[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 146 (Tuesday, August 1, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35835-35844]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-15986]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2017-0169]


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 July 4, 2017 to July 17, 2017. The last 
biweekly notice was published on July 18, 2017.

DATES: Comments must be filed by August 31, 2017. A request for a 
hearing must be filed by October 2, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods 
(unless this document describes a different method for submitting 
comments on a specific subject):
     Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2017-0169. 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: TWFN-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: Paula Blechman, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2242, email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments

A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0169, 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-2017-0169.
     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-2017-0169, 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.

[[Page 35836]]

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

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

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

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

[[Page 35837]]

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

B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)

    All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a 
request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition), any 
motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the 
submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and 
documents filed by interested governmental entities that request to 
participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the 
NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007, as amended at 77 FR 
46562, August 3, 2012). The E-Filing process requires participants to 
submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in 
some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Detailed 
guidance on making electronic submissions may be found in the Guidance 
for Electronic Submissions to the NRC and on the NRC's Web site at 
http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants may not 
submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in 
accordance with the procedures described below.
    To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 
days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the 
Office of the Secretary by email at [email protected], or by 
telephone at 301-415-1677, to (1) request a digital identification (ID) 
certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or 
representative) to digitally sign submissions and access the E-Filing 
system for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise 
the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a petition or 
other adjudicatory document (even in instances in which the 
participant, or its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-
issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the 
Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the hearing in this 
proceeding if the Secretary has not already established an electronic 
docket.
    Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is 
available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/getting-started.html. Once a participant has obtained a 
digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant 
can then submit adjudicatory documents. Submissions must be in Portable 
Document Format (PDF). Additional guidance on PDF submissions is 
available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/electronic-sub-ref-mat.html. A filing is considered complete at the 
time the document is submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be 
timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system 
no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of 
a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends 
the submitter an email notice confirming receipt of the document. The 
E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access 
to the document to the NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any 
others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to 
participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the 
document on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and 
other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for 
and receive a digital ID certificate before adjudicatory documents are 
filed so that they can obtain access to the documents via the E-Filing 
system.
    A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-
Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC's Electronic 
Filing Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC's 
public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by 
email to [email protected], or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-
7640. The NRC Electronic Filing Help Desk is available between 9 a.m. 
and 6 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government 
holidays.
    Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not 
submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in 
accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing 
stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and 
requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper 
format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail 
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: 
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or 
expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and 
Adjudications Staff. Participants filing adjudicatory documents in this 
manner are responsible for serving the document on all other 
participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of 
the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or 
expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the 
provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an 
exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or 
party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines 
that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no 
longer exists.
    Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the 
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at 
https://adams.nrc.gov/ehd, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the 
Commission or the presiding officer. If you do not have an NRC-issued 
digital ID certificate as described above, click cancel when the link 
requests certificates and you will be automatically directed to the 
NRC's electronic hearing dockets where you will be able to access any 
publicly available documents in a particular hearing docket. 
Participants are requested not to include personal privacy information, 
such as social security numbers, home addresses, or personal phone 
numbers in their filings, unless an NRC regulation or other law 
requires submission of such information. For example, in some 
instances, individuals provide home addresses in order to demonstrate 
proximity to a facility or site. With respect to copyrighted works, 
except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory 
filings and would constitute a Fair Use application, participants are 
requested not to include copyrighted materials in their submission.
    For further details with respect to these license amendment 
applications, see the application for amendment which is available for 
public inspection in ADAMS and at the NRC's PDR. For additional 
direction on accessing

[[Page 35838]]

information related to this document, see the ``Obtaining Information 
and Submitting Comments'' section of this document.

