[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 68 (Tuesday, April 11, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17454-17465]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-07279]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2017-0092]


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

DATES: Comments must be filed by May 11, 2017. A request for a hearing 
must be filed by June 12, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods 
(unless this document describes a different method for submitting 
comments on a specific subject):
     Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2017-0092. Address 
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-
3463; email: [email protected]. For technical questions, contact 
the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of 
this document.
     Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Office of Administration, 
Mail Stop: OWFN-12-H08, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, 
DC 20555-0001.
    For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting 
comments, see ``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' in the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments

A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0092, 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-2017-0092.
     NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the 
ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select ``ADAMS Public Documents'' and 
then select ``Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.'' For problems with ADAMS, 
please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 
1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected]. The 
ADAMS accession number for each document referenced (if it is available 
in

[[Page 17455]]

ADAMS) is provided the first time that it is mentioned in this 
document.
     NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public 
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

B. Submitting Comments

    Please include Docket ID NRC-2017-0092, facility name, unit 
number(s), plant docket number, application date, and subject, in your 
comment submission.
    The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact 
information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your 
comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into 
ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove 
identifying or contact information.
    If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons 
for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to 
include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be 
publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should 
state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to 
remove such information before making the comment submissions available 
to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.

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

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

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

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

[[Page 17456]]

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 June 
12, 2017. The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing 
instructions in the ``Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)'' section of 
this document, and should meet the requirements for petitions set forth 
in this section, except that under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(2) a State, local 
governmental body, or federally recognized Indian Tribe, or agency 
thereof does not need to address the standing requirements in 10 CFR 
2.309(d) if the facility is located within its boundaries. 
Alternatively, a State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized 
Indian Tribe, or agency thereof may participate as a non-party under 10 
CFR 2.315(c).
    If a hearing is granted, any person who is not a party to the 
proceeding and is not affiliated with or represented by a party may, at 
the discretion of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited 
appearance pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person 
making a limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of 
his or her position on the issues but may not otherwise participate in 
the proceeding. A limited appearance may be made at any session of the 
hearing or at any prehearing conference, subject to the limits and 
conditions as may be imposed by the presiding officer. Details 
regarding the opportunity to make a limited appearance will be provided 
by the presiding officer if such sessions are scheduled.

B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)

    All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a 
request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition), any 
motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the 
submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and 
documents filed by interested governmental entities that request to 
participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the 
NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007, as amended at 77 FR 
46562, August 3, 2012). The E-Filing process requires participants to 
submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in 
some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Detailed 
guidance on making electronic submissions may be found in the Guidance 
for Electronic Submissions to the NRC and on the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants may not submit 
paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in 
accordance with the procedures described below.
    To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 
days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the 
Office of the Secretary by email at [email protected], or by 
telephone at 301-415-1677, to (1) request a digital identification (ID) 
certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or 
representative) to digitally sign submissions and access the E-Filing 
system for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise 
the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a petition or 
other adjudicatory document (even in instances in which the 
participant, or its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-
issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the 
Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the hearing in this 
proceeding if the Secretary has not already established an electronic 
docket.
    Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is 
available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/getting-started.html. Once a participant has obtained a 
digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant 
can then submit adjudicatory documents. Submissions 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 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.

[[Page 17457]]

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

    Date of amendment request: December 15, 2016. A publicly available 
version is in Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) 
under Accession No. ML16350A422.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would modify 
Technical Specification 3.1.2, ``Core Reactivity,'' to revise the 
Completion Times of Required Action A.1 and A.2 from 72 hours to 7 
days. This proposed change is consistent with Technical Specification 
Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-142-A, Revision 0, ``Increase the 
Completion Time when the Core Reactivity Balance is Not Within Limit.''
    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 extend the Completion Time to take the 
Required Actions when measured core reactivity is not within the 
specified limit of the predicted values. The Completion Time to 
respond to a difference between predicted and measured core 
reactivity if not an initiator to any accident previously evaluated. 
The radiological consequences of an accident during the proposed 
Completion Time are no different from the consequences of an 
accident during the existing Completion Time. Therefore, the 
proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes do not involve a physical alteration to the 
plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be 
installed) or a change to the methods governing normal plant 
operation. The changes do not alter the assumptions made in the 
safety analysis. Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in the margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes provide additional time to investigate and 
to implement appropriate operating restrictions when measured core 
reactivity is not within the specified limit of the predicted 
values. The additional time will not have a significant effect on 
plant safety due to the conservatisms used in designing the reactor 
core and performing the safety analyses, and the low probability of 
an accident or transient which would approach the core design limits 
during the additional time. Therefore, the proposed changes do not 
involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Kate Nolan, Deputy General Counsel, Duke 
Energy Corporation, 526 South Church Street--DEC45A, Charlotte, NC 
28202.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

