[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 166 (Tuesday, August 29, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41064-41074]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-17936]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2017-0182]


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 August 1 to August 14, 2017. The last 
biweekly notice was published on August 15, 2017.

DATES: Comments must be filed by September 28, 2017. A request for a 
hearing must be filed by October 30, 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-2017-0182. 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: 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-2017-0182, facility name, unit 
numbers, plant

[[Page 41065]]

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-2017-0182.
     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 the 
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-2017-0182, facility name, unit 
numbers, plant docket number, application date, and subject in your 
comment submission.
    The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact 
information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your 
comment submission. The NRC posts all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as entering the comment submissions into 
ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove 
identifying or contact information.
    If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons 
for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to 
include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be 
publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should 
state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to 
remove such information before making the comment submissions available 
to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.

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

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

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

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

[[Page 41066]]

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 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

[[Page 41067]]

filing stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically 
and requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper 
format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail 
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: 
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or 
expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and 
Adjudications Staff. Participants filing adjudicatory documents in this 
manner are responsible for serving the document on all other 
participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of 
the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or 
expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the 
provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an 
exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or 
party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines 
that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no 
longer exists.
    Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the 
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at 
https://adams.nrc.gov/ehd, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the 
Commission or the presiding officer. If you do not have an NRC-issued 
digital ID certificate as described above, click cancel when the link 
requests certificates and you will be automatically directed to the 
NRC's electronic hearing dockets where you will be able to access any 
publicly available documents in a particular hearing docket. 
Participants are requested not to include personal privacy information, 
such as social security numbers, home addresses, or personal phone 
numbers in their filings, unless an NRC regulation or other law 
requires submission of such information. For example, in some 
instances, individuals provide home addresses in order to demonstrate 
proximity to a facility or site. With respect to copyrighted works, 
except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory 
filings and would constitute a Fair Use application, participants are 
requested not to include copyrighted materials in their submission.
    For further details with respect to these license amendment 
applications, see the application for amendment which is available for 
public inspection in ADAMS and at the NRC's PDR. For additional 
direction on accessing information related to this document, see the 
``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' section of this 
document.

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

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

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

Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Docket No. 50-400, Shearon Harris Nuclear 
Power Plant, Unit 1 (HNP), Wake County, North Carolina

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

    Date of amendment request: July 18, 2017. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17199F771.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the 
technical specifications (TSs) based on Technical Specification Task 
Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-529, Revision 4, ``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 change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes to CNS, MNS, ONS, and RNP [TS] Section 1.3, 
and CNS, MNS, and RNP 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 CNS, MNS, ONS, and RNP SR 3.0.3 
(TS 4.0.3 for HNP) 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 change will have no significant 
effect on the initiating events for accidents previously evaluated 
and will have no significant effect on the ability of the systems to 
mitigate accidents previously evaluated.
    Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change to the TS usage rules does not affect the 
design or function of any plant systems. The proposed change does 
not change the Operability requirements for plant systems or the 
actions taken when plant systems are not operable.
    Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change clarifies the application of TS 1.3 and LCO 
3.0.4 and does not result in changes in plant operation. SR 3.0.3 
(TS 4.0.3 for HNP) 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 (TS 4.0.3 for HNP) while ensuring the affected 
system is capable of performing its safety function. As a result, 
plant safety is either improved or unaffected.
    Therefore, it is concluded that this change does not involve a 
significant reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    Attorney for licensee: Kathryn B. Nolan, Deputy General Counsel, 
Duke Energy Corporation, 550 South Tryon Street, Mail Code DEC45A, 
Charlotte, NC 28202.
    NRC Branch Chief: Undine Shoop.

Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Docket No. 50-400, Shearon Harris Nuclear 
Power Plant, Unit 1 (HNP), Wake and Chatham Counties, North Carolina

    Date of amendment request: May 22, 2017. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17142A411.
    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise HNP 
dose consequences for the facility, as described in the HNP Final 
Safety Analysis Report, to provide gap release fractions for high-
burnup fuel rods that exceed the 6.3 kilowatt per foot (kW/ft) linear 
heat generation rate limit detailed in Table 3 of Regulatory Guide (RG)

[[Page 41068]]

1.183, Alternative Radiological Source Terms for Evaluating Design 
Basis Accidents at Nuclear Power Reactors.
    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?
    The proposed change involves using gap release fractions for 
high-burnup fuel rods (i.e., greater than 54 GWD/MTU [gigawatt days 
per metric ton unit]) that exceed the 6.3 kW/ft linear heat 
generation rate (LHGR) limit detailed in Table 3, Footnote 11 of RG 
1.183. Increased gap release fractions were determined and accounted 
for in the dose analysis for HNP. The dose consequences reported in 
the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) were reanalyzed for fuel 
handling accidents only. Dose consequences were not reanalyzed for 
other non-fuel-handling accidents since no fuel rod that is 
predicted to enter departure from nucleate boiling (DNB) will be 
permitted to operate beyond the limits of RG 1.183, Table 3, 
Footnote 11. The current NRC requirements, as described in 10 CFR 
50.67, specifies dose acceptance criteria in terms of Total 
Effective Dose Equivalent (TEDE). The revised dose consequence 
analyses for the fuel handling events at HNP meet the applicable 
TEDE dose acceptance criteria (specified also in RG 1.183). A slight 
increase in dose consequences is exhibited. However, the increase is 
not significant and the new TEDE results are below regulatory 
acceptance criteria.
    The changes proposed do not affect the precursors for fuel 
handling accidents analyzed in Chapter 15 of the HNP FSAR. The 
probability remains unchanged since the accident analyses performed 
and discussed in the basis for the FSAR changes involve no change to 
a system, structure or component that affects initiating events for 
any FSAR Chapter 15 accident 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 previously evaluated?
    The proposed change involves using gap release fractions for 
high-burnup fuel rods (i.e., greater than 54 GWD/MTU) that exceed 
the 6.3 kW/ft LHGR limit detailed in Table 3, Footnote 11 of RG 
1.183. Increased gap release fractions were determined and accounted 
for in the dose analysis for HNP. The dose consequences reported in 
HNP's FSAR were reanalyzed for fuel handling accidents only. Dose 
consequences were not reanalyzed for other non-fuel-handling 
accidents since no fuel rod that is predicted to enter departure 
from nucleate boiling (DNB), will be permitted to operate beyond the 
limits of RG 1.183, Table 3, Footnote 11.
    The proposed change does not involve the addition or 
modification of any plant equipment. The proposed change has the 
potential to affect future core designs for HNP. However, the impact 
will not be beyond the standard function capabilities of the 
equipment. The proposed change involves using gap release fractions 
that would allow high-burnup fuel rods (i.e., greater than 54 GWD/
MTU) to exceed the 6.3 kW/ft LHGR limit detailed in Table 3, 
Footnote 11 of RG 1.183. Accounting for these new gap release 
fractions in the dose analysis for HNP does not create the 
possibility of a new accident.
    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?
    The proposed change involves using gap release fractions for 
high-burnup fuel rods (i.e., greater than 54 GWD/MTU) that exceed 
the 6.3 kW/ft LHGR limit detailed in Table 3, Footnote 11 of RG 
1.183. Increased gap release fractions were determined and accounted 
for in the dose analysis for HNP. The dose consequences reported in 
HNP's FSAR were reanalyzed for fuel handling accidents only. Dose 
consequences were not reanalyzed for other non-fuel-handling 
accidents since no fuel rod that is predicted to enter departure 
from nucleate boiling (DNB) will be permitted to operate beyond the 
limits of RG 1.183, Table 3, Footnote 11.
    The proposed change has the potential for an increased 
postulated accident dose at HNP. However, the analysis demonstrates 
that the resultant doses are within the appropriate acceptance 
criteria. The margin of safety, as defined by 10 CFR 50.67 and 
Regulatory Guide 1.183, has been maintained. Furthermore, the 
assumptions and input used in the gap release and dose consequences 
calculations are conservative. These conservative assumptions ensure 
that the radiation doses calculated pursuant to Regulatory Guide 
1.183 and cited in this LAR [license amendment request] are the 
upper bounds to radiological consequences of the fuel handling 
accidents analyzed. The analysis shows that with increased gap 
release fractions accounted for in the dose consequences 
calculations there is margin between the offsite radiation doses 
calculated and the dose limits of 10 CFR 50.67 and acceptance 
criteria of Regulatory Guide 1.183. The proposed change will not 
degrade the plant protective boundaries, will not cause a release of 
fission products to the public, and will not degrade the performance 
of any structures, systems or components important to 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: Lara Nichols, Deputy General Counsel, Duke 
Energy Corporation, 550 South Tryon St., M/C DEC45A, Charlotte, NC 
28202.
    NRC Branch Chief: Undine S. Shoop.

