[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 78 (Tuesday, April 25, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19095-19111]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-08115]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2017-0104]


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 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 28, 2017, to April 10, 2017. The last 
biweekly notice was published on April 11, 2017.

DATES: Comments must be filed by May 25, 2017. A request for a hearing 
must be filed by June 26, 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-2017-0104. 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: Lynn Ronewicz, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1927, email: [email protected].

[[Page 19096]]


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments

A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0104, 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-2017-0104.
     NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the 
ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select ``ADAMS Public Documents'' and 
then select ``Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.'' For problems with ADAMS, 
please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 
1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected]. The 
ADAMS accession number for each document referenced (if it is available 
in ADAMS) is provided the first time that it is mentioned in this 
document.
     NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public 
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

B. Submitting Comments

    Please include Docket ID NRC-2017-0104, 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

[[Page 19097]]

limitations in the order granting leave to intervene. Parties have the 
opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing with 
respect to resolution of that party's admitted contentions, including 
the opportunity to present evidence, consistent with the NRC's 
regulations, policies, and procedures.
    Petitions must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of 
publication of this notice. Petitions and motions for leave to file new 
or amended contentions that are filed after the deadline will not be 
entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the 
filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 
CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i) through (iii). The petition must be filed in 
accordance with the filing instructions in the ``Electronic Submissions 
(E-Filing)'' section of this document.
    If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final 
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the 
Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no 
significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve 
to establish when the hearing is held. If the final determination is 
that the amendment request involves no significant hazards 
consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it 
immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any 
hearing would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final 
determination is that the amendment request involves a significant 
hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before 
the issuance of the amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent 
danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will 
issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.
    A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian 
Tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to 
participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition should 
state the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the 
proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission by June 
26, 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

[[Page 19098]]

10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing stating why there is 
good cause for not filing electronically and requesting authorization 
to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be 
submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the 
Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications 
Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to 
the Office of the Secretary, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 
20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants 
filing adjudicatory documents in this manner are responsible for 
serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered 
complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or 
by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing 
the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, 
having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a 
participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer 
subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from 
use of E-Filing no longer exists.
    Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the 
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at 
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 (CNS), Units 1 and 2, York County, South Carolina

    Date of amendment request: December 15, 2016. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16350A422.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would modify 
Technical Specification (TS) 3.6.3, ``Containment Isolation Valves,'' 
to add a Note to TS Limited Condition for Operation 3.6.3 Required 
Actions A.2, C.2 and E.2 to allow isolation devices that are locked, 
sealed, or otherwise secured to be verified by use of administrative 
means. This proposed change is consistent with Technical Specification 
Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-269-A, Revision 2, ``Allow 
Administrative Means of Position Verification for Locked or Sealed 
Valves.''
    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 modify CNS TS 3.6.3, ``Containment 
Isolation Valves.'' This TS currently includes actions that require 
penetrations to be isolated and periodically verified to be 
isolated. A Note is proposed to be added to TS 3.6.3 Required 
Actions A.2, C.2, and E.2, to allow isolation devices that are 
locked, sealed, or otherwise secured to be verified by use of 
administrative means. The proposed changes do not affect any plant 
equipment, test methods, or plant operation, and is not an initiator 
of any analyzed accident sequence. The inoperable containment 
penetrations will continue to be isolated, and hence perform their 
isolation function. Operation in accordance with the proposed TSs 
will ensure that all analyzed accidents will continue to be 
mitigated as previously analyzed.
    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 will not affect the operation of plant 
equipment or the function of any equipment assumed in the accident 
analysis. Affected containment penetrations will continue to be 
isolated as required by the existing TS.
    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 B. Nolan, Deputy General Counsel, Duke 
Energy Carolinas, LLC, 550 South Tryon Street--DEC45A, Charlotte, NC 
28202-1802.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

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 ADAMS under Accession No. ML16350A422.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would modify 
Technical Specification (TS) 3.1.8, ``PHYSICS TESTS Exceptions,'' to 
allow the numbers of channels required by the Limiting Condition for 
Operation (LCO) section of TS 3.3.1, ``Reactor Trip System (RTS) 
Instrumentation,'' to be reduced from ``4'' to ``3'' to allow one 
nuclear instrumentation channel to be used as an input to the 
reactivity computer for physics testing without placing the nuclear 
instrumentation channel in a tripped condition. This proposed change is 
consistent with Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Traveler 
TSTF-315-A, Revision 0, ``Reduce Plant Trips Due to Spurious Signals to 
the NIS During Physics Testing.''
    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

[[Page 19099]]

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 revise TS 3.1.8, ``PHYSICS TESTS 
Exceptions,'' to allow the number of channels required by LCO 3.3.1, 
``RTS Instrumentation,'' to be reduced from ``4'' to ``3,'' to allow 
one nuclear instrumentation channel to be used as an input to the 
reactivity computer for physics testing without placing the nuclear 
instrumentation channel in a tripped condition. A reduction in the 
number of required nuclear instrumentation channels is not an 
initiator to any accident previously evaluated. With the nuclear 
instrumentation channel placed in bypass instead of in trip, reactor 
protection is still provided by the nuclear instrumentation system 
operating in a two-out-of-three channel logic. As a result, the 
ability to mitigate any accident previously evaluated is not 
significantly affected. The proposed changes will not affect the 
source term, containment isolation, or radiological release 
assumptions used in evaluating the radiological consequences of any 
accident previously evaluated.
    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 reduce the probability of a spurious 
reactor trip during physics testing. The reactor trip system 
continues to be capable of protecting the reactor utilizing the 
power range neutron flux trips operating in a two-out-of-three trip 
logic. As a result, the reactor is protected and the probability of 
a spurious reactor trip is significantly reduced.
    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 B. Nolan, Deputy General Counsel, Duke 
Energy Carolinas, LLC, 550 South Tryon Street--DEC45A, Charlotte, NC 
28202-1802.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