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

    Date of amendment request: February 10, 2017. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17045A006.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
revise the DNPS, Units 2 and 3, technical specifications (TSs) by 
replacing the existing specifications related to ``operation with a 
potential for draining the reactor vessels'' (OPDRVs), with revised 
requirements for reactor pressure vessel (RVP) water inventory control 
(WIC) to protect Safety Limit 2.1.1.3. Safety Limit 2.1.1.3 requires 
reactor vessel water level to be greater than the top of active 
irradiated fuel. The proposed amendment would adopt changes, with 
variations as noted in the license amendment request, and is based on 
the NRC-approved safety evaluation for Technical Specification Task 
Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-542, Revision 2, ``Reactor Pressure Vessel 
Water Inventory Control,'' dated December 20, 2016.
    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 replaces existing TS requirements related to 
OPDRVs with new requirements on RPV WIC that will protect Safety 
Limit 2.1.1.3. Draining of RPV water inventory in Mode 4 (i.e., cold 
shutdown) and Mode 5 (i.e., refueling) is not an accident previously 
evaluated and, therefore, replacing the existing TS controls to 
prevent or mitigate such an event with a new set of controls has no 
effect on any accident previously evaluated. RPV water inventory 
control in Mode 4 or Mode 5 is not an initiator of any accident 
previously evaluated. The existing OPDRV controls or the proposed 
RPV WIC controls are not mitigating actions assumed in any accident 
previously evaluated.
    The proposed change reduces the probability of an unexpected 
draining event (which is not a previously evaluated accident) by 
imposing new requirements on the limiting time in which an 
unexpected draining event could result in the reactor vessel water 
level dropping to the top of the active fuel (TAF). These controls 
require cognizance of the plant configuration and control of 
configurations with unacceptably short drain times. These 
requirements reduce the probability of an unexpected draining

[[Page 17458]]

event. The current TS requirements are only mitigating actions and 
impose no requirements that reduce the probability of an unexpected 
draining event.
    The proposed change reduces the consequences of an unexpected 
draining event (which is not a previously evaluated accident) by 
requiring an Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) subsystem to be 
operable at all times in Modes 4 and 5. The current TS requirements 
do not require any water injection systems, ECCS or otherwise, to be 
operable in certain conditions in Mode 5. The change in requirement 
from two ECCS subsystems to one ECCS subsystem in Modes 4 and 5 does 
not significantly affect the consequences of an unexpected draining 
event because the proposed Actions ensure equipment is available 
within the limiting drain time that is as capable of mitigating the 
event as the current requirements. The proposed controls provide 
escalating compensatory measures to be established as calculated 
drain times decrease, such as verification of a second method of 
water injection and additional confirmations that secondary 
containment and/or filtration would be available if needed.
    The proposed change reduces or eliminates some requirements that 
were determined to be unnecessary to manage the consequences of an 
unexpected draining event, such as automatic initiation of an ECCS 
subsystem and control room ventilation. These changes do not affect 
the consequences of any accident previously evaluated since a 
draining event in Modes 4 and 5 is not a previously evaluated 
accident and the requirements are not needed to adequately respond 
to a draining event.
    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 replaces existing TS requirements related to 
OPDRVs with new requirements on RPV WIC that will protect Safety 
Limit 2.1.1.3. The proposed change will not alter the design 
function of the equipment involved. Under the proposed change, some 
systems that are currently required to be operable during OPDRVs 
would be required to be available within the limiting drain time or 
to be in service depending on the limiting drain time. Should those 
systems be unable to be placed into service, the consequences are no 
different than if those systems were unable to perform their 
function under the current TS requirements.
    The event of concern under the current requirements and the 
proposed change is an unexpected draining event. The proposed change 
does not create new failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident 
initiators that would cause a draining event or a new or different 
kind of accident not previously evaluated or included in the design 
and licensing bases.
    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 replaces existing TS requirements related to 
OPDRVs with new requirements on RPV WIC. The current requirements do 
not have a stated safety basis and no margin of safety is 
established in the licensing basis. The safety basis for the new 
requirements is to protect Safety Limit 2.1.1.3. New requirements 
are added to determine the limiting time in which the RPV water 
inventory could drain to the top of the fuel in the reactor vessel 
should an unexpected draining event occur. Plant configurations that 
could result in lowering the RPV water level to the TAF within one 
hour are now prohibited. New escalating compensatory measures based 
on the limiting drain time replace the current controls. The 
proposed TS establish a safety margin by providing defense-in-depth 
to ensure that the Safety Limit is protected and to protect the 
public health and safety. While some less restrictive requirements 
are proposed for plant configurations with long calculated drain 
times, the overall effect of the change is to improve plant safety 
and to add safety margin.
    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: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel, 
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 
60555.
    NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-289 and 50-320, Three 
Mile Island Nuclear Station (TMI), Unit 1 and Unit 2, Dauphin County, 
Pennsylvania

