[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 48 (Tuesday, March 14, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13662-13676]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-04757]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2017-0071]


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 February 14 to February 27, 2017. The last 
biweekly notice was published on February 28, 2017.

DATES: Comments must be filed by April 13, 2017. A request for a 
hearing must be filed by May 15, 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-2017-0071. 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-2017-0071, 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-2017-0071.
     NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the 
ADAMS Public Documents collection at

[[Page 13663]]

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]. For the convenience of the reader, 
instructions about obtaining materials referenced in this document are 
provided in the ``Availability of Documents'' section.
     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-2017-0071, facility name, unit 
number(s), plant docket number, application date, and subject in your 
comment submission.
    The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact 
information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your 
comment submission. The NRC posts all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as entering the comment submissions into 
ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove 
identifying or contact information.
    If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons 
for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to 
include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be 
publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should 
state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to 
remove such information before making the comment submissions available 
to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.

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

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

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

    Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any 
persons (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by this action may 
file a request for a hearing and 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

[[Page 13664]]

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 May 
15, 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's 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 must 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

[[Page 13665]]

considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in 
the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service 
upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A 
presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-
Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the 
presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting 
the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists.
    Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the 
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at 
https://adams.nrc.gov/ehd, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the 
Commission or the presiding officer. If you do not have an NRC-issued 
digital ID certificate as described above, click cancel when the link 
requests certificates and you will be automatically directed to the 
NRC's electronic hearing dockets where you will be able to access any 
publicly available documents in a particular hearing docket. 
Participants are requested not to include personal privacy information, 
such as social security numbers, home addresses, or personal phone 
numbers in their filings, unless an NRC regulation or other law 
requires submission of such information. For example, in some 
instances, individuals provide home addresses in order to demonstrate 
proximity to a facility or site. With respect to copyrighted works, 
except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory 
filings and would constitute a Fair Use application, participants are 
requested not to include copyrighted materials in their submission.
    For further details with respect to these license amendment 
applications, see the application for amendment which is available for 
public inspection in ADAMS and at the NRC's PDR. For additional 
direction on accessing 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: October 27, 2016. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16319A128.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the 
technical specifications (TSs) to be consistent with Technical 
Specification Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-529, ``Clarify Use and 
Application Rules.'' The revisions include sections related to 
completion times, limiting condition for operation (LCO) applicability, 
and surveillance requirement (SR) applicability, of the TSs to clarify 
the use and application of the TS usage rules.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes to Section 1.3 and LCO 3.0.4 have no effect 
on the requirement for systems to be Operable and have no effect on 
the application of TS actions. The proposed change to SR 3.0.3 
states that the allowance may only be used when there is a 
reasonable expectation the surveillance will be met when performed. 
Since the proposed changes do not significantly affect system 
Operability, the proposed changes will have no significant effect on 
the initiating events for accidents previously evaluated and will 
have no significant effect on the ability of the systems to mitigate 
accidents previously evaluated.
    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 to the TS usage rules does not affect the 
design or function of any plant systems. The proposed change does 
not change the Operability requirements for plant systems or the 
actions taken when plant systems are not operable.
    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 clarifies the application of Section 1.3 and 
LCO 3.0.4 and does not result in changes in plant operation. SR 
3.0.3 is revised to allow application of SR 3.0.3 when an SR has not 
been previously performed if there is reasonable expectation that 
the SR will be met when performed. This expands the use of SR 3.0.3 
while ensuring the affected system is capable of performing its 
safety function. As a result, plant safety is either improved or 
unaffected.
    Therefore, it is concluded that 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: Kathryn B. Nolan, Deputy General Counsel, 
550 South Tryon Street, M/C DEC45A, Charlotte, NC 28202.
    NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin G. Beasley.

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al, Docket No. 50-346, Davis-
Besse Nuclear Power Station (DBNPS), Unit No. 1, Ottawa County, Ohio

    Date of amendment request: January 11, 2017. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17011A271.
    Description of amendment request: The licensee proposes to change 
the technical specifications (TSs) for DBNPS, Unit No. 1, to extend the 
allowed outage time (AOT) for the ultrasonic flow meter (UFM) and to 
make administrative changes to TS 3.3.1, ``Reactor Protection System 
(RPS) Instrumentation.''
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment would extend the existing UFM AOT to 72 
hours. There are no modifications to the plant being made. As there 
are no modifications to the plant or a change in plant control 
systems, extending the UFM outage would not significantly increase 
accident probability.
    Accident consequences are, in part, dependent on the operating 
power level of the reactor assumed in accident analyses. The UFM is 
used to obtain information needed to perform a calorimetric heat 
balance calculation to determine reactor power output and maintain 
operation within accident analysis limits. The proposed amendment 
would permit measurements from FW [feedwater] venturis and RTDs 
[resistance temperature detectors] to be substituted for UFM 
measurements while maintaining a stable power level during a 72-hour 
period. Venturi-based FW flow measurements would be normalized to 
the last UFM-based measurements used as input to a calorimetric heat 
balance and would have a nearly identical degree of uncertainty as 
UFM measurements for the duration of the proposed AOT when stable 
thermal power conditions are maintained. Therefore, calculated 
reactor power based on normalized FW flow venturi measurements