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 amendment request: June 30, 2017. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17181A276.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise 
Technical Specification (TS) 3.7.11, ``Control Room Ventilation (VC) 
Temperature Control System,'' to modify the TS Actions for two 
inoperable VC temperature control system trains.
    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 VC Temperature Control System is not an initiator of any 
accident previously evaluated. As a result, the probability of an 
accident previously evaluated is not increased. The consequences of 
an accident during the proposed 24 hour Completion Time are no 
different than the consequences of an accident in Modes 1, 2, 3, and 
4 during the existing 1 hour Completion Time provided in LCO 
[limiting condition for operation] 3.0.3 to prepare for a shutdown. 
The only accident previously evaluated in Modes 5 or 6 is a fuel 
handling accident. The accident evaluation does not assume a loss of 
offsite electrical power or additional failures, and the mitigating 
actions to maintain control room temperature less than or equal to 
80 [deg]F [degree Fahrenheit] will still be available should a fuel 
handling accident occur. As a result, providing 24 hours to restore 
one train of control room cooling does not significantly increase 
the consequences of a fuel handling accident over the current 
requirement.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    All plant equipment controlled from the control room and 
operator response actions in response to a design basis accident 
will be

[[Page 41069]]

maintained as currently designed and applied. No new equipment or 
operator responses are required in response to a design basis 
accident as part of this proposed change. The proposed change will 
not alter the design or function of the control room or the VC 
Temperature Control System. Should the new Required Actions not be 
met, the existing and proposed Required Actions require preparation 
for an orderly plant shutdown, or suspension of positive reactivity 
additions and suspension of movement of irradiated fuel assemblies, 
as applicable based on the mode of applicability.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change provides a limited period of time to restore 
an inoperable VC Temperature Control System train instead of 
interrupting plant operations, possibly requiring an orderly plant 
shutdown of both units, or suspension of movement of irradiated fuel 
assemblies and suspension of positive reactivity additions. A plant 
disruption or transient may be avoided with mitigating actions taken 
and the control room area temperature maintained. The potential to 
avoid a plant transient in conjunction with maintaining the control 
room temperature offsets any risk associated with the limited 
Completion Time. The proposed change does not impact a design basis, 
TS Limiting Condition for Operation, limiting safety system setting, 
or safety limit specified in TSs.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

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

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 amendment request: June 30, 2017. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17187A191.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise 
Technical Specification (TS) 3.1.4, ``Rod Group Alignment Limits''; TS 
3.1.5, ``Shutdown Bank Insertion Limits''; TS 3.1.6, ``Control Bank 
Insertion Limits''; and TS 3.1.7, ``Rod Position Indication.''
    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.
    Control and shutdown rods are assumed to insert into the core to 
shut down the reactor in evaluated accidents. Rod insertion limits 
ensure that adequate negative reactivity is available to provide the 
assumed shutdown margin (SDM). Rod alignment and overlap limits 
maintain an appropriate power distribution and reactivity insertion 
profile.
    Control and shutdown rods are initiators to several accidents 
previously evaluated, such as rod ejection. The proposed changes do 
not change the limiting conditions for operation pertaining to the 
rods or make any technical changes to the Surveillance Requirements 
(SRs) governing the rods.
    Therefore, the proposed change has no significant effect on the 
probability of any accident previously evaluated.
    Revising the TS Actions to provide a limited time to repair rod 
movement control has no effect on the SDM assumed in the accident 
analysis as the proposed Actions require verification that SDM is 
maintained. The effects on power distribution will not cause a 
significant increase in the consequences of any accident previously 
evaluated as all TS requirements on power distribution continue to 
be applicable.
    Revising the TS Actions to provide an alternative to frequent 
use of the moveable incore detector system or the Power Distribution 
Monitoring System to verify the position of rods with inoperable rod 
position indicator does not change the requirement for the rods to 
be aligned and within the insertion limits.
    Therefore, the assumptions used in any accidents previously 
evaluated are unchanged and there is no significant increase in the 
consequences.
    The proposed change resolves conflicts within the TS to ensure 
that the intended Actions are followed when equipment is inoperable. 
Actions taken for inoperable equipment are not assumptions in the 
accidents previously evaluated and have no significant effect on the 
accident consequences.
    The proposed change to increase consistency within the TS has no 
effect on the consequences of accidents previously evaluated as the 
proposed change clarifies the application of the existing 
requirements and does not change the intent.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of 
the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be 
installed). The change does not alter the assumptions made in the 
safety analyses. The proposed change does not alter the limiting 
conditions for operation pertaining to the rods or make any 
technical changes to the SRs governing the rods. The proposed change 
to the TS Required Actions maintains safety when equipment is 
inoperable and does not introduce any new failure modes.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change to provide sufficient time to repair rods 
that are Operable but immovable does not result in a significant 
reduction in the margin of safety because all rods must be verified 
to be Operable, and all other rod banks must be within the insertion 
limits. The remaining proposed changes to make the requirements 
internally consistent do not affect the margin of safety as the 
changes do not affect the ability of the rods to perform their 
specified safety function.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