    Date of amendment request: July 15, 2016, as supplemented by letter 
dated February 13, 2017. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS under 
Accession Nos. ML16201A306 and ML17045A036, respectively.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment request was 
originally noticed in the Federal Register on October 25, 2016 (81 FR 
73435). The notice is being reissued in its entirety to include the 
revised scope, description of the amendment request, and proposed no 
significant hazards consideration determination. The amendment would 
revise the Radiological Emergency Plan Annex for TMI, Unit 1. The 
proposed changes would decrease the radiation protection technician 
staffing from three to two technicians. The proposed amendment would 
also make changes to staffing of on-shift maintenance personnel. 
Specifically, the amendment would revise the on-shift position 
operations support center director (renamed repair team lead) to remove 
the requirement that the position be from the maintenance organization; 
remove two dedicated maintenance technicians from the on-shift staffing 
total; and remove two additional personnel from the repair and 
corrective actions major task and assign them to respond within 60 
minutes, as well as one additional staff person to respond within 90 
minutes.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes to the TMI Emergency Plan do not increase 
the probability or consequences of an accident. The proposed changes 
do not impact the function of plant Structures, Systems, or 
Components (SSCs). The proposed changes do not affect accident 
initiators or accident precursors, nor do the changes alter design 
assumptions. The proposed changes do not alter or prevent the 
ability of the onsite ERO [emergency response organization] to 
perform their intended functions to mitigate the consequences of an 
accident or event. The proposed changes remove onsite ERO positions 
no longer credited or considered necessary in support of Emergency 
Plan implementation.
    Therefore, the proposed changes to the Emergency Plan do not 
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of 
an accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes have no impact on the design, function, or 
operation of any plant SSCs. The proposed changes do not affect 
plant equipment or accident analyses. The proposed changes do not 
involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or 
different type of equipment will be installed), a change in the 
method of plant operation, or new operator actions. The proposed 
changes do not introduce failure modes that could result in a new 
accident, and the proposed changes do not alter assumptions made in 
the safety analysis. The proposed changes remove onsite ERO 
positions no longer credited or considered necessary in support of 
Emergency Plan implementation.
    Therefore, the proposed changes to the Emergency Plan do not 
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from 
any accident previously evaluated.

[[Page 17459]]

    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    Margin of safety is associated with confidence in the ability of 
the fission product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, reactor coolant 
system pressure boundary, and containment structure) to limit the 
level of radiation dose to the public.
    The proposed changes do not adversely affect existing plant 
safety margins or the reliability of the equipment assumed to 
operate in the safety analyses. There are no changes being made to 
safety analysis assumptions, safety limits, or limiting safety 
system settings that would adversely affect plant safety as a result 
of the proposed changes. Margins of safety are unaffected by the 
proposed changes to the ERO minimum on-shift staffing.
    The proposed changes are associated with the Emergency Plan 
staffing and do not impact operation of the plant or its response to 
transients or accidents. The proposed changes do not affect the 
Technical Specifications. The proposed changes do not involve a 
change in the method of plant operation, and no accident analyses 
will be affected by the proposed changes. Safety analysis acceptance 
criteria are not affected by these proposed changes. The proposed 
changes to the Emergency Plan will continue to provide the necessary 
onsite ERO response staff.
    Therefore, the proposed changes to the Emergency Plan do not 
involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