[[Page 13666]]

will continue to be maintained within accident analysis limits, 
ensuring that accident consequences will not be significantly 
increased.
    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 amendment would extend the existing UFM AOT to 72 
hours. Modifications to the plant are not being made. FW flow 
venture measurements that are normalized to the last UFM-based 
measurements used as input to a calorimetric heat balance have a 
nearly identical degree of uncertainty as UFM measurements for the 
duration of the proposed AOT when stable thermal power conditions 
are maintained. Calculated reactor power based on normalized FW flow 
venturi measurements will continue to be maintained within accident 
analysis limits.
    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 amendment would permit the plant to operate at 
rated thermal power for up to 72 hours after the last calorimetric 
heat balance based on UFM readings before reducing power. A plant-
specific statistical evaluation of the difference between historical 
UFM-based FW flow measurements and venturi-based FW flow 
measurements has demonstrated that the average difference does not 
vary significantly over short periods of time. Therefore, if current 
venturi-based FW flow measurements are normalized to the last UFM-
based measurements used as input to a calorimetric heat balance no 
greater than 72 hours prior, a nearly identical degree of 
uncertainty would be obtained with the venturis as with the UFM. The 
proposed amendment restricts application of the 72-hour AOT to 
conditions when the plant is operated consistently above 90 percent 
RTP [rated thermal power] during the 72-hour period to avoid changes 
in FW flow or temperature that have potential to de-foul venturis 
and affect measurements.
    As the proposed change will result in the same degree of 
uncertainty in reactor power calculations using alternate 
measurements as with using the UFM, there is no 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, Attorney, FirstEnergy 
Corporation, Mail Stop A-GO-15, 76 South Main Street, Akron, OH 44308.
    NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.

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

    Date of application for amendment: December 21, 2016. A publicly-
available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17012A084.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would modify the 
Technical Specifications (TSs) for the Engineered Safety Features 
Actuation System (ESFAS) instrumentation. The amendments would modify 
the completion times of required actions for inoperable instrumentation 
channels for auxiliary feedwater actuation on bus stripping and on trip 
of all main feedwater pump breakers.
    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 modifies ACTION 23 of TS 3.3.2, Table 3.3-2, 
to establish a 48-hour completion time for restoring two 
anticipatory ESFAS functions. The instrumentation associated with 
the proposed changes are not initiators of any accident previously 
evaluated, so the probability of accidents previously evaluated is 
unaffected. The proposed changes will not impact assumptions or 
conditions previously used in the radiological consequence 
evaluations. The subject ESFAS functions are not relied upon for 
accident mitigation and thus the proposed changes cannot affect the 
radiological consequences. The proposed changes will not impact any 
plant systems such that previously analyzed SSCs [systems, 
structures, and components] would be more likely to fail. The 
subject ESFAS functions will continue to be maintained and operated 
in a manner consistent with their intended function. The proposed 
changes do not adversely affect the protective and mitigative 
capabilities of the plant. The offsite and Control Room doses will 
continue to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 100, 10 CFR 50.67, and 
10 CFR 50 Appendix A.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not result in 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 modifies the TS ACTION for two restoring 
anticipatory ESFAS functions. No new or different interactions with 
safety-related SSCs are created by the proposed change. The proposed 
changes will not introduce failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or 
accident initiators not already considered in the design and 
licensing bases. The subject ESFAS functions will continue to be 
operated and maintained such that the possibility of a new or 
different type of equipment malfunction is not created. No new 
accident scenarios, transient precursors, or limiting single 
failures are introduced as a result of the proposed changes.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different accident from any accident previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change modifies the TS ACTION for restoring two 
anticipatory ESFAS functions. The subject ESFAS functions are not 
relied upon for accident mitigation and are not credited in design 
bases accident analyses. Hence the proposed changes cannot alter any 
safety analyses assumptions, safety limits, limiting safety system 
settings, or methods of operating the plant. The proposed changes do 
not adversely impact plant operating margins or the reliability of 
equipment credited in the safety analyses. No changes in the 
methods, values or limits of a safety related function or accident 
analysis result from the proposed changes.
    Therefore, the proposed changes would not involve a significant 
reduction in the margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: William S. Blair, Managing Attorney--
Nuclear, Florida Power & Light Company, 700 Universe Blvd. MS LAW/JB, 
Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420.
    NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin G. Beasley.

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

    Date of amendment request: December 21, 2016. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17012A085.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise 
technical specifications (TSs) by deleting high range noble gas 
effluent monitors' requirements and relocating the requirements to the 
Turkey Point Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM).
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the

[[Page 13667]]

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 Plant Vent Exhaust, Condenser Air Ejectors Exhaust and Unit 
3 Spent Fuel Pit Exhaust high-range noble gas monitoring 
instrumentation are not an initiator of any accidents previously 
evaluated, so the probability of accidents previously evaluated is 
unaffected by the proposed changes. The proposed changes will not 
impact any plant systems such that previously analyzed structures, 
systems, and components (SSCs) would be more likely to fail. The 
proposed changes do not adversely affect the protective and 
mitigative capabilities of the plant nor the offsite and control 
room dose projections associated with any design basis accident 
described in the FSAR [Final Safety Analysis Report].
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not result in 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 removes the subject instruments from the 
accident monitoring TS and as such is an administrative change in 
nature. The Plant Vent Exhaust, Condenser Air Ejectors Exhaust and 
Unit 3 Spent Fuel Pit Exhaust high-range noble gas monitoring 
instrumentation will continue to perform their specified function. 
Removal of the monitors from the TS will not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident. No new or different 
interactions with safety related systems or components are created. 
The proposed changes will not introduce new failure mechanisms, 
malfunctions, or accident initiators not already considered in the 
design and licensing bases. The possibility of a new or different 
malfunction of safety-related equipment is not created. No new 
accident scenarios, transient precursors, or limiting single 
failures are introduced as a result of these changes. There will be 
no adverse effects or challenges imposed on any safety-related 
system as a result of the proposed changes.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different accident from any accident previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change relocates the Plant Vent Exhaust, Condenser 
Air Ejectors Exhaust and Unit 3 Spent Fuel Pit Exhaust high-range 
noble gas monitoring requirements from TS 3.3.3.3, Accident 
Monitoring, to the Turkey Point ODCM, and as such is an 
administrative change in nature. The changes do not adversely impact 
plant operating margins or the reliability of equipment credited in 
the safety analyses. Consequently, there will be no change in the 
ability to monitor post-accident plant conditions, radionuclide 
releases, and public doses. The safety analyses acceptance criteria 
are not affected by these changes. The proposed changes will not 
result in plant operation outside of the design basis.
    Therefore, operation in accordance with the proposed amendment 
would not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: William S. Blair, Managing Attorney--
Nuclear, Florida Power & Light Company, 700 Universe Blvd., MS LAW/JB, 
Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420.
    NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin G. Beasley.

