[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 10 (Tuesday, January 17, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4926-4938]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-00909]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2017-0002]


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 December 20, 2016 to December 30, 2016. The 
last biweekly notice was published on January 3, 2016.

DATES: Comments must be filed by February 16, 2017. A request for a 
hearing must be filed by March 20, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2017-0002. 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: Kay Goldstein, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1506, email: 
[email protected].

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments

A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0002 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-2017-0002.
     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-2017-0002, 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

[[Page 4927]]

inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information 
that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment 
submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely 
edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the 
comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment 
into ADAMS.

II. Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility 
Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses and Proposed No Significant 
Hazards Consideration Determination

    The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following 
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under 
the Commission's regulations in Sec.  50.92 of title 10 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations (10 CFR), this means that operation of the facility 
in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated, or (2) create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or 
(3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis 
for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown 
below.
    The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed 
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of 
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final 
determination.
    Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the 
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The 
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment 
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the 
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period if circumstances change during the 30-day comment 
period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for 
example in derating or shutdown of the facility. If the Commission 
takes action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or 
the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a notice of 
issuance. If the Commission makes a final no significant hazards 
consideration determination, any hearing will take place after 
issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will 
occur very infrequently.

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

    Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any 
persons (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by this action may 
file a request for a hearing and petition for leave to intervene 
(petition) with respect to the action. Petitions shall be filed in 
accordance with the Commission's ``Agency Rules of Practice and 
Procedure'' in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult a 
current copy of 10 CFR 2.309. The NRC's regulations are accessible 
electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. Alternatively, a copy of 
the regulations is available at the NRC's Public Document Room, located 
at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first 
floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. If a petition is filed, the 
Commission or a presiding officer will rule on the petition and, if 
appropriate, a notice of a hearing will be issued.
    As required by 10 CFR 2.309(d) the petition should specifically 
explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with 
particular reference to the following general requirements for 
standing: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the 
petitioner; (2) the nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to 
be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the 
petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; 
and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be 
entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest.
    In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f), the petition must also set 
forth the specific contentions which the petitioner seeks to have 
litigated in the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific 
statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In 
addition, the petitioner must provide a brief explanation of the bases 
for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or 
expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner 
intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The 
petitioner must also provide references to the specific sources and 
documents on which the petitioner intends to rely to support its 
position on the issue. The petition must include sufficient information 
to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant or licensee on 
a material issue of law or fact. Contentions must be limited to matters 
within the scope of the proceeding. The contention must be one which, 
if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner who 
fails to satisfy the requirements at 10 CFR 2.309(f) with respect to at 
least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
    Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, 
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene. 
Parties have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the 
hearing with respect to resolution of that party's admitted 
contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence, consistent 
with the NRC's regulations, policies, and procedures.
    Petitions must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of 
publication of this notice. Petitions and motions for leave to file new 
or amended contentions that are filed after the deadline will not be 
entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the 
filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 
CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i) through (iii). The petition must be filed in 
accordance with the filing instructions in the ``Electronic Submissions 
(E-Filing)'' section of this document.
    If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final 
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the 
Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no 
significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve 
to establish when the hearing is held. If the final determination is 
that the amendment request involves no significant hazards 
consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it 
immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any 
hearing would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final 
determination is that the amendment request involves a significant 
hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before 
the issuance of the amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent 
danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will 
issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.
    A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian 
Tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to 
participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition should 
state the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the 
proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission by March 
20, 2017. The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing 
instructions in the

[[Page 4928]]

``Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)'' section of this document, and 
should meet the requirements for petitions set forth in this section. 
Alternatively, a State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized 
Indian Tribe, or agency thereof may participate as a non-party under 10 
CFR 2.315(c).
    If a hearing is granted, any person who is not a party to the 
proceeding and is not affiliated with or represented by a party may, at 
the discretion of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited 
appearance pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person 
making a limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of 
his or her position on the issues but may not otherwise participate in 
the proceeding. A limited appearance may be made at any session of the 
hearing or at any prehearing conference, subject to the limits and 
conditions as may be imposed by the presiding officer. Details 
regarding the opportunity to make a limited appearance will be provided 
by the presiding officer if such sessions are scheduled.

B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)

