0.9. This LCO establishes conditions under which systems would 
remain operable when required physical barriers are not capable of 
providing their related support function. This proposed amendment is 
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 OPERABILITLY.'' The Notice of 
Availability of this TS improvement and the model application was 
published in the Federal Register on October 3, 2006 (71 FR 58444), as 
part of the consolidated line item improvement process.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee provided an 
analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration (NSHC) by 
citing the proposed NSHC determination published by the NRC staff in 
the Federal Register notice referenced above. The proposed NSHC is 
reproduced 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

[[Page 92867]]

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 Accident 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: William B. Glew, Jr., Associate General 
Counsel--Entergy Services, Inc., 440 Hamilton Avenue, White Plains, New 
York 10601.
    NRC Acting Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.

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

    Date of amendment request: September 12, 2016. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16258A146.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
revise the setpoint for detecting a loss of voltage on the 4.16 
kilovolt essential service system (ESS) buses.
    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 to the 4.16 kV Essential Service System 
(ESS) bus loss of voltage allowable values allows the protection 
scheme to function as originally designed. This change will involve 
alteration of nominal trip setpoints in the field and will also be 
reflected in revisions to the calibration procedures. The proposed 
change does not affect the probability or consequences of any 
accident. Analysis was conducted and demonstrates that the proposed 
allowable values will allow the normally operating safety related 
motors to continue to operate without sustaining damage or tripping 
during the worst-case, non-accident degraded voltage condition for 
the maximum possible time-delay of 332.3 seconds. Thus, these safety 
related loads will be available to perform their safety function if 
a loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) concurrent with a loss-of offsite 
power (LOOP) occurs following the degraded voltage condition.
    The proposed change does not adversely affect accident 
initiators or precursors, and do not alter the design assumptions, 
conditions, or configuration or the plant or the manner in which the 
plant is operated or maintained. The proposed allowable values 
ensure that the 4.16 kV distribution system remains connected to the 
offsite power system when adequate offsite voltage is available and 
motor starting transients are considered. The emergency diesel 
generator (EDG) start due to a LOCA signal is not adversely affected 
by this change. During an actual loss of voltage condition, the loss 
of voltage time delay will continue to isolate the 4.16 kV 
distribution system from offsite power before the EDG is ready to 
assume the emergency loads, which is the limiting time basis for 
mitigating system responses to the accident. For this reason, the 
existing loss of power LOCA analysis continues to be valid.
    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 involves the revision of 4.16 kV ESS bus 
loss of voltage allowable values to satisfy existing design 
requirements. The proposed change does not introduce any changes or 
mechanisms that create the possibility of a new or different kind of 
accident. The proposed change does not install any new or different 
type of equipment, and installed equipment is not being operated in 
a new or different manner. No new effects on existing equipment are 
created nor are any new malfunctions introduced.
    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 protection voltage allowable values are low enough 
to prevent inadvertent power supply transfer, but high enough to 
ensure that sufficient power is available to the required equipment. 
The EDG start due to a LOCA signal is not adversely affected by this 
change. During an actual loss of voltage condition, the loss of 
voltage time delays will continue to isolate the 4.16 kV 
distribution system from offsite power before the EDG is ready to 
assume the emergency loads.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

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

[[Page 92868]]

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-334 and 
50-412, Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 (BVPS-1 and 
BVPS-2), Beaver County, Pennsylvania

    Date of amendment request: September 28, 2016. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Package Accession No. ML16277A194.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the 
BVPS-1 and BVPS-2 Emergency Plan by revising the emergency action level 
(EAL) schemes to one based on 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, was 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 amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes to BVPS's EAL scheme to adopt the NRC-
endorsed guidance of NEI 99-01, Revision 6, do not involve any 
physical changes to plant systems or equipment. The proposed changes 
do not alter any of the requirements of the technical 
specifications. The proposed changes do not modify any plant 
equipment and do not impact any failure modes that could lead to an 
accident. Additionally, the proposed changes do not impact the 
ability of structures, systems, or components (SSCs) to perform 
their intended safety functions in mitigating the consequences of an 
initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits.
    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 changes to BVPS's EAL scheme to adopt the NRC-
endorsed guidance of NEI 99-01, Revision 6, do not involve any 
physical changes to plant systems or equipment. The proposed changes 
do not involve the addition of any new plant equipment. The proposed 
changes will not alter the design configuration, or method of 
operation of plant equipment beyond its normal functional 
capabilities. BVPS functions will continue to be performed as 
required. The proposed changes do not create any new credible 
failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident initiators.
    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 changes to BVPS's EAL scheme to adopt the NRC-
endorsed guidance of NEI 99-01, Revision 6, do not involve any 
physical changes to plant systems or equipment. Margins of safety 
are unaffected by the proposed changes. 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 EAL scheme change. The proposed change does 
not affect the technical specifications. There are no changes to 
environmental conditions of any of the SSC or the manner in which 
any SSC is operated. The applicable requirements of 10 CFR 50.47 and 
10 CFR 50, Appendix E will continue to be met.
    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: David W. Jenkins, FirstEnergy Nuclear 
Operating Company, FirstEnergy Corporation, 76 South Main Street, Mail 
Stop A-GO-15, Akron, OH 44308.
    NRC Acting Branch Chief: Stephen S. Koenick.

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, Docket No. 50-440, Perry Nuclear 
Power Plant, Unit No. 1, Lake County, Ohio