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

    Date of amendment request: December 15, 2016. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16350A422.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would modify 
Technical Specification (TS) 3.4.10, ``Pressurizer Safety Valves''; TS 
3.7.4, ``Steam Generator Power Operated Relief Valves (SG PORVs)''; and 
TS 3.7.6, ``Condensate Storage System,'' to revise the Completion Times 
for Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) of TS 3.4.10 Required Action 
B.2, LCO 3.7.4 Required Action C.2, and LCO 3.7.6 Required Action B.2 
from 12 hours to 24 hours. The proposed changes are consistent with 
Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-352-A, Revision 
1, ``Provide Consistent Completion Time to Reach MODE 4.''
    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 allow a more reasonable time to plan and 
execute required actions, and will not adversely affect accident 
initiators or precursors nor alter the design assumptions, 
conditions, and configuration of the facility or the manner in which 
the plant is operated and maintained. The proposed changes will not 
alter or prevent the ability of structures, systems, and components 
(SSCs) from performing their intended functions to mitigate the 
consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance 
limits. The proposed changes do not physically alter safety-related 
systems nor affect the way in which safety-related systems perform 
their functions. All accident analysis acceptance criteria will 
continue to be met with the proposed changes. The proposed changes 
will not affect the source term, containment isolation, or 
radiological release assumptions used in evaluating the radiological 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated. The proposed 
changes will not alter any assumptions or change any mitigation 
actions in the radiological consequence evaluations in the CNS 
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). The applicable 
radiological dose acceptance criteria will continue to be met.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    There are no proposed design changes nor are there any changes 
in the method by which any safety-related plant SSC performs its 
safety function. The proposed changes will not affect the normal 
method of plant operation or change any operating parameters. No 
equipment performance requirements will be affected. The proposed 
changes will not alter any assumptions made in the safety analyses.
    No new accident scenarios, transient precursors, failure 
mechanisms, or limiting single failures will be introduced as a 
result of this amendment. There will be no adverse effect or 
challenges imposed on any safety-related system as a result of this 
amendment.
    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 the margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    Margin of safety is related to the confidence in the ability of 
the fission product barriers to perform their intended functions. 
These barriers include the fuel cladding, the reactor coolant system 
pressure boundary, and the containment barriers. The proposed 
changes will not have any impact on these barriers. No accident 
mitigating equipment will be adversely impacted. Therefore, existing 
safety margins will be preserved. None of the proposed changes will 
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 B. Nolan, Deputy General Counsel, Duke 
Energy Carolinas, LLC, 550 South Tryon Street--DEC45A, Charlotte, NC 
28202-1802.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

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 ADAMS under Accession No. ML16350A422.

[[Page 19100]]

    Description of amendment request: The amendments would modify 
Technical Specification (TS) 3.4.12, ``Low Temperature Overpressure 
Protection (LTOP) System,'' to increase the time allowed for swapping 
charging pumps to 1 hour. Additionally, an existing note in the 
Applicability section of TS 3.4.12 is being reworded and relocated to 
the Limiting Condition for Operation section of TS 3.4.12 as Note 2. 
These proposed changes are consistent with Technical Specification Task 
Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-285-A, Revision 1, ``Charging Pump Swap LTOP 
Allowance.''
    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 increase the time allowed for swapping 
charging pumps from 15 minutes to one hour, and make several other 
associated administrative changes and clarifications to the TS. 
These changes do not affect event initiators or precursors. Thus, 
the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the 
probability of an accident previously evaluated. In addition, the 
proposed changes do not alter any assumptions previously made in the 
radiological consequence evaluations nor affect mitigation of the 
radiological consequences of an accident described in the Updated 
Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). As such, the consequences of 
accidents previously evaluated in the UFSAR will not be increased 
and no additional radiological source terms are generated. 
Therefore, there will be no reduction in the capability of those 
SSCs [structures, systems, and components] in limiting the 
radiological consequences of previously evaluated accidents, and 
reasonable assurance that there is no undue risk to the health and 
safety of the public will continue to be provided. Thus, the 
proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes do not involve physical changes to analyzed 
SSCs or changes to the modes of plant operation defined in the 
technical specification. The proposed changes do not involve the 
addition or modification of plant equipment (no new or different 
type of equipment will be installed) nor do they alter the design or 
operation of any plant systems. No new accident scenarios, accident 
or transient initiators or precursors, failure mechanisms, or 
limiting single failures are introduced as a result of the proposed 
changes. The proposed changes do not cause the malfunction of 
safety-related equipment assumed to be operable in accident 
analyses. No new or different mode of failure has been created and 
no new or different equipment performance requirements are imposed 
for accident mitigation. As such, the proposed changes have no 
effect on previously evaluated accidents.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in the margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes do not adversely affect any current plant 
safety margins or the reliability of the equipment assumed in the 
safety analysis. Therefore, 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 changes.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Kate B. Nolan, Deputy General Counsel, Duke 
Energy Carolinas, LLC, 550 South Tryon Street--DEC45A, Charlotte, NC 
28202-1802.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

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 ADAMS under Accession No. ML16350A422.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would modify 
Technical Specification (TS) 3.7.5, ``Auxiliary Feedwater (AFW) 
System,'' to expand the TS 3.7.5 Limiting Condition for Operation, 
Condition A, to include the situation when one turbine driven AFW pump 
is operable in MODE 3, immediately following a refueling outage (if 
MODE 2 has not been entered), with a 7-day Completion Time. This 
proposed change is consistent with Technical Specification Task Force 
(TSTF) Traveler TSTF-340-A, Revision 3, ``Allow 7 Day Completion Time 
for a Turbine-Driven AFW Pump Inoperable.''
    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 revise TS 3.7.5, ``Auxiliary Feedwater 
(AFW) System,'' to allow a 7 day Completion Time to restore an 
inoperable AFW turbine-driven pump in MODE 3 immediately following a 
refueling outage, if MODE 2 has not been entered. An inoperable AFW 
turbine-driven pump is not an initiator of any accident previously 
evaluated. The ability of the plant to mitigate an accident is no 
different while in the extended Completion Time than during the 
existing Completion Time. The proposed changes will not affect the 
source term, containment isolation, or radiological release 
assumptions used in evaluating the radiological consequences of any 
accident previously evaluated.
    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 revise TS 3.7.5, ``Auxiliary Feedwater 
(AFW) System,'' to allow a 7 day Completion Time to restore an 
inoperable turbine-driven AFW pump in MODE 3, immediately following 
a refueling outage, if MODE 2 has not been entered. In MODE 3 
immediately following a refueling outage, core decay heat is low and 
the need for AFW is also diminished. The two operable motor driven 
AFW pumps are available and there are alternate means of decay heat 
removal if needed. As a result, the risk presented by the extended 
Completion Time is minimal.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.