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

    Date of amendment request: December 21, 2016. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16357A403.
    Description of amendment request: The requested amendment requires 
changes to Combined License (COL) Appendix C (and corresponding changes 
to plant-specific Tier 1 information) to be consistent with information 
documented in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). The 
requested amendment involves changes to the physical separation 
requirements between Class 1E division cables and between Class 1E and 
non-Class 1E cables described in COL Appendix C (and plant-specific 
Tier 1) Table 3.3-6. The proposed changes add additional acceptable 
configurations for raceway separation in the main control room (MCR) 
and remote shutdown room (RSR). 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.
    This activity revises the raceway spacing configurations and 
permits spacing in accordance with existing licensing basis 
requirements, Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.75 and Institute of Electrical 
and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 384 for the MCR and RSR.
    The proposed consistency change to revise separation 
requirements for MCR and RSR raceways does not inhibit any systems, 
structures or components (SSCs) from performing their safety-related 
function, as raceways in the MCR and RSR are installed in accordance 
with spacing configurations currently specified in the UFSAR or in 
the code of record, IEEE 384. This proposed amendment does not have 
an adverse impact on the response to anticipated transients or 
postulated accident conditions because the functions of the SSCs are 
not changed. The change does not involve an interface with any SSC 
accident initiator or initiating sequence of events, and thus, the 
probabilities of the accidents evaluated in the UFSAR are not 
affected. Accidents associated with raceway separation are not 
identified in the safety analysis. The proposed changes do not 
involve a change to the predicted radiological releases due to 
postulated accident conditions, thus, 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 to the inspection criteria for raceway 
separation requirements does not adversely affect any safety-related 
equipment, and does not add any new interfaces to safety-related 
SSCs. This change provides consistency between the COL Appendix C 
and the UFSAR and industry standards only. System, design functions 
and equipment qualification are not adversely affected by these 
changes. The changes do not introduce a new failure mode, 
malfunction or sequence of events that could affect plant safety or 
safety-related equipment as the change is for consistency with 
existing licensing basis requirements and industry standards. New 
credible failure modes are not introduced by the changes in 
separation requirements.
    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 change maintains compliance with the applicable 
Codes and Standards, thereby maintaining the margin of safety 
associated with these SSCs. The proposed change does not alter any 
applicable design codes, code compliance,

[[Page 13668]]

design function, or safety analysis. Consequently, no safety 
analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is challenged or 
exceeded by the proposed change, thus the margin of safety is not 
reduced.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
reduction in the margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Kathryn M. Sutton, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, 
LLC, 1111. Pennsylvania NW., Washington, DC 20004-2514.
    NRC Branch Chief: Jennifer Dixon-Herrity.

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

    Date of amendment request: December 21, 2016. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16356A437.
    Description of amendment request: The requested amendment consists 
of changes to plant-specific Tier 1 (and Combined License Appendix C) 
Tables 2.7.5-1, 2.7.5-2, and 2.7.7-3 and associated Updated Final 
Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) text, tables, and figures related to: 
(1) Modifying the configuration of the containment recirculation fan 
coil unit assemblies of the containment recirculation cooling system 
(VCS) and revising the values for the various design parameters 
affected by this re-configuration; (2) adding a fourth pressure 
differential indicator to the radiologically controlled area 
ventilation system (VAS) to be located in the auxiliary building 
component cooling system valve room; and (3) reducing the total 
ventilation flow provided through the VAS fuel handling area 
ventilation subsystem as a result of a reduction in heat loads in the 
areas serviced by the VAS.
    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 design functions of the VCS include control of the air 
temperature and reduction of humidity in the containment to provide 
a suitable environment for equipment operability during normal power 
operation, and for personnel accessibility and equipment operability 
during refueling and shutdown. The proposed changes for the VCS 
address changes in total required design air flow rates and total 
design cooling and heating requirements, thereby maintaining these 
design functions.
    The design functions of the VAS include prevention of the 
unmonitored release of airborne radioactivity to the atmosphere or 
adjacent plant areas, by maintaining a negative pressure 
differential in radiologically controlled areas of the auxiliary 
building, maintaining occupied areas and access and equipment areas 
within their design temperature range, and providing outside air for 
plant personnel. The proposed changes for the VAS enable pressure 
differential monitoring and control for an area of the auxiliary 
building that is physically remote and separate from the currently 
monitored and controlled areas, and provide VAS supply air flow rate 
and total ventilation flow through the auxiliary building fuel 
handling area required to maintain occupied areas and access and 
equipment areas within their design temperature range and to provide 
outside air for plant personnel, maintaining these design functions.
    The proposed changes do not affect the operation of any systems 
or equipment that initiate an analyzed accident or alter any 
structure, system, or component (SSC) accident initiator or 
initiating sequence of events. There are no inadvertent operations 
or failures of the VCS or VAS considered as accident initiators or 
part of an initiating sequence of events for an accident previously 
evaluated. Therefore, the probabilities of the accidents previously 
evaluated in the UFSAR are not affected.
    These proposed changes to the VCS and VAS design 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 systemsto 
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. The proposed changes do not 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 requested amendment does not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes do not affect the 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 revise the VCS 
and VAS design as described in the current licensing basis to enable 
the systems to perform required design functions. 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 
resulting in significant fuel cladding failures.
    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.
    The proposed changes maintain existing safety margins. The 
proposed changes to the VCS and VAS do not affect any safety-related 
design function. 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, 111 Pennsylvania NW., Washington, DC 20004-2514.
    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: January 20, 2017. A publicly-available 
version is