    Date of amendment request: November 1, 2016. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16307A029.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
revise Technical Specification 2.1.1, ``Reactor Core [Safety Limits] 
SLs,'' to reduce the reactor steam dome pressure value.
    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.
    Decreasing the reactor steam dome pressure limit in Technical 
Specification Safety Limits 2.1.1 expands the range of use of the 
GEXL14 and GEXL17 correlations (applicable to GE14 and GNF2 fuel 
respectively) and the calculation of the minimum critical power 
ratio (CPR). The CPR increases during the pressure reduction that 
occurs during the [Pressure Regulator Failure-Maximum Demand (Open)] 
PRFO event, so that the initial CPR is the limiting CPR condition 
during the entire transient. CPR increases during the event relative 
to the initial CPR value, so fuel cladding integrity is not 
threatened. Since the change does not involve a modification of any 
plant hardware, the probability and consequence of the PRFO 
transient are essentially unchanged.
    The proposed change will continue to support the application 
range of the GEXL correlations applied at PNPP and the calculation 
of the minimum CPR. The proposed TS revision involves no significant 
changes to the operation of any systems or components in normal, 
accident or transient operating conditions.
    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 reduction in the reactor steam dome pressure limit 
in Technical Specification Safety Limits 2.1.1 from 785 psig to 686 
psig is a change based on NRC approved documents that permit a wider 
range of applicability for the GEXL critical power correlations for 
both GE14 and GNF2 fuel types in the reactor core. This change does 
not involve changes to the plant hardware or its operating 
characteristics. There are no changes in the method by which any 
plant systems perform a safety function, nor are there any changes 
in the methods governing normal plant operation. No new accident 
scenarios, failure mechanisms, or limiting single failures are 
introduced as a result of the proposed changes. As a result, no new 
failure modes are being introduced.
    Therefore, the 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 margin of safety is established through the design of the 
plant structures, systems, and components, and through the 
parameters for safe operation and setpoints for the actuation of 
equipment relied upon to respond to transients and design basis 
accidents. Evaluation of the 10 CFR part 21 condition by GE 
determined that, since the critical power ratio improves during the 
PRFO transient, there is no impact on the fuel safety margin, and 
there is no challenge to fuel cladding integrity. The proposed 
changes do not change the requirements governing operation or the 
availability of safety equipment assumed to operate to preserve the 
margin of safety.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.


[[Page 92869]]


    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: David W. Jenkins, Senior Attorney, 
FirstEnergy Corporation, Mail Stop A-GO-15, 76 South Main Street, 
Akron, OH 44308.
    NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, Docket No. 50-440, Perry Nuclear 
Power Plant, Unit No. 1, Lake County, Ohio

    Date of amendment request: October 27, 2016. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16302A055.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
revise Technical Specification (TS) 3.8.3, ``Diesel Fuel Oil, Lube Oil, 
and Starting Air,'' by relocating the current stored diesel fuel oil 
and lube oil numerical volume requirements from the TS to the TS Bases. 
The proposed changes are consistent with Technical Specifications Task 
Force Traveler TSTF-501, Revision 1, ``Relocate Stored Fuel Oil and 
Lube Oil Volume Values to Licensee Control.''
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No
    The proposed change relocates the volume of diesel fuel oil and 
lube oil required to support 7-day operation of each onsite diesel 
generator, and the volume equivalent to a 6-day supply, to licensee 
control. The specific volume of fuel oil equivalent to a 7 and 6-day 
supply is calculated using the NRC-approved methodology described in 
Regulatory Guide 1.137, Revision 1, ``Fuel-Oil Systems for Standby 
Diesel Generators'' and ANSI-N195 1976, ``Fuel Oil Systems for 
Standby Diesel-Generators.'' The specific volume of lube oil 
equivalent to a 7-day and 6-day supply is based on the diesel 
generator manufacturer's consumption values for the run time of the 
diesel generator. Because the requirement to maintain a 7-day supply 
of diesel fuel oil and lube oil is not changed and is consistent 
with the assumptions in the accident analyses, and the actions taken 
when the volume of fuel oil and lube oil are less than a 6-day 
supply have not changed, neither the probability nor the 
consequences of any accident previously evaluated will be affected.
    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 change does not involve a physical alteration of 
the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be 
installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant 
operation. The change does not alter assumptions made in the safety 
analysis but ensures that the diesel generator operates as assumed 
in the accident analysis. The proposed change is consistent with the 
safety analysis assumptions. Therefore, the proposed change does not 
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from 
any accident previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No
    The proposed change relocates the volume of diesel fuel oil and 
lube oil required to support 7-day operation of each onsite diesel 
generator, and the volume equivalent to a 6-day supply, to licensee 
control. As the bases for the existing limits on diesel fuel oil, 
and lube oil are not changed, no change is made to the accident 
analysis assumptions and no margin of safety is reduced as part of 
this change. 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: David W. Jenkins, Senior Attorney, 
FirstEnergy Corporation, Mail Stop A-GO-15, 76 South Main Street, 
Akron, OH 44308.
    NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.

PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50-354, Hope Creek (Hope Creek) Generating 
Station, Salem County, New Jersey

    Date of amendment request: October 7, 2016. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16281A139.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the 
Hope Creek Technical Specifications by incorporating Nuclear Energy 
Institute (NEI) topical report 94-01, Revision 3-A, and the conditions 
and limitations specified in NEI topical report 94-01, Revision 2-A, as 
the implementation document for the Hope Creek performance-based 
containment leakage rate testing program. Based on guidance in NEI 94-
01, Revision 3-A, the proposed change would allow the Hope Creek Type A 
Test (Integrated Leak Rate Test, or ILRT) frequency to be extended from 
10 to 15 years, and the Type C Tests (Local Leak Rate Tests, or LLRTs) 
frequency to be extended from 60 to 75 months. In addition, the 
amendment would delete a one-time extension of the test frequencies 
previously granted in License Amendment No. 147.
    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 activity involves revision of the Hope Creek 
Generating Station (HCGS) Technical Specification (TS) 6.8.4.f, 
Primary Containment Leakage Rate Testing Program, to allow the 
extension of the HCGS Type A containment integrated leakage rate 
test interval to 15 years, and the extension of the Type C local 
leakage rate test interval to 75 months. The current Type A test 
interval of 120 months (10 years) would be extended on a permanent 
basis to no longer than 15 years from the last Type A test. The 
existing Type C test interval of 60 months for selected components 
would be extended on a performance basis to no longer than 75 
months. Extensions of up to nine months (total maximum interval of 
84 months for Type C tests) are permissible only for non-routine 
emergent conditions.
    The proposed extension does not involve either a physical change 
to the plant or a change in the manner in which the plant is 
operated or controlled. The containment is designed to provide an 
essentially leak tight barrier against the uncontrolled release of 
radioactivity to the environment for postulated accidents. As such, 
the containment and the testing requirements invoked to periodically 
demonstrate the integrity of the containment exist to ensure the 
plant's ability to mitigate the consequences of an accident, and do 
not involve the prevention or identification of any precursors of an 
accident.
    The change in dose risk for changing the Type A Integrated Leak 
Rate Test (ILRT) interval from three-per-ten years to once-per-
fifteen-years, measured as an increase to the total integrated dose 
risk for all internal events accident sequences, is 5.15E-03 person-
rem/yr (0.01%) using the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) 
guidance with the base case corrosion included. This change meets 
both of the related acceptance criteria for change in population 
dose. The change in dose risk drops to 1.38E-03 person-rem/yr 
(<0.01%) when using the EPRI Expert Elicitation methodology. 
Therefore, this proposed extension does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability of an accident previously evaluated.
    As documented in NUREG-1493, ``Performance-Based Containment 
Leak-Test