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. 72-8, Calvert Cliffs 
Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation, Calvert County, Maryland

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

    Date of amendment request: May 31, 2017. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Package Accession No. ML17164A149.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the 
emergency plans for each facility by changing the emergency action 
level (EAL) schemes. The proposed changes are based on the Nuclear 
Energy Institute's (NEI's) guidance in NEI 99-01, Revision 6, 
``Development of Emergency Action Levels for Non-Passive Reactors,'' 
which was endorsed by the NRC by letter dated March 28, 2013 (ADAMS 
Accession No. ML12346A463).
    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 Exelon's EAL schemes to adopt the NRC-
endorsed guidance in NEI 99-01, Revision 6, do not reduce the 
capability to meet the emergency planning requirements established 
in 10 CFR 50.47 and 10 CFR part 50, appendix E. The proposed changes 
do not reduce the functionality, performance, or capability of 
Exelon's ERO [emergency response organization] to respond in 
mitigating the consequences of any design basis accident. The 
probability of a reactor accident requiring implementation of 
Emergency Plan EALs has no relevance in determining whether the 
proposed changes to the EALs reduce the effectiveness of the 
Emergency Plans. As discussed in Section D, ``Planning Basis,'' of 
NUREG-0654, Revision 1, ``Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of 
Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of 
Nuclear Power Plants'';
    . . . The overall objective of emergency response plans is to 
provide dose savings (and in some cases immediate life saving) for a 
spectrum of accidents that could produce offsite doses in excess of 
Protective Action Guides (PAGs). No single specific accident 
sequence should be isolated as the one for which to plan because 
each accident could have different consequences, both in nature and 
degree. Further, the range of possible selection for a planning 
basis is very large, starting with a zero point of requiring no 
planning at all because significant offsite radiological accident 
consequences are unlikely to occur, to planning for the worst 
possible accident, regardless of its extremely low likelihood. . . .
    Therefore, Exelon did not consider the risk insights regarding 
any specific accident initiation or progression in evaluating the 
proposed changes.
    The proposed changes do not involve any physical changes to 
plant equipment or systems, nor do they alter the assumptions of any 
accident analyses. The proposed changes do not adversely affect 
accident initiators or precursors nor do they alter the design 
assumptions, conditions, and configuration or the manner in which 
the plants are operated and maintained. The proposed changes do not 
adversely affect the ability of Structures, Systems, or Components 
(SSCs) to perform their intended safety functions in mitigating the 
consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance 
limits.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes to Exelon's EAL schemes to adopt the NRC-
endorsed guidance in NEI 99-01, Revision 6, do not involve any 
physical changes to plant systems or equipment. The proposed changes 
do not involve the addition of any new plant equipment. The proposed 
changes will not alter the design configuration, or method of 
operation of plant equipment beyond its normal functional 
capabilities. All Exelon ERO functions will continue to be performed 
as required. The proposed changes do not create any new credible 
failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident initiators.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from those that have been 
previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes to Exelon's EAL schemes to adopt the NRC-
endorsed guidance in NEI 99-01, Revision 6, do not alter or exceed a 
design basis or safety limit. There is no change being made to 
safety analysis assumptions, safety limits, or limiting safety 
system settings that would adversely affect plant safety as a result 
of the proposed changes.
    There are no changes to setpoints or environmental conditions of 
any SSC or the manner in which any SSC is operated. Margins of 
safety are unaffected by the proposed changes to adopt the NEI 99-
01, Revision 6 EAL scheme guidance. The applicable requirements of 
10 CFR 50.47 and 10 CFR part 50, appendix E will continue to be met.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve any 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.

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

    Date of amendment request: May 3, 2017. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17123A104.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
revise the DNPS, Units 2 and 3, technical specifications by replacing 
the existing specifications related to Regulatory Guide 1.163, 
``Performance-Based Containment Leak-Test Program,'' with a reference 
to Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 94-01, ``Industry Guideline for 
Implementing Performance-Based Option of 10 CFR part 50, appendix J,'' 
Revision 3-A, and the conditions and limitations specified in NEI 94-
01, Revision 2-A, as the documents used by DNPS to implement the 
performance-based leakage testing program in accordance with Option B 
of 10 CFR part 50, appendix J.
    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 activity involves revision of the Dresden Nuclear 
Power Station (DNPS) Technical Specification (TS) 5.5. 12. ``Primary 
Containment Leakage Rate Testing Program,'' to allow the extension 
of the DNPS, Units 2 and 3. Type A containment integrated leakage 
rate test (ILRT) interval to