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

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

    Date of application for amendment: June 28, 2017. A publicly-
available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17180A447.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would modify the 
Technical Specifications (TSs) by relocating to licensee-controlled 
documents, select acceptance criteria specified in TS surveillance 
requirements (SRs) credited for satisfying Inservice Testing (IST) 
Program and Inservice Inspection Program requirements, deleting the SRs 
for the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Code Class 1, 
2, and 3 components, replacing references to the Surveillance Frequency 
Control

[[Page 41070]]

Program (SFCP) with references to the Turkey Point IST Program where 
appropriate, establishing a Reactor Coolant Pump (RCP) Flywheel 
Inspection Program, and related editorial changes.
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes provide added assurance that inservice 
testing will be performed in the manner and within the timeframes 
established by 10 CFR 50.55(a). The deletion of SR 4.0.5 and the 
deletion of IST acceptance criteria from SR 4.5.2.c and SR 4.6.2.1.b 
neither affects the conduct nor the periodicity of testing which 
demonstrates the operational readiness of safety-related pumps and 
valves. The addition of references to the IST Program in SR(s) where 
applicable and the deletion of references to the SFCP in SR testing 
credited by the IST Program are administrative in nature and can 
neither initiate nor exacerbate any accident previously evaluated. 
Similarly, the deletion of SR 4.0.5 and the relocation of the RCP 
flywheel inspection requirements within the TS are administrative 
changes and cannot affect the likelihood or outcome of any accident 
previously evaluated. Deletion of the SR 4.4.6.2.2.c requirement 
regarding returning Pressure Isolation Valves (PIVs) to service 
following maintenance, repair or replacement, deletion of a SR 
4.5.1.1.d footnote previously applicable during Unit 3 Cycle 26, and 
related editorial changes are administrative changes in nature and 
do not alter any plant equipment or the results of any accident 
analyses.
    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 deletion of IST acceptance criteria from the TS does not 
affect the manner in which any SSC [system, structure, or component] 
is maintained or operated and does not introduce new SSCs or new 
methods for maintaining existing plant SSCs. Inservice testing will 
continue in the manner and periodicity specified in the IST program 
and hence no new or different kind of accident can result. The 
addition of references to the IST Program in SR(s) where applicable 
and the deletion of references to the SFCP in SR testing credited by 
the IST Program are administrative changes and cannot affect the 
manner in which any SSC is maintained or operated. The deletion of 
SR 4.0.5 and the relocation of the RCP flywheel inspection 
requirements within the TS are administrative changes and cannot be 
an initiator of a new or different kind of accident. Deletion of the 
SR 4.4.6.2.2.c requirement regarding returning PIV(s) to service 
following maintenance, repair or replacement, deletion of a SR 
4.5.1.1.d footnote previously applicable during Unit 3 Cycle 26, and 
other editorial changes are administrative changes in nature and do 
not introduce any new plant equipment, failure modes or accident 
analyses postulated outcomes.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes do not involve changes to any safety 
analyses assumptions, safety limits, or limiting safety system 
settings nor do they adversely impact plant operating margins or the 
reliability of equipment credited in the safety analyses. The 
reliability of credited equipment is enhanced through added 
assurance that inservice inspection and inservice testing will be 
performed in the manner and within the timeframes established by the 
ASME Code requirements of 10 CFR 50.55(a)(g) and 10 CFR 50.55(a)(f), 
respectively. The deletion of SR 4.0.5 and the relocation of the RCP 
flywheel inspection requirements within the TS are administrative 
changes with no impact on the margin of safety currently described 
the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report. Deletion of the SR 
4.4.6.2.2.c requirement regarding returning PIV(s) to service 
following maintenance, repair or replacement, deletion of a SR 
4.5.1.1.d footnote previously applicable during Unit 3 Cycle 26, and 
other editorial changes are administrative changes in nature with no 
impact on nuclear safety.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
reduction in the margin of safety.