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

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. STN 50-456 and STN 50-457, 
Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, Will County, Illinois

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

    Date of amendment request: February 23, 2017. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17055A631.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the 
operating licenses and technical specifications to remove time, cycle, 
or modification-related items. Additionally, the proposed amendment 
makes editorial and formatting changes. The time, cycle, or 
modification-related items have been implemented or superseded and are 
no longer applicable.
    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 initial conditions and methodologies used in the accident 
analyses remain unchanged. The proposed changes do not change or 
alter the design assumptions for the systems or components used to 
mitigate the consequences of an accident. Therefore, accident 
analyses results are not impacted.
    All changes proposed by EGC [Exelon Generation Company, LLC] in 
this amendment request are administrative in nature, and are 
removing one-time requirements that have been satisfied, items that 
are no longer applicable, or are editorial. There are no physical 
changes to the facilities, nor any changes to the station operating 
procedures, limiting conditions for operation, or limiting safety 
system settings.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    None of the proposed changes affect the design or operation of 
any system, structure, or component in the plants. The safety 
functions of the related structures, systems, or components are not 
changed in any manner, nor is the reliability of any structure, 
system, or component reduced by the revised surveillance or testing 
requirements. The changes do not affect the manner by which the 
facility is operated and do not change any facility design feature, 
structure, system, or component. No new or different type of 
equipment will be installed. Since there is no change to the 
facility or operating procedures, and the safety functions and 
reliability of structures, systems, or components are not affected, 
the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes are administrative in nature and have no 
impact on the margin of safety of any of the TS [technical 
specifications]. There is no impact on safety limits or limiting 
safety system settings. The changes do not affect any plant safety 
parameters or setpoints. The OL [operating license] Conditions have 
been satisfied as required.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

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

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

    Date of amendment request: February 23, 2017. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17055C359.
    Brief description of amendment request: The proposed amendments 
would revise the PINGP, Units 1 and 2, Emergency Plan (E-Plan) to 
increase augmentation times for Emergency Response Organization (ERO) 
response functions. The amendment would also include other E-Plan 
modifications to include facility activation criteria, changes to 
survey requirements, removal of radiation protection support from 
Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, and removal of some positions from 
the augmentation list.
    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 increase in staff augmentation times has no effect 
on normal plant operation or on any accident initiator or precursors 
and does not impact the function of plant structures, systems, or 
components (SSCs).
    The proposed change does not alter or prevent the ability of the 
on-shift ERO to perform their intended functions to mitigate the 
consequences of an accident or event. The ability of the ERO to 
respond adequately to radiological emergencies has been demonstrated 
as acceptable through a staffing analysis as required by 10 CFR 50, 
Appendix E, Section IV.A.9.
    Therefore, the proposed [E-Plan] changes do not involve a 
significant increase in the

[[Page 17460]]

probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not impact any accident analysis. The 
proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant 
(i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be installed), a 
change in the method of plant operation, or new operator actions. 
The proposed change does not introduce failure modes that could 
result in a new accident, and the change does not alter assumptions 
made in the safety analysis. The proposed change increases the staff 
augmentation response times in the E-Plan, which are demonstrated as 
acceptable through a functional analysis as required by 10 CFR 50, 
Appendix E, Section IV.A.9. The proposed change does not alter or 
prevent the ability of the ERO to perform their intended functions 
to mitigate the consequences of an accident or event.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    Margin of safety is associated with confidence in the ability of 
the fission product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, reactor coolant 
system pressure boundary, and containment structure) to limit the 
level of radiation dose to the public. The proposed change is 
associated with the E-Plan staffing and does not impact operation of 
the plant or its response to transients or accidents. The change 
does not affect the Technical Specifications. The proposed change 
does not involve a change in the method of plant operation, and no 
accident analyses will be affected by the proposed change. Safety 
analysis acceptance criteria are not affected by this proposed 
change. The proposed revisions to the E-Plan continue to provide the 
necessary response staff with the proposed change.
    A staffing analysis and a functional analysis were performed for 
the proposed change focusing on the timeliness of performing major 
tasks for the functional areas of E-Plan. The analysis concluded 
that an extension in staff augmentation times would not 
significantly affect the ability to perform the required E-Plan 
tasks. Therefore, the proposed change is determined to not adversely 
affect the ability to meet 10 CFR 50.54(q)(2), the requirements of 
10 CFR 50 Appendix E, and the emergency planning standards as 
described in 10 CFR 50.47 (b).
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Peter M. Glass, Assistant General Counsel, 
Xcel Energy Services, Inc., 414 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, MN 55401
    NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.