    All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a 
request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition), any 
motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the 
submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and 
documents filed by interested governmental entities that request to 
participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the 
NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007, as amended at 77 FR 
46562, August 3, 2012). The E-Filing process requires participants to 
submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in 
some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Detailed 
guidance on making electronic submissions may be found in the Guidance 
for Electronic Submissions to the NRC and on the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants may not submit 
paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in 
accordance with the procedures described below.
    To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 
days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the 
Office of the Secretary by email at [email protected], or by 
telephone at 301-415-1677, to (1) request a digital identification (ID) 
certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or 
representative) to digitally sign submissions and access the E-Filing 
system for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise 
the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a petition or 
other adjudicatory document (even in instances in which the 
participant, or its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-
issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the 
Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the hearing in this 
proceeding if the Secretary has not already established an electronic 
docket.
    Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is 
available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/getting-started.html. Once a participant has obtained a 
digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant 
can then submit adjudicatory documents. Submissions 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 document is submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. 
To be timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing 
system no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon 
receipt of a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document 
and sends the submitter an email notice confirming receipt of the 
document. The E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that 
provides access to the document to the NRC's Office of the General 
Counsel and any others who have advised the Office of the Secretary 
that they wish to participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need 
not serve the document on those participants separately. Therefore, 
applicants and other participants (or their counsel or representative) 
must apply for and receive a digital ID certificate before adjudicatory 
documents are filed so that they can obtain access to the documents via 
the E-Filing system.
    A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-
Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC's Electronic 
Filing Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC's 
public 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 6 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government 
holidays.
    Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not 
submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in 
accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing 
stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and 
requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper 
format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail 
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: 
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or 
expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and 
Adjudications Staff. Participants filing adjudicatory documents in this 
manner are responsible for serving the document on all other 
participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of 
the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or 
expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the 
provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an 
exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or 
party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines 
that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no 
longer exists.
    Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the 
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at 
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 personal phone numbers in their filings, unless an 
NRC regulation or other law requires submission of such information. 
For example, in some instances, individuals provide home addresses in 
order to demonstrate proximity to a facility or site. With respect to 
copyrighted works, except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose 
of the adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use 
application, participants are requested not to include copyrighted 
materials in their submission.
    For further details with respect to these license amendment 
applications, see the application for amendment which is available for 
public inspection in ADAMS and at the NRC's PDR. For additional 
direction on accessing information related to this document, see the 
``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' section of this 
document.

[[Page 4929]]

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

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414, Catawba 
Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 (CNS), York County, South Carolina

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

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

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

    Date of amendment request: September 27, 2016, as supplemented by 
letter dated November 22, 2016. Publicly-available versions are in 
ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML16273A042 and ML16327A325, respectively.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would 
revise the Technical Specification (TS) Surveillance Requirements 
(SRs), which currently require operating ventilation systems with 
charcoal filters for a 10-hour period every 31 days. The SRs would be 
revised to require operation of the systems for 15 continuous minutes 
every 31 days. The proposed amendments are consistent with NRC-approved 
Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-522, Revision 
0, ``Revise Ventilation System Surveillance Requirements to Operate for 
10 hours per Month,'' as published in the Federal Register on September 
20, 2012 (77 FR 58428), with variations due to plant-specific 
nomenclature.
    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 NRC staff's analysis 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 affects various BSEP, CNS, MNS, HNP, and RNP 
SRs that currently require ventilation systems to be periodically 
operated for 10 continuous hours. These SRs would be modified to 
require operation for 15 continuous minutes.
    These systems are not accident initiators and therefore, these 
changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability of 
an accident. The proposed system and filter testing changes are 
consistent with current regulatory guidance for these systems and 
will continue to assure that these systems perform their design 
function, which may include mitigating accidents. Thus, the change 
does not involve a significant increase in the consequences of an 
accident.
    Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change affects various BSEP, CNS, MNS, HNP, and RNP 
SRs that currently require ventilation systems to be periodically 
operated for 10 continuous hours. These SRs would be modified to 
require operation for 15 continuous minutes.
    The change proposed for these ventilation systems does not 
change any system operations or maintenance activities. Testing 
requirements will be revised and will continue to demonstrate that 
the Limiting Conditions for Operation are met and the system 
components are capable of performing their intended safety 
functions. The change does not create new failure modes or 
mechanisms and no new accident precursors are generated.
    Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change affects various BSEP, CNS, MNS, HNP, and RNP 
SRs that currently require ventilation systems to be periodically 
operated for 10 continuous hours. These SRs would be modified to 
require operation for 15 continuous minutes.
    The design basis for the BSEP, HNP, and RNP ventilation systems' 
heaters is to heat the incoming air, thereby reducing the relative 
humidity. The proposed change will continue to demonstrate that the 
heaters are capable of heating the air and will perform their design 
function.
    The CNS and MNS ventilation systems are tested at 95 percent 
relative humidity, and, therefore, do not require heaters to heat 
the incoming air and reduce the relative humidity.
    These proposed changes are consistent with regulatory guidance, 
and do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
    Based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 
CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied.
    Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.

    Attorney for licensee: Kathryn B. Nolan, Deputy General Counsel, 
Duke Energy Corporation, 550 South Tyron Street, Mail Code DEC45A, 
Charlotte, NC 28202.
    NRC Acting Branch Chief: Jeanne D. Johnston.