[[Page 92870]]

Program,'' dated January 1995, Types B and C tests have identified a 
very large percentage of containment leakage paths, and the 
percentage of containment leakage paths that are detected only by 
Type A testing is very small. The HCGS Type A test history supports 
this conclusion.
    The integrity of the containment is subject to two types of 
failure mechanisms that can be categorized as: (1) activity based, 
and, (2) time based. Activity based failure mechanisms are defined 
as degradation due to system and/or component modifications or 
maintenance. Local leak rate test requirements and administrative 
controls such as configuration management and procedural 
requirements for system restoration ensure that containment 
integrity is not degraded by plant modifications or maintenance 
activities. The design and construction requirements of the 
containment combined with the containment inspections performed in 
accordance with American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) 
Section XI, and TS requirements serve to provide a high degree of 
assurance that the containment would not degrade in a manner that is 
detectable only by a Type A test. Based on the above, the proposed 
test interval extensions do not significantly increase the 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    The proposed amendment also deletes an exception previously 
granted in amendment 147 to allow a one-time extension of the ILRT 
test frequency for HCGS. This exception was for an activity that has 
already taken place; therefore, this deletion is solely an 
administrative action that does not result in any change in how HCGS 
is operated.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not result in 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 amendment to TS 6.8.4.f, ``Primary Containment 
Leakage Rate Testing Program,'' involves the extension of the HCGS 
Type A containment test interval to 15 years and the extension of 
the Type C test interval to 75 months. The containment and the 
testing requirements to periodically demonstrate the integrity of 
the containment exist to ensure the plant's ability to mitigate the 
consequences of an accident.
    The proposed change does not involve a physical modification to 
the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be 
installed), nor does it alter the design, configuration, or change 
the manner in which the plant is operated or controlled beyond the 
standard functional capabilities of the equipment.
    The proposed amendment also deletes an exception previously 
granted in amendment 147 to allow a one-time extension of the ILRT 
test frequency for HCGS. This exception was for an activity that has 
already taken place; therefore, this deletion is solely an 
administrative action that does not result in any change in how HCGS 
is operated.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated 
for HCGS.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment to TS 6.8.4.f involves the extension of 
the HCGS Type A containment test interval to 15 years and the 
extension of the Type C test interval to 75 months for selected 
components. This amendment does not alter the manner in which safety 
limits, limiting safety system set points, or limiting conditions 
for operation are determined. The specific requirements and 
conditions of the TS Containment Leak Rate Testing Program exist to 
ensure that the degree of containment structural integrity and leak-
tightness that is considered in the plant safety analysis is 
maintained. The overall containment leak rate limit specified by TS 
is maintained.
    The proposed change involves the extension of the interval 
between Type A containment leak rate tests and Type C tests for 
HCGS. The proposed surveillance interval extension is bounded by the 
15-year ILRT interval and the 75-month Type C test interval 
currently authorized within NEI 94-01, Revision 3-A. Industry 
experience supports the conclusion that Type B and C testing detects 
a large percentage of containment leakage paths and that the 
percentage of containment leakage paths that are detected only by 
Type A testing is small. The containment inspections performed in 
accordance with ASME Section Xl and TS serve to provide a high 
degree of assurance that the containment would not degrade in a 
manner that is detectable only by Type A testing. The combination of 
these factors ensures that the margin of safety in the plant safety 
analysis is maintained. The design, operation, testing methods and 
acceptance criteria for Types A, B, and C containment leakage tests 
specified in applicable codes and standards would continue to be 
met, with the acceptance of this proposed change, since these are 
not affected by changes to the Type A and Type C test intervals.
    The proposed amendment also deletes an exception previously 
granted in amendment 147 to allow a one-time extension of the ILRT 
test frequency for HCGS. This exception was for an activity that has 
taken place; therefore, the deletion is solely an administrative 
action and does not change how HCGS is operated and maintained. 
Thus, there is no reduction in any margin of 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: Jeffrie J. Keenan, PSEG Nuclear LLC--N21, 
P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038.
    NRC Acting Branch Chief: Stephen S. Koenick.

South Carolina Electric & Gas Company and South Carolina Public Service 
Authority, Docket Nos. 52-027 and 52-028, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear 
Station (VCSNS), Units 2 and 3, Fairfield, South Carolina

    Date of amendment request: September 29, 2016. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16273A557.
    Description of amendment request: The changes would amend Combined 
License Nos. NPF-93 and NPF-94 for the VCSNS, Units 2 and 3, 
respectively. The amendments propose changes to the Updated Final 
Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) in the form of departures from a plant-
specific Design Control Document Tier 2 figure and a Combined Operating 
License (COL) Appendix C table. Specifically, the proposed departures 
consist of changes to plant-specific UFSAR Figure 9.3.6-1, Sheet 2 of 
2, and COL Appendix C, Table 2.3.2-4, related to the configuration of 
the boric acid storage tank (BAST) suction point. The change also 
aligns the Tier 1 Chemical and Volume Control System (CVS) makeup flow 
rate with previously approved Tier 2 information.
    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 alter the BAST suction point by relocating 
the common inlet/outlet line from the bottom of the tank to the side 
of the tank and to align the Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and 
Acceptance Criteria (ITAAC) for the maximum CVS flow to the Reactor 
Coolant System (RCS) with the previously approved Tier 2 
descriptions and analyses. No change is made to the minimum required 
volume of the BAST, the included concentrations, or the overall 
operation of the system. The proposed changes do not alter any 
safety related functions, and the analyses previously performed on 
the potential for an inadvertent dilution event are not affected. 
Consequently, there is no change to an accident initiator in the 
UFSAR and accordingly, there is no change to the probabilities of 
accident previously evaluated. The radioactive source terms and 
release paths are unchanged, thus the radiological releases in the 
UFSAR accident analyses are not affected.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of