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

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

    Date of amendment request: April 7, 2017. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17097A322.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise 
Technical Specification (TS) 3.6.4.1, ``Secondary Containment,'' 
Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.6.4.1.2 to provide an allowance for 
brief, inadvertent, simultaneous opening of redundant secondary 
containment access doors during normal entry and exit conditions.
    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 allows temporary conditions during which 
secondary containment SR 3.6.4.1.2 is not met. The secondary 
containment is not an initiator of any accident previously 
evaluated. As a result, the probability of any accident previously 
evaluated is not increased.
    Since the access doors are only opened briefly, were an accident 
to occur with both doors simultaneously open, the doors would close 
quickly enough such that the SGTS [Standby Gas Treatment System] 
would not be hindered in its ability to adequately draw down the 
secondary containment within the time assumed in the accident 
analysis. The dose consequences would therefore be no worse than 
assumed in the current HNP accident analysis and within the federal 
guidelines of 10 CFR 50.67. As a result, the consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated are not significantly increased.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change does not alter the protection system design, 
create new failure modes, or change any modes of operation. The 
proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant, 
and no new or different kind of equipment will be installed. 
Consequently, there are no new initiators that could result in a new 
or different kind of accident.
    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 allows temporary conditions during which 
secondary containment SR 3.6.4.1.2 is not met. The allowance for 
both an inner and outer

[[Page 41071]]

secondary containment access door to be open simultaneously for 
entry and exit does not affect the safety function of the secondary 
containment as the doors are promptly closed after entry or exit, 
thereby restoring the secondary containment boundary. In addition, 
brief, inadvertent, simultaneous opening and closing of redundant 
secondary containment access doors during normal entry and exit 
conditions does not affect the ability of the Standby Gas Treatment 
[S]ystem to establish the required secondary containment vacuum. 
Therefore, the safety function of the secondary containment is not 
affected.
    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: 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., Georgia Power Company, 
Oglethorpe Power Corporation, Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, 
City of Dalton, Georgia, Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366, Edwin I. Hatch 
Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Appling County, Georgia