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: November 18, 2016. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16343A521.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would modify the 
Technical Specification (TS) definition of Shutdown Margin (SDM) to 
require calculation of the SDM at a reactor moderator temperature of 68 
degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F), or a higher temperature that represents 
the most reactive state throughout the operating cycle. This change is 
needed to address new boiling water reactor (BWR) fuel designs, which 
may be more reactive at shutdown temperatures above 68[emsp14][deg]F. 
This proposed change is in accordance with the industry Technical 
Specifications Task Force (TSTF) initiative identified as Change 
Traveler TSTF-535, Revision 0, ``Revise Shutdown Margin Definition to 
Address Advanced Fuel Designs.'' The availability of this TS 
improvement was announced in the Federal Register published on February 
26, 2013 (78 FR 13100), as part of NRC's Consolidated Line Item 
Improvement Process.
    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 revises the definition of SDM. SDM is not an 
initiator to any accident previously evaluated. Accordingly, the 
proposed change to the definition of SDM has no effect on the 
probability of any accident previously evaluated. SDM is an 
assumption in the analysis of some previously evaluated accidents, 
and inadequate SDM could lead to an increase in consequences for 
those accidents. However, the proposed change revises the SDM 
definition to ensure that the correct SDM is determined for all fuel 
types at all times during the fuel cycle. As a result, the proposed 
change does not adversely affect the consequences of any accident 
previously evaluated.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?

[[Page 4930]]

    Response: No.
    The proposed change revises the definition of SDM. The 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 operations. The change does not alter 
assumptions made in the safety analysis regarding SDM.
    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 revises the definition of SDM. The proposed 
change does not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting 
safety system settings or limiting conditions for operation are 
determined. The proposed change ensures that the SDM assumed in 
determining safety limits, limiting safety system settings or 
limiting conditions for operation is correct for all BWR fuel types 
at all times during the fuel cycle.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

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

Omaha Public Power District, Docket No. 50-285, Fort Calhoun Station, 
Unit No. 1 (FCS), Washington County, Nebraska

    Date of amendment request: October 25, 2016. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16299A275.
    Description of amendment request: This licensee proposes to revise 
the FCS Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR) to change the structural 
design methodology for the Auxiliary Building at FCS. Specifically, the 
licensee proposes the following changes: (1) Use the ultimate strength 
design (USD) method from the industry standard American Concrete 
Institute (ACI) 318-63, ``Publication SP-10, Commentary on Building 
Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete,'' for normal operating/
service conditions for future designs and evaluations; (2) use higher 
concrete compressive strength values for Class B concrete, based on 
original strength test data; (3) use higher reinforcing steel yield 
strength values, based on original strength test data; and (4) make 
minor clarifications, including adding a definition of control fluids 
to the dead load section of the USAR.
    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.
    This LAR [license amendment request] revises the methodology 
used to re-evaluate or design new modifications to the existing 
Auxiliary Building. All other structures will continue to utilize 
the current license basis and thus are not affected by this change. 
The proposed change allows evaluations of the Auxiliary Building to 
apply the ultimate strength design (USD) method from the ACI 318-63 
Code for normal operating/service load combinations.
    The ACI USD method is an accepted industry standard used for the 
design and analysis of reinforced concrete. A change in the 
methodology that an analysis uses to verify structure qualifications 
does not have any impact on the probability of accidents previously 
evaluated. Designs performed with the ACI USD method will continue 
to demonstrate that the Auxiliary Building meets industry accepted 
ACI Code requirements. This LAR does not propose changes to the no 
loss-of-function loads, loading combinations, or required USD 
capacity.
    The use of increased concrete strength based on original test 
data for the areas identified in Section 2.3 of this document and 
the use of higher steel yield strength maintain adequate structural 
capacity. As such, these proposed changes do not pose a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated because the revised strength values are 
determined based on actual original test data using a high level of 
confidence.
    The controlled hydrostatic load is changed from live load to 
dead load for USD in the definition. This is consistent with ACI-
349-97 [American Concrete Institute Code Requirements for Nuclear 
Safety Related Concrete Structures] and therefore does not pose a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    This LAR proposes no physical change to any plant system, 
structure, or component. Similarly, no changes to plant operating 
practices, operating procedures, computer firmware, or computer 
software are proposed. This LAR does not propose changes to the 
design loads used to design Class I structures. Application of the 
new methodology to the design or evaluation of the Auxiliary 
Building will continue to ensure the Auxiliary Building will 
adequately house and protect equipment important to safety.
    Calculations that use the ACI USD method for normal operating/
service load combinations will continue to demonstrate that the 
concrete structures meet required design criteria. Use of the 
increased compressive strength of concrete based on 28-day test data 
(not age hardening) is permitted by the ACI 318-63 Code and ensures 
that the concrete structure is capable of performing its design 
function without alteration or compensatory actions of any kind. A 
higher steel yield has minimal reduction on design margin. The 
controlled hydrostatic load is changed from live load to dead load 
for USD in the definition which is consistent with ACI-349-97.
    The use of these alternative methodologies for qualifying the 
Auxiliary Building does not have a negative impact on the ability of 
the structure or its components to house and protect equipment 
important to safety and thus, does not create the possibility of a 
new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change is for the design of new modifications or 
re-analysis of the Auxiliary Building.
    Utilization of the ACI 318-63 Code USD method applies only to 
the normal operating/service load cases and is already part of the 
current license basis (CLB) for no loss-of-function load cases. No 
changes to design basis loads are proposed; therefore, new designs 
or re-evaluations of the Auxiliary Building shall still prove 
capable of coping with design basis loads.
    Use of the increased compressive strength of concrete based on 
28-day test data is justified and further constrained by limiting 
its application to areas where the concrete is not exposed to 
excessive moisture (i.e. exterior walls below 1007' [foot] 
elevation). The use of a higher steel yield is conservatively 
derived from original test data and has minimal reduction on design 
margin. The controlled hydrostatic load is changed from live load to 
dead load for USD in the definition which is consistent with ACI-
349-97.
    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: David A. Repka, Esq., Winston & Strawn, 1700 
K Street NW., Washington, DC 20006-3817.
    NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.