[[Page 35839]]

15 years, and the extension of the Type C local leakage rate test 
interval to 75 months. The current Type A test interval of 120 
months (i.e., 10 years) would be extended on a permanent basis to no 
longer than 15 years from the last Type A test. The existing Type C 
test interval of 60 months for selected components would be extended 
on a performance basis to no longer than 75 months. Extensions of up 
to nine months (i.e., 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. As 
such,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, ILRT interval 
from three-per-ten years to once-per-fifteen-years, measured as an 
increase to the total integrated dose risk for all internal events 
accident sequences for DNPS, is 4.26E-02 person-roentgen equivalent 
man (rem)/year (0.27 percent (%)) using the Electric Power Research 
Institute (EPR) guidance with the base case corrosion included. The 
change in dose risk drops to 1.14E-02 person-rem/year (i.e., 0.07%) 
when using the EPRI Expert Elicitation methodology. The values 
calculated per the EPRI guidance are all lower than the acceptance 
criteria of less than or equal to 1.0 person-rem/year or less than 
1.0% person-rem/year defined in Section 1.3 of Attachment 3 to this 
LAR (license amendment request).
    Therefore, this proposed extension does not involve a 
significant increase in the probability of an accident previously 
evaluated.
    As documented in NUREG-1493, ``Performance-Based Containment 
Leak-Test Program,'' dated January 1995, Types B and 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 DNPS, Units 2 and 3 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) 
Section XI, 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 
test interval extensions do not significantly increase the 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    The proposed amendment also deletes an exception previously 
granted in License Amendments Nos. 210 and 202 for DNPS, Units 2 and 
3, respectively, to allow one-time extensions of the ILRT test 
frequency. This exception was for an activity that has already taken 
place; therefore, this deletion is solely a non-technical, editorial 
change that does not result in any alteration in how DNPS, Units 2 
and 3 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 previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment to TS 5.5.12 involves the extension of 
the DNPS, Units 2 and 3 Type A containment test interval to 15 years 
and the extension of the Type C test interval to 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.
    The proposed change does not involve a physical modification to 
the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be 
installed), nor does it alter the design, configuration, or change 
the manner in which the plant is operated or controlled beyond the 
standard functional capabilities of the equipment.
    The proposed amendment also deletes an exception previously 
granted under TS License Amendment Nos. 210 and 202 for Units 2 and 
3, respectively to allow one-time extensions of the ILRT test 
frequency. This exception was for an activity that has already taken 
place; therefore, this deletion is solely a non-technical, editorial 
change that does not result in any alteration in how DNPS, Units 2 
and 3 are operated.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated 
for DNPS, Units 2 and 3.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed amendment to TS 5.5.12 involves the extension of 
the DNPS, Units 2 and 3 Type A containment test interval to 15 years 
and the extension of the Type C test interval to 75 months for 
selected components. 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 the extension of the interval 
between Type A containment leak rate tests and Type C tests for 
DNPS, Units 2 and 3. 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 Types 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 ASME Code, Section Xl and TS 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 Types 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 under TS License Amendments Nos. 210 and 202 for Units 2 and 
3, respectively to allow one-time extensions of the ILRT test 
frequency for DNPS, Units 2 and 3. This exception was for an 
activity that has taken place; therefore, the deletion is solely a 
non-technical, editorial change that does not result in any 
alteration in how DNPS, Units 2 and 3 are operated and maintained. 
Thus, there is no reduction in any margin of safety.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

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

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

    Date of amendment request: May 31, 2017. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17151A214.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the 
Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 2, Technical Specifications, to 
allow operation of ventilation systems with charcoal filters in 
accordance with Technical Specifications Task Force

[[Page 35840]]