    Date of amendment request: April 20, 2017. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17114A377.
    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the 
Technical Specifications (TSs) by replacing the existing requirements 
related to ``operations with a potential for draining the reactor 
vessel'' (OPDRVs) with new requirements on Reactor Pressure Vessel 
Water Inventory Control (RPV WIC) to protect Safety Limit 2.1.1.3, 
which requires the reactor vessel water level to be greater than the 
top of active irradiated fuel. The proposed amendments would adopt 
changes, with variations, based on the NRC-approved safety evaluation 
for Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-542, 
Revision 2, ``Reactor Pressure Vessel Water Inventory Control,'' dated 
December 20, 2016 (ADAMS Accession No. ML16343B066).
    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration 
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has 
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change replaces existing TS requirements related to 
OPDRVs with new requirements on RPV WIC that will protect Safety 
Limit 2.1.1.3. Draining of RPV water inventory in Mode 4 (i.e., cold 
shutdown) and Mode 5 (i.e., refueling) is not an accident previously 
evaluated and, therefore, replacing the existing TS controls to 
prevent or mitigate such an event with a new set of controls has no 
effect on any accident previously evaluated. RPV water inventory 
control in Mode 4 or Mode 5 is not an initiator of any accident 
previously evaluated. The existing OPDRV controls or the proposed 
RPV WIC controls are not mitigating actions assumed in any accident 
previously evaluated.
    The proposed change reduces the probability of an unexpected 
draining event (which is not a previously evaluated accident) by 
imposing new requirements on the limiting time in which an 
unexpected draining event could result in the reactor vessel water 
level dropping to the top of the active fuel (TAF). These controls 
require cognizance of the plant configuration and control of 
configurations with unacceptably short drain times. These 
requirements reduce the probability of an unexpected draining event. 
The current TS requirements are only mitigating actions and impose 
no requirements that reduce the probability of an unexpected 
draining event.
    The proposed change reduces the consequences of an unexpected 
draining event (which is not a previously evaluated accident) by 
requiring an Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) subsystem to be 
Operable at all times in Modes 4 and 5. The current TS requirements 
do not require any water injection systems, ECCS or otherwise, to be 
Operable in certain conditions in Mode 5. The change in requirement 
from two ECCS subsystems to one ECCS subsystem in Modes 4 and 5 does 
not significantly affect the consequences of an unexpected draining 
event because the proposed Actions ensure equipment is available 
within the limiting drain time that is as capable of mitigating the 
event as the current requirements. The proposed controls provide 
escalating compensatory measures to be established as calculated 
drain times decrease, such as verification of a second method of 
water injection and additional confirmations that containment and/or 
filtration would be available if needed.
    The proposed change reduces or eliminates some requirements that 
were determined to be unnecessary to manage the consequences of an 
unexpected draining event, such as automatic initiation of an ECCS 
subsystem and control room ventilation. These changes do not affect 
the consequences of any accident previously evaluated since a 
draining event in Modes 4 and 5 is not a previously evaluated 
accident and the requirements are not needed to adequately respond 
to a draining event.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change replaces existing TS requirements related to 
OPDRVs with new requirements on RPV WIC that will protect Safety 
Limit 2.1.1.3. The proposed change will not alter the design 
function of the equipment involved. Under the proposed change, some 
systems that are currently required to be Operable during OPDRVs 
would be required to be available within the limiting drain time or 
to be in service depending on the limiting drain time. Should those 
systems be unable to be placed into service, the consequences are no 
different than if those systems were unable to perform their 
function under the current TS requirements.
    The event of concern under the current requirements and the 
proposed change is an unexpected draining event. The proposed change 
does not create new failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident 
initiators that would cause a draining event or a new or different 
kind of accident not previously evaluated or included in the design 
and licensing bases.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change replaces existing TS requirements related to 
OPDRVs with new requirements on RPV WIC. The current requirements do 
not have a stated safety basis and no margin of safety is 
established in the licensing basis. The safety basis for the new 
requirements is to protect Safety Limit 2.1.1.3. New requirements 
are added to determine the limiting time in which the RPV water 
inventory could drain to the top of the fuel in the reactor vessel 
should an unexpected draining event occur. Plant configurations that 
could result in lowering the RPV water level to the TAF within one 
hour are now prohibited. New escalating compensatory measures based 
on the limiting drain time replace the current controls. The 
proposed TS establish a safety margin by providing defense-in-depth 
to ensure that the Safety Limit is protected and to protect the 
public health and safety. While some less restrictive requirements 
are proposed for plant configurations with long calculated drain 
times, the overall effect of the change is to improve plant safety 
and to add safety margin.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three

[[Page 41072]]

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 (VEGP), Burke 
County, Georgia