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

    Date of amendment request: February 27, 2017. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17060A662.
    Description of amendment request: The requested amendment proposes 
to depart from Tier 2 information in the Updated Final Safety Analysis 
Report (UFSAR) and to change Combined License Appendix A, Technical 
Specifications (TS), to modify engineered safety features logic for 
containment vacuum relief actuation.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes to the UFSAR and TS will include the 
Containment Pressure--Low automatic reset function for the 
containment vacuum relief valves manual initiation logic, such that 
the containment vacuum relief manual actuation will be automatically 
reset when the containment pressure rises above the Containment 
Pressure--Low setpoint. This reset allows a containment isolation 
signal to close the valves when necessary. The Containment 
Pressure--Low signal is an interlock for the containment vacuum 
relief manual actuation such that the valves cannot be opened unless 
the Containment Pressure--Low setpoint has been reached in any two-
out-of-four divisions. The modified logic will ensure that the 
automatic initiation of containment isolation is made available 
following manual initiation of containment vacuum relief actuation. 
The analyzed design and function of the Engineered Safety Features 
Actuation System and its actuated components is not affected. The 
proposed changes do not adversely affect any safety-related 
equipment and does not involve any accident, initiating event, or 
component failure, thus the probabilities of accidents previously 
evaluated are not affected. The proposed changes do not adversely 
interface with or adversely affect any system containing 
radioactivity or affect any radiological material release source 
term; thus the radiological releases in an accident 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 changes to the UFSAR and TS to include the Containment 
Pressure--Low manual actuation interlock and automatic reset 
function for the containment vacuum relief valves manual initiation 
logic will maintain the Engineered Safety Features Actuation System 
and Plant Safety and Monitoring System in accordance with the design 
objectives as licensed. The design of the Class 1E Containment 
Pressure--Low manual actuation interlock and automatic reset 
function is required to meet the licensing basis for the Engineered 
Safety Features Actuation System and Plant Safety and Monitoring 
System. The changes to the manual initiation logic do not adversely 
affect the function of any safety-related structure, system, or 
component, and thus does not introduce a new failure mode. The 
changes to the containment vacuum relief valves manual initiation 
logic do not adversely interface with any safety-related equipment 
or any equipment associated with radioactive material and, thus, do 
not create a new fault or sequence of events that could result in a 
new or different kind of accident.
    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 changes to the UFSAR and TS to include the Containment 
Pressure--Low automatic reset function for the containment vacuum 
relief valves manual initiation logic will maintain the Engineered 
Safety Features Actuation System and Plant Safety and Monitoring 
System in accordance with the design objectives as licensed. The 
changes to the manual initiation logic do not adversely interface 
with any safety-related equipment or adversely affect any safety-
related function. The changes to the containment vacuum relief 
manual initiation logic continue to comply with existing design 
codes and regulatory criteria, and do not involve a significant 
reduction in the margin of safety.
    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: Ms. Kathryn M. Sutton, Morgan, Lewis & 
Bockius LLC, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC, 20004-2514.
    NRC Branch Chief: Jennifer Dixon-Herrity.

[[Page 17461]]

Susquehanna Nuclear, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-387 and 50-388, Susquehanna 
Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania

