[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 88 (Tuesday, May 9, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21555-21567]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-09345]



[[Page 21555]]

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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2017-0112]


Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility 
Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant 
Hazards Considerations

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Biweekly notice.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 189a. (2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 
1954, as amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
(NRC) is publishing this regular biweekly notice. The Act requires the 
Commission to publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to 
be issued, and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make 
immediately effective any amendment to an operating license or combined 
license, as applicable, upon a determination by the Commission that 
such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, 
notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a 
hearing from any person.
    This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or 
proposed to be issued, from April 11 to April 24, 2017. The last 
biweekly notice was published on April 25, 2017.

DATES: Comments must be filed by June 8, 2017. A request for a hearing 
must be filed by July 10, 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-2017-0112. 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: T-8-D36M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001.
    For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting 
comments, see ``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' in the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments

A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0112, 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-2017-0112.
     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-2017-0112, 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

[[Page 21556]]

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

[[Page 21557]]

system for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise 
the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a petition or 
other adjudicatory document (even in instances in which the 
participant, or its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-
issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the 
Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the hearing in this 
proceeding if the Secretary has not already established an electronic 
docket.
    Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is 
available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/getting-started.html. Once a participant has obtained a 
digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant 
can then submit adjudicatory documents. Submissions must be in Portable 
Document Format (PDF). Additional guidance on PDF submissions is 
available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/electronic-sub-ref-mat.html. A filing is considered complete at the 
time the document is submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be 
timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system 
no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of 
a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends 
the submitter an email notice confirming receipt of the document. The 
E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access 
to the document to the NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any 
others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to 
participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the 
document on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and 
other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for 
and receive a digital ID certificate before adjudicatory documents are 
filed so that they can obtain access to the documents via the E-Filing 
system.
    A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-
Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC's Electronic 
Filing Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC's 
public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by 
email to [email protected], or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-
7640. The NRC Electronic Filing Help Desk is available between 9 a.m. 
and 6 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government 
holidays.
    Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not 
submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in 
accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing 
stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and 
requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper 
format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail 
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: 
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or 
expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and 
Adjudications Staff. Participants filing adjudicatory documents in this 
manner are responsible for serving the document on all other 
participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of 
the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or 
expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the 
provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an 
exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or 
party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines 
that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no 
longer exists.
    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 obtaining information related to this document, see 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: December 19, 2016. A publicly available 
version is in Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) 
under Accession No. ML16363A349.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would modify 
Technical Specification (TS) 5.5.2, ``Containment Leakage Rate Testing 
Program,'' by replacing the reference to Regulatory Guide 1.163, 
``Performance-Based Containment Leak-Test Program,'' with a reference 
to Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) Topical Report NEI 94-01, Revision 3-
A, ``Industry Guideline for Implementing Performance-Based Option of 10 
CFR part 50, Appendix J,'' dated July 2012, and the conditions and 
limitations specified in NEI 94-01, Revision 2-A, ``Industry Guideline 
for Implementing Performance-Based Option of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix 
J,'' dated October 2008, as the implementation documents used by 
McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, to implement the performance-
based leakage testing program in accordance with Option B of 10 CFR 
part 50, Appendix J. The proposed change would also delete the listing 
of one-time exceptions previously granted to Integrated Leak Rate Test 
(ILRT) test frequency.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment to the Technical Specifications (TS) 
involves the extension of the McGuire Nuclear Station (MNS) Type A 
containment integrated leak rate test interval to 15 years and the 
extension of the Type C test interval to 75 months for selected 
components. The current Type A test interval of 120 months (10 
years) would be extended on a permanent basis to no longer than 15 
years from the last Type A test. The current Type C test interval of 
60 months for selected components would be extended on a

[[Page 21558]]