[[Page 4931]]

Omaha Public Power District, Docket No. 50-285, Fort Calhoun Station, 
Unit No. 1 (FCS), Washington County, Nebraska

    Date of amendment request: November 18, 2016. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16323A228.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
delete License Condition 3.D., ``Fire Protection Program,'' which 
requires that FCS implement and maintain a fire protection program that 
complies with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.48(a) and 10 CFR 50.48(c). 
Since power operations are terminated at FCS and the reactor is 
permanently defueled, FCS will maintain a fire protection program in 
accordance with 10 CFR 50.48(f).
    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 removes the Fire Protection License 
Condition which is applicable to an operating reactor. Because FCS 
is permanently defueled, the proposed change does not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated because: (1) The proposed amendment 
does not alter, degrade, or prevent action described or assumed in 
any accident in the USAR [Updated Safety Analysis Report] from being 
performed, (2) the proposed amendment does not alter any assumptions 
previously made in evaluating radiological consequences, and (3) the 
proposed amendment does not affect the integrity of any fission 
product barrier.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not alter any, safety limits, or safety 
analysis assumptions associated with the operation of the plant. The 
proposed change does not introduce any new accident initiators, nor 
does the change reduce or adversely affect the capabilities of any 
plant structure or system in the performance of its safety function.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not alter the manner in which safety 
limits or limiting safety system settings are determined. The safety 
analysis acceptance criteria are not affected by the proposed 
change. The proposed change does not change the design function of 
any equipment assumed to operate in the event of an accident.
    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 A. Repka, Esq., Winston & Strawn, 1700 
K Street NW., Washington, DC 20006-3817.
    NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.

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

    Date of amendment request: November 17, 2016. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16323A279.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the 
Salem Nuclear Generating Station (Salem), Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Accident 
Monitoring Instrumentation Technical Specifications (TSs) and 
Surveillance Requirements by modifying the list of instruments to be 
operable based on implementation of Regulatory Guide 1.97, Revision 2, 
``Instrumentation for Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Plants to Assess 
Plant and Environs Conditions During and Following an Accident.'' In 
addition, the amendments would revise the allowed outage times and 
required actions for inoperable channels to be consistent with NUREG-
1431, Revision 4, ``Standard Technical Specifications--Westinghouse 
Plants.'' TS 6.9.4, ``Special Reports,'' would also be revised to 
reflect 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 NRC staff edits in square 
brackets:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability
    or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes to the TS modify Accident Monitoring 
Instrumentation TS Tables 3.3-11 and 4.3-11 of Salem Units 1 and 2 
by removing or adding instruments as listed [in the amendment 
request], and updating the AOT [allowed outage time] and required 
actions to better align with the Westinghouse STS [Standard 
Technical Specifications], NUREG-1431. The instruments listed [in 
the amendment request] are not assumed to be initiators of any 
analyzed event of Chapter 15 in the Updated Final Safety Analysis 
Report (UFSAR). Therefore the probability of an accident previously 
evaluated is not significantly increased.
    The proposed changes do not alter the design of any system, 
structure, or component (SSC). The proposed changes conform to NRC 
regulatory guidance regarding the content of plant TS, as identified 
in 10 CFR 50.36, NUREG-1431, and the NRC Final Policy Statement in 
58 FR 39132.
    TS Operability requirements are retained for Type A and Category 
1 variables. Operability of these instruments ensures sufficient 
information is available to monitor and assess plant status during 
and following an accident. Alternate means for diagnosing and 
responding to instrument malfunctions are unaffected by the proposed 
change. Therefore, the consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated are not significantly increased.
    Therefore, these proposed changes do not represent a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes to the TS would modify the TS Tables 3.3-11 
and 4.3-11 of Salem Units 1 and 2, by removing or adding instruments 
as listed [in the amendment request], and updating the AOT and 
required actions to better align with the Westinghouse STS. The 
proposed changes do not involve a modification to the physical 
configuration of the plant or changes in the methods governing 
normal plant operation. The proposed changes will not impose any new 
or different requirement or introduce a new accident initiator, 
accident precursor, or malfunction mechanism.
    Additionally, there is no change in the types or increases in 
the amounts of any effluent that may be released off-site and there 
is no increase in individual or cumulative occupational exposure.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes to the TS would modify the TS Tables 3.3-11 
and 4.3-11 of Salem Units 1 and 2, by removing or adding instruments 
as listed [in the amendment request], and updating the AOT and 
required actions to better align with the Westinghouse STS. The 
instruments removed from Tables 3.3-11 and 4.3-11 are not needed for 
manual operator action necessary for safety systems