[[Page 19101]]


    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 B. Nolan, Deputy General Counsel, Duke 
Energy Carolinas, LLC, 550 South Tryon Street--DEC45A, Charlotte, NC 
28202-1802.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
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 ADAMS under Accession No. ML16350A422.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would modify 
Technical Specification (TS) 3.8.1, ``AC Sources--Operating,'' and TS 
3.8.4, ``DC Sources--Operating,'' to allow greater flexibility in 
performing Surveillance Requirements (SRs) by modifying Mode 
restriction notes in TS SRs 3.8.1.11, 3.8.1.16, 3.8.1.17, 3.8.1.19, 
3.8.4.8, and 3.8.4.9. This proposed change is consistent with Technical 
Specification Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-283-A, Revision 3, 
``Modify Section 3.8 Mode Restriction Notes.''
    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 modify Mode restriction Notes in TS SRs 
3.8.1.11, 3.8.1.16, 3.8.1.17, 3.8.1.19, 3.8.4.8, and 3.8.4.9 to 
allow performance of the Surveillance in whole or in part to 
reestablish Diesel Generator (DG) Operability, and to allow the 
crediting of unplanned events that satisfy the Surveillance 
Requirements. The emergency diesel generators and their associated 
emergency loads are accident mitigating features, and are not an 
initiator of any accident previously evaluated. As a result, the 
probability of any accident previously evaluated is not 
significantly increased. To manage any increase in risk, the 
proposed changes require an assessment to verify that plant safety 
will be maintained or enhanced by performance of the Surveillance in 
the current prohibited Modes. The radiological consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated during the period that the DG is being 
tested to reestablish operability are no different from the 
radiological consequences of an accident previously evaluated while 
the DG is inoperable. As a result, the consequences of any accident 
previously evaluated are not increased.
    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 purpose of Surveillances is to verify that equipment is 
capable of performing its assumed safety function. The proposed 
changes will only allow the performance of the Surveillances to 
reestablish operability, and the proposed changes may not be used to 
remove a DG from service. In addition, the proposed changes will 
potentially shorten the time that a DG is unavailable because 
testing to reestablish operability can be performed without a plant 
shutdown. The proposed changes also require an assessment to verify 
that plant safety will be maintained or enhanced by performance of 
the Surveillance in the current prohibited Modes.
    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 B. Nolan, Deputy General Counsel, Duke 
Energy Carolinas, LLC, 550 South Tryon Street--DEC45A, Charlotte, NC 
28202-1802.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
    Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414, Catawba 
Nuclear Station (CNS), Units 1 and 2, York County, South Carolina
    Date of amendment request: December 15, 2016. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16350A422.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would modify 
Technical Specification (TS) 3.9.5, ``Residual Heat Removal (RHR) and 
Coolant Circulation--Low Water Level,'' to add Note 1 to the Limiting 
Condition for Operation (LCO) Section of TS 3.9.5 to allow the securing 
of the operating train of RHR for up to 15 minutes to support switching 
operating trains. The allowance is restricted to three conditions: (a) 
the core outlet temperature is maintained greater than 10 degrees 
Fahrenheit below saturation temperature; (b) no operations are 
permitted that would cause an introduction of coolant into the Reactor 
Coolant System (RCS) with boron concentration less than that required 
to meet the minimum required boron concentration of LCO 3.9.1; and (c) 
no draining operations to further reduce RCS water volume are 
permitted. Additionally, the amendments would modify the LCO Section of 
TS 3.9.5 to add Note 2, which would allow one required RHR loop to be 
inoperable for up to 2 hours for surveillance testing, provided that 
the other RHR loop is operable and in operation. These proposed changes 
are consistent with Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Traveler 
TSTF-349-A, Revision 1, ``Add Note to LCO 3.9.5 Allowing Shutdown 
Cooling Loops Removal from Operation''; TSTF-361-A, Revision 2, ``Allow 
Standby SDC/RHR/DHR Loop to be Inoperable to Support Testing''; and 
TSTF-438-A, Revision 0, ``Clarify Exception Notes to be Consistent with 
the Requirement Being Excepted.''
    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 add two notes to CNS TS LCO 3.9.5. Note 1 
would allow securing the operating train of Residual Heat Removal 
(RHR) for up to 15 minutes to support switching operating trains, 
subject to certain restrictions. Note 2 to would allow one RHR loop 
to be inoperable for up to 2 hours for surveillance testing provided 
the other RHR loop is Operable and in operation. These provisions 
are operational allowances. Neither operational allowance is an 
initiator to any accident previously evaluated. In addition, the 
proposed changes will not affect the source term, containment 
isolation, or radiological release assumptions used in evaluating 
the radiological consequences of any accident previously evaluated.

[[Page 19102]]

    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.
    An operational allowance is proposed which would allow securing 
the operating train of RHR for up to 15 minutes to support switching 
operating trains, subject to certain restrictions. Considering these 
restrictions, combined with the short time frame allowed to swap 
operating RHR trains, and the ability to start an operating RHR 
train, if needed, the occurrence of an event that would require 
immediate operation of an RHR train is extremely remote.
    An operational allowance is also proposed which would allow one 
RHR loop to be inoperable for up to 2 hours for surveillance testing 
provided the other RHR loop is operable and in operation. A similar 
allowance currently appears in CNS TS 3.4.7, ``Reactor Coolant 
System (RCS) Loops--MODE 5, Loops Filled,'' and CNS TS 3.4.8, ``RCS 
Loops--MODE 5, Loops Not Filled,'' and the conditions under which 
the operational allowance would be applied in TS 3.9.5 are not 
significantly different from those specifications. This operational 
allowance provides the flexibility to perform surveillance testing, 
while ensuring that there is reasonable time for operators to 
respond to and mitigate any expected failures. The purpose of the 
RHR System is to remove decay and sensible heat from the RCS, to 
provide mixing of borated coolant, and to prevent boron 
stratification. Removal of system components from service as 
described above, and with limitations in place to maintain the 
ability of the RHR System to perform its safety function, does not 
significantly impact the margin of safety. Operators will continue 
to have adequate time to respond to any off-normal events. Removing 
the system from service, for a limited period of time, with other 
operational restrictions, limits the consequences to those already 
assumed in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR).
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
reduction in the margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Kate B. Nolan, Deputy General Counsel, Duke 
Energy Carolinas, LLC, 550 South Tryon Street--DEC45A, Charlotte, NC 
28202-1802.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.
Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50-397, Columbia Generating Station, 
Benton County, Washington
    Date of amendment request: July 12, 2016, as supplemented by letter 
dated November 17, 2016. Publicly-available versions are in ADAMS under 
Accession Nos. ML16194A515, and ML16326A443, respectively.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
reduce the minimum reactor dome pressure associated with the critical 
power correlation from 785 pounds per square inch gauge (psig) to 686 
psig in Technical Specification (TS) 2.1.1, ``Reactor Core SLs [Safety 
Limits],'' and associated bases.
    The license amendment request was originally noticed in the Federal 
Register on October 25, 2016 (81 FR 73433). The notice is being 
reissued in its entirety to revise the proposed minimum reactor dome 
pressure from 685 psig to 686 psig, based on the supplemental letter 
dated November 16, 2017.
    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, with NRC edits in square brackets, 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 change does not involve a modification of any plant 
hardware; the probability and consequence of the Pressure Regulator 
Failure Open (PRFO) transient are essentially unchanged. The 
reduction in the reactor dome pressure safety limit (SL) from 785 
psig to [686] psig provides greater margin to accommodate the 
pressure reduction during the transient within the revised TS limit.
    The proposed change will continue to support the validity range 
for the correlations and the calculation of Minimum Core Power Ratio 
(MCPR) as approved. The proposed TS revision involves no significant 
changes to the operation of any systems or components in normal, 
accident or transient operating conditions.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed reduction in the reactor dome pressure SL from 785 
psig to [686] psig is a change based upon previously approved 
documents and does not involve changes to the plant hardware or its 
operating characteristics. As a result, no new failure modes are 
being introduced.
    Therefore, the change does not introduce a new or different kind 
of accident from those previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The margin of safety is established through the design of the 
plant structures, systems, and components, and through the 
parameters for safe operation and setpoints for the actuation of 
equipment relied upon to respond to transients and design basis 
accidents. The proposed change in reactor dome pressure enhances the 
safety margin, which protects the fuel cladding integrity during a 
depressurization transient, but does not change the requirements 
governing operation or availability of safety equipment assumed to 
operate to preserve the margin of safety. The change does not alter 
the behavior of plant equipment, which remains unchanged. The 
available pressure range is expanded by the change, thus offering 
greater margin for pressure reduction during the transient.
    Therefore, the proposed change 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: William A. Horin, Esq., Winston & Strawn, 
1700 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20006-3817.
    NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.