[[Page 92871]]

accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change to alter the BAST suction point affects only 
nonsafety-related equipment, reducing the possibility for leaks in 
the BAST. The basic requirements, including the applicable codes and 
standards, for the configuration of the BAST are unchanged. In 
addition, the change to the ITAAC verified CVS makeup flow does not 
alter the design of the CVS, which is currently limited in the 
design to 175 gallons per minute of flow. The change to the ITAAC 
aligns the test with the Tier 2 requirement. Consequently, because 
the BAST codes and standards are unchanged and the CVS is otherwise 
unchanged, there is no effect on accidents previously evaluated in 
the UFSAR.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change to the BAST piping configuration and to the 
CVS makeup flow ITAAC does not alter any safety-related equipment, 
applicable design codes, code compliance, design function, or safety 
analysis. Consequently, no safety analysis or design basis 
acceptance limit is challenged or exceeded by the proposed changes, 
and thus, the margin of safety is not reduced.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Kathryn M. Sutton, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, 
LLC, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004-2514.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, Docket Nos. 52-027 and 52-028, 
Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3, Fairfield, South 
Carolina

    Date of amendment request: September 2, 2016. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16246A214.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment request proposes 
changes to a plant-specific Tier 1 (and combined license Appendix C) 
table and the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) tables to 
clarify the flow area for the Automatic Depressurization System (ADS) 
fourth stage squib valves and to reduce the minimum effective flow area 
for the second and third stage ADS control valves. Pursuant to the 
provisions of 10 CFR 52.63(b)(1), an exemption from elements of the 
design as certified in the 10 CFR part 52, Appendix D, design 
certification rule is also requested for the plant-specific Design 
Control Document Tier 1 material departures.
    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 do not adversely affect the operation of 
any systems or equipment that initiate an analyzed accident or alter 
any structures, systems, and components (SSC) accident initiator or 
initiating sequence of events. The proposed changes do not adversely 
affect the physical design and operation of the second and third 
stage ADS control valves and fourth stage ADS squib valves, 
including as-installed inspections, testing, and maintenance 
requirements, as described in the UFSAR. Therefore, the operation of 
the second and third stage ADS control valves and fourth stage ADS 
squib valves is not adversely affected. Inadvertent operation or 
failure of the second and third stage ADS control valves and fourth 
stage ADS squib valves are considered as accident initiators or part 
of an initiating sequence of events for an accident previously 
evaluated. However, the proposed changes do not adversely affect the 
probability of inadvertent operation or failure, nor the 
consequences of such accident precursor sequences. Therefore, the 
probabilities of the accidents previously evaluated in the UFSAR are 
not affected.
    The proposed changes do not adversely affect the ability of the 
second and third stage ADS control valves and fourth stage ADS squib 
valves to perform their design functions. The designs of the second 
and third stage ADS control valves and fourth stage ADS squib valves 
continue to meet the same regulatory acceptance criteria, codes, and 
standards as required by the UFSAR. In addition, the proposed 
changes maintain the capabilities of the second and third stage ADS 
control valves and fourth stage ADS squib valves to mitigate the 
consequences of an accident and to meet the applicable regulatory 
acceptance criteria. The proposed changes do not adversely affect 
the prevention and mitigation of other abnormal events, e.g., 
anticipated operational occurrences, earthquakes, floods and turbine 
missiles, or their safety or design analyses. Therefore, the 
consequences of the accidents evaluated in the UFSAR are not 
affected.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes do not affect the operation of any systems 
or equipment that may initiate a new or different kind of accident, 
or alter any SSC such that a new accident initiator or initiating 
sequence of events is created. The proposed changes do not adversely 
affect the physical design and operation of the second and third 
stage ADS control valves and fourth stage ADS squib valves, 
including as-installed inspections, testing, and maintenance 
requirements, as described in the UFSAR. Therefore, the operation of 
the second and third stage ADS control valves and fourth stage ADS 
squib valves is not adversely affected. These proposed changes do 
not adversely affect any other SSC design functions or methods of 
operation in a manner that results in a new failure mode, 
malfunction, or sequence of events that affect safety-related or 
nonsafety-related equipment. Therefore, this activity does not allow 
for a new fission product release path, result in a new fission 
product barrier failure mode, or create a new sequence of events 
that results in significant fuel cladding failures.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes maintain existing safety margins. The 
proposed changes maintain the capabilities of the second and third 
stage ADS control valves and fourth stage ADS squib valves to 
perform their design functions. The proposed changes maintain 
existing safety margin through continued application of the existing 
requirements of the UFSAR, while updating the acceptance criteria 
for verifying the design features necessary to confirm the second 
and third stage ADS control valves and fourth stage ADS squib valves 
perform the design functions required to meet the existing safety 
margins in the safety analyses. Therefore, the proposed changes 
satisfy the same design functions in accordance with the same codes 
and standards as stated in the UFSAR. These changes do not adversely 
affect any design code, function, design analysis, safety analysis 
input or result, or design/safety margin.
    No safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is 
challenged or exceeded by the proposed changes, and no margin of 
safety is reduced. Therefore, the requested amendment does not 
involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Kathryn M. Sutton, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, 
LLC,

[[Page 92872]]