[[Page 13669]]

in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17020A109.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment request proposes 
changes to the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) in the form 
of departures from plant-specific Design Control Document (PS-DCD) Tier 
2 information, Combined License (COL) Appendix A Technical 
Specifications, and COL Appendix C. The proposed departures consist of 
in-containment refueling water storage tank (IRWST) minimum volume 
changes in plant-specific UFSAR Table 14.3-2, COL Appendix A Technical 
Specifications 3.5.6, 3.5.7 and 3.5.8, Surveillance Requirements 
3.5.6.2 and 3.5.8.2 and COL Appendix C (and associated plant-specific 
Tier 1) Table 2.2.3-4. The proposed changes restore consistency of 
these sections with the UFSAR IRWST minimum volume value in other 
locations. Because, this proposed change requires a departure from Tier 
1 information in the Westinghouse Electric Company's AP1000 Design 
Control Document (DCD), the licensee also requested an exemption from 
the requirements of the Generic DCD Tier 1 in accordance with 10 CFR 
52.63(b)(1).
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes do not affect the operation of any systems 
or equipment that initiate an analyzed accident or alter any 
structure, system, or component (SSC) accident initiator or 
initiating sequence of events. The proposed changes do not affect 
the physical design and operation of the in-containment refueling 
water storage tank (IRWST), including as-installed inspections, 
testing, and maintenance requirements, as described in the Updated 
Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). Therefore, the operation of 
the IRWST is not affected. There are no inadvertent operations or 
failures of the IRWST considered as accident initiators or part of 
an initiating sequence of events for an accident previously 
evaluated. 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 
IRWST to perform its design functions. The design of the IRWST 
continues 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 IRWST to mitigate the 
consequences of an accident and to meet the applicable regulatory 
acceptance criteria. The proposed changes do not 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 requested amendment does not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes do not affect the operation of any systems 
or equipment that may initiate a new or different kind of accident, 
or alter any SSC such that a new accident initiator or initiating 
sequence of events is created. The proposed changes do not affect 
the physical design and operation of the IRWST, including as-
installed inspections, testing, and maintenance requirements, as 
described in the UFSAR. Therefore, the operation of the IRWST is not 
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 IRWST to perform 
its 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 ensure the IRWST performs 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 no 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 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.

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 20, 2016. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16294A521.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment request proposes a 
change to Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) Tier 2* 
information to specify the supplemental requirement of American 
Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) N690-1994, ``American National 
Standard Specification for the Design, Fabrication, and Erection of 
Steel Safety-Related Structures for Nuclear Facilities,'' (AISC N690-
1994), Section Q1.26.2.2, ``Partial-Penetration Welds,'' for the 
demonstration of sufficient strength and quality of the carbon steel 
embedment plate coupler welds to be credited as justification for the 
determination that the installed coupler welds are capable of 
performing their intended design function. The requested amendment 
proposes a change to Tier 2* information. 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:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change describes how evaluation of coupler 
strength, and by extension, weld strength and quality are used to 
demonstrate the capacity of partial joint penetrate on (PJP) welds 
with fillet weld reinforcement joining weldable couplers to carbon 
steel embedment plates as being able to perform their intended 
design function in lieu of satisfying the American Institute of 
Steel Construction (AISC) N690-1994, Section Q1.26.2.2 requirement 
for non-destructive examination (NDE) on 10 percent weld 
populations. The proposed change does not affect the operation of 
any systems or equipment that initiate an analyzed accident or alter 
any structures, systems, and

[[Page 13670]]