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

    Date of amendment request: February 28, 2017. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17059C963.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the 
Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 2, Technical Specifications (TSs) 
by replacing existing requirements related to ``operations with a 
potential for draining the reactor vessel'' with new requirements on 
reactor pressure vessel

[[Page 19103]]

(RPV) water inventory control (WIC) to protect Safety Limit 2.1.1.3. 
Safety Limit 2.1.1.3 requires RPV water level to be greater than the 
top of active irradiated fuel. The proposed changes are based on 
Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-542, Revision 
2, ``Reactor Pressure Vessel Water Inventory Control'' (ADAMS Accession 
No. ML16074A448).
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below, with NRC staff edits in square 
brackets:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes replace existing TS requirements related to 
OPDRVs [operation with potential to drain the reactor vessels] 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 changes reduce 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 event. 
The current TS requirements are only mitigating actions and impose 
no requirements that reduce the probability of an unexpected 
draining event.
    The proposed changes reduce 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 containment and/or 
filtration would be available if needed.
    The proposed changes 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 changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes replace existing TS requirements related to 
OPDRVs with new requirements on RPV WIC that will protect Safety 
Limit 2.1.1.3. The proposed changes will not alter the design 
function of the equipment involved. Under the proposed changes, 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 
changes do 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 changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes replace 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 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 Branch Chief: James G. Danna.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-219, Oyster Creek Nuclear 
Generating Station (OCNGS), Ocean County, New Jersey
    Date of amendment request: February 28, 2017. A publicly-available 
version is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17060A289.
    Description of amendment request: The licensee proposes to revise 
the site emergency plan to revise the on-shift staffing and the 
emergency response organization (ERO) staffing for a permanently 
defueled condition.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes to the OCNGS Emergency Plan do not impact 
the function of plant Structures, Systems, or Components (SSCs). The 
proposed changes do not involve the modification of any plant 
equipment or affect plant operation. The proposed changes do not 
affect accident initiators or precursors, nor do the proposed 
changes alter design assumptions. The proposed changes do not 
prevent the ability of the on-shift staff and ERO to perform their 
intended functions to mitigate the consequences of any accident or 
event that will be credible in the permanently defueled condition. 
The proposed changes only remove positions that will no longer be 
needed or credited in the Emergency Plan in the permanently defueled 
condition.

[[Page 19104]]

    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes reduce the number of on-shift and ERO 
positions commensurate with the hazards associated with a 
permanently shutdown and defueled facility. The proposed changes do 
not involve installation of new equipment or modification of 
existing equipment, so that no new equipment failure modes are 
introduced. Also, the proposed changes do not result in a change to 
the way that the equipment or facility is operated so that no new 
accident initiators are created.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    Margin of safety is associated with confidence in the ability of 
the fission product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, reactor coolant 
system pressure boundary, and containment structure) to limit the 
level of radiation dose to the public. The proposed changes do not 
adversely affect existing plant safety margins or the reliability of 
the equipment assumed to operate in the safety analyses. There are 
no changes being made to safety analysis assumptions, safety limits, 
or limiting safety system settings that would adversely affect plant 
safety as a result of the proposed changes. The proposed changes are 
associated with the Emergency Plan and staffing and do not impact 
operation of the plant or its response to transients or accidents. 
The proposed changes do not affect the Technical Specifications. The 
proposed changes do not involve a change in the method of plant 
operation, and no accident analyses will be affected by the proposed 
changes. Safety analysis acceptance criteria are not affected by the 
proposed changes and margins of safety are maintained. The revised 
Emergency Plan will continue to provide the necessary response staff 
with the proposed changes.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
reduction in 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: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel, 
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 
60555.
    NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.