performance basis to no longer than 75 months. Extensions of up to 
nine months (total maximum interval of 84 months for Type C tests) 
are permissible only for non-routine emergent conditions.
    The proposed extension does not involve either a physical change 
to the plant or a change in the manner in which the plant is 
operated or controlled. The containment is designed to provide an 
essentially leak tight barrier against the uncontrolled release of 
radioactivity to the environment for postulated accidents. The 
containment and the testing requirements invoked to periodically 
demonstrate the integrity of the containment exist to ensure the 
plant's ability to mitigate the consequences of an accident, and do 
not involve the prevention or identification of any precursors of an 
accident. The change in dose risk for changing the Type A test 
frequency from three-per-ten years to once-per-fifteen years, 
measured, as an increase to the total integrated plant risk for 
those accident sequences influenced by Type A testing, is 0.032 
person-rem/year. [Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)] Report 
No. 1009325, Revision 2-A states that a very small population dose 
is defined as an increase of <= 1.0 person-rem per year, or <=1% of 
the total population dose, whichever is less restrictive for the 
risk impact assessment of the extended ILRT intervals.
    Therefore, this proposed extension does not involve a 
significant increase in the probability of an accident previously 
evaluated.
    As documented in NUREG-1493, Type Band C tests have identified a 
very large percentage of containment leakage paths, and the 
percentage of containment leakage paths that are detected only by 
Type A testing is very small. The MNS Type A test history supports 
this conclusion.
    The integrity of the containment is subject to, two types of 
failure mechanisms that can be categorized as: (1) Activity based, 
and; (2) time based. Activity based failure mechanisms are defined 
as degradation due to system and/or component modifications or 
maintenance. Local leak rate test requirements and administrative 
controls such as configuration management and procedural 
requirements for system restoration ensure that containment 
integrity is not degraded by plant modifications or maintenance 
activities. The design and construction requirements of the 
containment combined with the containment inspections performed in 
accordance with [American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) 
Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,] Section XI, the Maintenance Rule, 
and TS requirements serve to provide a high degree of assurance that 
the containment would not degrade in a manner that is detectable 
only by a Type A test.
    Based on the above, the proposed extensions do not significantly 
increase the consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    The proposed amendment also deletes an exception previously 
granted to allow one-time extensions of the Unit 1 and Unit 2 ILRT 
test frequency for MNS. This exception was for activities that have 
already taken place; therefore, their deletion is solely an 
administrative action that has no effect on any component and no 
impact on how the units are operated.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not result in a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment to the TS involves the extension of the 
MNS Type A containment integrated leak rate test interval to 15 
years and the extension of the Type C test interval to 75 months for 
selected components. The current Type A test interval of 120 months 
(10 years) would be extended on a permanent basis to no longer than 
15 years from the last Type A test. The current Type C test interval 
of 60 months for selected components would be extended on a 
performance basis to no longer than 75 months. The containment and 
the testing requirements to periodically demonstrate the integrity 
of the containment exist to ensure the plant's ability to mitigate 
the consequences of an accident do not involve any accident 
precursors or initiators. The proposed change does not involve a 
physical change to the plant (i.e., no new or different type of 
equipment will be installed) or a change to the manner in which the 
plant is operated or controlled.
    The proposed amendment also deletes an exception previously 
granted to allow one-time extensions of the Unit 1 and Unit 2 ILRT 
test frequency for MNS. This exception was for activities that will 
be superseded by this activity; therefore, their deletion is solely 
an administrative action that does not result in any change in how 
the units are operated.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in the margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment to TS 5.5.2 involves the extension of the 
MNS Type A containment integrated leak rate test interval to 15 
years and the extension of the Type C test interval to 75 months for 
selected components. The current Type A test interval of 120 months 
(10 years) would be extended on a permanent basis to no longer than 
15 years from the last Type A test. The current Type C test interval 
of 60 months for selected components would be extended on a 
performance basis to no longer than 75 months. This amendment does 
not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system 
set points, or limiting conditions for operation are determined. The 
specific requirements and conditions of the TS Containment Leak Rate 
Testing Program exist to ensure that the degree of containment 
structural integrity and leak tightness that is considered in the 
plant safety analysis is maintained. The overall containment leak 
rate limit specified by TS is maintained.
    The proposed change involves only the extension of the interval 
between Type A containment leak rate tests, and Type C tests for 
MNS. The proposed surveillance interval extension is bounded by the 
15-year ILRT interval, and the 75-month Type C test interval 
currently authorized within NEI 94-01, Revision 3-A. Industry 
experience supports the conclusion that Type B and C testing detects 
a large percentage of containment leakage paths and that the 
percentage of containment leakage paths that are detected only by 
Type A testing is small. The containment inspections performed in 
accordance with [American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) 
Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,] Section XI, TS and the Maintenance 
Rule serve to provide a high degree of assurance that the 
containment would not degrade in a manner that is detectable only by 
Type A testing. The combination of these factors ensures that the 
margin of safety in the plant safety analysis is maintained. The 
design, operation, testing methods and acceptance criteria for Type 
A, B, and C containment leakage tests specified in applicable codes 
and standards would continue to be met, with the acceptance of this 
proposed change, since these are not affected by changes to the Type 
A, and Type C test intervals.
    The proposed amendment also deletes an exception previously 
granted to allow one-time extensions of the Unit 1 and Unit 2 ILRT 
test frequency for MNS. This exception was for activities that have 
already taken place; therefore, their deletion is solely an 
administrative action and does not change how the units are operated 
and maintained. Thus, there is no reduction in any margin of safety.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

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

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

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

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-317 and 50-318, Calvert 
Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Calvert County, Maryland

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-461, Clinton Power

[[Page 21559]]

Station, Unit No. 1, DeWitt County, Illinois

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

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

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

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-220 and 50-410, Nine 
Mile Point Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Oswego County, New York

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

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

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-244, R.E. Ginna Nuclear 
Power Plant, Wayne County, New York