    Date of amendment request: June 22, 2017. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17173A875.
    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would 
incorporate use of the plant-specific seismic probabilistic risk 
assessment (SPRA) into the previously approved 10 CFR 50.69 risk-
informed categorization process and treatment of structures, systems, 
and components (SSCs) for nuclear power reactors. Specifically, the 
amendments would change from a seismic margins approach (SMA) to an 
SPRA approach.
    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 the use of the VEGP SMA with use of 
the peer reviewed VEGP SPRA within the NRC approved risk-informed 
categorization process to modify the scope of SSCs subject to NRC 
special treatment requirements and to implement alternative 
treatments per the regulations. The use of an SPRA in place of an 
SMA is allowed by the 50.69 process guidance defined in [Nuclear 
Energy Institute] NEI 00-04 [``10 CFR 50.69 SSC Categorization 
Guideline''] as endorsed by NRC in [Regulatory Guide] RG 1.201 
[``Guidelines for Categorizing Structures, Systems, and Components 
in Nuclear Power Plants According to their Safety Significance.''] 
The process used to evaluate SSCs for changes to NRC special 
treatment requirements and the use of alternative requirements 
ensures the ability of the SSCs to perform their design function. 
The potential change to special treatment requirements does not 
change the design and operation of the SSCs. As a result, the 
proposed change does not significantly affect any initiators to 
accidents previously evaluated or the ability to mitigate any 
accidents previously evaluated. The consequences of the accidents 
previously evaluated are not affected because the mitigation 
functions performed by the SSCs assumed in the safety analysis are 
not being modified. The SSCs required to safely shut down the 
reactor and maintain it in a safe shutdown condition following an 
accident will continue to perform their design functions.
    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 continues to permit the use of a risk-
informed categorization process to modify the scope of SSCs subject 
to NRC special treatment requirements and to implement alternative 
treatments per the regulations. The proposed change does not change 
the functional requirements, configuration, or method of operation 
of any SSC. Under the proposed change, no additional plant equipment 
will be installed.
    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 will continue to permit the use of a risk-
informed categorization process to modify the scope of SSCs subject 
to NRC special treatment requirements and to implement alternative 
treatments per the regulations. The proposed change does not affect 
any Safety Limits or operating parameters used to establish the 
safety margin. The safety margins included in analyses of accidents 
are not affected by the proposed change. The regulation requires 
that there be no significant effect on plant risk due to any change 
to the special treatment requirements for SSCs and that the SSCs 
continue to be capable of performing their design basis functions, 
as well as to perform any beyond design basis functions consistent 
with the categorization process and results.
    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: 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 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.

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

    Date of amendment request: September 16, 2016.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the St. 
Lucie Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and Unit 2, Technical Specifications by 
removing certain process radiation monitors and placing their 
requirements in a licensee-controlled manual. The amendments also 
changed the Unit 2 containment particulate radiation monitor range.
    Date of issuance: August 14, 2017.

[[Page 41073]]