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: February 24, 2017. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17055C352.
    Description of amendment request: The requested amendment proposes 
changes to the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report in the form of 
departures from the plant-specific Design Control Document (DCD) Tier 2 
information, and involves changes to related plant-specific DCD Tier 1 
information, with corresponding changes to the associated Combined 
License (COL) Appendix C information. In addition, revisions are 
proposed to COL Appendix A, Technical Specifications. The proposed 
changes revise the COLs concerning standardizing the Protection and 
Safety Monitoring System (PMS) setpoint nomenclature. No changes are 
proposed to setpoint values or PMS alarms and actuations.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below with the NRC staff's edits in 
square brackets:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    No setpoint values or PMS actuations are proposed to be changed 
by this activity. Nor are any values assumed in the safety analysis 
changed. This is an administrative change to standardize the PMS 
setpoint designators. The proposed amendment does not affect the 
prevention and mitigation of abnormal events, e.g., accidents, 
anticipated operation occurrences, earthquakes, floods, turbine 
missiles, and fires or their safety or design analyses. This change 
does not involve containment of radioactive isotopes or any adverse 
effect on a fission product barrier. There is no impact on 
previously evaluated accidents.
    These proposed changes have no adverse impact on the support, 
design, or operation of mechanical and fluid systems. The response 
of systems to postulated accident conditions is not adversely 
affected and remains within response time assumed in the accident 
analysis. There is no change to the predicted radioactive releases 
due to normal operation or postulated accident conditions. 
Consequently, 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 changes do not involve a new failure mechanism or 
malfunction, which affects an [structure, system, component (SSC)] 
accident initiator, or interface with any SSC accident initiator or 
initiating sequence of events considered in the design and licensing 
bases. There is no adverse effect on radioisotope barriers or the 
release of radioactive materials. The proposed amendment does not 
adversely affect any accident, including the possibility of creating 
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different type of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    No setpoint values or PMS actuations are proposed to be changed 
by this activity. This is an administrative change to standardize 
the PMS setpoint designators. The proposed changes would not affect 
any safety-related design code, function, design analysis, safety 
analysis input or result, or existing design/safety margin. No 
safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is 
challenged or exceeded by the requested changes.
    Therefore the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

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

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: March 15, 2017. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17074A597.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment proposes to depart 
from Tier 2 information in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report 
(UFSAR) and involves changes to related plant-specific Tier 1 
information, with corresponding changes to the associated Combined 
License (COL) Appendix C information, to clarify text that currently

[[Page 19105]]

refers to raceways with an electrical classification (i.e., Class 1E/
non-Class 1E). This includes rewording multiple Inspections, Tests, 
Analyses, and Acceptance Criteria (ITAAC) and UFSAR material to clarify 
that any text referring to Class 1E or non-Class 1E raceways or raceway 
systems is referring to raceways or raceway systems that route Class 1E 
or non-Class 1E circuits.
    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.
    These proposed changes are for clarification and consistency. No 
structure, system, or component (SSC) or function is changed within 
this activity. There is no change to the application of regulatory 
guides or industry standards to raceways or raceway systems, nor is 
there a change to how they are designed, fabricated, procured or 
installed. Raceway systems that route Class 1E circuits will 
continue to be designated and designed as equipment Class C, safety-
related, and seismic Category I structures. The proposal to align 
the text in COL Appendix C (and plant-specific Tier 1) Section 3.3 
with the associated ITAAC is made for clarification and consistency 
to reduce misinterpretation. The proposal to reword multiple ITAAC 
in 3.3.00.07 does not change the intent of the ITAAC, nor is the 
ITAAC scope or closure method impacted.
    The proposed amendment does not affect the prevention and 
mitigation of abnormal events; e.g., accidents, anticipated 
operation occurrences, earthquakes, floods, turbine missiles, and 
fires or their safety or design analyses. This change does not 
involve containment of radioactive isotopes or any adverse effect on 
a fission product barrier. There is no impact on previously 
evaluated accidents.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes do not involve a new failure mechanism or 
malfunction, which affects an SSC accident initiator, or interface 
with any SSC accident initiator or initiating sequence of events 
considered in the design and licensing bases. There is no adverse 
effect on radioisotope barriers or the release of radioactive 
materials. The proposed amendment does not adversely affect any 
accident, including the possibility of creating a new or different 
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
    Therefore, the proposed 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.
    These proposed changes are for clarification and consistency to 
reduce misinterpretation. No SSC or function is changed within this 
activity. There is no change to the application of regulatory guides 
or industry standards to raceways or raceway systems, nor is there a 
change to how they are designed, fabricated, procured or installed. 
Raceway systems that route Class 1E circuits will continue to be 
designated and designed as Equipment Class C, safety-related, and 
seismic Category I.
    The proposed changes would not affect any safety-related design 
code, function, design analysis, safety analysis input or result, or 
existing design/safety margin. No safety analysis or design basis 
acceptance limit/criterion is challenged or exceeded by the 
requested changes.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

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

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: March 8, 2017. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17067A517.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment request consists of 
changes to Combined License (COL) Appendix C (and corresponding changes 
to plant-specific Tier 1) information. Specifically, the amendment 
request involves changes to revise the raceway separation requirements 
in the Main Control Room (MCR) and Remote Shutdown Room (RSR) to 
provide consistency with Tier 2 information in the plant-specific 
Design Control Document (DCD). 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 DCD 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 Updated Final 
Safety Analysis Report (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.

[[Page 19106]]