(TSTF) Improved Standard Technical Specifications Change Traveler, 
TSTF-522, Revision 0, ``Revise Ventilation System Surveillance 
Requirements to Operate for 10 hours per Month'' (ADAMS Accession No. 
ML100890316).
    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 replaces an existing Surveillance 
Requirement to operate the SGT [Standby Gas Treatment] System and 
CREF [Control Room Envelope Filtration] Systems equipped with 
electric heaters for a continuous 10-hour period every 31 days with 
a requirement to operate the systems for 15 continuous minutes with 
heaters operating, if needed.
    These systems are not accident initiators, and therefore, these 
changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability of 
an accident. The proposed system and filter testing changes are 
consistent with current regulatory guidance for these systems and 
will continue to assure that these systems perform their design 
function which may include mitigating accidents. Thus, the change 
does not involve a significant increase in the consequences of an 
accident.
    Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change replaces an existing Surveillance 
Requirement to operate the SGT System and CREF Systems equipped with 
electric heaters for a continuous 10-hour period every 31 days with 
a requirement to operate the systems for 15 continuous minutes with 
heaters operating, if needed.
    The change proposed for these ventilation systems does not 
change any system operations or maintenance activities. Testing 
requirements will be revised and will continue to demonstrate that 
the Limiting Conditions for Operation are met and the system 
components are capable of performing their intended safety 
functions. The change does not create new failure modes or 
mechanisms and no new accident precursors are generated.
    Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change replaces an existing Surveillance 
Requirement to operate the SGT System and CREF Systems equipped with 
electric heaters for a continuous 10-hour period every 31 days with 
a requirement to operate the systems for 15 continuous minutes with 
heaters operating, if needed.
    The design basis for the ventilation systems' heaters is to heat 
the incoming air which reduces the relative humidity. The heater 
testing change proposed will continue to demonstrate that the 
heaters are capable of heating the air and will perform their design 
function. The proposed change is consistent with regulatory 
guidance.
    Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not involve a 
significant reduction in a margin of safety.

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

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-289, Three Mile Island 
Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania

    Date of amendment request: March 22, 2017. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17081A425.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would make 
administrative changes to Three Mile Island, Unit 1, Technical 
Specifications (TSs). In particular, the proposed amendment would (1) 
update TS 5.4.2 for the current number of fuel assemblies and number of 
reactor cores that are stored in Spent Fuel Pool A; (2) revise TS 6.1.2 
requirements for the Chief Nuclear Officer to eliminate the annual 
management directive to all unit personnel responsible for the control 
room command function; and (3) delete the TS 6.2.2.2.d footnote that 
references Control Room Supervisors who do not possess a Senior Reactor 
Operator NRC License.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes do not involve the modification of any 
plant equipment or affect plant operation. The proposed changes will 
have no impact on any safety related structures, systems, or 
components. The proposed changes are administrative in nature and 
there are no changes to the conduct of control room licensed 
operators during evaluated accidents.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2 Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes have no impact on the design, function or 
operation of any plant structure, system or component. The proposed 
changes do not affect plant equipment or accident analyses. The 
proposed changes are administrative in nature.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes do not adversely affect existing plant 
safety margins or the reliability of the equipment assumed to 
operate in the safety analyses. There is no change being made to 
safety analysis assumptions, safety limits or limiting safety system 
settings that would adversely affect plant safety as a result of the 
proposed changes. Margins of safety associated with fission product 
barriers are unaffected by proposed administrative changes.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

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

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket No. 50-334, 
Beaver Valley Power Station (BVPS) Unit No. 1 (BVPS-1), Beaver County, 
Pennsylvania

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

    Date of amendment request: May 18, 2017. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17138A381.

[[Page 35841]]