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-289, Three Mile Island 
Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania
    Date of amendment request: March 28, 2017. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17087A028.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the 
technical specifications (TSs) based on Technical Specification Task 
Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-529, ``Clarify Use and Application Rules'' 
(ADAMS Accession No. ML16062A271). The changes would revise and clarify 
the TS usage rules for completion times, limiting conditions for 
operation (LCOs), and surveillance requirements (SRs).
    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 [TS] Section 1.3 and LCO 3.0.4 have no 
effect on the requirement for systems to be Operable and have no 
effect on the application of TS actions. The proposed change to SR 
3.0.3 (or equivalent) states that the allowance may only be used 
when there is a reasonable expectation the surveillance will be met 
when performed. Since the proposed changes do not significantly 
affect system Operability, the proposed changes will have no 
significant effect on the initiating events for accidents previously 
evaluated and will have no significant effect on the ability of the 
systems to mitigate accidents previously evaluated.
    Therefore, it is concluded that these 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 to the TS usage rules do not affect the 
design or function of any plant systems. The proposed changes do not 
change the Operability requirements for plant systems or the actions 
taken when plant systems are not operable.
    Therefore, it is concluded that the 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 clarify the application of [TS] Section 1.3 
and LCO 3.0.4 and do not result in changes in plant operation. SR 
3.0.3 (or equivalent) is revised to allow application of SR 3.0.3 
when an SR has not been previously performed if there is reasonable 
expectation that the SR will be met when performed. This expands the 
use of SR 3.0.3 while ensuring the affected system is capable of 
performing its safety function. As a result, plant safety is either 
improved or unaffected.
    Therefore, it is concluded that the 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 
requested amendments involve no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel, 
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 
60555.
    NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.

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

    Date of amendment request: March 24, 2017. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17083A083.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
revise the emergency plan (E-Plan) for MNGP. The proposed revisions to 
the E-Plan are discussed in Section 2.1, ``Proposed Changes,'' of the 
March 24, 2017, letter and include extending staff augmentation times 
for Emergency Response Organization (ERO) response functions as well as 
other changes.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed increase in staff augmentation times has no effect 
on normal plant operation or on any accident initiator or precursors 
and does not impact the function of plant structures, systems, or 
components (SSCs).
    The proposed change does not alter or prevent the ability of the 
on-shift ERO to perform their intended functions to mitigate the 
consequences of an accident or event.
    The ability of the ERO to respond adequately to radiological 
emergencies has been demonstrated as acceptable through a staffing 
analysis as required by 10 CFR 50, Appendix E, Section IV.A.9.
    Therefore, the proposed E-Plan changes do not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not impact any accident analysis. The 
proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant 
(i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be installed), a 
change in the method of plant operation, or new operator actions. 
The proposed change does not introduce failure modes that could 
result in a new accident, and the change does not alter assumptions 
made in the safety analysis. The proposed change increases the staff 
augmentation response times in the E-Plan, which are demonstrated as 
acceptable through a functional analysis as required by 10 CFR 50, 
Appendix E, Section IV.A.9. The proposed change does not alter or 
prevent the ability of the ERO to perform their intended functions 
to mitigate the consequences of an accident or event.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    Margin of safety is associated with confidence in the ability of 
the fission product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, reactor coolant 
system pressure boundary, and containment structure) to limit the 
level of

[[Page 21560]]

radiation dose to the public. The proposed change is associated with 
the E-Plan staffing and does not impact operation of the plant or 
its response to transients or accidents. The change does not affect 
the Technical Specifications. The proposed change does not involve a 
change in the method of plant operation, and no accident analyses 
will be affected by the proposed change. Safety analysis acceptance 
criteria are not affected by this proposed change. The proposed 
revisions to the E-Plan continue to provide the necessary response 
staff with the proposed change.
    A staffing analysis and a functional analysis were performed for 
the proposed change focusing on the timeliness of performing major 
tasks for the functional areas of E-Plan. The analysis concluded 
that an extension in staff augmentation times would not 
significantly affect the ability to perform the required E-Plan 
tasks. Therefore, the proposed change is determined to not adversely 
affect the ability to meet 10 CFR 50.54(q)(2), the requirements of 
10 CFR 50 Appendix E, and the emergency planning standards as 
described in 10 CFR 50.47 (b).
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