    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, 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: M. Stanford Blanton, Balch & Bingham LLP, 
1710 Sixth Avenue, North, Birmingham, AL 35203-2015.
    NRC Branch Chief: Jennifer Dixon-Herrity.
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
    Date of amendment request: January 17, 2017. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17018A149.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the 
Technical Specifications (TSs) to eliminate the ``Inservice Testing 
Program,'' contained in TS Section 5.5.6 and replace the program with a 
new defined term, ``Inservice Testing Program,'' in the TS Definitions 
section. This revision would be consistent with Technical 
Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-545, Revision 3, ``TS 
Inservice Testing Program Removal & Clarify SR Usage Rule Application 
to Section 5.5 Testing.'' Additionally, Tennessee Valley Authority 
requested implementation of TSTF-299, Revision 0, ``Administrative 
Controls Program 5.5.2.b Test Interval and Exception,'' which clarifies 
the intent of refueling cycle intervals with respect to the system leak 
test requirements (i.e., 24 month intervals) and would add the 
following sentence, ``The provisions of SR 3.0.2 are applicable,'' to 
TS 5.5.2.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    TSTF 545, ``TS Inservice Testing Program Removal & Clarify SR 
Usage Rule Application to Section 5.5 Testing,'' Revision 3:
    The proposed change revises TS Chapter 5, ``Administrative 
Controls,'' Section 5.5, ``Programs and Manuals,'' by eliminating 
the ``Inservice Testing Program'' specification. Most requirements 
in the Inservice Testing Program are removed, as they are 
duplicative of requirements in the [American Society of Mechanical 
Engineers] (ASME) [Operation and Maintenance] (OM) Code, as 
clarified by Code Case OMN-20, ``Inservice Test Frequency.'' The 
remaining requirements in the Section 5.5 IST Program are eliminated 
because the NRC has determined their inclusion in the TS is contrary 
to regulations. A new defined term, ``Inservice Testing Program,'' 
is added to the TS, which references the requirements of 10 CFR 
50.55a(f).
    Performance of inservice testing is not an initiator to any 
accident previously evaluated. As a result, the probability of 
occurrence of an accident is not significantly affected by the 
proposed change. Inservice test frequencies under Code Case OMN-20 
are equivalent to the current testing period allowed by the TS with 
the exception that testing frequencies greater than 2 years may be 
extended by up to 6 months to facilitate test scheduling and 
consideration of plant operating conditions that may not be suitable 
for performance of the required testing. The testing frequency 
extension will not affect the ability of the components to mitigate 
any accident previously evaluated as the components are required to 
be operable during the testing period extension. Performance of 
inservice tests utilizing the allowances in OMN-20 will not 
significantly affect the reliability of the tested components. As a 
result, the availability of the affected components, as well as 
their ability to mitigate the consequences of accidents previously 
evaluated, is not affected.
    TSTF-299, ``Administrative Controls Program 5.5.2.b Test 
Interval and Exception,'' Revision 0:
    The proposed change affects only the interval at which system 
leak tests are performed, not the effectiveness of the system leak 
test requirements. Revising the system leak test requirements from 
``at refueling cycle intervals or less'' to ``at least once per 24 
months'' is considered to be an administrative change because BFN 
Units 1, 2, and 3 operate on 24-month fuel cycles. Incorporation of 
the allowance to extend the 24-month interval by 25%, as allowed by 
Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.0.2, does not significantly degrade 
the reliability that results from performing the Surveillance at its 
specified Frequency.
    Test intervals are not considered as initiators of any accident 
previously evaluated. As a result, the probability of any accident 
previously evaluated is not significantly increased by the proposed 
amendment. Technical Specification (TS) 5.5.2 continues to require 
the performance of periodic system leak tests. Therefore, accident 
analysis assumptions will still be verified. As a result, the 
consequences of any accident previously evaluated are not 
significantly increased.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    TSTF 545, ``TS Inservice Testing Program Removal & Clarify SR 
Usage Rule Application to Section 5.5 Testing,'' Revision 3:
    The proposed change does not alter the design or configuration 
of the plant. The proposed change does not involve a physical 
alteration of the plant; no new or different kind of equipment will 
be installed. The proposed change does not alter the types of 
inservice testing performed. In most cases, the frequency of 
inservice testing is unchanged. However, the frequency of testing 
would not result in a new or different kind of accident from any 
previously evaluated since the testing methods are not altered.
    TSTF-299, ``Administrative Controls Program 5.5.2.b Test 
Interval and Exception,'' Revision 0:
    The proposed change affects only the interval at which system 
leak tests are performed; they do not alter the design or physical 
configuration of the plant. No changes are being made to BFN Units 
1, 2, or 3 that would introduce any new accident causal mechanisms.
    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.
    TSTF 545, ``TS Inservice Testing Program Removal & Clarify SR 
Usage Rule Application to Section 5.5 Testing,'' Revision 3:
    The proposed change eliminates some requirements from the TS in 
lieu of requirements in the ASME Code, as modified by use of Code 
Case OMN-20. Compliance with the ASME Code is required by 10 CFR 
50.55a. The proposed change also allows inservice tests with 
frequencies greater than 2 years to be extended by 6 months to 
facilitate test scheduling and consideration of plant operating 
conditions that may not be suitable for performance of the required 
testing. The testing frequency extension will not affect the ability 
of the components to respond to an accident as the components are 
required to be operable during the testing period extension. The 
proposed change will eliminate the existing TS SR 3.0.3 allowance to 
defer performance of missed inservice tests up to the duration of 
the specified testing frequency, and instead will require an

[[Page 19107]]

assessment of the missed test on equipment operability. This 
assessment will consider the effect on a margin of safety (equipment 
operability). Should the component be inoperable, the Technical 
Specifications provide actions to ensure that the margin of safety 
is protected. The proposed change also eliminates a statement that 
nothing in the ASME Code should be construed to supersede the 
requirements of any TS. The NRC has determined that statement to be 
incorrect. However, elimination of the statement will have no effect 
on plant operation or safety.
    TSTF-299, ``Administrative Controls Program 5.5.2.b Test 
Interval and Exception,'' Revision 0:
    The proposed change does not change the design or function of 
plant equipment. The proposed change does not significantly reduce 
the level of assurance that any plant equipment will be available to 
perform its function. The proposed change provides operating 
flexibility without significantly affecting plant operation.
    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: General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 
400 West Summit Hill Dr., WT 6A, Knoxville, TN 37902.
    NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin G. Beasley.

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 amendment request: June 30, 2016, as supplemented by letter 
dated December 8, 2016.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments modified the 
McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Technical Specification 3.6.14, 
``Divider Barrier Integrity,'' to revise Condition D to allow either 
one steam generator enclosure hatch or pressurizer enclosure hatch to 
be open for up to 48 hours.
    Date of issuance: March 27, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 294 (Unit 1) and 273 (Unit 2). A publicly available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17060A481; documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with 
the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-9 and NPF-17: 
Amendments revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical 
Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 3, 2017 (83 FR 
158). The supplemental letter dated December 8, 2016, provided 
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand 
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change 
the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination as published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 27, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: May 25, 2016.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment approved the 
Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI)-Only Emergency Plan 
and ISFSI-Only Emergency Action Level Bases Manual, Revision 0, for the 
CR-3 SAFSTOR Period with Spent Fuel on Site.
    Date of issuance: March 22, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date Duke Energy Florida, LLC submits 
written notification that all spent nuclear fuel has been transferred 
from the spent fuel pool to the ISFSI and shall be implemented within 
60 days.
    Amendment No.: 253. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML17048A473; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Facility Operating License No. DPR-72: This amendment revises the 
Facility Operating License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 19, 2016 (81 FR 
46961).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 22, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-333, James A. 
FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant, Oswego County, New York

    Date of amendment request: August 18, 2016, as supplemented by 
letter dated November 29, 2016.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment modified the Renewed 
Facility Operating License to reflect the license transfer from Entergy 
Nuclear FitzPatrick, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. to Exelon 
Generation Company, LLC.
    Date of issuance: March 31, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 314. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML17082A283.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-59: Amendment revised 
the Renewed Facility Operating License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: September 15, 2016 (81 
FR 63500). The supplemental letter dated November 29, 2016, provided 
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand 
the scope of the application as originally noticed,

[[Page 19108]]

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 31, 2017.