1111. Pennsylvania NW., Washington, DC 20004-2514.
    NRC Branch Chief: Jennifer Dixon-Herrity.

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

    Date of amendment request: October 11, 2016. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16285A354.
    Description of amendment request: SNC stated that the current 
Technical Specification (TS) 3.8.9, ``Distribution Systems--
Operating,'' contains a conservative Completion Time of 8 hours for an 
inoperable 600 Volt alternating current (AC) load center (LC) 1-2R. The 
proposed change would add new Action Conditions to TS 3.8.9 and include 
appropriate Required Actions and associated Completion Times for LC 1-
2R.
    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. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis 
against the standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c). The licensee's analysis 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 revises the TS requirements to include an 
appropriate Condition, Required Actions and associated Completion 
Times to address an inoperable 600 Volt AC LC 1-2R that is required 
to be operable by TS 3.8.9 ``Distribution Systems--Operating.''
    The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of 
the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed). 
The 600V LC are not a precursor to any accident previously 
evaluated. The proposed changes do not adversely affect accident 
initiators or precursors nor alter the design assumptions, 
conditions, and configuration of the facility or the manner in which 
the plant is operated and maintained. The proposed changes do not 
adversely affect the ability of structures, systems and components 
(SSCs) to perform their intended safety function to mitigate the 
consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance 
limits. The LC 1-2R provides power to equipment that may be used to 
mitigate the consequences of accidents previously evaluated. The 
proposed change to TS 3.8.9, ``Distribution Systems--Operating'' 
provides assurance that the requirements of the TS appropriately 
address all the equipment that is required to be operable by TS 
3.8.9. Thus, the proposed change does not affect the probability or 
the consequences of any accident previously evaluated.
    Therefore, it is concluded that 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 amendment revises the TS to include an appropriate 
Condition, Required Actions, and associated Completion Times to 
address inoperable 600 Volt AC LC 1-2R that is required to be 
operable by TS 3.8.9 ``Distribution Systems- Operating.''
    The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of 
the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed) 
or a change in the methods governing normal plant operation. The 
proposed change to the TS assures that the TS appropriately 
addresses all the equipment required to be operable to support the 
electrical distribution system. Thus, the proposed change does not 
adversely affect the design function or operation of any structures, 
systems, and components important to safety.
    Therefore, it is concluded that 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 amendment revises the TS requirements to include an 
appropriate Condition, Required Actions, and associated Completion 
Times to address inoperable 600 Volt AC LC 1-2R that is required to 
be operable by TS 3.8.9 ``Distribution Systems--Operating.''
    The proposed change to TS 3.8.9 ``Distribution Systems--
Operating'' provides assurance that all the requirements of the TS 
are appropriately addressed in the Action Conditions. The proposed 
change serves to make the TS more complete and appropriate for all 
the equipment required to be operable to support the electrical 
distribution system. Thus, the proposed change does not involve a 
change in the margin of safety.
    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: Jennifer M. Buettner, Associate General 
Counsel, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 40 Inverness Center 
Parkway, Birmingham, AL 35201.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

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

    Date of amendment request: October 26, 2016. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16300A325.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed changes would amend 
Combined License Nos. NPF-91 and NPF-92 for the VEGP, Units 3 and 4, 
respectively. The amendments propose changes to the Updated Final 
Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) in the form of departures from a plant-
specific Design Control Document Tier 2 figure and a Combined Operating 
License (COL) Appendix C table. Specifically, the proposed departures 
consist of changes to plant-specific UFSAR Figure 9.3.6-1, Sheet 2 of 
2, and COL Appendix C, Table 2.3.2-4, related to the configuration of 
the boric acid storage tank (BAST) suction point. The changes also 
align the Tier 1 chemical and volume control system (CVS) makeup flow 
rate with previously approved Tier 2 information.
    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 alter the BAST suction point by relocating 
the common inlet/outlet line from the bottom of the tank to the side 
of the tank and aligns the Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and 
Acceptance Criteria (ITAAC) for the maximum CVS flow to the reactor 
coolant system (RCS) with the previously approved Tier 2 
descriptions and analyses. No change is made to the minimum required 
volume of the BAST, the included concentrations, or the overall 
operation of the system. The proposed changes do not alter any 
safety-related functions, and the analyses previously performed on 
the potential for an inadvertent dilution event are not affected. 
Consequently, there is no change to an accident initiator in the 
UFSAR and accordingly, there is no change to the probabilities of 
accident previously evaluated. The radioactive source terms and 
release paths are unchanged, thus the radiological releases in the 
UFSAR accident analyses are not affected.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?

[[Page 92873]]

    Response: No.
    The proposed change to alter the BAST suction point affects only 
nonsafety-related equipment, reducing the possibility for leaks in 
the BAST. The basic requirements, including the applicable codes and 
standards, for the configuration of the BAST are unchanged. In 
addition, the change to the ITAAC verified CVS makeup flow does not 
alter the design of the CVS, which is currently limited in the 
design to 175 gallons per minute of flow. The change to the ITAAC 
aligns the test with the Tier 2 requirement. Consequently, because 
the BAST codes and standards are unchanged and the CVS is otherwise 
unchanged, there is no effect on accidents previously evaluated in 
the UFSAR.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change to the BAST piping configuration and to the 
CVS makeup flow ITAAC does not alter any safety-related equipment, 
applicable design codes, code compliance, design function, or safety 
analysis. Consequently, no safety analysis or design basis 
acceptance limit is challenged or exceeded by the proposed changes, 
and thus, the margin of safety is not reduced.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety from any accident previously 
evaluated.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: M. Stanford Blanton, Balch & Bingham LLP, 
1710 Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 35203-2015.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

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

    Date of amendment request: August 31, 2016. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16244A253.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment request proposes 
changes to the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) in the form 
of departures from the incorporated plant-specific Design Control 
Document Tier 2 information and a combined license (COL) License 
Condition which references one of the proposed changes. Additionally, 
the proposed changes to the UFSAR eliminate pressurizer spray line 
monitoring during pressurizer surge line first plant only testing. In 
addition, these proposed changes correct inconsistencies in testing 
purpose, testing duration, and the ability to leave equipment in place 
following the data collection period. These changes involve material 
which is specifically referenced in Section 2.D.(2) of the COLs. This 
submittal requests approval of the license amendment necessary to 
implement these changes.
    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 with Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission (NRC) staff edits in square brackets:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The design functions of the [reactor coolant system (RCS)] 
include providing an effective reactor coolant pressure boundary. 
The proposed changes for removing the requirement to install 
temporary instrumentation on the pressurizer spray line during the 
monitoring of the pressurizer surge line for thermal stratification 
and thermal cycling during hot functional testing and during the 
first fuel cycle for the first plant only, proposed changes to 
parameter retention requirements, and proposed change to remove the 
pressurizer spray and surge l ine valve leakage requirement do not 
impact the existing design requirements for the RCS. These changes 
are acceptable as they are consistent with the commitments made for 
the pressurizer surge line monitoring program for the first plant 
only, and do not adversely affect the capability of the pressurizer 
surge line and pressurizer spray lines to perform the required 
reactor coolant pressure boundary design functions.
    These proposed changes to the monitoring of the pressurizer 
surge line for thermal stratification and thermal cycling during hot 
functional testing and during the first fuel cycle for the first 
plant only, proposed changes to parameter retention requirements, 
and proposed change to remove the pressurizer spray and surge line 
valve leakage requirement as described in the current licensing 
basis do not have an adverse effect on any of the design functions 
of the systems. The proposed changes do not affect the support, 
design, or operation of mechanical and fluid systems required to 
mitigate the consequences of an accident. There is no change to 
plant systems or the response of systems to postulated accident 
conditions. There is no change to the predicted radioactive releases 
due to postulated accident conditions. The plant response to 
previously evaluated accidents or external events is not adversely 
affected, nor do the proposed changes create any new accident 
precursors.
    Therefore, the requested amendment does not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes for removing the requirement to install 
temporary instrumentation on the pressurizer spray line during the 
monitoring of the pressurizer surge line for thermal stratification 
and thermal cycling during hot functional testing and during the 
first fuel cycle for the first plant only, proposed changes to 
parameter retention requirements, and proposed change to remove the 
pressurizer spray and surge line valve leakage requirement as 
described in the current licensing basis maintain the required 
design functions, and are consistent with other Updated Final Safety 
Analysis Report (UFSAR) information. The proposed changes do not 
adversely affect the design requirements for the RCS, including the 
pressurizer surge line and pressurizer spray lines. The proposed 
changes do not adversely affect the design function, support, 
design, or operation of mechanical and fluid systems. The proposed 
changes do not result in a new failure mechanism or introduce any 
new accident precursors. No design function described in the UFSAR 
is adversely affected by the proposed changes.
    Therefore, the requested amendment does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    No safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is 
challenged or exceeded by the proposed changes, and no margin of 
safety is reduced. Therefore, the requested amendment does not 
involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: M. Stanford Blanton, Balch & Bingham LLP, 
1710 Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 35203-2015.
    NRC Branch Chief: Jennifer Dixon-Herrity.