    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: 239 (Unit No. 1) and 190 (Unit No. 2). A publicly-
available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17195A291; 
documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety 
Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-67 and NPF-16: 
Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and 
Technical Specifications.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 6, 2016 (81 FR 
87972).
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated August 14, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: August 3, 2016, as supplemented by 
letters dated October 4, 2016; January 27, 2017; March 31, 2017; and 
May 24, 2017.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the 
Technical Specification (TS) requirements for the Control Room 
Emergency Ventilation System (CREVS). The licensee proposed the changes 
to align the CREVS TSs more closely with the applicable Standard 
Technical Specifications. Consequently, the requirements to immediately 
suspend irradiated fuel movement were relocated, in most cases, to 
coincide with the commencement of unit shutdown(s) in the event that 
the allowable outage time cannot be met for an inoperable CREVS 
component or control room envelope boundary. The amendments also 
eliminated the TS limiting conditions for operation, actions, and 
surveillance requirements associated with the CREVS kitchen and 
lavatory ventilation exhaust duct isolation dampers.
    Date of issuance: August 3, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 90 days of issuance.
    Amendment Nos: 275 (Unit No. 3) and 270 (Unit No. 4). A publicly-
available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17172A115. 
Documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety 
Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-31 and DPR-41: 
Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 8, 2016 (81 FR 
78653). The supplements dated January 27, 2017; March 31, 2017; and May 
24, 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 August 3, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: September 28, 2012, as supplemented by 
letters dated November 8, 2012, December 18, 2012, May 3, 2013, October 
17, 2013, April 30, 2014, May 28, 2015, June 19, 2015, October 6, 2015, 
October 22, 2015, January 20, 2016, May 24, 2016, August 17, 2016, 
December 14, 2016, and March 6, 2017.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendments revised the 
licenses, including the Technical Specifications (TS), for PINGP, Units 
1 and 2, to establish and maintain fire protection program in 
accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.48(c).
    Date of issuance: August 8, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
consistent with condition 2.C.(4) of each license.
    Amendment Nos.: 220-Unit 1; 207-Unit 2. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17163A027; documents related 
to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with 
the amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-42 and DPR-60: The 
amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 2, 2013 (78 FR 
19753). The supplemental letters dated May 3, 2013, October 17, 2013, 
April 30, 2014, May 28, 2015, June 19, 2015, October 6, 2015, October 
22, 2015, January 20, 2016, May 24, 2016, August 17, 2016, December 14, 
2016, and March 6, 2017, provided additional information that clarified 
the application, did not expand the scope of the application as 
originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no 
significant hazards consideration determination as published in the 
Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated August 8, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: September 21, 2015, as supplemented by 
letters dated November 19, 2015; June 17, 2016; September 12, 2016; and 
September 23, 2016.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment approved changes to 
the Hope Creek Generating Station Technical Specifications (TSs) to 
reflect installation of the General Electric-Hitachi Digital Nuclear 
Measurement Analysis and Control Power Range Neutron Monitoring system.
    Date of issuance: August 4, 2017.
    Effective date: The license amendment is effective as of its date 
of issuance and shall be implemented prior to entry into OPCON 4 during 
startup from refueling outage 21.
    Amendment No.: 206. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under 
Accession No. ML17216A022; documents related to this amendment are 
listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.
    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-57: Amendment revised 
the Renewed Facility Operating License and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 7, 2016 (81 FR 
36607). The supplemental letters dated June 17, 2016; September 12, 
2016; and September 23, 2016, provided additional information that 
clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application 
as originally noticed, and did not change the NRC staff's original 
proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as 
published in the Federal Register.
    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained 
in a Safety Evaluation dated August 4, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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 application for amendments: September 13, 2012, as 
supplemented by letters dated August 2, 2013; July 3, July 17, November 
11, and December 12, 2014; March 16 and May 5, 2015; February 17, April 
18, and July 13,

[[Page 41074]]

2016; and March 13, April 14, May 4, and June 2, 2017.
    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised certain 
Technical Specification (TS) requirements related to Completion Times 
for Required Actions to provide the option to calculate a longer, risk-
informed Completion Time. The allowance will be described in a new 
program, ``Risk Informed Completion Time (RICT) Program,'' that is 
added to TS 5.5, ``Administrative Controls.''
    Date of issuance: August 8, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 120 days from the date of issuance.
    Amendment Nos.: Unit 1-188; Unit 2-171. A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15127A669. Documents related 
to the amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 
amendments.
    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-68 and NPF-81: 
Amendments revised the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and TSs.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 17, 2015 (80 FR 
13913). The supplemental letters dated March 16 and May 5, 2015; 
February 17, April 18, and July 13, 2016; and March 13, April 14, May 
4, and June 2, 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 August 8, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

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

    Date of amendment request: March 11, 2016, as revised by letters 
dated July 12, 2016, and May 5, 2017, and as supplemented by letter 
dated October 20, 2016.
    Description of amendment: The amendment authorizes changes to the 
VEGP, Units 3 and 4 Updated Final Safety Analysis Report in the form of 
departures from the incorporated plant specific Design Control Document 
Tier 2* and Tier 2 information. The changes are to text and figures 
that describe the connections between floor modules and structural wall 
modules in the containment internal structures.
    Date of issuance: July 20, 2017.
    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented 
within 30 days of issuance.
    Amendment No.: 82 (Unit 3) and 81 (Unit 4). A publicly-available 
version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17180A040; documents related 
to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the 
amendment.
    Facility Combined Licenses No. NPF-91 and NPF-92: Amendment revised 
the Facility Combined Licenses.
    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: August 16, 2016 (81 FR 
54617). The October 20, 2016, supplement and May 5, 2017, revision 
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. The Commission's related evaluation of the 
amendment is contained in the Safety Evaluation dated July 20, 2017.
    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 17th day of August 2017.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Kathryn M. Brock,
Deputy Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of 
Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2017-17936 Filed 8-28-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7590-01-P