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

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

    Date of amendment request: March 27, 2017. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17086A071.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the 
Hope Creek Generating Station Technical Specifications by adopting 
Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Change Traveler TSTF-535, 
Revision 0, ``Revise Shutdown Margin Definition to Address Advanced 
Fuel Designs'' (ADAMS Accession No. ML112200436). Specifically, the 
proposed amendment would modify the Technical Specification definition 
of ``Shutdown Margin'' (SDM) to require calculation of the SDM at a 
reactor moderator temperature of 68 degrees Fahrenheit or a higher 
temperature that represents the most reactive state throughout the 
operating cycle.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change revises the definition of SDM. SDM is not an 
initiator of any accident previously evaluated. Accordingly, the 
proposed change to the definition of SDM has no effect on the 
probability of any accident previously evaluated. SDM is an 
assumption in the analysis of some previously evaluated accidents 
and inadequate SDM could lead to an increase in consequences of 
those accidents. However, the proposed change revises the SDM 
definition to ensure that the correct SDM is determined for all fuel 
types at all times during the fuel cycle. As a result, the proposed 
change does not adversely affect the consequences of any accident 
previously evaluated.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change revises the definition of SDM. The change 
does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or 
different type of equipment will be installed) or a change in the 
methods governing normal plant operations. The change does not alter 
assumptions made in the safety analysis regarding SDM.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change revises the definition of SDM. The proposed 
change does not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting 
safety system settings or limiting conditions for operation are 
determined. The proposed change ensures that the SDM assumed in 
determining safety limits, limiting safety system settings or 
limiting conditions for operation is correct for all BWR [boiling-
water reactor] fuel types at all times during the fuel cycle.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Jeffrie J. Keenan, PSEG Nuclear LLC--N21, 
P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038.
    NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna.

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: March 30, 2017. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17089A687.
    Description of amendment request: The requested amendment proposes 
changes to combined license (COL) Appendix C (and plant-specific Tier 
1) Table 3.3-3, which identifies Class 1E divisional cables in various 
Auxiliary Building fire areas, and involves changes to related Tier 2 
information in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). The 
proposed activity revises Table 3.3-3 to add a second note, Note 2, 
identifying that Class 1E Protection and Safety Monitoring System (PMS) 
interdivisional fiber-optic cables are terminated in the identified 
Auxiliary Building fire areas, in addition to the cable divisions 
currently listed for these areas. ``Interdivisional'' cables are 
defined as cables that interconnect PMS divisions, including Division 
A, B, C, and D cables.
    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 changes to COL Appendix C (and plant-specific Tier 1) Table 
3.3-3 and UFSAR Appendix 9A do not involve any accidents which are 
previously evaluated. The interdivisional cables provide signals 
associated with some safe shutdown functions in accordance with 
UFSAR Subsection 7.4.1.1, which describes safe shutdown functions 
using safety-related systems. Therefore, these cables are required 
for safe shutdown. Accident analyses as described in UFSAR Ch. 15 
are not changed as fire-related events in the Auxiliary Building are 
evaluated separately in UFSAR Appendix 9A for plant safe shutdown. A 
concurrent single active component failure independent of a fire is 
not assumed in this evaluation. Voting logic for PMS control 
functions is not adversely affected as the fiber-optic cables 
associated with these PMS cabinets in the specified fire areas 
function using two-out-of-four (2oo4), 2oo3, or 1oo2 logic. 
Redundant cable divisions which support PMS functions are routed 
separately in other fire areas and will not be affected in

[[Page 21561]]

the event of a fire in one of the identified fire areas. PMS 
setpoints for reactor trip functions and engineered safeguards 
features (ESF) functions as described in UFSAR Table 15.0-4a are not 
changed as functions provided by the PMS cabinets and cables are not 
adversely affected. PMS is designed to operate with the loss of a 
single division. Existing accidents previously evaluated are not 
affected and do not require further analysis. As described in 
Appendix 9A, in no case does the spurious actuation of equipment 
prevent safe shutdown. This conclusion remains valid for the 
proposed changes.
    Changes to the safe shutdown evaluation account for 
interdivisional fiber-optic cables inside of divisional fire areas; 
however, safe shutdown functions are not changed. Loss of 
interdivisional fiber-optic cabling is not a reduction in the safety 
of the plant as the PMS is designed to operate despite the loss of 
an entire division. Furthermore, fire protection analyses as 
described in UFSAR Appendix 9A are not adversely affected by this 
activity as fire protection requirements and equipment are not 
changed. Conclusions of the associated safe shutdown evaluations are 
not changed. No safety-related structure, system, component (SSC) or 
function is adversely affected by this change. 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 plant-specific UFSAR are not affected. 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 COL Appendix C (and plant-specific Tier 
1) Table 3.3-3 and UFSAR Appendix 9A do not affect any safety-
related equipment, and do not add any new interfaces to safety-
related SSCs. No system or design function or equipment 
qualification is affected by these changes as the changes do not 
modify any SSCs. The existing interdivisional fiber-optic Class 1E 
cable routing is acceptable because redundant PMS divisions are 
routed in separate fire areas and can perform safe shutdown 
functions as required. Redundant cable divisions will not be 
affected in the event of a fire in one of the identified fire areas. 
PMS is designed to operate with the loss of a single division. PMS 
control functions continue being performed using reduced coincidence 
logic in the event of a fire when a single division is lost.
    The changes do not introduce a new failure mode, malfunction or 
sequence of events that could affect safety or safety-related 
equipment. Safe shutdown functions are not changed as a result of 
this activity as the loss of an entire divisional room does not 
disable safe shutdown functions. Separation of cables in the 
designated Auxiliary Building fire areas is not adversely impacted. 
A concurrent single active component failure independent of a fire 
is not assumed in this evaluation as described in UFSAR Appendix 9A. 
There is no adverse impact to any other fire areas or safe shutdown 
functions listed in COL Appendix C (and plant-specific Tier 1) Table 
3.3-3 and UFSAR Appendix 9A. Changes to the identified cables in the 
specified fire areas do not affect the operator's ability to safely 
shut down the plant in the event of a fire. Safe shutdown 
conclusions identified for each fire area is not changed by these 
activities as safe shutdown functions are not affected.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The changes to COL Appendix C (and plant-specific Tier 1) Table 
3.3-3 and UFSAR Appendix 9A design information, including fire areas 
1201 AF 02, 1201 AF 03, 1202 AF 03, and 1202 AF 04, do not adversely 
affect the safety-related functions of the safe shutdown Class 1E 
divisions or any function associated with safe shutdown. 
Interdivisional fiber-optic cabling is not adversely affected and 
plant control functions are not changed as PMS is designed to 
operate with a loss of a single division. This activity does not 
reduce the margin of safety regarding fire protection within the 
plant. The changes do not affect any other safety-related equipment 
or fission product barriers. The requested changes will not affect 
any design code, function, design analysis, safety analysis input or 
result, or design/safety margin. No safety analysis or design basis 
acceptance limit/criterion is challenged or exceeded by the 
requested changes. Redundant cables are terminated in other fire 
areas. Voting logic for actuation of PMS control functions is not 
changed and plant responses to potential spurious actuation are not 
adversely affected by these activities.
    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: Ms. Kathryn M. Sutton, Morgan, Lewis & 
Bockius LLC, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004-2514.
    NRC Branch Chief: Jennifer Dixon-Herrity.