[[Page 4932]]

to accomplish their safety function for the design basis events. The 
instruments listed for removal are indication-only with the 
exception of containment pressure narrow range instruments; thus, 
they do not provide an input to any automatic trip functions. In the 
case where similar or related instruments (e.g., containment 
pressure-narrow range) are associated with important trips (i.e., 
RPS or ESF trips), such instruments are governed by separate 
existing TS sections which are not altered by this request.
    Therefore, since the proposed changes do not impact the response 
of the plant to a design basis accident, 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.

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

    Date of amendment request: May 11, 2016, as supplemented by letter 
dated December 13, 2016. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS under 
Accession Nos. ML16132A374 and ML16348A017, respectively.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the 
Hope Creek Generating Station Technical Specification (TS) requirements 
by deleting TS Action Statement 3.4.2.1.b concerning stuck open safety/
relief valves. In addition, TS 3.6.2.1 Action Statements regarding 
suppression chamber water temperature would be revised to align with 
NUREG-1433, Revision 4, ``Standard Technical Specifications--General 
Electric Plants (BWR/4).''
    The license amendment request was original noticed in the Federal 
Register on July 19, 2016 (81 FR 46965). The notice is being reissued 
in its entirety to include the revised scope, description of the 
amendment request, and proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided, in its December 13, 2016, letter, 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 TS change deletes Action Statement 3.4.2.1.b 
concerning safety/relief valves and revises TS Action Statement 
3.6.2.1.b to be consistent with the BWR Standard Technical 
Specifications (NUREG-1433, ``Standard Technical Specifications 
General Electric Plants, BWR/4,'' Revision 4, dated April 2012). The 
two (2) minute action represents detailed methods of responding to 
an event, and therefore, if eliminated, would not result in 
increasing the probability of the event, nor act as an initiator of 
an event. Limiting condition for operation 3.6.2.1, 
``Depressurization Systems--Suppression Chamber,'' and plant 
procedures provide operators with appropriate direction for response 
to a suppression pool high temperature (which could be caused by a 
stuck open relief valve). Providing specific direction to close the 
valve within two (2) minutes does not provide additional plant 
protection beyond what is provided for in plant procedures and TS 
3.6.2.1.
    Therefore, this action can be eliminated, and will 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 TS change deletes Action Statement 3.4.2.1.b 
concerning safety/relief valves and revises TS Action Statement 
3.6.2.1.b to be consistent with the BWR Standard Technical 
Specifications (NUREG-1433, ``Standard Technical Specifications 
General Electric Plants, BWR/4,'' Revision 4, dated April 2012). 
This change does not change the design or configuration of the 
plant. No new operation or failure modes are created, nor is a 
system-level failure mode created that is different than those that 
already exist.
    Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in 
a margin of safety, nor does it affect any analytical limits. There 
are no changes to accident or transient core thermal hydraulic 
conditions, or fuel or reactor coolant boundary design limits, as a 
result of the proposed change. The proposed change will not alter 
the assumptions or results of the analysis contained in the Updated 
Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR).
    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: Jeffrie J. Keenan, PSEG Nuclear LLC-N21, 
P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038.
    NRC Acting Branch Chief: Stephen S. Koenick.

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

    Date of amendment request: November 23, 2016. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16333A250.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise 
Technical Specification (TS) Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.0.2 to 
extend, on a one-time basis, certain SRs that are normally performed on 
an 18-month frequency in conjunction with a refueling outage. The 
proposed change extends the due date for these SRs to October 31, 2017, 
which allows these SRs to be performed during the first refueling 
outage for WBN Unit 2.
    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 requested action is a one-time extension to the performance 
interval of a limited number of TS surveillance requirements. The 
performance of these surveillances, or the extension of these 
surveillances, is not a precursor to an accident. Performing these 
surveillances or failing to perform these surveillances does not 
affect the probability of an accident. Therefore, the proposed delay 
in performance of the SRs in this amendment request does not 
increase the probability of an accident previously evaluated.
    A delay in performing these surveillances does not result in a 
system being unable to perform its required function. In the case of 
this one-time extension request, the short period of additional time 
that the systems and components will be in service before the next 
performance of the surveillance will not affect the ability of those 
systems to operate as designed. Therefore, the systems required to 
mitigate accidents will remain capable of performing their required 
function. No new failure modes have been introduced because of this 
action and the consequences remain consistent with previously 
evaluated accidents. On this basis, the proposed delay in 
performance of the SRs in this amendment request does not involve a 
significant increase in the consequences of an accident.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the