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

    Date of amendment request: October 14, 2016. Publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16288A810.
    Description of amendment request: The requested amendment requires 
a change to the Combined License (COL) Appendix A, as well as plant-
specific

[[Page 92874]]

Tier 2, Tier 2 *, and COL Appendix C (and corresponding plant-specific 
Tier 1). The proposed changes would revise the licenses basis documents 
to add design detail to the automatic depressurization system (ADS) 
blocking device and to add the blocking device to the design of the in-
containment refueling water storage tank injection squib valves 
actuation logic. An exemption request relating to the proposed changes 
to the AP1000 Design Control Document Tier 1 is included with the 
request.
    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 with Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission (NRC) staff edits in square brackets:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The AP1000 accident analysis previously evaluated a loss of 
coolant accident caused by an inadvertent ADS valve actuation. 
Adding design detail to the ADS blocking device, and applying the 
blocking device to the [in-containment refueling water storage tank 
(IRWST)] injection valves, does not impact this analysis. Using a 
blocking device on the ADS and IRWST injection valves is a design 
feature which further minimizes the probability of a loss of coolant 
accident caused by a spurious valve actuation. Furthermore, because 
the blocking device is designed to prevent a spurious valve 
actuation due to a software [common cause failure (CCF)] and does 
not adversely impact any existing design feature, it does not 
involve a significant increase in the probability of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    The proposed amendment does not affect the prevention and 
mitigation of abnormal events, e.g., accidents, anticipated 
operation occurrences, earthquakes, floods, turbine missiles, and 
fires or their safety or design analyses. This change does not 
involve containment of radioactive isotopes or any adverse effect on 
a fission product barrier. There is no impact on previously 
evaluated accidents source terms. The [protection and safety 
monitoring system (PMS)] is still able to actuate ADS and IRWST 
injection valves for plant conditions which require their actuation. 
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
increase in the consequences of an accident previously evaluated
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes do not involve a new failure mechanism or 
malfunction, which affects an SSC accident initiator, or interface 
with any [structure, system, or component (SSC)] accident initiator 
or initiating sequence of events considered in the design and 
licensing bases. There is no adverse effect on radioisotope barriers 
or the release of radioactive materials. The proposed amendment does 
not adversely affect any accident, including the possibility of 
creating a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated. Therefore, the proposed changes do not create 
the possibility of a new or different type of accident from any 
accident previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The blocking device is independent of PMS processor hardware and 
software. It is designed to allow for ADS and IRWST injection 
actuations when the plant parameters indicate an actual [loss of 
coolant accident (LOCA)] event. Therefore, the ADS and IRWST are 
still able to perform their safety functions when required. A 
postulated failure of a blocking device which would prevent 
necessary ADS and IRWST injection valve opening would be detected by 
the proposed periodic surveillance testing within the [Technical 
Specifications (TS)]. Failure of the ADS actuation or IRWST 
injection valve opening in a division could also result from 
concurrent failure of the two Core Makeup Tanks (CMTs) level sensors 
in one division, with both sensors reading above the blocking 
setpoint. Failures of the level sensors would be immediately 
detected due to the deviations in redundant measurements. 
Furthermore, the proposed TS actions require that the four divisions 
of blocking devices be capable of automatically unblocking for each 
CMT. In addition, the TS require that the blocking devices be 
unblocked in plant modes which allow for the operability of less 
than two CMTs.
    The blocking device will continue to comply with the existing 
[Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR)] regulatory 
requirements and industry standards. The proposed changes would not 
affect any safety-related design code, function, design analysis, 
safety analysis input or result, or existing design/safety margin. 
No safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is 
challenged or exceeded by the requested changes. Therefore the 
proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: M. Stanford Blanton, Balch & Bingham LLP, 
1710 Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 35203-2015.
    NRC Branch Chief: Jennifer Dixon-Herrity.

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.

Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Docket No. 50-336, Millstone Power 
Station, Unit No. 2 (MPS2), New London County, Connecticut

    Date of amendment request: January 26, 2016, as supplemented by 
letter dated July 14, 2016.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the MPS2 
licensing basis to change the spent fuel pool heat load analysis 
description contained in the Final Safety Analysis Report.
    Date of issuance: November 29, 2016.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days from the date of issuance.