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

    Date of amendment request: April 6, 2017. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17096A765.
    Description of amendment request: The requested amendment proposes 
changes to combined license (COL) Appendix C (and plant-specific Tier 
1) Table 3.3-3, which identifies Class 1E divisional cables in various 
Auxiliary Building fire areas, and involves changes to related Tier 2 
information in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). The 
proposed activity revises Table 3.3-3 to add a second note, Note 2, 
identifying that Class 1E Protection and Safety Monitoring System (PMS) 
interdivisional fiber-optic cables are terminated in the identified 
Auxiliary Building fire areas, in addition to the cable divisions 
currently listed for these areas. ``Interdivisional'' cables are 
defined as cables that interconnect PMS divisions, including Division 
A, B, C, and D cables.
    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 changes to COL Appendix C (and plant-specific Tier 1) Table 
3.3-3 and UFSAR Appendix 9A do not involve any accidents which are 
previously evaluated. The interdivisional cables provide signals 
associated with some safe shutdown functions in accordance with 
UFSAR Subsection 7.4.1.1, which describes safe shutdown functions 
using safety-related systems. Therefore, these cables are required 
for safe shutdown. Accident analyses as described in UFSAR Ch. 15 
are not changed as fire-related events in the Auxiliary Building are 
evaluated separately in UFSAR Appendix 9A for plant safe shutdown. A 
concurrent single active component failure independent of a fire is 
not assumed in this evaluation. Voting logic for PMS control 
functions is not adversely affected as the fiber-optic cables 
associated with these PMS cabinets in the specified fire areas 
function using two-out-of-four (2oo4), two-out-of-three (2oo3), or 
one-out-of-two (1oo2) logic. Redundant cable divisions which support 
PMS functions are routed separately in other fire areas and will not 
be affected in the event of a fire in one of the identified fire 
areas. PMS setpoints for reactor trip functions and engineered 
safeguards features (ESF) functions as described in UFSAR Table 
15.0-

[[Page 21562]]