[[Page 4933]]

probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment does not involve a physical alteration of 
any system, structure, or component (SSC) or a change in the way any 
SSC is operated. The proposed amendment does not involve operation 
of any SSCs in a manner or configuration different from those 
previously recognized or evaluated. No new failure mechanisms will 
be introduced by the one-time SR extensions being requested.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment is a one-time extension of the 
performance interval of a limited number of TS surveillance 
requirements. Extending these surveillance requirements does not 
involve a modification of any TS limiting conditions for operation. 
Extending these SRs does not involve a change to any limit on 
accident consequences specified in the license or regulations. 
Extending these SRs does not involve a change in how accidents are 
mitigated or a significant increase in the consequences of an 
accident. Extending these SRs does not involve a change in a 
methodology used to evaluate consequences of an accident. Extending 
these SRs does not involve a change in any operating procedure or 
process.
    The instrumentation and components involved in this request have 
exhibited reliable operation based on current test results. The 
current testing includes power ascension testing and surveillance 
testing that either partially or fully exercised the components. 
Some components have been evaluated for extended testing intervals 
greater than 18 months but are set at WBN to an 18-month frequency.
    Based on the limited additional period of time that the systems 
and components will be in service before the surveillances are next 
performed, as well as the operating experience that these 
surveillances are typically successful when performed, it is 
reasonable to conclude that the margins of safety associated with 
these SRs will not be affected by the requested extension.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. 
Attorney for licensee: Sherry A. Quirk, Executive Vice President and 
General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West Summit Hill Dr., 
6A West Tower, Knoxville, TN 37902. NRC Acting Branch Chief: Jeanne D. 
Johnston.

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 25, 2016, as supplemented by 
letters dated June 27 and October 12, 2016.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the MPS2 
technical specifications (TSs) to remove the requirement for the 
charging pumps to be operable in TS 3.5.2, ``Emergency Core Cooling 
Systems, ECCS Subsystems--Tavg >= 300[emsp14][deg]F,'' by 
eliminating surveillance requirement 4.5.2.e from the TSs. The proposed 
change also revises the MPS2 final safety analysis report relative to 
the long-term analysis of the inadvertent opening of a pressurized 
water reactor pressurizer pressure relief valve event and clarifies the 
existing discussion regarding the application of single failure 
criteria.
    Date of issuance: December 22, 2016.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 331. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML16308A485; 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 Facility Operating License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 24, 2016 (81 FR 
32804). The supplemental letters dated June 27 and October 12, 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 22, 2016.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of application for amendment: December 22, 2015.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical 
Specifications (TSs) to provide a short Allowed Outage Time to restore 
an inoperable system for conditions under which the existing TSs 
require a plant shutdown. The amendment is consistent with TS Task 
Force (TSTF) traveler TSTF-426 Revision 5, ``Revise or Add Actions to 
Preclude Entry into LCO [Limiting Condition for Operation] 3.0.3--
RITSTF [Risk-Informed TSTF] Initiatives 6b & 6c.''
    Date of issuance: December 29, 2016.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 304. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML16267A139; documents related to this amendment

[[Page 4934]]

are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-6: The amendment revised 
the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 16, 2016 (81 
FR 7838).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 29, 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: March 29, 2016, as supplemented by 
letter dated September 6, 2016.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the 
technical specification (TS) requirements for snubbers.
    Date of issuance: December 29, 2016.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 223 and 184. A publicly-available version is in 
ADAMS under Accession No. ML16335A038; 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: May 24, 2016 (81 FR 
32807). The supplemental letter dated September 6, 2016, provided 
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand 
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change 
the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination as published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated December 29, 2016.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of application for amendments: October 26, 2011, as 
supplemented by letters dated December 20, 2011; April 2, April 30, 
June 6, August 2, September 11, November 27, and December 5, 2012; 
March 7, March 25, April 30, May 9, May 30, and September 17, 2013; 
April 24 and April 30, 2014; February 2 and June 22, 2015; and January 
25, February 11, and August 17, 2016.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the 
facility operating licenses to allow the permanent replacement of the 
current DCPP Eagle 21 digital process protection system (PPS) with a 
new digital PPS that is based on the Invensys Operations Management 
Tricon Programmable Logic Controller (PLC), Version 10, and the CS 
Innovations, LLC (a Westinghouse Electric Company), Advanced Logic 
System. The amendments also incorporate a revised definition of Channel 
Operational Test in Technical Specification (TS) 1.1, ``Definitions.''
    Date of issuance: December 21, 2016.
    Effective date: This license amendment is effective as of its date 
of issuance and shall be implemented within 120 days from the date of 
issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: Unit 1--227; Unit 2--229. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16139A008; documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with 
the amendments.
    Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-80 and DPR-82: The amendments 
revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 7, 2016 (81 FR 
36606). The supplemental letter dated August 17, 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 December 21, 2016.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

STP Nuclear Operating Company, Docket No. 50-498, South Texas Project, 
Unit 1, Matagorda County, Texas