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

    Date of amendment request: March 25, 2016, as supplemented by 
letter dated December 7, 2016.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment deleted Technical 
Specification (TS) 6.5.8, ``Inservice Testing Program.'' A new defined 
term, ``Inservice Testing Program,'' is added to TS Section 1.0, 
``Definitions.'' Also, existing uses of the term ``Inservice Testing 
Program'' in the TSs are capitalized throughout to indicate that it is 
now a defined term. The NRC staff has concluded that the amendment is 
consistent with Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Traveler 
TSTF-545, Revision 3, ``TS Inservice Testing Program Removal & Clarify 
SR Usage Rule Application to Section 5.5 Testing,'' which was made 
available to the TSTF by NRC letter dated December 11, 2015 (ADAMS 
Accession No. ML15317A071).
    Date of issuance: March 29, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 305. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML16215A371; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-51: Amendment revised 
the Renewed Facility Operating License and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 7, 2016 (81 FR 
36618). The supplemental letter dated December 7, 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 29, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: November 4, 2016, as supplemented by 
letters dated December 7, 2016, and March 13, 2017.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the 
Allowable Value for the Turbine Condenser--Low Vacuum scram function 
specified in Technical Specification Table 3.3.1.1-1, ``Reactor 
Protection System Instrumentation.''
    Date of issuance: April 3, 2017.
    Effective dates: For Unit 2, the amendment is effective as of its 
date of issuance and shall be implemented prior to startup from 
refueling outage P2R22, which is scheduled for completion in the fall 
of 2018. For Unit 3, the amendment is effective as of its date of 
issuance and shall be implemented prior to startup from refueling 
outage P3R21, which is scheduled for completion in the fall of 2017.
    Amendments Nos.: 312 (Unit 2) and 316 (Unit 3). A publicly-
available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17052A692; 
documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety 
Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-44 and DPR-56: The 
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and 
Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 3, 2017 (82 FR 
159). The supplemental letter dated March 13, 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 April 3, 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 16, 2016.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Limerick 
Generating Station, Unit 2, Technical Specifications related to the 
safety limit minimum critical power ratio. The changes result from a 
cycle-specific analysis performed to support the operation of Limerick 
Generating Station, Unit 2, in the upcoming Cycle 15.
    Date of issuance: March 29, 2017.
    Effective date: Shall be implemented prior to startup from the 
spring 2017 refueling outage.
    Amendment No.: 186. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML17024A089; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-85: Amendment revised 
the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 7, 2017 (82 FR 
9605).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 29, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Florida Power & Light Company, et al., Docket No. 50-389, St. Lucie 
Plant, Unit No. 2, St. Lucie County, Florida

    Date of amendment request: June 21, 2016, as supplemented by letter 
dated December 5, 2016.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment updated the Technical 
Specifications to revise the emergency diesel generator engine-mounted 
fuel tank minimum volume from 200 gallons of fuel each to 238 gallons 
of fuel each.
    Date of issuance: March 29, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 188. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML17038A225; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-16: Amendment revised 
the Renewed Facility Operating License and Appendix A.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 2, 2016 (81 FR 
50733). The supplemental letter dated December 5, 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 29, 2017.

[[Page 19109]]

    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Indiana Michigan Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-315 and 50-316, Donald 
C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Berrien County, Michigan

    Date of amendment request: November 19, 2015, as supplemented by 
letter dated February 4, 2016, two letters dated June 16, 2016, and 
letters dated September 9, 2016, and November 3, 2016.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the Donald 
C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Technical Specifications by 
relocating specific surveillance frequencies to a licensee-controlled 
program consistent with the NRC-approved Technical Specifications Task 
Force (TSTF) Improved Standard Technical Specifications Change Traveler 
TSTF-425, Revision 3, ``Relocate Surveillance Frequencies to Licensee 
Control--RITSTF Initiative 5b.''
    Date of issuance: March 31, 2017.
    Effective date: The amendments are effective as of the date of 
issuance and shall be implemented within 120 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 334 (Unit 1) and 316 (Unit 2). A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17045A150; documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with 
the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-58 and DPR-74: The 
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and 
Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 19, 2016 (81 FR 
2918). The supplemental letters dated February 4, 2016, two letters 
dated June 16, 2016, and letters dated September 9, 2016, and 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 31, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Nebraska Public Power District, Docket No. 50-298, Cooper Nuclear 
Station (CNS), Nemaha County, Nebraska

    Date of amendment request: March 22, 2016, as supplemented by two 
letters dated December 7, 2016.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Cooper 
Nuclear Station Technical Specifications by relocating specific 
surveillance frequencies to a licensee-controlled program consistent 
with the NRC-approved Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) 
Improved Standard Technical Specifications Change Traveler TSTF-425, 
Revision 3, ``Relocate Surveillance Frequencies to Licensee Control--
RITSTF [Risk-Informed TSTF] Initiative 5b'' (ADAMS Accession No. 
ML090850642).
    Date of issuance: March 31, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 258. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML17061A050; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-46: Amendment revised 
the Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 24, 2016 (81 FR 
32807). The two supplemental letters dated December 7, 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 31, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

NextEra Energy Duane Arnold, LLC, Docket No. 50-331, Duane Arnold 
Energy Center, Linn County, Iowa

    Date of amendment request: March 15, 2016, as supplemented by 
letters dated September 21, 2016, and December 27, 2016.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Duane 
Arnold Energy Center Technical Specification (TS) 4.3.1, ``Fuel 
Storage, Criticality,'' and TS 4.3.3, ``Fuel Storage, Capacity,'' to 
ensure that spent fuel pool maintains compliance with NRC 
subcriticality requirements for the storage racks manufactured by 
Programmed and Remote Systems Corporation (PaR). The amendment also 
adds a new requirement in TS 5.5, ``Program and Manuals,'' for a spent 
fuel pool neutron absorber monitoring program.
    Date of issuance: March 30, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 299. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML17072A232; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-49: The amendment 
revised the TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 5, 2016 (81 FR 
43665). The supplemental letters dated September 21, 2016, and December 
27, 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 30, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

NextEra Energy Duane Arnold, LLC, Docket No. 50-331, Duane Arnold 
Energy Center, Linn County, Iowa

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

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

Florida Power & Light Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389, 
St. Lucie Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, St. Lucie County, Florida

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: July 28, 2016, as supplemented by letter 
dated December 15, 2016.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the 
Technical Specifications consistent with Technical Specification Task 
Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-545, Revision 3, ``TS Inservice Testing 
Program Removal & Clarify SR Usage Rule Application to Section 5.5 
Testing'' (ADAMS Accession No. ML15294A555).
    Date of issuance: April 7, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 120 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos: 300, 259, 263, 154, 238, 189, 274, and 269. A 
publicly-