4a are not changed as functions provided by the PMS cabinets and 
cables are not adversely affected. PMS is designed to operate with 
the loss of a single division. Existing accidents previously 
evaluated are not affected and do not require further analysis. As 
described in Appendix 9A, in no case does the spurious actuation of 
equipment prevent safe shutdown. This conclusion remains valid for 
the proposed changes.
    Changes to the safe shutdown evaluation account for 
interdivisional fiber-optic cables inside of divisional fire areas; 
however, safe shutdown functions are not changed. Loss of 
interdivisional fiber-optic cabling is not a reduction in the safety 
of the plant as the PMS is designed to operate despite the loss of 
an entire division. Furthermore, fire protection analyses as 
described in UFSAR Appendix 9A are not adversely affected by this 
activity as fire protection requirements and equipment are not 
changed. Conclusions of the associated safe shutdown evaluations are 
not changed. No safety-related structure, system, component (SSC) or 
function is adversely affected by this change. 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. 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 COL Appendix C (and plant-specific Tier 
1) Table 3.3-3 and UFSAR Appendix 9A do not affect any safety-
related equipment, and do not add any new interfaces to safety-
related SSCs. No system or design function or equipment 
qualification is affected by these changes as the changes do not 
modify any SSCs. The existing interdivisional fiber-optic Class 1E 
cable routing is acceptable because redundant PMS divisions are 
routed in separate fire areas and can perform safe shutdown 
functions as required. Redundant cable divisions will not be 
affected in the event of a fire in one of the identified fire areas. 
PMS is designed to operate with the loss of a single division. PMS 
control functions continue being performed using reduced coincidence 
logic in the event of a fire when a single division is lost.
    The changes do not introduce a new failure mode, malfunction or 
sequence of events that could affect safety or safety-related 
equipment. Safe shutdown functions are not changed as a result of 
this activity as the loss of an entire divisional room does not 
disable safe shutdown functions. Separation of cables in the 
designated Auxiliary Building fire areas is not adversely impacted. 
A concurrent single active component failure independent of a fire 
is not assumed in this evaluation as described in UFSAR Appendix 9A. 
There is no adverse impact to any other fire areas or safe shutdown 
functions listed in COL Appendix C (and plant-specific Tier 1) Table 
3.3-3 and UFSAR Appendix 9A. Changes to the identified cables in the 
specified fire areas do not affect the operator's ability to safely 
shut down the plant in the event of a fire. Safe shutdown 
conclusions identified for each fire area are not changed by these 
activities as safe shutdown functions are not affected.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The changes to COL Appendix C (and plant-specific Tier 1) Table 
3.3-3 and UFSAR Appendix 9A design information, including fire areas 
1201 AF 02, 1201 AF 03, 1202 AF 03, and 1202 AF 04, do not adversely 
affect the safety-related functions of the safe shutdown Class 1E 
divisions or any function associated with safe shutdown. 
Interdivisional fiber-optic cabling is not adversely affected and 
plant control functions are not changed as PMS is designed to 
operate with a loss of a single division. This activity does not 
reduce the margin of safety regarding fire protection within the 
plant. The changes do not affect any other safety-related equipment 
or fission product barriers. The requested changes will not affect 
any design code, function, design analysis, safety analysis input or 
result, or design/safety margin. No safety analysis or design basis 
acceptance limit/criterion is challenged or exceeded by the 
requested changes. Redundant cables are terminated in other fire 
areas. Voting logic for actuation of PMS control functions is not 
changed and plant responses to potential spurious actuation are not 
adversely affected by these activities.
    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, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-
364, Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Houston County, 
Alabama

    Date of amendment request: March 22, 2017. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17081A484.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would 
revise Technical Specification (TS) 3.7.1, ``Main Steam Safety Valves 
(MSSVs),'' to resolve a non-conservative moderator temperature 
coefficient value.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change revises the TS for the purpose of correcting 
a non-conservative value. The proposed TS change does not introduce 
new equipment or new equipment operating modes, nor does the 
proposed change alter existing system relationships. The proposed 
change does not affect normal plant operation. Further, the proposed 
change does not increase the likelihood of the malfunction of any 
system, structure, or component, or negatively impact any analyzed 
accident. This change corrects the TS to ensure all associated 
accident analyses are adequately considered. The probability of an 
accident previously evaluated is not affected and there is no 
significant increase in the consequences of any accident previously 
evaluated.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change revises the TS for the purpose of correcting 
a non-conservative value. The change does not involve a physical 
alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment 
will be installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant 
operations. The proposed change does not alter assumptions made in 
the safety analysis. Further, the proposed change does not introduce 
new accident initiators.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change revises the TS for the purpose of correcting 
a non-conservative value. The proposed change does not alter the 
manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system settings, or 
limiting conditions for operation are determined. The safety 
analysis assumptions and acceptance criteria are not affected by 
this change.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.


[[Page 21563]]


    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Jennifer M. Buettner, Associate General 
Counsel, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., 40 Inverness Center 
Parkway, Birmingham, AL 35242.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