components (SSCs) accident initiator or initiating sequence of 
events.
    The change has no adverse effect on the design function of the 
mechanical couplers or the SSCs to which the mechanical couplers are 
welded. The probabilities of the accidents evaluated in the Updated 
Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) are not affected.
    The change does not impact the support, design, or operation of 
mechanical or fluid systems. The change does not impact the support, 
design, or operation of any safety-related structures. 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 normal operation or postulated accident conditions. 
The plant response to previously evaluated accidents or external 
events is not adversely affected, nor does the proposed change 
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 change describes how evaluation of coupler 
strength, and by extension, weld strength and quality are used to 
demonstrate the capacity of PJP welds with fillet weld reinforcement 
joining weldable couplers to carbon steel embedment plates as being 
able to perform their design function in lieu of satisfying the AISC 
N690-1994, Section Q1.26.2.2 requirement for non-destructive 
examination on 10 percent weld populations. The proposed change does 
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 change does not adversely affect the design 
function of the mechanical couplers, the structures in which the 
couplers are used, or 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. 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 result 
in significant fuel cladding failures.
    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.
    The proposed change describes how evaluation of coupler 
strength, and by extension, weld strength and quality are used to 
demonstrate the capacity of PJP welds with fillet weld reinforcement 
joining weldable couplers to carbon steel embedment plates as being 
able to perform their design function in lieu of satisfying the AISC 
N690-1994, Section Q1.26.2.2 requirement for non-destructive 
examination on 10 percent weld populations. The proposed change 
satisfies the same design functions in accordance with the same 
codes and standards as stated in the UFSAR. This change does not 
adversely affect compliance with 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 change. Because no safety 
analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is challenged or 
exceeded by this change, no significant margin of safety is reduced.
    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: 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: December 9, 2016. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16344A411.
    Description of amendment request: The requested amendment consist 
of changes to plant-specific Tier 1 (and Combined License Appendix C) 
Tables 2.7.5-1, 2.7.5-2, and 2.7.7-3 and associated Updated Final 
Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) text, tables, and figures related to: 
(1) Modifying the configuration of the containment recirculation fan 
coil unit assemblies of the containment recirculation cooling system 
(VCS), and revising the values for the various design parameters 
affected by this re-configuration, (2) adding a fourth pressure 
differential indicator to the radiologically controlled area 
ventilation system (VAS) to be located in the auxiliary building 
component cooling system valve room, and (3) reducing the total 
ventilation flow provided through the VAS fuel handling area 
ventilation subsystem as a result of a reduction in heat loads in the 
areas serviced by the VAS.
    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 design functions of the containment recirculation cooling 
system (VCS) include control of the air temperature and reduction of 
humidity in the containment to provide a suitable environment for 
equipment operability during normal power operation, and for 
personnel accessibility and equipment operability during refueling 
and shutdown. The proposed changes for the VCS address changes in 
total required design air flow rates and total design cooling and 
heating requirements, thereby maintaining these design functions.
    The design functions of the radiologically controlled area 
ventilation system (VAS) include prevention of the unmonitored 
release of airborne radioactivity to the atmosphere or adjacent 
plant areas, by maintaining a negative pressure differential in 
radiologically controlled areas of the auxiliary building, 
maintaining occupied areas and access and equipment areas within 
their design temperature range, and providing outside air for plant 
personnel. The proposed changes for the VAS enable pressure 
differential monitoring and control for an area of the auxiliary 
building that is physically remote and separate from the currently 
monitored and controlled areas, and provide VAS supply air flow rate 
and total ventilation flow through the auxiliary building fuel 
handling area required to maintain occupied areas and access and 
equipment areas within their design temperature range and to provide 
outside air for plant personnel, maintaining these design functions.
    The proposed changes do not affect the operation of any systems 
or equipment that initiate an analyzed accident or alter any 
structure, system, or component (SSC) accident initiator or 
initiating sequence of events. There are no inadvertent operations 
or failures of the VCS or VAS considered as accident initiators or 
part of an initiating sequence of events for an accident previously 
evaluated. Therefore, the probabilities of the accidents previously 
evaluated in the UFSAR are not affected.
    These proposed changes to the VCS and VAS design 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

[[Page 13671]]

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. The proposed changes do not 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 requested amendment does not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes do not affect the 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 revise the VCS 
and VAS design as described in the current licensing basis to enable 
the systems to perform required design functions. 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 
resulting in significant fuel cladding failures.
    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.
    The proposed changes maintain existing safety margins. The 
proposed changes to the VCS and VAS do not affect any safety-related 
design function. 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: M. Stanford Blanton, Balch & Bingham LLP, 
1710 Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 35203-2015.
    NRC Branch Chief: Jennifer Dixon-Herrity.

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

    Date of amendment request: February 16, 2017. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17048A514.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the 
Technical Specification (TS) Containment Leakage Rate Testing Program 
to allow a one-time extension for the Type C local leak rate test 
(LLRT) for certain containment isolation valves (CIVs). The proposed 
amendment would allow the extension of the test frequency from 30 
months to a maximum of 37 months.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment is a change to TS 5.7.2.19 to allow a 
one-time exception to [Regulatory Guide] (RG) 1.163, ``Performance-
Based Containment Leak-Test Program,'' September 1995 (ADAMS 
Accession No. ML003740058)] to extend the Type C LLRTs for a limited 
number of CIVs. The valves for which the extension of the LLRT 
interval is being requested are leak-tight and in good condition. 
The total leakage of these valves [i.e., 0.24 standard cubic feet 
per hour (scfh)] is approximately 0.16 percent (%) of the total 
allowable leakage (La) for the WBN Unit 2 Type B and C tests (i.e., 
147.6 scfh, which is the TS 60% La limit). For comparison purposes, 
the WBN Unit 2 total leak rate for all penetrations on a minimum 
path basis is approximately 4.5% of the total allowable leakage 
(i.e., 6.64 scfh/147.6 scfh).
    The total leakage of the CIVs for which an extension is 
requested is also approximately 0.39% of the total allowable bypass 
leakage for the WBN Unit 2 Type B and C bypass tests (61.5 scfh, 
which is the TS 25% La limit). For comparison purposes, the WBN Unit 
2 total leakage for all bypass leakage penetrations on a minimum 
path basis is approximately 4.4% of the total allowable bypass 
leakage (i.e., 2.68 scfh/61.5 scfh). The leak-tight condition of 
these components has been verified by Type C LLRTs. Therefore, the 
remaining margin is sufficient to ensure any incremental increase in 
leakage resulting from the extension would not cause unacceptable 
as-found test results during the WBN U2R1 outage. Therefore, the 
proposed delay in performance of the LLRTs in this amendment request 
does not increase the probability of an accident previously 
evaluated.
    A delay in performing these LLRTs 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 affected systems and components will be in service before the 
next performance of the LLRT 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 LLRTs 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 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 LLRT 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 change to TS 5.7.2.19 to allow a 
one-time exception to RG 1.163 to extend the Type C LLRTs for a 
limited number of CIVs. The WBN Unit 2 CIVs, for which an extension 
is requested, are the same design as those in WBN Unit 1 and operate 
under the same service conditions. Furthermore, any increase in 
leakage because of the extension is expected to be within TS limits 
and will not compromise containment integrity. Extending these LLRTs 
does not involve a modification of any TS limiting condition for 
operation. Extending these LLRTs does not involve a change to any 
limit on accident consequences specified in the license or 
regulations. Extending these LLRTs does not involve a change in how 
accidents are mitigated or a significant increase in the 
consequences of an accident. Extending these LLRTs does not involve 
a change in a methodology used to evaluate consequences of an 
accident. Extending these LLRTs does not involve a change in any 
operating procedure or process.
    Based on the limited additional period of time that the systems 
and components will be in service before the LLRTs are next 
performed, as well as the operating experience that demonstrates the 
reliability of the CIVs, it is reasonable to conclude that the 
margins of safety associated with the LLRTs for these CIVs will not 
be affected by the requested extension.