    Date of amendment request: April 7, 2016, as supplemented by 
letters dated May 25 and September 28, 2016.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical 
Specification 5.3.2, ``Control Rod Assemblies,'' to allow permanent 
operation with 56 full-length control rods with no control rod assembly 
in core location D-6.
    Date of issuance: December 21, 2016.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
prior to entering Mode 5 from Mode 6 during startup from refueling 
outage 1RE20.
    Amendment No.: Unit 1--211. A publicly-available version is in 
ADAMS under Accession No. ML16319A010; documents related to this 
amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 
amendment.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-76: The amendment revised the 
Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 19, 2016 (81 FR 
46967). The supplemental letter dated September 28, 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 21, 2016.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

ZionSolutions, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-295 and 50-304, Zion Nuclear Power 
Station, Units 1 and 2, Lake County, Illinois

    Date of application for amendment: January 7, 2016, as supplemented 
by letter dated June 22, 2016, and December 1, 2016.
    Brief description of amendment: This amendment revises the Zion 
Nuclear Power Station Licenses to approve the Independent Spent Fuel 
Installation (ISFSI) only Emergency Plan.
    Date of issuance: December 20, 2016.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days.
    Amendment Nos.: 190 and 177. A publicly-available version is in 
ADAMS under Accession No. ML16211A074; documents related to these 
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 
amendments.
    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-39 and NPF-48: These amendments 
revise the Licenses.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 1, 2016, (81 FR 
10683). The supplemental letters dated June 22, 2016, and December 1, 
2016, provided additional information that clarified the application, 
did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed,

[[Page 4935]]

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 20, 2016.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

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

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

    The Commission is also offering an opportunity for a hearing with 
respect to the issuance of the amendment.
    Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any 
persons (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by this action may 
file a request for a hearing and petition for leave to intervene 
(petition) with respect to the action. Petitions shall be filed in 
accordance with the Commission's ``Agency Rules of Practice and 
Procedure'' in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult a 
current copy of 10 CFR 2.309. The NRC's regulations are accessible 
electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. Alternatively, a copy of 
the regulations is available at the NRC's Public Document Room, located 
at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first 
floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. If a petition is filed, the 
Commission or a presiding officer will rule on the petition and, if 
appropriate, a notice of a hearing will be issued.
    As required by 10 CFR 2.309(d) the petition should specifically 
explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with 
particular reference to the following general requirements for 
standing: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the 
petitioner; (2) the nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to 
be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the 
petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; 
and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be 
entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest.
    In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f), the petition must also set 
forth the specific contentions which the petitioner seeks to have 
litigated in the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific 
statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In 
addition, the petitioner must provide a brief explanation of the bases 
for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or 
expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner 
intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The 
petitioner must also provide references to the specific sources and 
documents on which the petitioner intends to rely to support its 
position on the issue. The petition must include sufficient information 
to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant or licensee on 
a material issue of law or fact. Contentions must be limited to matters 
within the scope of the proceeding. The contention must be one which, 
if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner who 
fails to satisfy the requirements at 10 CFR 2.309(f) with respect to at 
least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.

[[Page 4936]]

    Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, 
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene. 
Parties have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the 
hearing with respect to resolution of that party's admitted 
contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence, consistent 
with the NRC's regulations, policies, and procedures.
    Petitions must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of 
publication of this notice. Petitions and motions for leave to file new 
or amended contentions that are filed after the deadline will not be 
entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the 
filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 
CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i) through (iii). The petition must be filed in 
accordance with the filing instructions in the ``Electronic Submissions 
(E-Filing)'' section of this document.
    If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final 
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the 
Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no 
significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve 
to establish when the hearing is held. If the final determination is 
that the amendment request involves no significant hazards 
consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it 
immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any 
hearing would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final 
determination is that the amendment request involves a significant 
hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before 
the issuance of the amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent 
danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will 
issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.
    A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian 
Tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to 
participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition should 
state the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the 
proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission by March 
20, 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. 
Alternatively, a State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized 
Indian Tribe, or agency thereof may participate as a non-party under 10 
CFR 2.315(c).
    If a hearing is granted, any person who is not a party to the 
proceeding and is not affiliated with or represented by a party may, at 
the discretion of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited 
appearance pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person 
making a limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of 
his or her position on the issues but may not otherwise participate in 
the proceeding. A limited appearance may be made at any session of the 
hearing or at any prehearing conference, subject to the limits and 
conditions as may be imposed by the presiding officer. Details 
regarding the opportunity to make a limited appearance will be provided 
by the presiding officer if such sessions are scheduled.