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

    Date of amendment request: March 24, 2017. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17083B097.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise 
Technical Specification 3.7.9, ``Ultimate Heat Sink (UHS),'' to extend 
the Completion Time to restore one inoperable nuclear service cooling 
water (NSCW) basin transfer pump from 31 days to 46 days. In addition, 
a new Condition is added to address two inoperable NSCW basin transfer 
pumps.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment does not affect accident initiators or 
precursors nor adversely alter the design assumptions, conditions, 
and configuration of the facility. The proposed amendment does not 
alter any plant equipment or operating practices with respect to 
such initiators or precursors in a manner that the probability of an 
accident is increased.
    The proposed amendment extends the time one NSCW basin transfer 
pump is allowed to be inoperable and provides remedial action 
requirements when two NSCW basin transfer pumps are inoperable. The 
proposed amendment does not involve a physical change to the NSCW 
system, nor does it change the safety function of the NSCW system or 
the equipment supported by the NSCW system. The UHS will remain 
capable of responding to a design basis event during the period of 
time both NSCW basin transfer pumps are unavailable. Additionally, 
an alternate method of NSCW cooling tower basin transfer will be 
implemented prior to the need for the transfer function during an 
accident when one or both NSCW basin transfer pumps are inoperable. 
As a result, the proposed amendment does not alter assumptions 
relative to the mitigation of an accident or transient event.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
difference accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    With respect to a new or different kind of accident, there are o 
[no] proposed design changes to the NSCW system, cooling tower basin 
transfer system, or UHS; nor are there any changes in the method by 
which safety related plant structures, systems, and components 
perform their specified safety functions. The proposed amendment 
will not affect the normal method of plant operation or revise any 
operating parameters. No new accident scenarios, transient 
precursor, failure mechanisms, or limiting single failures will be 
introduced as a result of this proposed change.
    The proposed amendment does not alter the design or performance 
of the NSCW system, cooling towers, basin transfer system, or UHS. 
The proposed amendment extends the time one NSCW basin transfer pump 
is allowed to be inoperable ad provides remedial actions when two 
NSCW basin transfer pumps are inoperable. The compensatory measures 
when two NSCW basin transfer pumps are inoperable are consistent 
with the compensatory measures allowed when one NSCW basin transfer 
pump is inoperable.
    No changes are being proposed to the procedures that operate the 
plant equipment and the change does not have a detrimental impact on 
the manner in which plant equipment operates or response to an 
actuation signal.
    Therefore, the proposed change will not create the possibility 
of a new or different accident previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in 
the margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The margin of safety is related to the ability of the fission 
product barriers to perform their design functions during and 
following an accident. These barriers include the fuel cladding, the 
reactor coolant system, and the containment. The performance of 
these fission product barriers will not be affected by the proposed 
change.
    The proposed amendment extends the time one NSCW basin transfer 
pump is allowed to be inoperable and provides remedial action 
requirements when two NSCW basin transfer pumps are inoperable. The 
UHS will remain capable of responding to a design basis event during 
the extended time one inoperable NSCW basin transfer pump is 
unavailable and the brief period of time the NSCW basin transfer 
function is unavailable. An alternate method of NSCW cooling tower 
basin transfer will be implemented prior to the need for the 
transfer function during an accident. For these reasons, the NSCW 
system and the UHS will continue to be capable of transferring the 
combined heat load of structures, systems, and components important 
to safety under normal and accident conditions.
    Therefore, the margin to the onsite and offsite radiological 
dose limits are not impacted by the proposed amendment and, thus the 
proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin 
of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Jennifer M. Buettner, Associate General 
Counsel, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 40 Iverness Center 
Parkway, Birmingham, AL 35242.
    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

III. Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses 
and Combined Licenses

    During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, 
the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has 
determined for each of these amendments that the application complies 
with the standards and requirements of the 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

[[Page 21564]]

Assessment as indicated. All of these items can be accessed as 
described in the ``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' 
section of this document.

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

    Date of amendment request: February 23, 2017, as supplemented by 
letter dated March 30, 2017.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical 
Specification requirements for the high pressure coolant injection 
system and reactor core isolation cooling system actuation 
instrumentation.
    Date of issuance: April 14, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 206. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML17076A027; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-43: The amendment 
revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical 
Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 13, 2017 (82 FR 
13512). The supplemental letter dated March 30, 2017, provided 
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand 
the scope of the application as originally noted, 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 and final no 
significant hazards determination is contained in a Safety Evaluation 
dated April 14, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: April 13, 2016, as supplemented by 
letter dated March 1, 2017.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the 
Allowable Values (AVs) of Surveillance Requirements (SRs) contained in 
Technical Specification 3.3.8.2, ``RPS Electric Power Monitoring,'' by 
amending the Reactor Protection System electric power monitoring 
assembly AVs for overvoltage and undervoltage contained within SRs 
3.3.8.2.2 and 3.3.8.2.3
    Date of issuance: April 11, 2017.
    Effective date: As of date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 120 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 273 and 301. A publicly-available version is in 
ADAMS under Accession No. ML16343A246; documents related to these 
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 
amendments.
    Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-71 and DPR-62: Amendments 
revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 7, 2016 (81 FR 
36613). The supplemental letter dated March 1, 2017, 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 amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated April 11, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: September 15, 2016.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments changed Combined 
License Nos. NPF-93 and NPF-94 for the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear 
Station, Units 2 and 3. The amendments changed the Updated Final Safety 
Analysis Report (UFSAR) in the form of departures from the incorporated 
plant-specific Design Control Document (DCD) Tier 2* information. 
Specifically, the changes revised the combined operating licenses and 
clarify information in WCAP-17179, ``AP1000[supreg] Component Interface 
Module Technical Report,'' which demonstrates design compliance with 
licensing bases requirements. The WCAP-17179 is incorporated by 
reference into the UFSAR to provide additional details regarding the 
component interface module (CIM) system design. The amendments also 
proposed a change to the CIM internal power supply that will enable 
proper functioning of the field programmable gate arrays.
    Date of issuance: April 12, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 71. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML17040A184; documents related to these amendments are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-93 and NPF-94: Amendments 
revised the UFSAR in the form of departures from the incorporated 
plant-specific DCD Tier 2* information.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 25, 2016 (81 FR 
73437).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated April 12, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