[[Page 92875]]

    Amendment No.: 330. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML16277A680; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-65: Amendment revised 
the Renewed Operating License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 24, 2016 (81 FR 
32804). The supplemental letter dated July 14, 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 amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated November 29, 2016.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Duke Energy Florida, Inc. (DEF), et al., Docket No. 50-302, Crystal 
River Nuclear Generating Plant, Unit 3 (CR-3), Citrus County, Florida

    Date of application for amendment: August 27, 2015, as supplemented 
by letters dated March 2, 2016, and July 14, 2016.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment approves the CR-3 
Permanently Defueled Emergency Plan, and Permanently Defueled Emergency 
Action Level Bases Manual, for the Independent Spent Fuel Storage 
Installation.
    Date of issuance: December 5, 2016.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days.
    Amendment No.: 252. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML16244A102; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Facility Operating License No. DPR-72: This amendment revises the 
License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 10, 2015 (80 
FR 69711).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 5, 2016.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: November 2, 2015, as supplemented by 
letters dated December 22, 2015; and March 31, May 9, and September 14, 
2016.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the reactor 
coolant system (RCS) pressure and temperature limits by replacing 
Technical Specification (TS) Section 3.4.3, ``RCS Pressure and 
Temperature (P/T) Limits,'' Figures 3.4.3-1 and 3.4.3-2, with figures 
that are applicable up to 50 effective full power years (EFPYs).
    Date of issuance: November 22, 2016.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 120 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 248. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML16285A404; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-23: Amendment revised 
the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 1, 2016 (81 FR 
10678). The supplemental letters dated March 31, May 9, and September 
14, 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 amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated November 22, 2016.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Docket No. 50-400, Shearon Harris Nuclear 
Power Plant, Unit 1, Wake and Chatham Counties, North Carolina

    Date of amendment request: August 18, 2015, as supplemented by 
letters dated September 29, 2015, February 5, 2016, April 28, 2016, and 
May 19, 2016.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical 
Specifications (TSs) by relocating specific surveillance frequencies to 
a licensee-controlled program with the implementation of Nuclear Energy 
Institute (NEI) 04-10, ``Risk-Informed Technical Specifications 
Initiative 5b, Risk-Informed Method for Control of Surveillance 
Frequencies.'' Additionally, the change added a new program, the 
Surveillance Frequency Control Program, to TS Section 6, 
``Administrative Controls.''
    Date of issuance: November 29, 2016.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 120 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 154. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML16200A285; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation (SE) enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-63: Amendment revised 
the Facility Operating License and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: The NRC staff initially 
made a proposed determination that the amendment request dated August 
18, 2015, as supplemented by letter dated September 29, 2015, involved 
no significant hazards consideration (NSHC) (December 8, 2015, 80 FR 
76319). By letters dated February 5, 2016, and April 28, 2016, the 
licensee provided clarifying information that did not expand the scope 
of the application and did not change the NRC staff's original proposed 
NSHC determination, as published in the Federal Register (FR) on 
December 8, 2015 (80 FR 76319). Subsequently, by letter dated May 19, 
2016, the licensee supplemented its amendment request with a proposed 
change that expanded the scope of the request. Therefore, the NRC 
published a second proposed NSHC determination in the FR on July 15, 
2016 (81 FR 46118), which superseded the notice dated December 8, 2015 
(80 FR 76319).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in an SE dated November 29, 2016.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. STN 50-457, Braidwood 
Station, Unit No. 2, Will County, Illinois

    Date of application for amendment: September 30, 2016 (ADAMS 
Accession No. ML16274A474), as supplemented by letters dated October 26 
and 28, 2016, and November 14, 2016 (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML16301A073, 
ML16302A468, and ML16319A397).
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment allows a one-time 
extension from 72 hours to 200 hours of the technical specification 
completion time associated with the 2A service water (SX) pump in 
support of maintenance activities.
    Date of issuance: November 23, 2016.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
prior to the 2A SX pump work window.
    Amendment No.: 191. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML16315A302; documents related to this amendment

[[Page 92876]]

are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No NPF-77: The amendment revises 
the Technical Specifications and License
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 21, 2016 (81 FR 
72838).
    The October 26 and 28, 2016 supplements, contained clarifying 
information and did not change the NRC staff's initial proposed finding 
of no significant hazards consideration.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated November 23, 2016.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of application for amendment: December 14, 2015, as 
supplemented by letter dated
    June 30, 2016.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendment revises the 
technical specification (TS) for DNPS, Units 2 and 3, standby or 
emergency diesel generator (EDG) fuel oil day tank volume as described 
in TS 3.81, ``AC Sources--Operating,'' surveillance requirement (SR) 
3.8.1.4, from the current value of greater than or equal to (>) 205 
gallons to >245 gallons. Raising the EDG fuel oil day tank volume 
requirement will assure that each EDG can operate for one hour at the 
maximum allowable operating conditions. The licensee has identified 
this issue as a non-conservative Technical Specification and 
administrative controls are currently in-place to assure sufficient 
fuel oil is available in each fuel oil day tank.
    Date of issuance: November 30, 2016.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
no later than 60 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 252 and 245. A publicly-available version is in 
ADAMS under Accession No. ML16305A212; documents related to this 
amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 
amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-19 and DPR-25: 
Amendment revises the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and Technical 
Specification.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 1, 2016 (81 FR 
10680). The supplemental letter dated 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 30, 2016.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353, Limerick 
Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania

    Date of amendment request: January 15, 2016, as supplemented by 
letters dated April 19, 2016; May 9, 2016; and June 21, 2016.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments reduce the reactor 
vessel steam dome pressure specified in the technical specifications 
(TSs) for the reactor core safety limits. The amendments also revise 
the setpoint and allowable value for the main steam line low pressure 
isolation function in the TSs.
    Date of issuance: November 21, 2016.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 120 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 222 and 183. A publicly-available version is in 
ADAMS under Accession No. ML16272A319; documents related to these 
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 
amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-39 and NPF-85: 
Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 15, 2016 (81 FR 
13842). The supplemental letters dated April 19, 2016; May 9, 2016; and 
June 21, 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 21, 2016.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-410, Nine Mile Point 
Nuclear Station, Unit 2, Oswego County, New York

    Date of amendment request: February 23, 2016.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical 
Specifications.
    Date of issuance: November 22, 2016.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 159. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML16281A596; documents related to this amendment is 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with this amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-69: Amendment revised 
the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 10, 2016, (81 FR 
28897).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated November 22, 2016.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-219, Oyster Creek Nuclear 
Generating Station (OCNGS), Ocean County, New Jersey

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-220, Nine Mile Point 
Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (NMP1), Oswego County, New York

    Date amendment request: August 1, 2016.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments would revise 
OCNGS's Technical
    Specification (TS) Section 2.1, ``Safety Limit--Fuel Cladding 
Integrity,'' and NMP1's TS Section 2.1.1, ``Fuel Cladding Integrity,'' 
to reduce the steam dome pressure.
    Date of issuance: November 29, 2016.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days.
    Amendment Nos.: 289 for OCNGS and 225 for NMP1. A publicly-
available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16256A567; 
documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety 
Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-16 and DPR-63: 
Amendments revised the Licenses and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 27, 2016 (81 
FR 66307).