    Description of amendment request: By NRC's Order dated April 15, 
2016 (ADAMS Accession No. ML16078A092), which approved the transfer of 
certain sale-leaseback ownership of the Perry Nuclear Power Plant to 
FirstEnergy Nuclear Generation, LLC (FENGen or FENGenCo), the NRC 
accepted the change from FirstEnergy Corp. (FE) to FirstEnergy 
Solutions Corp. (FES) providing the $400 million support agreement. The 
NRC reaffirmed FES as the provider of the financial support agreement 
in the recently approved transfer of ownership for BVPS, Unit No. 2, 
dated April 14, 2017 (ADAMS Accession No. ML17081A433, Nonproprietary 
Safety Evaluation). The proposed amendment would conform the BVPS-1 and 
DBNPS Renewed Operating Licenses (ROLs) to reflect that FES is 
providing the $400 million support agreement instead of FE.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes revise license conditions in the BVPS-1 and 
DBNPS ROLs by changing the company that provides a financial support 
agreement for FirstEnergy Nuclear Generation, LLC (FENGen). The NRC 
has stated that FENGen has adequate financial qualifications for 
operating Beaver Valley Power Station, Units No. 1 and 2; Davis-
Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 1; and Perry Nuclear Power 
Plant, Unit No. 1. The proposed change also revises the DBNPS 
renewed operating license condition to indicate that there is only 
one support agreement. The proposed changes do not affect the 
requirements of the license conditions. The proposed ROL changes do 
not alter the design or operation of either BVPS-1 or DBNPS. As a 
result, accident analyses at either facility has not been affected.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes revise license conditions in the BVPS-1 and 
DBNPS ROLs by changing the company that provides a financial support 
agreement for FENGen. The proposed change also revises the DBNPS 
renewed operating license condition to indicate that there is only 
one support agreement. The NRC has stated that FENGen has adequate 
financial qualifications. The proposed changes do not affect the 
requirements of the license conditions. The proposed ROL changes do 
not alter the design or operation of either BVPS-1 or DBNPS. No new 
equipment has been incorporated into the plant design or operation.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes revise license conditions in the BVPS-1 and 
DBNPS ROLs by changing the company that provides a financial support 
agreement for FENGen. The proposed change also revises the DBNPS 
renewed operating license condition to indicate there is only one 
support agreement. The NRC has stated that FENGen has adequate 
financial qualifications. The proposed changes do not affect the 
requirements of the license conditions. The proposed ROL changes do 
not alter the design or operation of either BVPS-1 or DBNPS. No new 
equipment has been incorporated into the plant design or operation.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: David W. Jenkins, FirstEnergy Nuclear 
Operating Company, FirstEnergy Corporation, 76 South Main Street, Mail 
Stop A-GO-15, Akron, OH 44308.
    NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.

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

    Date of amendment request: June 8, 2017. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17159A720.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would 
revise PNPP technical specifications (TSs) to reflect previously 
approved license basis changes as part of the alternative source term 
initiative; align some TS sections with NUREG-1434, Revision 4, 
``Standard Technical Specifications--General Electric BWR [Boiling-
Water Reactor]/6 Plants''; and delete two TS sections.
    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 involves incorporating technical 
specification changes that reflect previously approved license basis 
changes as part of the alternative source term (AST) initiative, 
aligns some TS sections with NUREG-1434, Revision 4, and deletes two 
TS sections. The proposed amendment does not affect any accident 
mitigating feature or increase the likelihood of malfunction for 
plant structures, systems and components.
    Verification of operating the plant within prescribed limits 
will continue to be performed, as currently required by the 
applicable TS surveillance requirements. Compliance with and 
continued verification of the prescribed limits support the 
capability of the systems to perform their required design functions 
during all plant operating, accident, and station blackout 
conditions, consistent with the plant safety analyses.
    The proposed amendment will not change any of the analyses 
associated with the PNPP Updated Safety Analysis Report Chapter 15 
accidents because accident initiators and accident mitigation 
functions remain unchanged. The proposed amendment does not alter 
any assumptions previously made relative to evaluating the 
consequences of an accident.
    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 amendment does not involve physical alterations to 
the plant. No new or different type of equipment will be installed 
and there are no physical modifications required to existing 
installed equipment associated with the proposed changes. The 
proposed amendment does not create a credible failure mechanism, 
malfunction, or accident initiator not already considered in the 
design and licensing basis.
    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.
    Safety margins are applied to design and licensing basis 
functions and to the controlling values of parameters to account for 
various uncertainties and to avoid exceeding regulatory or licensing 
limits. The proposed amendment does not require a physical change to 
the plant, or affect design and licensing basis functions or 
controlling values of parameters for plant systems, structures, and 
components.