TEX Operations Company LLC, Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446, Comanche 
Peak Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 (CPNPP), Somervell County, 
Texas

    Date of amendment request: April 27, 2016, as supplemented by 
letter dated June 30, 2016.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the 
technical specifications (TSs) for CPNPP consistent with Technical 
Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Standard Technical Specifications 
Change Traveler TSTF-545, Revision 3, ``TS Inservice Testing Program 
Removal & Clarify SR [Surveillance Requirement] Usage Rule Application 
to Section 5.5 Testing,'' dated October 21, 2015. The changes include 
deleting the current TS requirements for the Inservice Testing Program, 
adding a new defined term, ``INSERVICE TESTING PROGRAM,'' to the TSs, 
and revising other TSs to reference this new defined term instead of 
the deleted program.
    Date of issuance: April 13, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 120 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: Unit 1--168; Unit 2--168. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17074A494; documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with 
the amendments.
    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-87 and NPF-89: The amendments 
revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 19, 2016 (81 FR 
46963). The supplemental letter dated June 30, 2016, provided 
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand 
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change 
the NRC staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration

[[Page 21565]]

determination as published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated April 13, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

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

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

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

[[Page 21566]]

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

B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)

    All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a 
request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition), any 
motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the 
submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and 
documents filed by interested governmental entities that request to 
participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the 
NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007, as amended at 77 FR 
46562, August 3, 2012). The E-Filing process requires participants to 
submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in 
some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Detailed 
guidance on making electronic submissions may be found in the Guidance 
for Electronic Submissions to the NRC and on the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants may not submit 
paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in 
accordance with the procedures described below.
    To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 
days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the 
Office of the Secretary by email at [email protected], or by 
telephone at 301-415-1677, to (1) request a digital identification (ID) 
certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or 
representative) to digitally sign submissions and access the E-Filing 
system for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise 
the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a petition or 
other adjudicatory document (even in instances in which the 
participant, or its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-
issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the 
Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the hearing in this 
proceeding if the Secretary has not already established an electronic 
docket.
    Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is 
available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/getting-started.html. Once a participant has obtained a 
digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant 
can then submit adjudicatory documents. Submissions must be in Portable 
Document Format (PDF). Additional guidance on PDF submissions is 
available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/electronic-sub-ref-mat.html. A filing is considered complete at the 
time the document is submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be 
timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system 
no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of 
a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends 
the submitter an email notice confirming receipt of the document. The 
E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access 
to the document to the NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any 
others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to 
participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the 
document on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and 
other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for 
and receive a digital ID certificate before adjudicatory documents are 
filed so that they can obtain access to the documents via the E-Filing 
system.
    A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-
Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC's Electronic 
Filing Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC's 
public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by 
email to [email protected], or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-
7640. The NRC Electronic Filing Help Desk is available between 9 a.m. 
and 6 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government 
holidays.
    Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not 
submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in 
accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing 
stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and 
requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper 
format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class

[[Page 21567]]

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.

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

    Date of amendment request: April 4, 2017, as supplemented by letter 
dated April 8, 2017.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment is a one-time 
change to the licensing basis for the service water cooling tower, 
which provides the standby seismically qualified ultimate heat sink for 
Seabrook Station, Unit No. 1, to be removed from service for 
maintenance on the cooling tower basin with the reactor plant in 
operational Modes 5 or 6, cold shutdown or refueling, respectively, 
during the April 2017 refueling outage. During the maintenance period, 
the normal heat sink provided by the non-seismic tunnel access to the 
Atlantic Ocean would remain in service.
    Date of issuance: April 13, 2017.
    Effective date: This license amendment is effective as of its date 
of issuance and shall be implemented immediately for the period that 
Seabrook Station, Unit No. 1, is in Modes 5 and 6 during the April 2017 
refueling outage.
    Amendment No.: 155. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML17102A889; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Facility Operating License No. NPF-86: Amendment revised the 
Facility Operating License licensing basis.
    Public comments requested as to proposed no significant hazards 
consideration (NSHC): Yes. The Portsmouth Herald and The Boston Globe 
on April 10, 2017, and April 11, 2017. The notice provided an 
opportunity to submit comments on the Commission's proposed NSHC 
determination. A public comment was received and addressed in the 
Safety Evaluation.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment, finding of 
exigent circumstances, state consultation, and final NSHC determination 
are contained in a Safety Evaluation dated April 13, 2017.
    Attorney for licensee: William Blair, Managing Attorney--Nuclear 
Florida Power & Light Company, P.O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, FL 33408-
0420.
    NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 28th day of April 2017.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Kathryn M. Brock,
Deputy Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of 
Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2017-09345 Filed 5-8-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P