[[Page 19110]]

available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17027A078; 
documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety 
Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
    Facility or Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-49, DPR-24, 
DPR-27, NPF-86, DPR-67, NPF-16, DPR-31, and DPR-41: Amendments revised 
the Facility or Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and Technical 
Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 11, 2016 (81 FR 
70180). The supplemental letter dated December 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 April 7, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: November 18, 2016.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment deleted License 
Condition 3.D, ``Fire Protection Program,'' which requires that FCS 
implement and maintain a fire protection program that complies with the 
requirements of 10 CFR 50.48(a) and 10 CFR 50.48(c). Since power 
operations are terminated at FCS and the reactor is permanently 
defueled, FCS will maintain a fire protection program in accordance 
with 10 CFR 50.48(f).
    Date of issuance: April 7, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 290. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML17053A099; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-40: The amendment 
revised the License Condition.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 17, 2017 (82 FR 
4931).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated April 7, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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: July 11, 2016.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments authorized changes 
to the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3, Updated Final 
Safety Analysis Report in the form of departures from the incorporated 
plant-specific Design Control Document Tier 2 information and involves 
changes to Combined License Appendix A Technical Specifications and 
associated Bases. The changes add compensation to the reactor coolant 
flow input signal to the Reactor Trip System instrumentation for the 
low reactor coolant flow reactor trip function and add Technical 
Specification Surveillance Requirement 3.3.1.3 to the surveillances 
required for the Reactor Coolant Flow-Low reactor trip.
    Date of issuance: March 20, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 65. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML17040A224; documents related to these amendments are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
    Facility Combined Licenses No. NPF-93 and NPF-94: Amendments 
revised the Facility Combined Licenses.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 16, 2016 (81 FR 
54610).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 20, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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: June 16, 2016, as revised by letters 
dated July 7, 2016; August 16, 2016; and October 24, 2016, and as 
supplemented by letter dated December 21, 2016.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments authorized changes 
to the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3, Updated Final 
Safety Analysis Report in the form of departures from the incorporated 
plant-specific Design Control Document Tier 2* and Tier 2 information. 
The changes are related to the design of selected auxiliary building 
floors, including finned floors, CA20 module floors, and precast panel 
floors; main control room and instrumentation and control room 
ceilings; and the location of heating, ventilation, and air 
conditioning ducts in the main control room floor, as well as the 
number of supporting steel plates. General changes include various 
notes that explain the extent of variations in the specific design of 
these structures.
    Date of issuance: March 28, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 67. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML17040A104; documents related to these amendments are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
    Facility Combined Licenses No. NPF-93 and NPF-94: Amendments 
revised the Facility Combined Licenses.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 2, 2016 (81 FR 
50729). By letter dated August 16, 2016, the licensee provided 
additional information that expanded the scope of the amendment request 
as originally noticed in the Federal Register. Accordingly, the NRC 
published a second proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination in the Federal Register on September 2, 2016 (81 FR 
60749), which superseded the original notice in its entirety. The 
supplemental letters dated October 16, 2016, and December 21, 2016, 
provided additional information that clarified the application, did not 
expand the scope of the application request as noticed on September 2, 
2016, and did not change the staff's proposed no significant hazards 
consideration determination as published in the Federal Register on 
September 2, 2016.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 28, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: June 14, 2016, as revised by letters 
dated July 1, 2016; August 12, 2016; and October 12, 2016, and as 
supplemented by letter dated December 16, 2016.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments authorized changes 
to the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4, Updated Final 
Safety Analysis Report in the form of departures from the incorporated 
plant specific Design Control Document Tier 2* and Tier 2 information. 
The changes are related to the design of selected auxiliary building 
floors, including finned floors, CA20

[[Page 19111]]

module floors, and precast panel floors; main control room and 
instrumentation and control room ceilings; and the location of heating, 
ventilation, and air conditioning ducts in the main control room floor, 
as well as the number of supporting steel plates. General changes 
include various notes that explain the extent of variations in the 
specific design of these structures.
    Date of issuance: March 27, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 75 (Unit 3) and 74 (Unit 4). A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17037D024; documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with 
the amendments.
    Facility Combined Licenses No. NPF-91 and NPF-92: Amendments 
revised the Facility Combined Licenses.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 2, 2016 (81 FR 
50738). By letter dated August 12, 2016, the licensee provided 
additional information that expanded the scope of the amendment request 
as originally noticed in the Federal Register. Accordingly, the NRC 
published a second proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination in the Federal Register on September 13, 2016 (81 FR 
62932), which superseded the original notice in its entirety. The 
supplemental letters dated October 12, 2016, and December 16, 2016, 
provided additional information that clarified the application, did not 
expand the scope of the application request as noticed on September 13, 
2016, and did not change the staff's proposed no significant hazards 
consideration determination as published in the Federal Register on 
September 13, 2016.
    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 No. 50-391, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, 
Unit 2, Rhea County, Tennessee

    Date of amendment request: November 23, 2016, as supplemented by 
letter dated February 16, 2017.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical 
Specification Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.0.2 to extend, on a one-
time basis, SRs listed in Attachments 8, 10, and 11 to Enclosure 1 of 
the application that are normally performed on an 18-month frequency in 
conjunction with a refueling outage. The change extends the due date 
for these SRs to October 31, 2017, which allows these SRs to be 
performed during the first refueling outage for the Watts Bar Nuclear 
Plant, Unit 2.
    Date of issuance: April 7, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 7 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 10. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML17074A501; 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: January 17, 2017 (82 FR 
4932). The supplemental letter dated February 16, 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 April 7, 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: June 7, 2016.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised an expired 
footnote in WBN, Unit 1, Technical Specification (TS) 3.7.11, and 
corrects several editorial inconsistencies in the TS Applicability 
statements for WBN, Units 1 and 2. Additionally, WBN, Unit 2, TS 
3.7.10, Actions, are amended to include a new TS Condition, which 
specifies shutdown Required Actions and associated Completion Time when 
TS Condition E is not met (i.e., two CREVS [control room emergency 
ventilation system] trains are inoperable for longer than allowed due 
to actions taken because of a tornado warning).
    Date of issuance: March 28, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 112 (Unit 1) and 9 (Unit 2). A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16330A347; documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with 
the amendments.
    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-90 and NPF-96: The amendments 
revised the Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 2, 2016 (81 FR 
50740).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated March 28, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 13th day of April 2017.
    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Eric J. Benner,
Deputy Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of 
Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2017-08115 Filed 4-24-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7590-01-P