[[Page 35842]]

    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: David W. Jenkins, Attorney, FirstEnergy 
Corporation, Mail Stop A-GO-15, 76 South Main Street, Akron, OH 44308.
    NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.

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

    During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, 
the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has 
determined for each of these amendments that the application complies 
with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 
as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The 
Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the 
Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set 
forth in the license amendment.
    A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility 
operating license or combined license, as applicable, proposed no 
significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a 
hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the Federal 
Register as indicated.
    Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that 
these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in 
accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), 
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be 
prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an 
environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 
10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, 
it is so indicated.
    For further details with respect to the action see (1) the 
applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's 
related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as 
indicated. All of these items can be accessed as described in the 
``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' section of this 
document.

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287, 
Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, Oconee County, South 
Carolina

    Date of amendment request: July 20, 2016.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical 
Specifications 3.7.12, ``Spent Fuel Pool Boron Concentration,'' 3.7.18, 
``Dry Spent Fuel Storage Cask Loading and Unloading,'' and 4.4, ``Dry 
Spent Fuel Storage Cask Loading and Unloading,'' to remove requirements 
that no longer pertain to independent spent fuel storage facility 
general licensed activities.
    Date of issuance: July 12, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 404, 406, and 405. A publicly-available version is 
in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17167A265; documents related to these 
amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 
amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-38, DPR-47 and DPR-55: 
Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and 
Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 14, 2017 (82 
FR 10593).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 12, 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: August 29, 2016.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the 
technical specifications (TSs) to eliminate Section 5.5.6, ``Inservice 
Testing Program.'' A new defined term, ``INSERVICE TESTING PROGRAM,'' 
is added to the TSs. All existing references to the ``Inservice Testing 
Program'' in the TS surveillance requirements (SRs) are replaced with 
``INSERVICE TESTING PROGRAM'' so that the SRs refer to the new 
definition in lieu of the deleted program.
    Date of issuance: July 12, 2017.
    Effective date: As of date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 278 (Unit 1) and 306 (Unit 2). A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17130A780; documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with 
the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-71 and DPR-62: 
Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 6, 2016 (81 FR 
87967).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 12, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-293, Pilgrim Nuclear 
Power Station, Plymouth County, Massachusetts

    Date of amendment request: February 14, 2017, as supplemented by 
letter dated May 25, 2017.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised certain 
staffing and training requirements, reports, programs, and editorial 
changes contained in the Technical Specification (TS) Table of 
Contents; Section 1.0, ``Definitions''; Section 4.0, ``Design 
Features''; and Section 5.0, ``Administrative Controls'' that will no 
longer be applicable once Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station is permanently 
defueled.
    Date of issuance: July 10, 2017.
    Effective date: Upon the licensee's submittal of the certifications 
required by 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1) and shall be implemented within 60 days 
from the amendment effective date.
    Amendment No.: 246. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML17066A130; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-35: The amendment 
revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 28, 2017 (82 FR 
15380). The supplemental letter dated May 25, 2017, provided additional 
information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of 
the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's 
proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as 
published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 10, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

[[Page 35843]]

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. STN 50-456 and STN 50-457, 
Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, Will County, Illinois and Docket Nos. 
STN 50-454 and STN 50-455, Byron Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Ogle 
County, Illinois