[[Page 13672]]

    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: Sherry A. Quirk, Executive Vice President 
and General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West Summit Hill 
Drive, 6A West Tower, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902.
    NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin G. Beasley.

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

    Date of amendment request: November 23, 2016. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16335A179.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the 
Technical Specification (TS) requirements on control and shutdown rods, 
and rod and bank position indication. The proposed amendments adopt the 
changes contained in Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) traveler 
TSTF-547, Revision 1, ``Clarification of Rod Position Requirements,'' 
with minor variations as described in the application.
    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.
    Control and shutdown rods are assumed to insert into the core to 
shut down the reactor in evaluated accidents. Rod insertion limits 
ensure that adequate negative reactivity is available to provide the 
assumed shutdown margin (SDM). Rod alignment and overlap limits 
maintain an appropriate power distribution and reactivity insertion 
profile.
    Control and shutdown rods are initiators to several accidents 
previously evaluated, such as rod ejection. The proposed change does 
change the limiting conditions for operation for the rods and makes 
technical changes to the Surveillance Requirements (SRs) governing 
the rods. However, the proposed change has no significant effect on 
the probability of any accident previously evaluated.
    Revising the TS Actions to provide a limited time to repair rod 
movement control has no effect on the SDM assumed in the accident 
analysis as the proposed Action require verification that SDM is 
maintained. The effects on power distribution will not cause a 
significant increase in the consequences of any accident previously 
evaluated as all TS requirements on power distribution continue to 
be applicable. Revising the TS Actions to provide an alternative to 
frequent use of the moveable incore detector system to verify the 
position of rods with inoperable rod position indicator does not 
change the requirement for the rods to be aligned and within the 
insertion limits.
    Therefore, the assumptions used in any accidents previously 
evaluated are unchanged and there is no significant increase in the 
consequences.
    The consequences of an accident that might occur during the 1-
hour period provided for the analog rod position indication to 
stabilize after rod movement are no different than the consequences 
of the accident under the existing actions with the rod declared 
inoperable.
    The proposed change to resolve the conflicts in the TS ensure 
that the intended Actions are followed when equipment is inoperable. 
Actions taken with inoperable equipment are not assumptions in the 
accidents previously evaluated and have no significant effect on the 
consequences.
    The proposed change to eliminate an unnecessary action has no 
effect on the consequences of accidents previously evaluated as the 
analysis of those accidents did not consider the use of the action.
    The proposed change to increase consistency within the TS has no 
effect on the consequences of accidents previously evaluated as the 
proposed change clarifies the application of the existing 
requirements and does not change the intent.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of 
the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be 
installed). The change does not alter assumptions made in the safety 
analyses. The proposed change does alter the limiting conditions for 
operation for the rods and makes technical changes to the SRs 
governing the rods. However, the proposed change to actions 
maintains or improves safety when equipment is inoperable and does 
not introduce new failure modes.
    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 to allow time for rod position indication to 
stabilize after rod movement and to allow an alternative method of 
verifying rod position has no effect on the safety margin as actual 
rod position is not affected. The proposed change to provide time to 
repair rods that are Operable but immovable does not result in a 
significant reduction in the margin of safety because all rods must 
be verified to be Operable, and all other banks must be within the 
insertion limits. The remaining proposed changes to make the 
requirements internally consistent and to eliminate unnecessary 
actions do not affect the margin of safety as the changes do not 
affect the ability of the rods to perform their specified safety 
function.
    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: Sherry A. Quirk, Executive Vice President 
and General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West Summit Hill 
Drive, 6A West Tower, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902.
    NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin G. Beasley.