    Date of amendment request: February 1, 2017. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17032A259.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise 
Technical Specification (TS) 3.6.4.3, ``Standby Gas Treatment (SGT) 
System,'' and TS 3.7.3, ``Control Room Emergency Outside Air Supply 
(CREOAS) System,'' by changing the run time of monthly surveillance 
requirements (SRs) for the standby gas treatment and control room 
emergency outside air supply systems from 10 hours to 15 minutes. This 
change is consistent with Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) 
Traveler TSTF-522, Revision 0, ``Revise Ventilation System Surveillance 
Requirements to Operate for 10 hours per Month,'' with minor 
variations. The notice of availability and model safety evaluation of 
TSTF-522, Revision 0, were published in the Federal Register on 
September 20, 2012 (77 FR 58421).
    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, along with NRC edits in square 
brackets:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change modifies the performance length of an 
existing Surveillance Requirement of the SGT and CREOAS Systems. The 
requirement for heater operation will not be modified.
    These systems are not accident initiators and therefore [these 
changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability] of 
an accident previously evaluated. The proposed changes are 
consistent with current regulatory guidance for these systems and 
will continue to assure that these systems perform their design 
function(s), which may include mitigating accident consequences. 
Therefore, the change does not involve a significant increase in the 
consequences of an accident.
    Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The changes proposed do not change the way the system is 
operated or maintained. The changes reduce the performance length of 
existing SRs. The reduced performance length will continue to 
demonstrate that the Limiting Conditions for Operation (LCO) for the 
SGT and CREOAS systems are met. The change does not create new 
failure modes or mechanisms and no new accident precursors are 
generated.
    Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    This change reduces the performance length of SRs used to 
demonstrate operability of the CREOAS and SGT systems. This change 
is consistent with current regulatory guidance for these systems.
    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: Damon D. Obie, Associate General Counsel, 
Talen Energy Supply, LLC, 835 Hamilton St., Suite 150, Allentown, PA 
18101.
    NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna.

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

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

DTE Electric Company, Docket No. 50-341, Fermi 2, Monroe County, 
Michigan

    Date of amendment request: February 23, 2017. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17055A365.
    Brief description of amendment request: The proposed amendment 
would revise the technical specification requirements for high pressure 
coolant injection system and reactor core isolation cooling system 
actuation instrumentation in low pressure conditions.
    Date of publication of individual notice in Federal Register: March 
13, 2017 (82 FR 13512).
    Expiration date of individual notice: April 12, 2017 (public 
comments); May 12, 2017 (hearing requests).

IV. 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.

[[Page 17462]]

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

    Date of amendment request: April 24, 2016, as supplemented by 
letters dated September 14, 2016, and March 8, 2017.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment adopted Technical 
Specification Task Force (TSTF) Change Traveler TSTF-339, Revision 2, 
``Relocate TS [Technical Specification] Parameters to COLR [Core 
Operating Limits Report],'' consistent with NRC-approved Westinghouse 
topical report WCAP-14483-A, ``Generic Methodology for Expanded Core 
Operating Limits Report,'' and relocated reactor coolant system-related 
cycle-specific parameters and core safety limits from the TSs to the 
COLR.
    Date of issuance: March 23, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 120 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 250. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML17039A153; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-23: Amendment revised 
the Renewed Facility Operating License and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 5, 2016 (81 FR 
43651). The supplemental letters dated September 14, 2016, and March 8, 
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 March 23, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-353, Limerick Generating 
Station, Unit 2, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania

    Date of amendment request: December 20, 2016.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment authorized use of the 
release fractions listed in Tables 1 and 3 of NRC Regulatory Guide (RG) 
1.183, ``Alternative Radiological Source Terms for Evaluating Design 
Basis Accidents at Nuclear Power Reactors,'' for a limited number of 
partial length fuel rods that are currently in the Limerick Generating 
Station, Unit 2, Cycle 14, reactor core for the remainder of the 
current operating cycle and revise the licensing basis for subsequent 
fuel movement of irradiated fuel bundles containing partial length 
rods.
    Date of issuance: March 15, 2017.
    Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented 
prior to exceeding the burnup limit in the current operating Cycle 14.
    Amendment No.: 186. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML17047A353; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-85: The amendment 
revised the licensing basis to allow the use of the release fractions 
listed in Tables 1 and 3 of NRC RG 1.183 for a limited number of 
partial length fuel rods currently in the Cycle 14 reactor core for the 
remainder of the current operating cycle and subsequent fuel movements.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 31, 2017 (82 FR 
8871).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 15, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC, Docket No. 50-443, Seabrook Station, Unit 
No. 1, Rockingham County, New Hampshire