[[Page 92877]]

    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated November 29, 2016.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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: April 31, 2016, as supplemented by a 
letter dated August 11, 2016.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Appendix B 
(Environmental Protection Plan, Section 4.2) of the renewed operating 
licenses to reflect the ``currently applicable'' Biological Opinion 
issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service March 24, 2016.
    Date of issuance: December 5, 2016.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 236 and 186. A publicly-available version is in 
ADAMS under Accession No. ML16251A128; documents related to these 
amendments are listed in the safety evaluation enclosed with the 
amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-67 and NPF-16: 
Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and Appendix 
B.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 7, 2016 (81 FR 
36621). The supplemental letter dated August 11, 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 amendment is contained 
in a safety evaluation dated December 5, 2016.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

South Carolina Electric & Gas Company and South Carolina Public Service 
Authority, Docket Nos. 52-027 and 52-028, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear 
Station (VCSNS), Units 2 and 3, Fairfield County, South Carolina

    Date of amendment request: December 17, 2015 as supplemented 
January 11, 2016 and March 16, 2016.
    Description of amendment: The amendment authorizes changes to the 
VCSNS, Units 2 and 3, Updated Final Safety Analysis Report Tier 2* 
information as well as a change to a license condition to, in part, 
revise the Wall 11 structure by modifying openings, changing 
reinforcement detailing, clarifying the classification of building 
structures for high-energy line break events, crediting the north wall 
of the Turbine Building first bay wall as a high energy line break 
barrier and associated missile barriers for protection of Wall 11 from 
tornado missiles.
    Date of issuance: May 31, 2016.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 48. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML16109A298; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Facility Combined Licenses Nos. NPF-93 and NPF-94: Amendment 
revised the Facility Combined Licenses.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 2, 2016 (81 FR 
5499). The supplemental letters dated January 11, 2016, and March 16, 
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 amendment is contained 
in the Safety Evaluation dated May 31, 2016.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: May 18, 2016.
    Description of amendment: The amendment authorizes changes to the 
VEGP Units 3 and 4 listed minimum volume of the passive core cooling 
system core makeup tanks (CMT) reflected in Appendix A, Technical 
Specifications and the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report of the VEGP 
Units 3 and 4 Combined Licenses. Specifically, the changes reflect a 
correction to align licensing documents to reflect the CMT volume given 
in the VEGP Combined License Tier 1 as 2487 cubic feet is based on and 
supported by a small-break loss-of-coolant accident safety analysis.
    Date of issuance: September 15, 2016.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 53. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML16216A394; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Facility Combined Licenses No. NPF-91 and NPF-92: Amendment revised 
the Facility Combined Licenses.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 5, 2016 (81 FR 
43646).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in the Safety Evaluation dated September 15, 2016.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: January 29, 2016, and supplemented by 
letter dated April 8, 2016.
    Description of amendment: The amendment authorizes changes to the 
VEGP, Units 3 and 4, Updated Final Safety Analysis Report in the form 
of departures from the incorporated plant specific Design Control 
Document Tier 2* and Tier 2 information. The changes are also approved 
in plant-specific technical specifications. The changes incorporate 
information in WCAP-17524-P-A, Revision 1, ``AP1000 Core Reference 
Report,'' which was approved by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
on February 19, 2015.
    Date of issuance: August 19, 2016.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 52. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML16201A435; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Facility Combined Licenses Nos. NPF-91 and NPF-92: Amendment 
revised the Facility Combined Licenses.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 29, 2016 (81 FR 
17501). The supplemental letter dated April 8, 2016, provided 
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand 
the scope of the application request as originally noticed, and did not 
change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards 
consideration determination as published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in the Safety Evaluation dated August 19, 2016.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

[[Page 92878]]

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

    Date of amendment request: December 22, 2015, and supplemented by 
letters dated May 9, 2016, and May 27, 2016.
    Description of amendment: The amendment authorizes changes to the 
VEGP, Units 3 and 4, Updated Final Safety Analysis Report in the form 
of departures from the incorporated plant- specific Design Control 
Document Tier 2* and Tier 2 information with respect to proposed 
changes to the design of auxiliary building Wall 11, and other changes 
to the licensing basis for use of seismic Category II structures. It 
also involves a change to a license condition.
    Date of issuance: August 3, 2016.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 51. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML16201A298; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Facility Combined Licenses No. NPF-91 and NPF-92: Amendment revised 
the Facility Combined Licenses.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 16, 2016 (81 
FR 7835). The supplemental letters dated May 9, 2016, and May 27, 2016, 
provided additional information that clarified the application, did not 
expand the scope of the application request as originally noticed, and 
did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards 
consideration determination as published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in the Safety Evaluation dated August 3, 2016.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

III. 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.

[[Page 92879]]

    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 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 21, 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

[[Page 92880]]

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: 
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 No. 50-410, Nine Mile Point 
Nuclear Station, Unit 2, Oswego County, New York

    Date of amendment request: November 26, 2016.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the High 
Pressure Core Spray system and Reactor Core Isolation Cooling system 
actuation instrumentation technical specifications by adding a footnote 
indicating that the injection functions of Drywell Pressure-High and 
Manual Initiation are not required to be operable under low reactor 
pressure conditions.
    Date of issuance: November 29, 2016.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 160. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML16333A000; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-69: Amendment revised 
the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
    Public comments requested as to proposed no significant hazards 
consideration (NSHC): No.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment, finding of 
emergency circumstances, state consultation, and final NSHC 
determination are contained in a Safety Evaluation dated November 29, 
2016.
    Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel, 
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 
60555.
    NRC Acting Branch Chief: Douglas Pickett.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 8 day of December, 2016.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
George A. Wilson, Deputy,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2016-30438 Filed 12-19-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P