Virginia Electric and Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-280 and 50-281, 
Surry Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Surry County, Virginia

    Date of amendment request: January 20, 2017. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17026A174.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the 
Technical Specification (TS) 3.5, ``Residual Heat Removal System,'' 
requirements, as well as the TS 3.13, ``Component Cooling System,'' 
residual heat removal (RHR) support requirements for the component 
cooling system, for consistency with the design basis of the RHR 
system. In addition, an RHR surveillance requirement is added in TS 
Table 4.1-2A, ``Minimum Frequency for Equipment Tests,'' to test the 
RHR system in accordance with the inservice testing program, since a TS 
surveillance does not currently exist for this system.
    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 license amendment involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change revises the TS requirements for consistency 
with the design

[[Page 13673]]

basis of the RHR System. The proposed change has no impact on the 
design function of any structures, systems, or components (SSCs), 
including the RHR System. The proposed change does not impact plant 
operation and does not change any of the previously evaluated 
accidents in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR).
    Thus, this change does not involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed license amendment create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not involve a physical change to any 
SSCs (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be installed) 
and does not impact plant operation. Furthermore, the proposed 
change does not impose any new or different requirements that could 
initiate an accident and does not affect initiators of analyzed 
events.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not introduce any new 
failures that could 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 change does not adversely affect any current plant 
safety margins or the reliability of the equipment assumed in the 
safety analysis. There are no changes being made to any safety 
analysis assumptions, safety limits, or limiting safety system 
settings that would adversely affect plant safety as a result of the 
proposed change. The RHR System has no accident mitigation function 
and its operation is not assumed in any safety analyses. Thus, the 
proposed change does not impact the condition or performance of SSCs 
relied upon for accident mitigation or any safety analysis 
assumptions.
    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: Lillian M. Cuoco, Senior Counsel, Dominion 
Resources Services, Inc., 120 Tredegar St., RS-2, Richmond, VA 23219.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

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.

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

    Date of application for amendments: March 24, 2016 as supplemented 
by letter dated August 11, 2016.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised TS 3.6.13, 
``Ice Condenser Doors,'' to allow for an alternate method of verifying 
that the ice condenser doors are closed in addition to that described 
in the current licensing basis. Specifically, the amendments revised TS 
3.6.13 Condition B to add a new alternate Required Action when one or 
more ice condenser lower inlet doors (LIDs) are inoperable due to 
having an invalid open LID signal. The new Required Action includes 
verifying that the affected lower inlet door is closed every 14 days in 
accordance with an alternate method that does not rely on the faulted 
alarm.
    Date of issuance: February 24, 2017.
    Effective date: These license amendments are effective as of its 
date of issuance and shall be implemented within 120 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 292.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-9 and NPF-17: 
Amendments revised the licenses and technical specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 6, 2016 (81 FR 
36617). 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 amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 24, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of application for amendment: April 4, 2016.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises technical 
specification (TS) limiting condition of operation (LCO) 3.10.1, 
``Inservice Leak and Hydrostatic Testing Operation,'' to expand its 
scope to include operations in which reactor coolant system temperature 
exceeds 200 degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F) as a consequence of inservice 
leak and hydrostatic testing, or as a consequence of scram time testing 
initiated in conjunction with an inservice leak or hydrostatic test 
when the initial test conditions are below 200 [deg]F, while 
considering operational conditions to be in Mode 4.
    Date of issuance: February 22, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No(s): 211. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS 
under Accession No. ML17027A038; documents related to this amendment 
are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-62: The amendment revised the 
Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 7, 2016 (81 FR 
36620).

[[Page 13674]]

    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 22, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

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

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

    Date of application for amendments: February 3, 2016, as 
supplemented by letters dated July 28 and December 12, 2016.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revise Surveillance 
Requirement 3.6.4.1.2, for each facility, to provide an allowance for 
brief, inadvertent, simultaneous opening of redundant secondary 
containment access doors during normal entry and exit conditions.
    Date of issuance: February 16, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 253, 246; 222, 208; 265, and 260. A publicly-
available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17037D212. 
Documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety 
Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-19, DPR-25, NPF-11, 
NPF-18, DPR-29, and DPR-30: Amendments revised the Renewed Facility 
Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 29, 2016 (81 FR 
17505). The supplemental letters dated July 28 and December 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 February 16, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: March 15, 2016, as supplemented by 
letters dated November 7, and December 20, 2016, and February 6, 2017.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the technical 
specification (TS) 3.6.2.2, ``Suppression Pool Water Level,'' as well 
as TS surveillance requirements (SRs) 3.6.2.4.1 and 3.6.2.4.4 
associated with TS 3.6.2.4, ``Suppression Pool Makeup (SPMU) System,'' 
to allow installation of the reactor well to steam dryer storage pool 
gate in the upper containment pool (UCP) in MODEs 1, 2, and 3. The 
amendment also created new Special Operations TS, TS 3.10.9, 
``Suppression Pool Makeup--MODE 3 Upper Containment Pool Drain-Down,'' 
to allow draining of the reactor well portion of the UCP in MODE 3.
    Date of issuance: February 16, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 174. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML17033A014; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-58: Amendment revised the 
Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 10, 2016 (81 FR 
28898). The supplemental letters dated November 7, and December 20, 
2016, and February 6, 2017, 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 February 16, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: June 30, 2016, as supplemented by letter 
dated November 15, 2016.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical 
Specifications (TSs) 3/4.7.1.2, ``Auxiliary Feedwater System,'' to 
correct a nonconservative TS for Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Unit 
Nos. 3 and 4.
    Date of issuance: February 14, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos: 273 and 268. A publicly-available version is in 
ADAMS under Accession No. ML16335A195; documents related to these 
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 
amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-31 and DPR-41: 
Amendment revised the Facility Operating License and Technical 
Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 13, 2016 (81 
FR 62928). The supplemental letter dated November 15, 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 February 14, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

NextEra Energy, Point Beach, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-266 and 50-301, Point 
Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Town of Two Creeks, Manitowoc 
County, Wisconsin