B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)

    All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a 
request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition), any 
motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the 
submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and 
documents filed by interested governmental entities that request to 
participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the 
NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007, as amended at 77 FR 
46562, August 3, 2012). The E-Filing process requires participants to 
submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in 
some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Detailed 
guidance on making electronic submissions may be found in the Guidance 
for Electronic Submissions to the NRC and on the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants may not submit 
paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in 
accordance with the procedures described below.
    To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 
days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the 
Office of the Secretary by email at [email protected], or by 
telephone at 301-415-1677, to (1) request a digital identification (ID) 
certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or 
representative) to digitally sign submissions and access the E-Filing 
system for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise 
the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a petition or 
other adjudicatory document (even in instances in which the 
participant, or its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-
issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the 
Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the hearing in this 
proceeding if the Secretary has not already established an electronic 
docket.
    Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is 
available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/getting-started.html. Once a participant has obtained a 
digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant 
can then submit adjudicatory documents. Submissions 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 document is submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. 
To be timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing 
system no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon 
receipt of a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document 
and sends the submitter an email notice confirming receipt of the 
document. The E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that 
provides access to the document to the NRC's Office of the General 
Counsel and any others who have advised the Office of the Secretary 
that they wish to participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need 
not serve the document on those participants separately. Therefore, 
applicants and other participants (or their counsel or representative) 
must apply for and receive a digital ID certificate before adjudicatory 
documents are filed so that they can obtain access to the documents via 
the E-Filing system.
    A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-
Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC's Electronic 
Filing Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC's 
public 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 6 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government 
holidays.
    Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not 
submitting

[[Page 4937]]

documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance 
with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing stating why there 
is good cause for not filing electronically and requesting 
authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such 
filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the 
Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and 
Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited 
delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, 11555 Rockville Pike, 
Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications 
Staff. Participants filing adjudicatory documents in this manner are 
responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing 
is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in 
the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service 
upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A 
presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-
Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the 
presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting 
the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists.
    Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the 
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at 
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 personal phone numbers in their filings, unless an 
NRC regulation or other law requires submission of such information. 
For example, in some instances, individuals provide home addresses in 
order to demonstrate proximity to a facility or site. With respect to 
copyrighted works, except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose 
of the adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use 
application, participants are requested not to include copyrighted 
materials in their submission.
    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.

Arizona Public Service Company, et al., Docket No. STN 50-530, Palo 
Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Unit No. 3, Maricopa County, Arizona

    Date of application for amendment: December 21, 2016, as 
supplemented by letter dated December 23, 2016.
    Brief description of amendment: The emergency amendment revised the 
Technical Specifications (TSs) for a one-time extension of the 
emergency diesel generator (DG) completion time described in TS 
3.8.1.B.4. Specifically, the emergency amendment extended the TS 
required action 3.8.1.B.4 completion time from 10 days to 21 days for 
the purpose of collecting and analyzing data associated with the 
failure of train B DG and continuing with the repair of the DG. During 
surveillance testing on December 15, 2016, the DG suffered a failure of 
the number nine right cylinder connecting rod and piston. Current plans 
to collect and analyze data associated with the engine failure and 
continue with the repair will exceed the TS required action completion 
time of 10 days. As a result, the licensee evaluated the defense-in-
depth and compensatory measures and is requesting a one-time 
deterministic license amendment to extend the completion time based 
upon the guidance of Standard Review Plan Branch Technical Position 8-
8, ``Onsite (Emergency Diesel Generators) and Offsite Power Sources 
Allowed Outage Time Extensions.''
    Date of issuance: December 23, 2016.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
prior to the expiration of the 10-days completion time, or December 25, 
2016, at 3:56 a.m. PST.
    Amendment No.: Unit 3--199. A publicly-available version is in 
ADAMS under Accession No. ML16358A676; documents related to this 
amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 
amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-74: The amendment 
revised the Operating License and TSs.
    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 December 23, 
2016.
    Attorney for licensee: Michael G. Green, Senior Regulatory Counsel, 
Pinnacle West Capital Corporation, P.O. Box 52034, Mail Station 8695, 
Phoenix, Arizona 85072-2034.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket No. 50-425, Vogtle 
Electric Generating Plant, Unit 2, Burke County, Georgia

    Date of amendment request: December 13, 2016.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment modifies the Unit 2 
Technical Specifications (TS) Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) 
3.7.9, ``Ultimate Heat Sink (UHS),'' to add a Note to extend the 
completion time of Condition D.2.2 of LCO 3.7.9 to 77 days to allow for 
refurbishing the 2A nuclear service cooling water transfer pump. This 
TS change would be only for the 2A NSCW transfer pump during operating 
Cycle 19.
    Date of issuance: December 21, 2016.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 165. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML16354A133; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-81: Amendment revised 
the Renewed Facility Operating License and TSs.
    Public comments requested as to proposed no significant hazards 
consideration (NSHC): Yes.
    Public notice of the proposed amendment was published in The 
Augusta Chronicle, located in Augusta, Georgia, on December 17 and 
December 18, 2016. The notice provided an opportunity to submit 
comments on the Commission's proposed NSHC determination. No Comments 
were received.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment, finding of 
exigent circumstances, state consultation, public comments, and final 
NSHC determination are contained in a safety evaluation dated December 
21, 2016.
    Attorney for licensee: Jennifer M. Buettner, Associate General 
Counsel, Southern Nuclear. Operating Company, Inc., 40 Inverness Center 
Parkway, Birmingham, AL 35242.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 6th day of January 2017.


[[Page 4938]]


    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

George A. Wilson,
Deputy Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of 
Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2017-00909 Filed 1-13-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7590-01-P