    Date of amendment request: March 31, 2016, as supplemented by 
letters dated May 31, 2016; October 27, 2016; November 17, 2016; and 
December 30, 2016.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment revised Technical 
Specification 6.15, ``Containment Leakage Rate Testing Program,'' to 
require a program that is in accordance with Nuclear Energy Institute 
(NEI) Topical Report NEI 94-01, Revision 3-A, ``Industry Guideline for 
Implementing Performance-Based Option of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix J.''
    Date of issuance: March 15, 2017.
    Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 153. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML17046A443; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-86: Amendment revised the 
Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 19, 2016 (81 FR 
46964). The supplemental letters dated October 27, 2016; November 17, 
2016; and December 30, 2016, provided additional information that 
clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application 
as originally noticed, and did not change the NRC staff's original 
proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as 
published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 15, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: June 17, 2016, as supplemented by 
letters dated December 27, 2016, and February 17, 2017.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical 
Specifications by adding a note permitting one low pressure coolant 
injection subsystem of residual heat removal to be considered OPERABLE 
in Operating Conditions 4 and 5 during alignment and operation for 
decay heat removal, if capable of being manually realigned and not 
otherwise inoperable.
    Date of issuance: March 15, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 202. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML17053A178; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-57: Amendment revised 
the Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 16, 2016 (81 FR 
54615). The supplemental letters dated December 27, 2016, and February 
17, 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 March 15, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

[[Page 17463]]

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

    Date of amendment request: May 11, 2016, as supplemented by letter 
dated December 13, 2016.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Hope 
Creek Generating Station Technical Specification (TS) requirements by 
deleting TS Action Statement 3.4.2.1.b concerning stuck open safety/
relief valves. In addition, TS 3.6.2.1 Action Statements regarding 
suppression chamber water temperature were revised to align with NUREG-
1433, Revision 4, ``Standard Technical Specifications--General Electric 
Plants (BWR/4).''
    Date of issuance: March 21, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be 
implemented within 60 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 203. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML17047A020; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-57: Amendment revised 
the Renewed Facility Operating License and TSs.
    Date of notice in Federal Register: January 17, 2017 (82 FR 4932). 
The license amendment request was originally noticed in the Federal 
Register on July 19, 2016 (81 FR 46965). The notice was reissued in its 
entirety to include the revised scope, description of the amendment 
request, and proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 21, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-424, 50-425, 
52-025, 52-026, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), Units 1, 2, 3, 
and 4, Burke County, Georgia

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

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-
366, Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant (Hatch), Unit Nos. 1 and 2, City of 
Dalton, Georgia

    Date of application for amendments: August 31, 2015, as 
supplemented by letters dated February 17, 2016; April 8, 2016; May 13, 
2016; May 26, 2016; June 9, 2016; and November 2, 2016.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments approved a standard 
emergency plan for all Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., sites 
and site-specific annexes.
    Date of issuance: March 14, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
by January 31, 2018.
    Amendment Nos.: VEGP, Unit 1--184, Unit 2--167, Unit 3--74, Unit 
4--73; Farley, Unit 1--209, Unit 2--206; and Hatch, Unit 1--283, Unit 
2--228. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Package 
Accession No. ML16141A090, documents related to these amendments are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-68, NPF-81, NPF-2, NPF-
8, DPR-57, and NPF-5: The amendments revised the Renewed Facility 
Operating Licenses.
    Facility Combined License Nos. NPF-91 and NPF-92: The amendments 
revised the Facility Combined Licenses.
    Date of initial notices in Federal Register: October 27, 2015 (80 
FR 65816). The supplemental letters dated February 17, 2016; April 8, 
2016; May 13, 2016; May 26, 2016; June 9, 2016; and November 2, 2016, 
provided additional information that clarified the applications, did 
not expand the scope of the applications as originally noticed, and did 
not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards 
consideration determinations as published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluations of the amendments is contained 
in Safety Evaluations dated March 14, 2017.
    No significant hazards considerations comments received: No.

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

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-
425, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), Units 1 and 2, Burke 
County, Georgia

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Georgia Power Company, 
Oglethorpe Power Corporation, Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, 
City of Dalton, Georgia, Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366, Edwin I. Hatch 
Nuclear Plant (HNP), Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Appling County, Georgia

    Date of amendment request: March 3, 2016, as supplemented by letter 
dated November 3, 2016.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments adopted Nuclear 
Energy Institute (NEI) 99-01, Revision 6, ``Development of Emergency 
Action Levels for Non-Passive Reactors,'' to replace the Emergency 
Action Level (EAL) schemes for VEGP, FNP, and HNP that are currently 
based on Revision 4. Additionally, SNC proposes changes to the 
radiation monitors at FNP.
    Date of issuance: March 16, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 1 year of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: Farley--Unit 1 (210) and Unit 2 (207); Vogtle--Unit 
1 (185) and Unit 2 (168); and Hatch--Unit 1 (284) and Unit 2 (229). A 
publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17023A237; 
documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety 
Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-2, NPF-8, NPF-68, NPF-
81, DPR-57, NPF-5: Amendments revised the Emergency Action Level 
Schemes.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 26, 2016 (81 FR 
24664). The supplemental letter dated November 3, 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 March 16, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Susquehanna Nuclear, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-387 and 50-388, Susquehanna 
Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania

    Date of amendment request: July 27, 2016, as supplemented by letter 
dated September 13, 2016.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical 
Specification 3.6.4.1, ``Secondary Containment,'' Surveillance 
Requirement (SR) 3.6.4.1.3 to provide an allowance for brief, 
inadvertent, simultaneous opening of redundant secondary containment 
access doors during normal entry and exit conditions.
    Date of issuance: March 27, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of issuance.

[[Page 17464]]

    Amendment Nos.: 267 (Unit 1) and 249 (Unit 2). A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17067A444; documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with 
the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-14 and NPF-22: The 
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and 
Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 25, 2016 (81 FR 
73441).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 27, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-259, 50-260, and 50-296, 
Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN), Units 1, 2 and 3, Limestone County, 
Alabama

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-327 and 50-328, Sequoyah 
Nuclear Plant (SQN), Units 1 and 2, Hamilton County, Tennessee

    Date of amendment request: April 14, 2016.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical 
Specification (TS) 5.3, ``Unit Staff Qualifications,'' for BFN, Units 
1, 2, and 3, and SQN, Units 1 and 2, to delete the references to 
Regulatory Guide 1.8, Revision 2, and replace them with references to 
the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) Nuclear Quality Assurance Plan. 
The changes will ensure consistent regulatory requirements regarding 
staff qualifications for the TVA nuclear fleet. The changes will 
further allow TVA to implement standard procedures related to staff 
qualifications. Additionally, the TS changes are consistent with the 
intent of NRC Administrative Letter 95-06 in that the relocated 
requirements are adequately controlled by 10 CFR 50 Appendix B and the 
quality assurance change control process in 10 CFR 50.54(a).
    Date of issuance: March 27, 2017.
    Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: BFN--298 (Unit 1), 322 (Unit 2), and 282 (Unit 3); 
and SQN--338 (Unit 1), and 331 (Unit 2). A publicly-available version 
is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17034A360; documents related to these 
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 
amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-33, DPR-52, DPR-68, 
DPR-77, and DPR-79: Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating 
Licenses and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 2, 2016 (81 FR 
50739).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 27, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-259, 50-260, and 50-296, 
Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3, Limestone County, 
Alabama

    Date of amendment request: July 14, 2016.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the date of 
cyber security plan implementation schedule Milestone 8 from July 31, 
2017, to December 31, 2017.
    Date of issuance: March 16, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 297 (Unit 1), 321 (Unit 2), 281 (Unit 3). A 
publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17052A136; 
documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety 
Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-33, DPR-52, and DPR-68: 
Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 8, 2016 (81 FR 
78666).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 16, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: November 14, 2016.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the WBN Unit 
2 Cyber Security Plan Implementation Schedule for Milestone 8 and 
associated license condition in the Facility Operating License.
    Date of issuance: March 16, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 7. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML17033A333; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-96: Amendment revised the 
Facility Operating License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 5, 2017 (82 FR 
1370).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 16, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: May 16, 2016.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical 
Specifications (TS) to correct an administrative error in the initial 
issuance of the TSs regarding the steam generator narrow range level 
specified in Surveillance Requirement 3.4.6.3.
    Date of issuance: March 23, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 8. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML17019A019; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-96: Amendment revised the 
Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 13, 2016 (81 
FR 62933).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 23, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request. June 14, 2016.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Cyber 
Security Plan (CSP) Implementation Milestone 8 completion date and 
paragraph 2.E of the Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-42 for 
WCGS to incorporate the revised CSP implementation schedule.
    Date of issuance: March 24, 2017.
    Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 217. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML17024A241; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-42: The amendment 
revised

[[Page 17465]]

the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 16, 2016 (81 FR 
54618).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 24, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 31st day of March 2017.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Kathryn M. Brock,
Deputy Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of 
Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2017-07279 Filed 4-10-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7590-01-P