    Date amendment requests: February 12, 2016, as supplemented by 
letters dated July 11, 2016, and November 4, 2016.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the Point 
Beach Nuclear Plant, Unit 1 and 2 renewed Operating Licenses and 
Appendix C, ``Additional Conditions,'' for each license (DPR-24 and 
DRP-27 respectively), to remove license conditions that have been 
completed, and are no longer in effect. The amendments also revised a 
charcoal testing criterion for the control room emergency filtration 
system.
    Date of issuance: February 22, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 258 and 262. A publicly-available version is in 
ADAMS under Accession No. ML17039A300; documents related to these 
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 
amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-24 and DPR-27: 
Amendments

[[Page 13675]]

revised the Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 26, 2016 (81 FR 
24662). The supplemental letters dated July 11, 2016, and November 4, 
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 February 22, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Northern States Power Company--Minnesota (NSPM), Docket No. 50-263, 
Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, Wright County, Minnesota

    Date of amendment request: October 3, 2014, as supplemented by 
letters dated January 9, August 26, September 29, and December 8, 2015, 
and February 29, April 29, August 4, September 14, and September 28, 
2016.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical 
Specifications (TSs) and Renewed Facility Operating Licenses to allow 
operation in the extended flow window (EFW) domain.
    Date of issuance: February 23, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
prior to start up from Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Operating 
Cycle 29.
    Amendment No.: 191. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML17054C394; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-22. Amendment revised 
the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 7, 2015 (80 FR 
38775). The supplemental letters dated January 9, August 26, September 
29, and December 8, 2015, and February 29, April 29, August 4, 
September 14, and 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 February 23, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Northern States Power Company--Minnesota (NSPM), Docket No. 50-263, 
Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, Wright County, Minnesota

    Date of amendment request: April 4, 2016, as supplemented by 
letters dated October 3 and November 22, 2016.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises technical 
specifications (TS) Surveillance Requirement (SR) associated with TS 
3.8.4, ``DC [direct current] Sources--Operating.'' Specifically, the 
amendment revises SR 3.8.4.2 by increasing the 125 Volt DC battery 
charger test output current to 75 amperes (amps) from the current test 
level of 50 amps, and removes the second (alternate) method specified 
to perform the surveillance requirement.
    Date of issuance: February 27, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 120 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 192. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML17013A435; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-22. Amendment revised 
the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 7, 2016 (81 FR 
36621). The supplemental letters dated October 3 and November 22, 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.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 27, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of application for amendments: March 23, 2016, as supplemented 
by letters dated September 28, 2016 and January 18, 2017.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical 
Specification (TS) 3.4.12, ``Low Temperature Overpressure Protection 
(LTOP) System,'' to reflect the mass input transient analysis that 
assumes an emergency core cooling system centrifugal charging pump and 
the normal charging pump capable of simultaneously injecting into the 
reactor coolant system during TS 3.4.12 applicability.
    Date of issuance: February 23, 2017.
    Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 180 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: Unit 1-229; Unit 2-231. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17018A341; 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: May 10, 2016 (81 FR 
28899). The supplemental letters dated September 28, 2016 and January 
18, 2017, 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 February 23, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 52-025 and 50-
026, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4, Burke County, 
Georgia

    Date of amendment request: August 31, 2016.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments changed Combined 
License Nos. NPF-91 and NPF-92 for the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant 
Units 3 and 4. The amendments authorized 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. Specifically, the changes revised the combined operating 
licenses and clarified information in WCAP-17179, ``AP1000[supreg] 
Component Interface Module Technical Report,'' which demonstrates 
design compliance with licensing bases requirements. WCAP-17179 is 
incorporated by reference into the UFSAR to provide additional details 
regarding the component interface

[[Page 13676]]

module (CIM) system design. The amendments also authorized a change to 
the CIM internal power supply that will enable proper functioning of 
the field programmable gate arrays.
    Date of issuance: February 9, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 70/69. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS 
under Accession No. ML16343B021; documents related to these amendments 
are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-91 and NPF-92: Amendments 
authorized changes to the UFSAR in the form of departures from the 
incorporated plant-specific DCD Tier 2* information.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 25, 2016 (81 FR 
73440).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 9, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: October 11, 2016.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendment revises TS 
requirements for unavailable barriers by adding Limiting Condition for 
Operation (LCO) 3.0.9, which allows a delay time for entering a 
supported system TS, when the inoperability is solely due to an 
unavailable barrier. The change is consistent with Technical 
Specification Task Force (TSTF)-427, Revision 2, ``Allowance for Non-
Technical Specification Barrier Degradation Supported System 
OPERABILITY.''
    Date of issuance: February 16, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 208 (Unit 1) and 205 (Unit 2). A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17034A193; documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with 
the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-2 and NPF-8: The 
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and 
Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 6, 2016 (81 FR 
87973).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 16, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: March 29, 2016.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendments revise the WBN, 
Units 1 and 2, Technical Specification (TS) requirements for inoperable 
dynamic restraints (snubbers) by adding Limiting Condition for 
Operation (LCO) 3.0.8. The change is consistent with NRC-approved 
Revision 4 to Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Standard 
Technical Specifications Change Traveler, TSTF-372, ``Addition of LCO 
3.0.8, Inoperability of Snubbers.''
    The amendment for WBN, Unit 1, also makes an administrative change 
to add a reference to LCO 3.0.7 in LCO 3.0.1, consistent with TSTF-6, 
Revision 1, ``Add exception for LCO 3.0.7 to LCO 3.0.1.''
    Date of issuance: February 23, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 45 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 6 and 111. A publicly available version is in ADAMS 
under Accession No. ML16349A428; documents related to these amendments 
are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-90 and NPF-96: Amendments 
revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 22, 2016 (81 
FR 83878).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated February 23, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 1st day of March 2017.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Anne T. Boland,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2017-04757 Filed 3-13-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7590-01-P