    Date of application for amendments: February 23, 2017, as 
supplemented by letter dated June 29, 2017.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendments revised the 
operating licenses and technical specifications to remove time, cycle, 
or modification-related items. Additionally, the proposed amendments 
made editorial and formatting changes. The time, cycle, or 
modification-related items have been implemented or superseded and are 
no longer applicable.
    Date of issuance: July 5, 2017, as supplemented by letter dated 
June 29, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 60 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 193 for NPF-72, 193 for NPF-77, 198 for NPF-37, and 
198 for NPF-66. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML17088A703; documents related to these amendments are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-72, NPF-77, NPF-37, and NPF-66: 
The amendments revised the Technical Specifications and License.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 11, 2017 (82 FR 
17459). The supplemental letter dated June 29, 2017, provided 
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand 
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change 
the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination as published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 5, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: December 6, 2017, as supplemented by 
letter dated May 25, 2017.
    Description of amendment: The amendments consisted of changes to 
the VCSNS Units 2 and 3 Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) in 
the form of departures from plant-specific Design Control Document Tier 
2 information, Combined License (COL) Appendix A Technical 
Specifications (TSs), and COL Appendix C information. The departures 
consisted of in-containment refueling water storage tank (IRWST) 
minimum volume changes in plant-specific UFSAR Table 14.3-2, COL 
Appendix A TSs 3.5.6, 3.5.7 and 3.5.8 and Surveillance Requirements 
3.5.6.2 and 3.5.8.2 and COL Appendix C (and associated plant-specific 
Tier 1) Table 2.2.3-4. The changes restored the desired consistency of 
these sections with the UFSAR IRWST minimum volume value in other 
locations.
    Date of issuance: June 16, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 75. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML17135A327; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Facility Combined Licenses Nos. NPF-93 and NPF-94: Amendments 
revised the Facility Combined Licenses.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 24, 2017 (82 FR 
8220). The supplemental letter dated May 25, 2017, provided additional 
information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of 
the application request as originally noticed, and did not change the 
staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination as published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in the Safety Evaluation dated June 16, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

STP Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 50-498 and 50-499, South 
Texas Project (STP), Units 1 and 2, Matagorda County, Texas

    Date of amendment request: June 19, 2013, as supplemented by 
letters dated October 3, October 31, November 13, November 21, and 
December 23, 2013 (two letters); January 9, February 13, February 27, 
March 17, March 18, May 15 (two letters), May 22, June 25, and July 15, 
2014; March 10, March 25, and August 20, 2015; April 13, May 11, June 
9, June 16, July 18, July 21 (two letters), July 28, September 12, 
October 20, November 9, and December 7, 2016; and January 19, 2017.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendments authorized revision 
of the licensing basis for Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-76 and 
NPF-80, for STP, Units 1 and 2, as documented in the Updated Final 
Safety Analysis Report and revise the Technical Specifications (TSs). 
The changes authorized use of a deterministic bounding calculation 
based on plant-specific testing, and a risk-informed approach to 
address safety issues discussed in Generic Safety Issue 191, 
``Assessment of Debris Accumulation on PWR [Pressurized-Water Reactor] 
Sump Performance,'' and to resolve the concerns in Generic Letter 2004-
02, ``Potential Impact of Debris Blockage on Emergency Recirculation 
during Design Basis Accidents at Pressurized-Water Reactors,'' dated 
September 13, 2004, for STP, Units 1 and 2.
    Date of issuance: July 11, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: Unit 1-212; Unit 2-198. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17019A001; documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with 
the amendments.
    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-76 and NPF-80: The amendments 
revised the Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: February 16, 2016 (81 
FR 7843). The supplemental letters dated April 13, May 11, June 9, June 
16, July 18, July 21 (two letters), July 28, September 12, October 20, 
November 9, and December 7, 2016; and January 19, 2017, provided 
additional information that clarified the application, did not expand 
the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change 
the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination as published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 11, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: November 23, 2016, as supplemented by 
letters dated February 16, 2017, and June 9, 2017.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical 
Specification Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.0.2 to extend, on a one-
time basis, SRs listed in Attachments 5, 6, 7, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 
and 17 to Enclosure 1 of the application that are normally performed on 
an 18-month frequency in conjunction with a refueling outage. The

[[Page 35844]]

change extends the due date for these SRs to October 31, 2017, which 
allows these SRs to be performed during the first refueling outage for 
WBN, Unit 2.
    Date of issuance: July 11, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 7 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 13. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML17180A024; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Facility Operating License No NPF-96: Amendment revised the 
Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 17, 2017 (82 FR 
4932). The supplemental letters dated February 16, 2017, and June 9, 
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 amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated July 11, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 21st day of July 2017.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Anne T. Boland,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2017-15986 Filed 7-31-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P